>Yes, he would be banned from driving if he ran over a kid.

Realistically no, unless he was hilariously reckless.

> SMITH: There’s the case that happened with the little boy on the Upper West Side, Cooper Stock. He and his dad were crossing the street. And a driver was making a turn, and he just ran over the little boy, didn’t see him.

> SMITH: So right now all that is is a summons to the driver for failing to yield. But it does not rise to the level of any kind of manslaughter or homicide charge. There was a study that showed that between 2008 and 2012 there were something like almost 1,300 fatal crashes in New York, and there were like 66 drivers arrested.

>Smith says that New York has some of the narrowest standards for conviction in the country. It’s called the “rule of two” — you need two significant violations of traffic laws in order to bring a charge, including some incredibly reckless or criminally negligent act. Otherwise, it’s just … an accident.

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-perfect-crime-2/

Maybe it's different in europe, but I doubt that'd be the case either unless there were several aggravating factors.

Self-driving cars also operate at a far larger scale than individual human drivers. Over 300 people died in Boeing 737 crashes, but the entire aviation industry has not been shut down as a result.