Nobody held driverless cars as a "panacea" to anything that's completely something you made up.
Let's just review this whole conversation:
1. I suggested to a poster who wanted to blame the whole Cruise problem on the garbage truck that garbage trucks do in fact have to block lanes.
2. You then jumped in and said that American should "just" reinvent itself so that cars weren't a big deal. You left it implicit why that was relevant here, but I think I understand you to believe that driverless cars are an unimportant technology.
3. I pointed out that "just" changing the fundamental mode of transit across all of America is in fact a tall order.
4. And then you've gotten less and less responsive to actual points until you get to here where you're now suggesting that driverless cars aren't a panacea, which is an argument nobody made.
To affirmatively restate my points:
1. Driverless cars, to be successful, must deal with a lot of messy road conditions, not just the 99% case.
2. If driverless cars do at some point cross the above line and genuinely become equal to or greater than the median human driver, I think they will be an important technology that will improve people's lives -- in both the United States and very significantly (if possibly somewhat less so) in Europe.
3. Driverless cars are plausibly on a much shorter timeline than remaking all of America's physical transportation/density infrastructure, and plausibly much less overall expensive than remaking all of America's physical transportation/density infrastructure.
4. Investment in driverless cars is non-rival to other changes to America's physical transportation/density infrastructure.