Something you're neglecting to account for is that there's more to driving than simply moral hazards and safety. There's also the matter of liability and financ

Something you're neglecting to account for is that there's more to driving than simply moral hazards and safety. There's also the matter of liability and financial risk. While it may be arguable that it's morally preferable and safer to adopt self-driving cars if they can be shown to reduce the incidence of accidents by any amount compared to human drivers, it isn't desirable for the corporate entities producing vehicles capable of fully autonomous operation to make them a mass market product until it is remarkably safer to ride in an autonomous vehicle compared to a human-operated vehicle. One of the biggest boons for automakers in the status quo is that the liabilities associated with operating their products is mostly distributed to the users. From a financial risk perspective this is a massively preferable operating model (and not dissimilar from what you see with 'disruptors' in the consumer space like Uber, Air BnB, etc). When we remove the primary cause of faults while driving from the picture (the human agent operating the vehicle), the distribution of risk that has generally protected automakers in the past disappears. When an autonomous vehicle crashes, the automaker now must fend off claims about vehicle features (sensors, software, etc.) that will in some way be directly responsible for causing traffic accidents.