Focusing on the 99% of roads Google cars don't serve is unnecessarily ridiculing the technology, in my view.

Alternatively, had the article said that 99% of US work commutes can't yet be served by Google cars, then it's something to mention. But the 1% of roads that Google cars cover could very well be enough for the majority of US commutes (assuming it were to cover most metropolitan areas).

It's as if someone saying cellphones aren't yet ready for primetime since they don't work over most of the world's surface area. It may be true but irrelevant for the average consumer.

Or maybe the author heard Google hype like 'no steering wheel' and 'no accidents in 700k miles', did the reporter thing of doing research and found out that it's as close to a streetcar as a fully driverless car, and wrote a story on it.