"Car accidents occur therefore we shouldn't have cars" isn't very compelling.

You’re not understanding what he’s saying and your argument likewise isn’t very compelling. He’s arguing that given the speed of computers we need to change what our expectations of better than human are. Furthermore one could presume from his description of needing to change human perceptions of the machines agility it is likely we need to change how we use them.

A while ago I noticed that car crashes were the leading cause of death for age ranges too old for infant mortality and too young for heart failure.

I checked again before making this reply and found that in many cases "accidental poisoning" has overtaken car crashes. Accidental poisoning is overwhelmingly "drugs".

I do find your argument compelling even if you do not.

It’d be more like “car accidents occur, so let’s add seat belts, air bags, etc…”.