> Humans are not good drivers with two eyes.
This isn't really the point, it's that humans are able to successfully build an accurate-enough model of the world to navigate terrain with only camera like vision -- and a really bad one at that.
There is, of course, no problem with giving cars more sensory abilities to make them safer but what they mean by a crutch is that the CS breakthrough that will make self-driving cars compete with humans will function about as well with two crappy cameras mounted on the drivers seat as it would with an array of high-precision sensors.
(tongue firmly in cheek) Material science breakthrough could result in aircraft that flap wings that could compete with condors too, but what would be the point? Naturally evolved mechanism are not the gold standard; they developed under completely different constraints.
Flapping bird robot
Ornithopters have a long history[1] - but I meant "aircraft" at the scale of passenger jets.
By giving a car more than two eyes it has the potential to become a better driver than me because it can watch more. By adding more than just visible light cameras it can see things that I would never see. I want my next car to be safer, the big limit is not seat belts, brakes, crumple zones, airbags, and such - the big limit is the limited human in control. There is potential to make some of the above obsolete if the control system is enough better.