This is a pointless discussion. You're not using any logic. Murder is morally wrong. The Constitution / Bill of Rights doesn't declare anyone's right to murder.
Lets look at the 1st Amendment. Does it have any exceptions? Does it allow the gov't to control speech if speech is offensive, harmful, or hurtful to other people? No, it doesn't.
You assume some risks by participating in society. If you don't like it, either don't participate in society or try to change the society. Don't try to use the gov't as an enforcer for your personal preferences and beliefs. By your logic the gov't should ban peanuts because some people are deathly allergic to peanuts and their presence in society puts those people at risk. You're about half a step from the old, "Think of the children" or, "If it saves even one life then it's worth it." tropes with your logic.
You can't make everything foolproof, idiot proof, and entirely benign. People can get hit by a bus crossing the street. Do the rights of the people to move freely in society by riding the bus supersede the rights of the person to not risk getting hit by a bus while crossing the street? How do we reconcile them? Make it physically impossible to step off the curb in front of a bus with a fence? Outlaw buses? Outlaw pedestrians? Make it illegal to step in front of a bus?
You're totally misunderstanding me. I'm not looking for risk-free society. That's the province of some liberals who will just as soon wrap kids in bubble wrap to keep them from getting hurt. Mandatory bike helmet laws for children are a perfect example of the type of nanny-statism that I hate. I recognize some risk is inherent. I'm just espousing using technology which minimizes risk as soon as such technology becomes feasible. In general, that's what happens anyway, with or without government interference. The lawyers and actuaries see to it. I'm hearing lots of brave noises like "prying the steering wheel out of my cold dead hands" but good luck with any of that. Instead, consider these scenarios:
Scenario one:
Rich E. Rich driving his manually-driven Veyron hits an autonomous minivan at high speed and instantly kills a family of five, plus their two dogs. I'm not seeing much sympathy in this scenario for the "right" of Mr. Rich to pilot his own vehicle, either from politicians, or the general public. The insurance companies will probably be all over this to raise rates for those who manually drive. The state licensing agencies will probably tighten licensing standards after the public outcry, and perhaps permanently revoke driving privileges after the first or second collision, even if there's no loss of life. End result, even if government doesn't outright ban manual driving, it will become cost prohibitive for all but the very rich. Eventually, the general public will resent the fact only the very wealthy can drive, and they'll likely be prohibited from doing so altogether.
Scenario two:
There is heavy penetration of autonomous vehicles but because a minority still insist on driving manually you continue to have traffic jams. You also are stuck with present very low highway speed limits because of these manual drivers. Every time someone in an AV is delayed because of manual drivers, there's going to be more and more pressure to get them off the roads. People will rightly say why should someone's supposed right to drive make my commute take twice as long?
BTW, the first amendment doesn't allow you to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You can offend people all you want, but anything which might actually cause public harm isn't allowed. After what happened in Charlotte, I expect cities will either deny far left or far right groups the right to assemble on public safety grounds, or they'll allow it, but with the caveat that they won't provide them with any police protection from counter-demonstrators.
A human needs to make some decisions about the gearing, 4WD modes, etc.
