Yet even autonomous cars will kill more people than bicycles, trains, and walking infrastructure.

Yes, I know, I know, suburban sprawl, rural communities, etc. But rather than perpetuating car-centric design and the inevitable, though fewer, deaths, maybe we should concentrate on designing walkable, bikeable, liveable cities instead.

I love walking as much as anyone. And I love efficient and convenient mass transit, but I realize that there still is a place for cars. Tokyo, Paris, etc. Very good transit and very walkable, yet cars are still necessary. With autonomous vehicles we can utilize capacity better reducing the number of vehicles necessary to transport a given number of people.

My take on driverless cars is that they should solve a few other problems first. Like our crazy insurance system. I should pay much less for driving on uncrowded rural highways than people who drive in congested cities. And pay by the number of miles driven. And fix the problem with drunken drivers and deer/car collisions. And taxes to pay for roads not on how many miles you drive on which roads using what kind of vehichle. Small cars are subsidizing semis and dump trucks.

Be careful what you wish for, those urban drivers are subsidizing your uncrowded rural highways.

The over-simplistic tax revenue argument that gets thrown around isn't useful.

The urban drivers pay tax revenue, which then "subsidizes" rural highways, which then produce... incredibly cheap food. Which is then consumed in... cities.

You could stop paying for highways, and then food gets more expensive, and it all evens out. And maybe that would make more sense. But don't trick yourself into thinking the relationship is parasitic.