And the evidence for this?
NOTE: am pro-driverless vehicles, so my opinion may be colored by that fact.
People who support this tech fall into a couple of categories
1) They believe computers react faster and can be programmed with more TOTAL situational awareness than humans
2) They realize that humans are way overconfident of their driving abilities
3) They realize that people are far more distracted in their driving today than 25 years ago.
I happen to ascribe to all 3 of these beliefs. The evidence is fairly strong on all 3 fronts, although #3 is primarily anecdotal.
In the end liability doesn't matter. Only the facts matter. IF (as I believe) computer controlled options are safer, then the insurance companies will work VERY hard to get people to adopt them and thus lower the total risk for their $$. If not, then insurance companies will do just the opposite. This is a really basic market based move.
I am smart enough to realize that as good a driver as I am, I am way more aggressive than average and thus prone to accidents (I have had 1 small accident in the last 15 years, but that is probably partially just odds).
If I have numbers that show that my total risk portfolio is lower using one, I will use it. Yes, the software may glitch and cause a problem. Yes, there may be things the computer cannot predict. But overall I am safer. That is all I really care about.
Stop fooling yourself with delusions of control and your life will be much better, safer, more fun, and less frenetic. Control what you can as much as you can. Let go of the rest.