While there were some interesting insights in the article, they are not the unintended consequences alluded to at the start with the reference to IMPs and the early Internet leading to the disruption of journalism.
An example of an unintended consequence of fully autonomous vehicles would be what might happen to where people want to live and hence the structure of communities and property values.
Based on the journalism example in the introduction I was expecting the unintended consequence to be for the professional drivers to lose their jobs. Which will be more impactful on the labor market than any changes in journalism so far and can completely eliminate "driver" (truck, taxi, etc) as job title. Moreover, this is a part of a broader trend of automation that is real but still left out of mainstream political discussion. If Trump hopes to bring back employment with traditional protectionism, he'll just incentivise faster replacement of human workers with robots and automatic systems. I believe this is a more important topic for discussion than the social and antisocial aspects of driverless cars.
Aside: not to be that guy, but the article says "unexpected"; the word "unintended" (or anything related to intention) isn't used in the article at all. At least not explicitly.
Just mentioning it as a bit of "expectation management" for what the article is about, since there's overlap between consequences one doesn't anticipate and consequences that are unintentional, but it's not quite the same thing.
An example of an unintended consequence of fully autonomous vehicles would be what might happen to where people want to live and hence the structure of communities and property values.