Rage against the machine? Google’s self-driving cars versus human drivers
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Shared autonomous vehicle services: A comprehensive review
Narayanan, S., Chaniotakis, E., & Antoniou, C. (2020) · Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/j.trc.2019.12.008 · Cited by 691 · see citing works
Taeihagh, A., & Lim, H. S. M. (2019) · Transport Reviews · doi:10.1080/01441647.2018.1494640 · Cited by 601 · see citing works
The METRIC-framework for assessing data quality for trustworthy AI in medicine: A systematic review
Schwabe, D., Becker, K., Seyferth, M., Klaß, A., & Schaeffter, T. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01196-4 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Hong, J.-W., Wang, Y., & Lanz, P. (2020) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2020.1785693 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
- 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