I would argue that just means we've particularly customized the driving UX [1] to humans, not that other species lack some fundamental capacity for it.
It has saddened me that we've traditionally started from a position of human exceptionalism when studying other animals and, to a large extent, still do so today, despite discoveries such as tool manufacture by the New Caledonian crow and dolphin whistles following Zipf's law. I can only imagine how shocked (shocked!) we would be by cephalopod capabilities compared to humans if we were to, say, genetically modify them to live as long as a macaw.
All that said, my point is that I don't think there's anything particularly special in human evolution to suggest that we would have more skill at lookahead. One might even speculate that we would have less than an animal that has to chase at relatively high speed in order to survive, such as a cheetah or wolf [2].
As for tool use, I do admit that, though we're not unique in that regard, it's probably still safe to say it's rare enough to be remarkable. Perhaps if we hadn't been running around for so long assuming our uniqueness, someone might have tried teaching a corvid or octopus to drive by now.
[1] including such things as engineering trade-offs in areas like suspension where one might sacrifice pure performance (and therefore, arguably, control and subsequently safety) for comfort
[2] which are, of course, not domestic dogs. Thousands of years of human breeding may well have removed any evolutionary advantage related to driving.