Bravo to Steve Tiell for thinking about the driverless car (what I agree) as a totally disruptive technology, as big or bigger than the first automobile revolution a hundred years ago.
But, as the author suggests, I don't think that widespread "banning private ownership" of cars (whether driverless or human-controlled) is either good politics or, really, necessary.
The logic of the driverless car will tend, I believe, to shared systems (such as Cars-to-Go) and that many people will give up their own personal vehicle simply because it is cheaper and more convenient.
Others may desire to own a "personal vehicle" simply because they want a more personal interior, fittings etc for, say. longer trips and yet they will also use a "shared driverless car" (like a taxi!) for many trips within an urban region.
Moreover, I think that the driverless car is going to meet a lot of resistance based on a range of issues from fear of losing sense of personal autonomy to fear of increased governmental surveillance.
If you want to amp up the driverless car discussion by banning private car ownership, I'd hope that you didn't. :) It seems to me somewhat un-needed and yet unproductively contentious and emotional.