All the arguments about the driver that should have been alerted or reacted are simply not autonomous driving so unrelated.
Again, I'm not saying that automation will never be a good replacement for human drivers, but as of right now, it is not clear at all if its positive aspects counterbalance its shortcomings.
After reading the Atlantic's Waymo article, I'm more convinced that Uber is doomed in this race. They're not investing properly in simulation, and Waymo is getting an enormous amount of programming done based on controlled simulations that Uber isn't - billions of miles, and repeatable scenarios.
Tesla is really in the game, I think, because they're able to collect so much data from the AutoPilot systems currently on the road, even if they're not in use. They still get all the telemetry for complex real-world situations.
But at some point, you have to let experimental software out on the road, to learn from the real world. Simulation is insufficient. Or, we simply refuse to allow auto-autos at all, permanently establishing that humans will always be more capable, without evidence. So it's a question of when, not if.
There's a couple of currents going in the arguments here. Some say "not yet", and some say "never". I think the "never" people are nuts. Auto-autos that broadly outperform human drivers safety-wise seems achievable to me in the not-too-distant future.
So it's not nearly as bad as it's made out to be. the fatality was a consequence of multiple human errors, both consciously and neglectfully. The automation was not in error.