This suggests that any effort to introduce driverless cars should be preceded by a multi-year ad campaign that (ahem) drives home the >40k dead/yr. figure.

Presumably, it would be paid for by insurance companies. It could be rolled out as a general public awareness effort (i.e. packaged with generic reminders about wearing seatbelts, maintaining proper tire-pressure, etc.), combined with localized elements that included maps highlighting particularly deadly times and places where drivers should be especially vigilant.

Once the figure is widely accepted, the companies who would be offering the technology would have an established base against which they could run ads that credit themselves with lives saved. Assuming that these claims are backed up by public data assembled by trustworthy parties, even the most vociferous "if it bleeds it leads" news agencies would have a hard time terrorizing people BACK to the days of a 9/11 every month.

Also, while I hate to be cynical, there's an upside to corporate mass media, in that a lot of ad dollars spent by pro robo-car interests WILL make news agencies think twice about scaring the daylights out of people just for a ratings bump. After all, the whole point of ratings is to boost the price of ad sales.

I realize that this may seem like a lot of effort, but no industry takes a longer view than the insurance industry. If there's one group that has the time, money, and motivation to make the push, it's the guys who are paying costs associated with all the current grief and mayhem. Moreover, our not-so-clean political system does mean that legislators can be easily persuaded once insurance companies are comfortable that the technology is truly secure.

My guess is that any push would need Federal backing, and would be focused - initially - on the Interstate highway system, where much less reactive driving takes place.

It will be pushed as "driver assist".

A little siren goes off, warning you to break. Navigation tells you where to go, and how.

An override button appears, allowing you to give the computer control in an emergency. Eventually, the button becomes a switch, and the switch gets left on.

"Autodrive" licenses (similar to automatic licenses) are introduced, allowing people to pass their driving test in full auto mode, provided they only drive cars in full auto.

So why would insurance companies actually want that future. Wouldn't car insurer be out of buisnes if there were no more crashes?

And I worry about the case when it will become more blameworthy for a human rather than a computer to operate a vehicle.

Why? If computer-driven cars are much less likely to crash than human-driven cars, it would be entirely appropriate for there to be a social stigma against humans driving cars (because it would show disregard for the lives and safety of others). It would also be entirely appropriate to treat human drivers more harshly when they were responsible for accidents, as they would have had the choice of instead allowing a computer to drive and statistically probably avoid the accident.

You misinterpreted my sentence (but perhaps it wasn't your fault since I elided a crucial piece of information).

I did not say that human-driving ought not be morally blameworthy but, since I enjoy driving, I am understandably worried about a time when something that brings me pleasure will become unethical.

I suspect you will then be able to exercise driving in a more controlled, and most likely more interesting than everyday city driving, environment the same way it is now for kart circuits and the like.