Cited by 190Traffic and Road SafetyHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety

Rage against the machine? Google’s self-driving cars versus human drivers

Teoh, Eric R., Kidd, David G.·2017·Journal of Safety Research

Abstract

Introduction Automated driving represents both challenges and opportunities in highway safety. Google has been developing self-driving cars and testing them under employee supervision on public roads since 2009. These vehicles have been involved in several crashes, and it is of interest how this testing program compares to human drivers in terms of safety. Methods Google car crashes were coded by type and severity based on narratives released by Google. Crash rates per million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were computed for crashes deemed severe enough to be reportable to police. These were compared with police-reported crash rates for human drivers. Crash types also were compared. Results Google cars had a much lower rate of police-reportable crashes per million VMT than human drivers in Mountain View, Calif., during 2009-2015 (2.19 vs 6.06), but the difference was not statistically significant. The most common type of collision involving Google cars was when they got rear-ended by another (human-driven) vehicle. Google cars shared responsibility for only one crash. Conclusions These results suggest Google self-driving cars, while a test program, are safer than conventional human-driven passenger vehicles; however, currently there is insufficient information to fully examine the extent to which disengagements affected these results. Practical application Results suggest that highly-automated vehicles can perform more safely than human drivers in certain conditions, but will c…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jsr.2017.08.008

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • It is not possible to eliminate accidents completely, as machine errors will persist.

    “Though accidents can be reduced to a greater extent, it is not possible to eliminate them completely (Teoh & Kidd, 2017), as machine errors will persist (Täihagh & Lim, 2019)”

    From Shared autonomous vehicle services: A comprehensive review (2020) · cites this paper as Teoh & Kidd, 2017

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Teoh, E. R., & Kidd, D. G.
Affiliations
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (US)
Corresponding author
Teoh, Eric R.
Venue
Journal of Safety Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-12
Volume
63
Pages
57-60
ISSN
0022-4375 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2747470660
Cited by
190
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 12
FWCI
22.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Safety Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Traffic and Road Safety
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Keywords
autonomous vehicles, autonomous driving, highway safety, accident rates, human drivers, police-reported crashes, rear-end collisions, accident severity, disengagement, highly automated vehicles
MeSH terms
Accidents, Traffic, Automation, Automobile Driving, Automobiles, California, Humans, Rage, Safety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review