Several comments have touched on this, but wouldn't you define an AGI as something that could learn to drive a car? I think every (reasonable ( person understands self driving is >10 years away. So shouldn't AGI be?
Thus, the standard for AGI is lower than the standard for self-driving cars. Existence of an AGI does not imply existence of self-driving cars.
To put it another way: take the worst human driver who still qualifies as "could learn to drive a car." (It's assumed the person is intelligent.) Construct a Turing-like test where we observe a car possibly being driven by that person, but we don't know who or what is actually driving the car. The car drives over a curb, kills a cat crossing the street, narrowly misses a dozen pedestrians in crosswalks, and finally parks poorly in a mall parking lot -- just like we would expect from the world's worst human driver. After observing that car trip, would we celebrate the long-awaited arrival of self-driving cars?
It's possible that we're limited on the hardware / modality front.
AGI is about inventing the brain, while the car is an entire body.
*One can nitpick yourself into creating a series of examples of fictional disabled people but let’s not bikeshed please