* The real autopilot doesn't require hands-on-the-yoke while it is engaged, but 'autopilot' does.
* Airplanes don't have to deal with complex traffic conditions requiring interaction with other airplanes
* Airplanes do not smash into lane barriers/trees if they veer a few feet off the expected course
* "Taking control" on an airplane could safely take tens of seconds, but for a car, that is far too long.
So no, autopilot isn't good enough for cars. Cars need something much better.
Airport Runways have typically have edge lighting, and if an aircraft is off-center during takeoff or landing, can hit them and do damage[1]. Airliners land at 150mph+ so it doesn't take much deviation to hit the edge lights. Occasionally, this also happens during a gusty cross-wind landing while coupled to autopilot (auto-land), or immediately after a touchdown after a coupled landing.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_sy...
[1] http://www.emirates247.com/news/emirates/etihad-plane-hits-r...
Perhaps it is true that the semi-intelligent autopilot is good enough for these trained activities, but the untrained public doesn't realize that autopilot today is not full automation.
Pilots also receive ongoing currency training. This doesn't exist for automobile drivers. Maybe some states require a written test every few years? But in the three states I've lived in, no written, oral, or in-car test it recurrency training required since the original was issued when I was 15 or whenever.
Comparing pilot certification to that of a driver's is disingenuous.
Although if US drivers are so untrained, perhaps auto-pilot is even more relevant.
Chances of gaining control and awareness of the situation in a timely manner on an airplane are higher.