While Waymo is five times safer than the average human driver (0.75 injury crashes per million miles vs. 4), it has not yet achieved true superhuman performance. Analysis suggests the safest human demographic—a married, 60-year-old, college-educated woman in Massachusetts on a Tuesday—still performs better, with approximately 0.5 injury crashes per million miles.

Related Insights

Tesla's camera-only system gives it a significant cost advantage over Waymo's LiDAR-equipped vehicles. However, current data shows a Waymo vehicle crashes every 400,000 miles, while Tesla's crashes every 50,000. Tesla's ability to scale hinges entirely on proving its cheaper technology can become as safe.

After proving its robo-taxis are 90% safer than human drivers, Waymo is now making them more "confidently assertive" to better navigate real-world traffic. This counter-intuitive shift from passive safety to calculated aggression is a necessary step to improve efficiency and reduce delays, highlighting the trade-offs required for autonomous vehicle integration.

Early self-driving cars were too cautious, becoming hazards on the road. By strictly adhering to the speed limit or being too polite at intersections, they disrupted traffic flow. Waymo learned its cars must drive assertively, even "aggressively," to safely integrate with human drivers.

A technology like Waymo's self-driving cars could be statistically safer than human drivers yet still be rejected by the public. Society is unwilling to accept thousands of deaths directly caused by a single corporate algorithm, even if it represents a net improvement over the chaotic, decentralized risk of human drivers.

Contrary to displacement fears, driverless taxis like Waymo are carving out a new, expensive market segment. They cater to a different customer base—likely former private car users—thereby increasing overall demand for ride services rather than just cannibalizing the traditional taxi market.

Autonomous systems can perceive and react to dangers beyond human capability. The example of a Cybertruck autonomously accelerating to lessen the impact of a potential high-speed rear-end collision—a car the human driver didn't even see—showcases a level of predictive safety that humans cannot replicate, moving beyond simple accident avoidance.

The transition to AVs won't be a sudden replacement of human drivers. Uber's CEO argues that for the next two decades, a hybrid network where humans and AVs coexist will be a more efficient and effective solution, allowing for a responsible transition while serving diverse customer preferences.

The public holds new technologies to a much higher safety standard than human performance. Waymo could deploy cars that are statistically safer than human drivers, but society would not accept them killing tens of thousands of people annually, even if it's an improvement. This demonstrates the need for near-perfection in high-stakes tech launches.

With Waymo's data showing a dramatic potential to reduce traffic deaths, the primary barrier to adoption is shifting from technology to politics. A neurosurgeon argues that moneyed interests and city councils are creating regulatory capture, blocking a proven public health intervention and framing a safety story as a risk story.

The lack of widespread outrage after a Waymo vehicle killed a beloved cat in tech-skeptical San Francisco is a telling sign. It suggests society is crossing an acceptance threshold for autonomous technology, implicitly acknowledging that while imperfect, the path to fewer accidents overall involves tolerating isolated, non-human incidents.