And they play contradictory arguments using statistics "You don't have enough data to say it is dangerous!" while at the same time using the exact same statistics to argue that it is safer.
Either the statistics are half-baked or they're ready to draw conclusions with, you cannot have it both ways.
Not to mention repeatedly claiming that "it saves lives", when they're probably either talking about a completely separate collision avoidance system (which has probably stopped several accidents, by definition, but it isn't special and it doesn't move the car on its own); or they're talking out of their asses because the number of independent variables is the kind of thing you need a PhD statistician for and they'll probably just tell you to take a hike.
