Waymo, the Alphabet (you know, Google’s parent company)-backed company that has been operating driverless robotaxis longer than anyone, starting in 2020 in a few key markets, has just issued a report that suggests that their automated vehicles are actually safer than human drivers. Now, seeing as this is a paper done by a number of researchers who work for Waymo (Kristofer D. Kusano, John M. Scanlon, Yin-Hsiu Chen, Timothy L. McMurry, Tilia Gode, and Trent Victor, if you’re curious) the results probably aren’t too shocking, but these results are based on 56.7 million miles of automated driving, so the results are likely worth looking at.
And the results are definitely interesting; according to the study, compared to human drivers, Waymo’s automated driving system (called, cleverly, Waymo Driver), had 92% fewer crashes with pedestrians, 82% fewer crashes that injured cyclists, and another 82% fewer crashes that injured motorcyclists.
Those are unquestionably impressive numbers! I think these specific kinds of accidents reflect the operating environment Waymo’s Level 4 (that is, fully autonomous within a specific geofenced area) cars operate in, which are city environments as opposed to highways, and as such require far more interactions with cyclists and pedestrians.
According to the study’s abstract, here’s how the results are described:
Data was examined over 56.7 million RO miles through the end of January 2025, resulting in a statistically significant lower crashed vehicle rate for all crashes compared to the benchmarks in Any-Injury-Reported and Airbag Deployment, and Suspected Serious Injury+ crashes. Of the crash types, V2V Intersection crash events represented the largest total crash reduction, with a 96% reduction in Any-injury-reported (87%-99% confidence interval) and a 91% reduction in Airbag Deployment (76%-98% confidence interval) events. Cyclist, Motorcycle, Pedestrian, Secondary Crash, and Single Vehicle crashes were also statistically reduced for the Any-Injury-Reported outcome. There was no statistically significant disbenefit found in any of the 11 crash type groups.
I like the word “disbenefit.” And by like, I mean “hate,” because what the fudgesicles is “disbenefit?” Doesn’t English have like a billion words for things that? Downside? Detriment? Disadvantage? Do these all start with “D?”
Anyway, these are still significant results, and when they mention the 11 crash type groups, they mean these:
Huh, that’s only 10. Let’s assume the 11th is a meteor strike.
Waymo also included a little video showing these sorts of accident avoidance situations and the car’s visualizations of the events:
Now, the real question is why these vehicles seem to be doing better than humans – which is, of course, a positive thing. I think there are a number of factors involved here, a couple of which I think are pretty obvious, and at least one that I think is less obvious.
For the more obvious ones, I think we have to factor in the car’s comprehensive set of sensors, including LiDAR sensors, that provide a very robust 360° view around the car. Unlike camera-only systems, LiDAR isn’t dependent on lighting conditions or other factors that can impede visibility. Human drivers are shockingly good at understanding their surroundings given that we just have a pair of swiveling cameras to work with, but the Waymo cars have a definite advantage here.
Then there’s the focus/fatigue factor, or, as I just now decided to call it, the Triple-F. Machines don’t get fatigued or distracted. They tend to have fairly barren social lives and outside interests, and as a result, that is all their silicon brains are focused on when driving. Humans are fallible and distractible; these Waymo cars are not. That’s a perpetual advantage machines have.
But then there’s a factor I don’t hear discussed as often; a factor that has to do more with a deliberate choice when it comes to how these machines are programmed to behave. Specifically, Waymo seems to program their cars to be cautious and timid, and to olay it safe in any given context.
This, of course, makes sense, as their whole business model revolves around making sure nobody gets hurt in one of their cars, or because of one of their cars. I get that. But that’s also not always how reality and driving works, and definitely not how human beings work when they drive.
As a result, one can find oneself in situations like the one my friend Rob found himself in recently:
See what’s going on here? My friend is driving, with a Waymo car in front, and a Waymo car behind him. The car in front is at an intersection, and has a green light but is too timid to actually assert itself into the intersection where humans are crossing in front of the Waymo, confident that it lacks the robo-balls to do anything about it. And they’re right.
This is a very tricky concept, one I discussed at length in my book, should you be interested. Essentially, the problem comes down to this: we as human drivers will occasionally do things, like creeping out into an intersection, that are technically dangerous but in reality are just part of driving. Sometimes you have to push through the pathway of crossing pedestrians or you’ll be stuck at an intersection forever.
But how do you program a car to take an action that could end up in an impact with a person, but, you know, won’t, because everyone involved knows what’s going on, and no pedestrian is going to just let themselves get run over. There’s a risk, sure, but most drivers deem it an acceptable one, and the world goes on. But try to tell a car to drive right into a mass of pedestrians like you might run them over but, you know, don’t really mean it. It’s not something that has an easy solution.
So, I think in addition to having better senses and never getting distracted or fatigued, Waymo cars behave like the offspring of an angel and a doormat. It’s safe, but in mixed human-automated car traffic, puts the robots at a huge disadvantage.
Still, this is good news, as if we’re going to give up human driving (at least in some contexts), we should at least be getting significant safety benefits. I’m curious to see how these numbers hold up as more and more AVs are deployed into cities, and how traffic patterns may eventually adapt to these sorts of drivers.
There’s still a long way to go, but this feels like a step in the right direction.
I mean, if you cherry-picked the most ideal times and places for humans to drive we’d probably look a lot better too, which is basically what Waymo is doing right now. Bring one to Minneapolis in January and let’s see how it does.
Waymo Report Suggests Automated Vehicles Are Better At Avoiding Crashes Than Humans But Humans Are Better At Taking Risks
Really? Because my experience watching a driverless Waymo try and make an illegal U-turn, by a freeway off ramp and nearly getting creamed twice, disagrees..
Oh, is it already time for another study on how geofenced autonomous cars that don’t operate in poor weather/visibility or when there’s a power outage that affects signals are better than human-operated cars that operate everywhere at all times?
Assuming that those humans report 100% of their accidents and that all the cars with body damage are just like that for funsies
@Torch – I bought your book! Amazon says there is only one left in stock, so you better run a few more copies over to them!
Also, you should update your bio over there bc it still says you’re at Jalop.
“But how do you program a car to take an action that could end up in an impact with a person, but, you know, won’t, because everyone involved knows what’s going on, and no pedestrian is going to just let themselves get run over.”
I disagree here, there are absolutely people that will let themselves get run over for more than one reason so Waymo makes the right call. Because often times NOT everyone knows what’s going on, which is certainly human error.
I also bet the referenced situation would not occur in some areas with a more strict rule-following culture than the USA.
Talk about a touchy situation – using a 5,000 pound machine as if its a shopping cart. I greatly identify with this. Reminds me of operating large equipment, or even just garden variety farm equipment, around/alongside humans working by hand. Its an extremely dangerous situation when everything is working perfectly. The big powerful machines have the ability to do so much work but the fine touches have to be done by hand with a shovel, or whatever. The chain has to be attached by hand. Etc.
But people are definitely losing that touch, and for better or worse are getting and succumbing to the unstoppable urge to check their notifications while nosing through a crosswalk. So I’m all in on the robot’s approach here. Oh, so sad that you have to wait in your car for those extra minutes in this extremely dangerous interaction between cars and people, lol.
Sometimes it freaks me out that the only thing separating me from another car going 55 mph in the opposite direction is a line of paint on the ground
its amazing we all get where were going at all
In Texas it could be 75 mph in opposing directions. On one occasion, I was heading back into town through one of those zones when some bozo in a F-250 decided he wanted to pass whatever was in front of him. I’m only here because of ABS that kept my car going where pointed as the right-side wheels went over the rumble strip and onto the dirt shoulder.
The future needn’t be dystopian, Autopian is the way. I’m still astounded that big money decision makers are willing to throw Billions at this very problematic application that few have a desire for. It seems freight shipping would be the logical place to develop autonomy. PBS has a good series that I first thought had Jason as host.
https://www.pbs.org/video/tomorrows-e58248/
Yeah, its mind boggling.
You know what I bet it is?
People who aren’t looking at the road can be looking at and spending money on stuff via their phones.
Boom.
That’s why big money wants to “solve” this.
Uber is invested because it means a fleet of taxis without paying a driver.
They really got tired of having to pay people for their time
Way better solution than lying about your cars self driving abilities and just letting them get lots of people killed.
I spent the last week driving around Los Angeles and saw these everywhere – was pretty impressed by how “normal” they seemed to drive.
But they do seem to be more expensive and take longer than normal cabs/ubers, and I still don’t think they make sense mixed with humans.
does a driverless car still ask for a tip on top of the agreed upon price of service?
I was at a concert recently where I picked out my drinks & snacks, then went through the self checkout line and was prompted to tip…so it literally wouldn’t surprise me!
I went to a baseball game where they had a newfangled system where you show your id, authorize a $1 hold on your card and then grab whatever you want and apparently “AI” tracks what you grab and charges you the “correct” amount
all I know is that I grabbed 2 drinks and wound up with a $20 charge on my card without any receipt.
did it once for the novelty and then got cheaper beers elsewhere the rest of the game
These geniuses in Silicon Valley are sure making everything better!
I didn’t necessarily hate it, but it didn’t seem that much better than a conventional transaction, considering someone still had to check my ID and explain the process to everyone standing in line
I live in an area where Waymo operates. Honestly, I’ve been very impressed. They are smart, assertive, and never seemed to make bad decisions. The only time I’ve ever seen an issue is when somebody cut the car off when it was turning left across traffic, leaving it stranded across multiple lanes until a gap opened up. The Cruise cars, on the other hand, had issues. One of them had to slam on the brakes to avoid running into the back of my parked car in front of my house. Not exactly confidence inspiring
AV’s would be alot safer if we just banned pedestrians and cyclists.
Yes, pedestrian deaths would drop the month after we kill all the people with legs
Frankly if they work for the company liars. And if they compare their control for the test vs 24/7 everywhere it isn’t apples to oranges. You can’t trust a biased person with statistics.
My problem with autonomous cars is this:
The car values the lives of a group of children over mine. I disagree, and have no problem with a string of small caskets for my personal survival.
On the other hand, I’d be fine with staying off the road entirely and sending my car to retrieve fetch the things I need. I do value the children over my Taco Bell order.
My problem with autonomous cars is you have the cheapest programmer making mistakes and programming driving decisions and he may not even drive so his knowledge is subpar. I have worked for a software company and the programmers program simply what you tell them too without any questions or thoughts. For it to work you need a good driver and programer in one person.
Problems such as this will easily be eliminated when robots replace all drivers and pedestrians.
Not so, because the problem is opportunistic pedestrians. If the cars remain programmed to act safely, it would actually get much worse if all cars acted like angels
Robotic pedestrians would be programmed to obey the rules also. Robot cars, robot pedestrians, and, well, robots (per usage in southern Africa) will all communicate with each other and with the other robots and computers that will populate our world, and things will be immeasurably safer and more efficient once humans are removed entirely.
Progress!
This is precisely the plan.
I mean, of course robots and meatbags will peacefully coexist.
We can do their complicated math homework while they make art!
I know I am at the minority here on a car site, but I welcome the rise of AV5. The vast majority of drivers are merely ok drivers and even the best make mistakes.
But that’s not who I am thinking of. There is a small group of drivers who should be mandated to have AV5 vehicles.
And more than that, even the good drivers need a hand once in a while.
Yesterday, we had a work get together at a bar. A coworker tried this weird uberdark beer and after about a 1/3rd of it, wisely decided to stop drinking it, order some food and hang out for a couple hours listening to really bad karaoke *. Ends up that beer was something insane like 13% alcohol and he was wise enough to realize he didn’t need to finish that beer and immediately try to drive home. But that would have been an easy mistake to make. If you have an AV5 car and have any feeling that you might not be 100% on your game due to a stronger than expected beer or maybe missing too much sleep or whatever, just let the car drive you. It might not be as good as a fully awake and sober version of you, but still safer than you actually are.
* Someone tried to sing U2, Journey and System of a Down in a row. When he should have sung The Clash.
You posted the same thing twice. I hope the autonomous car programmer pays more attention to detail.
This is what I am saying it all comes down to human fraility. With human fraility you will have more accidents. But with autonomous it won’t be a 2 car accident it will be catastrophic and it will happen.
No idea how that happened. I clicked post once.
Journey is a given.
Be glad there wasn’t a group of women supporting their recently dumped / divorced friend.
“I Will Survive” is not better the second (or third) attempt.
Your co-worker may have been safer behind the wheel. (joke)
I will Survive — the Cake version — would be a great karaoke choice.
I like to imagine that he totally crushed the intro to Chop Suey!.
Worse he attempted Ariels. Those low notes at low volume are vocally challenging, even if you do know the words.
I know I am at the minority here on a car site, but I welcome the rise of AV5. The vast majority of drivers are merely ok drivers and even the best make mistakes.
But that’s not who I am thinking of. There is a small group of drivers who should be mandated to have AV5 vehicles. I had a great aunt that would tell you that she drove for 70 years and didn’t have an accident once.
Which was true and misleading. She drove about 10 times in her life. And once she got from home to the store and back without having an accident. She did get a ticket for going the wrong way on a one way street, but she didn’t hit anything… once.
Yesterday, we had a work get together at a bar. A coworker tried this weird uberdark beer and after about a 1/3rd of it, wisely decided to stop drinking it, order some food and hang out for a couple hours listening to really bad karaoke *. Ends up that beer was something insane like 13% alcohol and he was wise enough to realize he didn’t need to finish that beer and immediately try to drive home. But that would have been an easy mistake to make. If you have an AV5 car and have any feeling that you might not be 100% on your game due to a stronger than expected beer or maybe missing too much sleep or whatever, just let the car drive you. It might not be as good as a fully awake and sober version of you, but still safer than you actually are.
* I’ve learned something about Karaoke. If you hear System of a Down, Journey, Led Zepplin or U2, RUN AWAY as if you the Killer Rabbit is after you. Now if you hear The Clash, stick around, it’s going to be better sung than the original, unless the singer has drank a 6 pack of weird uberdark beer.
Dear God, a person has even attempted System of a Down at karaoke? I mean, even if you completely nail it (you won’t), it’s a real buzzkill. At least with Zep or Journey, you can do a semi-ironic falsetto version.
The rest I completely understand.
It was exactly as bad as you think it might be. He attempted “Ariels” and he didn’t know the words. Followed up with an “With or without you.”. I heard the intro to “Don’t stop believing” and remembered it was time to leave.
The thing about all those songs is that they have HUGE vocal ranges. You might think you can hit the top notes of Ariels, but unless you are professionally trained, you will be completely hopeless on the low notes. The low notes of “with or without you” are reachable by more people, but the transition to the high notes is a major challenge.
Around here, the timid drivers are considered bad drivers because they don’t subscribe to those “unwritten rules” of the road that everyone basically agrees on (creep out into a crowded intersection, move over in a lane so as not to block traffic behind you, go around people turning left, etc.). If everyone followed the law exactly, no one would get anywhere and road rage would be up one-hundred-and-crazy-percent.
It kind of reminds me of the lighthearted/comical, yet backhanded, compliment I gave my wife yesterday. Whenever we go somewhere, I’m usually the driver for a few reasons — perfect record, good spatial awareness, polite-yet-assertive manner, excellent nav skills (I’m not good at a lot, so let me have this!)
I said to her “You know, in terms of getting us all safely to our destination, you’re a really great driver.”
She understood what I meant. She might gently hit another car’s bumper, she might get a honk several times from other drivers, the occasional middle finger, going really slowly, mirrors poorly adjusted — things that almost never happen to me — but we always arrive without incident. Late, but without incident. Maybe a few u-turns in there for good measure.
Feels like the same thing here. Maybe the robots are very humanlike after all.
My 16-year-old new driver daughter could be subbed for the robocar in Rob’s story, and my feeling is the same as yours: safe might take longer, but I’m happy [your wife/my kid/a damned robot] isn’t taking any chances.
I had an aunt that bragged about how she had driven for years and not gotten into an accident once.
This was a clever play on words. She was a famously crappy driver. The comment back was always “yeah, once. All those other times….”
“I haven’t slept for three days. That would be too long to sleep.” –Mitch Hedberg (RIP)
How many did she cause?
Rumor was she drove 12 times in her long life and avoided an accident once. Although she did get ticketed for going the wrong way down a one way street.
Not sure of the reality, but my dad wouldn’t allow any in the family to be around her when she was near a car. We would all have to be in the house and accounted for if she was attempting to move a car.
I would be fine with 100% driverless lanes like we have for busses, carpooling and biking.
the people who would rather be scrolling on their phone than actively driving are the worst on the road.
I miss 2013 Jalopnik