RAND's point is true but irrelevant. As Tesla likes to point out, when you roll out to an entire fleet (rather than a few dozen test cars), you rack up hundreds of millions of miles almost overnight. 'Hundreds of millions' may sound like a lot, but Americans drive trillions of miles per year.
One of the points addressed in this paper is the degree of testing that already needs to be done in order to proclaim that these systems are safer than humans with statistical rigour. Tesla says that their systems are _statistically safer_ than human drivers, but there is simply not enough data to make this conclusion. I respectfully suggest that you read the paper.
I did read the RAND paper, when it came out months ago, and I double-checked the traffic accident per mile citation and the power calculation as well. Their point is irrelevant because their fleet size estimate is ludicrously small, and their statistics is a little dodgy as well: it should be a one-tailed test (since the important question is only if the Tesla is worse than a human driver), and if one wanted to debate the statistics, this is somewhere that Bayesian decision theory minimizing expected lives lost would be much more appropriate, and that approach would roll out self-driving cars well before a two-sided binomial test yielded p<0.05.
From the paper: "Therefore, at least for fatalities and injuries, test-driving alone cannot provide sufficient evidence for demonstrating autonomous vehicle safety."
Note that the number of crashes per 100 million miles is a lot bigger than the number of injuries. One would hope a statement about safety would look at all of the data.
