This seems like a fallacious argument from incredulity. There is no reason to believe that humans are the ultimate existence for navigating around multi-ton land vehicles at 20-100+ miles an hour, and there is plenty of reason not to. For computers, there will be bugs and edge cases, but there are plenty of examples of high assurance low bug code in areas it matters. Additionally, any experience gained can be applied to the entire fleet at once. Computers have fundamentally better response times. And sensor input absolutely can better. A self-driving vehicle need not have any blind spots in 360°, and can "watch" all of that at once. No human will ever handle animals at night the way a vehicle with a FLIR could.
Meanwhile we know for sure that there are whole classes of issues that simply do not exist for computers. They do not get tired. They do not use drugs. They do not get distracted by the passenger or texting (humans are awful at multi-tasking). They do not "have a bad day". They do not get angry at that "jerk" in the other lane. They will know all the rules of the and not forget. Perhaps most of importantly of all, for all these things there will not be variability within a fleet. Sure, there are very good human drivers, but there are also endless awful ones, and every single person must be trained anew and go through a high risk phase while they get experience. Not with a computer. Consistency and attention to boring details and checklists, every single time, has proven a key driver of health & safety improvements across many industries. And even all that are just a few of the first order effects, there will be second order ones too like much less incentive to put off maintenance when the car can drive itself to the service center and another can take its place.
Sure there will no doubt be more obstacles along the way and it'll take a lot of time and effort. There may well be high profile screw ups, it's still humans doing the developing. But you've got a real steep hill in my opinion if you can look at all that and the casualty stats and still want to argue that computers won't ultimately be better.
>There is no incentive to make it better, at least not in our Capitalistic system
This is just utter bullshit though. Our capitalist system includes cost internalization in many cases, and cars are one of them. It's called insurance, and since you're required to carry it by law the fact that it didn't occur to you raises will questions in my mind about the basis of your opinions. Unlike many fields, in cars improvements in safety have a direct financial bottomline. Furthermore, self-driving will most likely enhance that, not detract it, because there the model of people giving up direct ownership and buying shares instead will become possible.
Some people claim that they won't make the same mistake twice, but how many times have you seen the same bug crop up after it was fixed in previous updates?
I would also posit that the existing statistics provide a "good enough" floor. If a million people currently die, the software will be good enough when it has the same level of fatalities. There is no incentive to make it better, at least not in our Capitalistic system. Investments would be better spent on differentiating widgets that dazzle the occupants, not protecting non-customers outside the vehicle.