Did you even bother reading the article? Because the point is, as of right now, the number of human driven miles completely and utterly dwarfs the number of autonomous miles. That's why in order to compare the relative safeties, you'd need several orders of magnitudes of more sample data from the autonomous driving side.
Please try to understand the underlying statistics, it's really not hard.
That isn’t what the article says. It concludes with this:
> In summary, this article shows that the idea that self-driving cars need to drive hundreds of millions of miles before we can be convinced that they are safe is full of flaws. It is misleading to just focus on fatality rates where many other correlated measures for reliability are available that are easier to measure. It is wrong to focus primarily on accidents; the focus should rather be placed on the avoidance of safety-critical situations.
Read the first half of the page, it is what it says. It is countering claims like this one:
> For those driving without Autopilot, we registered one accident or crash-like event for every 1.92 million miles driven. By comparison, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) most recent data shows that in the United States, there is an automobile crash every 492,000 miles.
I posted the article to show how Tesla's way of measuring safety/accuracy is flawed. The article does a very good job demonstrating that. I agree with the article that we should come up with a procedure/policy driven approach to validating the safety of autonomous vehicles, because there would be no easy way to validate the safety of autonomous vehicles given the volume of human miles driven.
Please try to understand the underlying statistics, it's really not hard.