What's even more dangerous is 3000 lbs of metal controlled by a computer programmed by ego maniacs with the arrogance to assume their heuristic model accurately interprets the reality of free-range driving. A human is slow compared to a computer, but is far better at preemption and situational awareness.
The irony here, of course, is that you're the one assuming the programmers making these systems are egomaniacs who don't take any exceptional cases into account and never test for them.
What does being "far better at preemption" even mean? If a human can interpret a cue to react in a particular way, a computer can be programmed to recognize that cue, too. And suggesting that humans are better at situation awareness? Crazy talk. A car with a couple of LIDAR units knows exactly how far it is from everything in a hundred meter radius (or more) around it, within a cm or two. It has no blind spots, it doesn't care about lighting conditions, it's not fooled by optical illusions, and it's not limited to the visible spectrum.
Then we have deliberate attacks on the network they'll use. Finally, we have deliberate kill switches/overrides/tracking demanded by authorities, public and private
They don't need to use networks, and they're as likely to have kill switches/overrides/tracking demanded by the authorities as your current car does. In other words, because of the mass push back there would be against it, not likely at all. Because of the extreme expense, the only reason auto manufactures would do that is if they were legally required -- and if somehow it gets pushed into legislation, have no fear that every car will be required to have it, not just the autonomous ones.