Serious crash rates are a hockey stick pattern. 20% of the drivers cause 80% of the crashes, to a rough approximation. For the worst 20% of drivers, the Waymo is almost certainly better already.
Honestly, at this point I am more interested in whether they can operate their service profitably and affordably, because they are clearly nailing the technical side.
For example data from a 100 driver study, see table 2.11, p. 29.
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/37370
Roughly the same number of drivers had 0 or 1 near-crashes as had 13-50+. One of the drivers had 56 near crashes and 4 actual crashes in less than 20K miles! So the average isn't that helpful here.
Hmmm, perhaps a more-valuable representation would be how the average Waymo vehicle would place as a percentile ranking among human drivers, in accidents-per-mile.
Ex: "X% of humans do better than Waymo does in accidents per mile."
That would give us an intuition for what portion of humans ought to let the machine do the work.
P.S.: On the flip-side, it would not tell us how often those people drove. For example, if the Y% of worse-drivers happen to be people who barely ever drive in the first place, then helping automate that away wouldn't be as valuable. In contrast, if they were the ones who did the most driving...
If only it were easier to get the stats in the form of "damage in property/lives in the form of dollars per mile driven", that would let us kinda-combine both big tragic events with fender-benders.
(Yeah, I know it means putting an actuarial cost on a human life, but statistics means mathing things up.)
Putting aside Waymo specifically for a second (whom I believe is the leader in the space, but also self operates their own custom cars).
If the current state of commercially available ADAS was dramatically reducing accident rates, then Teslas etc would have lower insurance rates. And yet they instead have higher insurance rates.
AFAIK, it's due to things like single frame construction and expensive + backlogged parts which you order directly from Tesla (as opposed to, eg, a drivetrain that may be made for 3 separate manufacturers).
Or, when you do have an accident it's typically more expensive to repair.
I think my car insurance policy actually does detail what they believe every part of your body + your life to be worth, it might be my old policy though. From memory an arm was £2,000
[Edit]: found the policy:
death: £2,500
arm or leg: £2,000
blindness in one or both eyes: £2,000
As my father quipped to me when I was younger: 'You know the best thing about a three-legged dog? It's not sad about the limb it's missing: it's happy for the three it still has.'
I don't think that's possible. I don't think this is a "cooperate greed, nobody wants to end the gravy train by starting a price war" situation. I think it's a "the myriad of stuff you have to do to run a compliant company sets the price floor" situation. The fact that there is no nuclear "well I guess I just can't afford insurance, if I lose my house so be it" option available to customers prevents it all from caving in.
Perhaps the best way to address this would be to look at property damage for car-car or cat-object collisions, and a separate stat for car-pedestrian accidents.
In collisions that don't involve pedestrians, the damage to the car/object is generally proportional to the chance that someone was badly injured or killed in those cases - the only thing you get by adding human life costs is to take into account the quality of the safety features of the cars being driven, which should be irrelevant for nay comparison with automated driving. In collisions that do involve pedestrians, this breaks down, since you can easily kill someone with almost 0 damage to the car.
So having these two stats per mile driven to compare would probably give you the best chance of a less biased comparison.
It may be more fair to compare them to Uber drivers and taxis and at least on that comparison haven't ridden in thousands of Uber and taxis and a couple dozen waymos, it is better than 100%.
Anecdotal of course but within my circle people are becoming Waymo first over other options almost entirely because of the better experience and perceived better driving. And parents in my circle also trust that a waymo won't mow them down in a crosswalk. Which is more than you can say for many drivers in SF.
No, tailgating would be a significant cause of the crash.
A driver -- legally, logically, practically -- should always maintain a safe following distance from the vehicle in front of them so that they can stop safely. It doesn't matter if the vehicle in front of them suddenly slams on the brakes because a child or plastic bag jumped in front of them, because they suddenly realized they need to make a left turn, or mixed up the pedals.
Oh, I fully agree—like I said, legally they're not at fault, because you'd more or less have to be tailgating and/or inattentive to crash into them just for braking unexpectedly.
But if there's an existing system and culture of driving that has certain expectations built up over a century+ of collective behavior, and then you drop into that culture a new element that systematically brakes more suddenly and unexpectedly, regardless of whether the human drivers were doing the right thing beforehand, it is both reasonable and accurate to say that the introduction of the self-driving cars contributed significantly to the increase in crashes.
If they become ubiquitous, and retain this pattern, then over time, drivers will learn it. But it will take years—probably decades—and cause increased crashes due to this pattern during that time (assuming, again, that the pattern itself remains).
Tailgating causes a great number of accidents today, no autonomous cars needed.
While tailgating is tiny slice of fatal collisions -- something like 2% -- it accounts for like 1/3 of non-fatal collisions.
We're already basically at Peak Tailgating Collisions, without self-driving cars, and I'd happily put a tenner on rear-end collisions going down with self-driving cars because, even if they stop suddenly more often, at least they don't tailgate.
And it's entirely self-inflicted! You can just not tailgate; it's not even like tailgating let's you go faster, it just lets you go the exact same speed 200 feet down the road.
Assuming a driving culture where other people won’t instantly insert themselves into the empty space in between, yes, it’s the exact same speed. I’d very much like that.
> You can just not tailgate; it's not even like tailgating let's you go faster, it just lets you go the exact same speed 200 feet down the road.
Preach.
I was coming home a few evenings ago in the dark, and both I and my passenger were getting continually aggravated by the car that was following too close behind us, with their headlights reflecting in the wing mirrors alternately into each of our faces.
As a pure hypothetical what you propose is possible, but there’s actual crash data to look at so there’s no need to guess.
Waymo’s crashes that I’ve looked at have just been fairly typical someone else is blatantly at fault no unusual behavior on Waymo’s part. So while it’s possible such a thing exists it’s not common enough to matter here.
I saw a transit enthusiast YouTube video try out Waymo from the most distant part of the network to fisherman’s wharf in SF and it cost twice as much as an Uber while having a longer wait time for a car.
It also couldn’t operate on the highway so the transit time was nearly double.
One shouldn’t underestimate how economical real human operators are. It’s not like Uber drivers make a ton of money. Uber drivers often have zero capital expense since they are driving vehicles they already own. Waymo can’t share the business expense of their vehicles with their employees and have them drive them home and to the grocery store.
I’m sure it’ll improve but this tells me that Waymo’s price per vehicle including all the R&D expenses must be astronomical. They are burning $2 billion a year at the current rate even though they have revenue service.
Plus, they actually have a lot of human operators to correct issues and talk to police and things like that. Last number I found on that was over one person per vehicle but I’m not sure if anyone knows for sure.
I saw a transit enthusiast YouTube video try out Waymo from the most distant part of the network to fisherman’s wharf in SF and it cost twice as much as an Uber, had a longer wait time for a car, and cost about double.
That's literally an edge case. For shorter trips, I've found it to be slightly cheaper (especially factoring in the lack of tips) with maybe a slightly longer wait.
I don't really find this to be the case at all. I've had Waymo for ~2 years now (since the private program), and I've never noticed it being quicker or cheaper than an Uber. I have several hundred rides; I prefer the service - but I've never once told people it's cheaper or faster.
Currently, on Wednesday March 26th at 8:34 a ride from Bar Part Time in the Mission to Verjus in North Beach is $21.17 with a estimated 8 minute pickup time. The same ride on UberX has an estimated 2 minute pickup time at a cost of $15.34. I could see it being cheaper if you top 20% - but I don't tip nearly that high on Uber rides.
I will admit that I could possibly be self-selecting to peak times as I own a car in the city, so I only use ride share in the evenings; so it may very well be the case that the price/wait is more competitive at off-peak hours.
Furthermore, it's quite surprising to me that it seems that the human labor cost doesn't affect the price at all. The only price controls seems to be demand and the latent demand is enough to create a price floor where there is always a human that is willing to drive. It also seems like plain old logistics and traffic will prevent Waymo from providing enough supply to offer dirt cheap rides. The fact that a ride that would have cost me $5 in 2016 is almost 4x as much with "magic self driving technology" is not something I could have told my 2016 self.
You are also comparing Way-mo to UberX when it is more comparable to Uber comfort, but that’s often only a few dollars difference. Really, Waymo needs to come to Seattle, our uber costs are sky high and it would be easy to actually be cheaper than most uber rides here when it’s already $40 to go a short distance.
I've taken Waymo only twice (I try to avoid SF), from the ferry building to Chinatown, then back. Both times it was more expensive than Lyft with tip, but only by $2-3. It's good to know it can be cheaper.
Not all Waymo riders actually want the premium cars and we can’t assume that’s why they are choosing Waymo.
We have to assume that some and perhaps most riders would prefer to pay less to ride in a cheaper car but are mainly choosing Waymo because its autonomous (cool factor, the no-human factor).
Also, California mandates autonomous vehicles be fully electric by 2030. So Waymo literally has to be driving some kind of EV to comply very soon.
Jaguar’s I-pace was a poor-selling EV SUV from a struggling company with a lot of leftover inventory, so it’s almost a guarantee that Waymo got a great fleet deal on them.
The cars are comfortable, even if they aren’t popular. If I had to choose between a beat up Prius uber-X or a Jaguar for a few dollars more, I’m definitely choosing the latter. I had a Mercedes (older cheaper model with mechanical issues) Uber-X fall apart on my ride in Orange County last month (my son and I were dumped near a nice mall at least), also I bet the Waymo doesn’t smell like cigarette smoke.
To me the consistency in Waymos is so valuable. If I take a Waymo in SF or LA it's gonna be the same type of car, it's very well kept, the driver has the same driving style and the same conversation preferences.
Unfortunately I’ve only used it a few times in SF, but I would really love that. I don’t prefer human drivers much anymore (like I want to use self checkout at a grocery store). I’m going to Beijing in a couple of weeks and hope to try whatever they have going on there.
It’s really not that hard to buy a metro ticket. But we pay/alipay will make it easier, or I could just get a couple of IC cards that have been around since forever.
Not always and not everywhere. I lived in Beijing for 9 years on a subway line (well, after line 10 opened) that would have taken me almost straight to work, but it was so packed I still took a taxi. Maybe the extra lines/capacity makes it more comfortable now, but it wasn’t Tokyo when I was living there.
Worth noting how much the quality of each tier of Uber has degraded as well. In 2025, Uber Black car/driver quality is like Uber-X of 2019. Not unusual to get in an Uber Black with blown out shocks, smelling of cigarettes and streetcart food. Reminds me of yellow cab days.
It’s great that you and the other contrarians in this thread value that, but my point is that the general consumer likely overwhelmingly chooses to pick whatever is cheapest save for specialized selections like XL or pet.
I think the best evidence of that is how uber/lyft has to use grey-ish patterns to get you to choose upmarket options. They don’t list the fares sorted by price or even list the options in a consistent order, they will strongly suggest upsells like comfort or black or whatever tier they think gives the best chance of convincing you to pay more than the bare minimum.
They also upsell faster pickup which I have to think is a way better value proposition than sitting in a nicer car temporarily.
The wait times have gotten better, they're getting freeway approval shortly which will be nice, the price is still at a premium (but worth it imo). I only take Waymo in SF now.
The only time I take Uber in the bay area is to the airport (and when they approve Waymo for SFO I won't take Uber then either).
I generally find that Waymos are cheaper than Uber/Lyft including tip.
I’ve also seen that, although Uber and Lyft peak times seem correlated to each other, they seem uncorrelated to Waymo peak activity. But this might be stabilizing as Waymo ridership increases.
The real question is why tip on either of those? You pay through the app, the driver is compensated for their time, why tip extra? If you feel that Uber/Lyft are mistreating their drivers, stop using their service, not pay them on the side?
Surely incidental since the typical price per ride is about the same. Generally though, the relationship between the cost to operate a service profitably and the price presented to the user is very complex, so just because the price happens to be x right now doesn't tell you much. For example, something like 30% of the price of an iPhone is markup.
> while having a longer wait time for a car
Obviously incidental?
> It also couldn’t operate on the highway so the transit time was nearly double.
Obviously easily fixable?
> One shouldn’t underestimate how economical real human operators are.
There's nothing to underestimate, human drivers don't scale the way software drivers do. It doesn't matter how little humans cost, they are competing with software that can be copied for free.
> Waymo can’t share the business expense of their vehicles with their employees
They can share parking space, cleaning services, maintenance, parts for repair, etc.
> I’m sure it’ll improve but this tells me that Waymo’s price per vehicle including all the R&D expenses must be astronomical.
Obviously, they're in the development phase. None of this matters long term.
> They are burning $2 billion a year at the current rate even though they have revenue service.
"The stock market went up 2% yesterday so it will go up 2% today too and every day after that."
> Plus, they actually have a lot of human operators to correct issues and talk to police and things like that.
Said operators are shared between all vehicles and their number will go down over time as the driving software improves.
---
To sum up, every single part of what Waymo is trying to do scales. Every problem you've mentioned is either incidental or a one-off cost long term.
The number one tech bro blind spot is the assumption that everything in the physical world scales with software and that every business and type of cost benefits greatly from economies of scale and the removal of human labor.
There are a great number of examples where that’s not true. Cookie store chains like Crumbl are a really good example. All the economies of scale stuff with them backfires. The product is too low price and too simple to make in batches, so the businesses with the best margins are ones that avoid traditional brick and mortar rent and don’t hire employees.
In the same way, an uber or taxi’s labor cost seems like it’s a huge scaling problem that needs to be resolved but really think about the costs involved with creating that scale to replace them.
Let’s not forget that at Waymo they still need a human to clean, fix, and charge/gas up, interact with customers and police, resolve driving edge cases, etc, all costs that a human driver essentially includes with their pay and does for “free.” Then you’ve got car storage and the capital expense of the vehicle that the uber driver heavily subsidizes and splits between business and personal use.
Basically, Waymo is looking to compete using their very complex and sophisticated solution in a market where its competitors are hiring lowest bidder temporary contractors.
Uber drivers are already paid low wages and any price competition can lower their wages further.
Waymo has to pay for things that “come with” uber drivers: the cars, storage for the cars, employees to clean and maintain the cars, extra infrastructure to support the self driving cars like cellular data for each car, data centers, engineers, customer service to interact with police and resolve edge cases (will never go away). Waymo also has to pay all these people healthcare benefits and pay W2 payroll, not a thing for Uber.
Waymo is like a professional moving company competing on price with an army of lowest bidder independent contractors who already have a beat up graffiti van.
My experience using Waymos in SF is that they are a little less expensive than an Uber. The other advantage is that you aren't stuck with a driver who hits on you or wants to share his opinions on the best way to slaughter goats.
Waymo is significantly more expensive than UberX nowadays. People are happily willing to pay for the better experience (and tourists probably the novelty)
I mean yeah, right now they've hit the point of being quite safe, but they're not necessarily as fast as human drivers. They'll keep making incremental progress and will get there eventually, probably.
So far, every time there's been self driving car progress, someone's been like, "okay yeah, but can they do <the next thing they're working on> yet??" like some weird gotcha. Tech progress is incremental, shocking I know.
> One shouldn’t underestimate how economical real human operators are
That's such a silly statement. One shouldn’t underestimate how UNeconomical real humans are.
In the past 12,000 years, human efficiency has improved, maybe, 10x. In the past 100 years, technological efficiency has improved, maybe, 1,000,000x.
Any tiny technological improvement can be instantly replicated and scaled. Meanwhile, every individual human needs to be re-trained and re-grown. They're extremely temperamental, with expensive upkeep, very short lifespans and even shorter productive lifespans.
In fact, humans have improved so little, that every time, they scoff at the new technology and say it will never take off, and they're still doing it 12,000 years later, right now, right above this post.
The misconception here is that technology just magically runs on its own.
No, it’s created by and maintained by humans. You’re shifting the cost of a driver to software engineers, data analysis, people mapping out roads, etc.
This is why Uber doesn’t make any money, despite being more expensive for the customer as compared to traditional taxi services. Coordinating Ubers across the country costs a lot of servers and a lot of engineers. Sure, the system is automatic - maintaining it isn’t.
So you end up with a lose-lose-lose scenario. The ride is more expensive for the customer. The driver makes less money. And Uber bleeds hundreds of millions a year.
Technology is neat, yes, but often we don’t stop and think “wait… does this make sense?”
We don’t know if autonomous cars make any economic sense. They could end up not. It doesn’t help that 99% of tech companies in the transportation space are just making trains with extra steps. Like, guys - have we even done feasibility analysis?
I've used Waymo in both LA and SF and lived it. However, wait times in LA varied hugely. Downtown LA one evening was over twenty minutes and a few hours later less than five. I wonder if they just don't have enough vehicles there and because it's such sprawl it can easily happen that no car is nearby.
Waymo rides are also potentially slower because they strictly follow speed limits. Not really problematic in downtown SF but it’ll be interesting to see how it’ll be received by riders when they expand to highway driving where most people generally expect to drive over the speed limit.
On most trips people do speeding saves an irrelevant amount of time. If somehow you encounter zero traffic from Palo Alto to SF and you go 15mph over the limit the whole way it makes the trip about 5 minutes shorter.
You have about 50% more KE at 80mph as you do at 65mph btw, if you find yourself needing to dissipate that energy rapidly.
Sure, there’s the math, but there’s also the human nature part of it. If you’re sitting in the right lane doing the speed limit, watching dozens of cars consistently zip past, it feels like you’re “falling behind” all of that traffic. I wonder how that will be received by the riding public.
For the opposite experience, take a taxi in a low- or maybe middle-income country.
There's a good chance the driver will zoom past everything else, weaving between lanes accordingly, and you'll wish you were one of the slow vehicles. Although I'd be less concerned if the seatbelts worked.
When I'm traveling substantially below traffic speed I'm also decently concerned about becoming the scene of the accident. Sure it won't be me paying for the accident but I'd just rather not risk it.
This is often repeated, yet despite the studies on speed differentials being dangerous I am still skeptical of the more specific claim that driving the speed limit specifically when others are speeding increases your risk of getting in an accident.
It's likely often repeated because if you try driving 55 in a 55mph zone where people are driving between 62-70, it'sterrifying, it feels like you're stopped. Whether the stat is true or not remains to be seen, but intuitively, it makes a lot of sense. Sure, your risk of rear ending someone at that point is probably negligible, but the odds of being rear ended? Hard to say
When I’m driving the speed limit and everyone is going much faster I feel fine… they all just flow around me… if they weren’t able to flow, they wouldn’t be flying past.
In the UK the speed limit for goods vehicles is 10 mph below the limit for cars on motorways so there are plenty of vehicles driving below the limit.
The real risk is the opposite, cars bunched together at the same speed. This is where pileups occur, somebody at the front does something stupid and the people at the back end up colliding.
That's the correct indicator to look for: the number of Waymos on the road is still very small compared to the number of other vehicles. Alphabet wouldn't risk the cost of expanding to the current number of cities without very strong confidence that they're not going to lose their shirt doing it.
The evidence so far is that they are throttling demand by keeping the prices above that of an Uber. It's definitely still an experiment. If the experiment is successful, expect to see more cities and more vehicles in each city in expanding service areas.
There are step changes that have to be made to keep waymo expanding. The tariff situation is blocking plans to have dedicated vehicles from China. That has to get sorted out. The exact shape of the business model is still experimental.
Of course it's got to be safe. But there are dozens of dull details that all have to work between now and having a profitable business. The best indicator of a plausible success is that Waymo appears to be competent at managing these details. So far anyway.
> One of the drivers had 56 near crashes and 4 actual crashes in less than 20K miles!
There would be a strong argument to simply banning the worst 1% of drivers from driving, and maybe even compensating them with lifetime free taxi rides, on the taxpayers dime.
Nah, just revoke their licenses and make it much harder to get one to begin with. Autonomous driving removes the economic necessity of having one. Just get a proper car that can drive you to work. No need for you to do anything. Catch up on lost sleep (a common cause of accidents is people being to tired to drive) or whatever.
Expect to pay for the privilege of driving yourself and putting others at risk. If you really want to drive yourself, you'll just have to skill up to get a license and proper training, get extra insurance for the increased liability, etc. And then if you prove to be unworthy of having a license after all, it will be taken away. Because it's a privilege and not a right to have one and others on the road will insist that you are competent to drive. And with all the autonomous and camera equipped cars, incompetent drivers will be really easy to spot and police.
It will take a while before we get there; this won't happen overnight. But that's where it's going. Most people will choose not to drive most of the time for financial reasons. Driving manually then becomes a luxury. Getting a license becomes optional, not a rite of passage that every teenager takes. Eventually, owning cars that enable manual driving will become more expensive or may not even be road legal in certain areas. Etc.
Lower income people, in the U.S., tend to live in cheap areas and use a car to access employment in an hour+ radius. Making driving expensive for them simply means limiting their employment or cutting them off from it entirely.
Driving should not be a privilege exclusively for rich people. Poor people cannot afford to pay an Uber to drive them around and can’t afford to buy some Tesla with FSD either. Waymo would be grossly unaffordable for a 120 mile daily round trip commute.
In Australia I met people with even longer commutes - going 150km to get to a job, mostly due to how unaffordable housing has become.
If you want to take away people’s cars, you need to make sure they can access employment and have affordable, safe housing. Remember that half the population makes less than the median income.
False equivalency. Even taken to extreme ends nothing here can be construed as suggesting "only the wealthy" should be allowed or able to drive.
The moment someone suggests enforcement of a law someone comes running in yelling about how it's regressive and will disproportionately affect the poor, and by extension "only the wealthy" will be able to do whatever.
Everything disproportionately affects the poor because it's very hard to be poor.
And the moment you say we shouldn't enforce laws because it will make poor peoples' lives harder you are saying that something is no longer a privilege. That poor people should be able to break the law with lesser or no consequence because they are poor.
I wonder if there should be a two-tiered structure to replace the traditional drivers license. In flying, you can get a Private Pilot License, or you can get a Sport Pilot Certificate, which is easier to get but has fewer privileges. It would be interesting to see a state replace a drivers license with the Sport level license, which would only let you drive a vehicle up to 6,000 pounds (Cadillac Escalade), have other restrictions, and have a higher insurance rate. Then the higher level license would require additional training (somewhere between current DL requirements and the monthlong requirement for a CDL) and let you drive the full limit of 26,000 pounds and you'd get discounted insurance.
If you stop one person then maybe it becomes impossible to get from their give to their job. If you stop all the poor people from doing it then what happens? The jobs don't evaporate. Maybe it becomes economical to run a bus, or open more businesses outside the CBD.
In the vast majority of cases, being a bad driver is a lifestyle choice, not an incurable condition. No-one should be granted a right to present a significant danger to other people as a consequence of making bad and avoidable lifestyle choices.
I wonder if there will be a gap between (1) AVs being so common that driving for Uber doesn't make financial sense, and (2) AVs being able to operate in all driving conditions. I imagine people at a concert all fleeing for AV taxis after receiving alerts of unexpected fog coming.
>>Nah, just revoke their licenses and make it much harder to get one to begin with
I 1000% agree with you, but unfortunately in some countries like the US that kind of argument leads to nowhere, because people think driving is a human right and also the entire country is built around having a car so you are actually truly screwed if you don't have one.
>> Autonomous driving removes the economic necessity of having one. Just get a proper car that can drive you to work.
Sure, except it doesn't exist and I honestly doubt it ever(in the next 50-100 years) will. If you need autonomous driving that takes you to your destination that already exists though - it's called a taxi.
The type of people who frequently cause collisions are the same people that will drive without a license. And because they're also judgment proof deadbeats they often don't have liability insurance either.
You can banned for a longish time and then have to do an "idiot" test (as they call it) to get your license back. In addition you have to supply hair samples so that you prove you've not been taking any further substance (in recent history).
Generally you have to do a lot to get banned for life - remember Germany is run by car lobbies, they are not interested in banning people from driving,
If you are caught driving above the legal limit of 0.05% you are fined roughly $570, are prohibited from driving for 1 month, and receive 2 “points”. Points accumulate and once you reach 8 you lose your drivers license. In this case you would keep the points for five years. Many different driving offences give you points.
For comparison, to get a similar penalty by speeding you would have to exceed the speed limit by 51 km/h (32 mph).
There are many additional related offences you could commit, with different consequences. Repeat offences to the above, for example, are punished more severely: you get 3 months instead of 1 and the fine is doubled and tripled for the second and third offence, respectively. Already with a blood alcohol level of 0.03% you risk legal consequences, e.g. if you make an error while driving. If you endanger someone else (or property) with that level you are committing a crime, will lose your license, and can go to prison. If you are in your probationary period (two years after acquiring your license), any nonzero level is an offence.
Losing your license is generally temporary. You are blocked from re-acquiring it for some time, depending on the offence (at least 6 months, but can be multiple years). You have to complete an MPU, which certifies your ability to safely drive. For alcohol based offences, this would include demonstrating that you have reduced your consumption significantly. This can be quite harsh; you may, for example, be required to show complete abstinence for a period of one year. Of course, you are also looking at costs close to $1000 for the MPU alone. It is possible to get permanently blocked from driving, but it's quite difficult, I believe.
My impression from the internet is that the US is particularly weak on this - people talk about tickets for DUIs like it's not a big deal.
In the UK you get a minimum 12 month ban, an unlimited fine (which are based on income and have been quite big in the past (Dec of Ant and Dec got an £86000 fine). I don't think this approach is uncommon in Europe.
It’s not. Yearlong suspension where I live, major fines, and you basically need to get a lawyer to navigate the process which is generally at least $10k. You become almost uninsurable and have to show proof to the court you carry insurance, or else you go straight to jail and your car gets impounded if you get pulled over.
With a valid employment reason (such as snow plow operator) you can get an employment only permit. Your insurance will easily be $1000 a month just for basic liability. I’ve known a few guys in this situation.
The bigger problem is people who are judgment proof and don’t mind spending some time in jail. They just drive drunk over and over and don’t care if their car (which is often a relative’s) gets impounded. They have no valid licence and no insurance. Short of permanent incarceration, there isn’t much they can be done about such people.
> The bigger problem is people who are judgment proof and don’t mind spending some time in jail. They just drive drunk over and over and don’t care if their car (which is often a relative’s) gets impounded. They have no valid licence and no insurance. Short of permanent incarceration, there isn’t much they can be done about such people.
Yep, when you get down to this root fact, it's nearly impossibly to _actually_ stop someone from driving a car. If you make insurance mandatory, they will still not buy insurance. If you revoke their license, they will keep driving without it. If you fine them, they just won't pay. If they go to jail for it, they'll resume driving when they get out.
Yes something like free bus card and N kilometers of taxi fares per month, so that :
1. People who normally take the bus are not incentivise to get their driving license /make a big accident
2. People already driving are still blt rewarded ,just not blocked
3. One may argue that if some of the borderline "not that dangerous but still..." driver do it on purpose to cross the line it still may benefits soxiety economically wise
> If they break the law and drive anyway, put them in jail.
They are going to drive anyway, because in most of the USA, you need a car to get basically anywhere, including to work. So now instead of just being a bad driver, they're also unemployed and sitting in jail, which taxpayers are paying for. There are people with dozens of DUIs, totally uninsurable, their licenses pretty much permanently revoked, and they still drive every day.
Yes, people will break the law. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished for it, and it doesn't mean that we shouldn't do things that are good for society (telling bad drivers they're no longer allowed to drive) because some percentage of those people will decide of their own volition to break the law.
> Someone willing to operate a motor vehicle without a license is one step away from manslaughter.
I suspect there are plenty of undocumented immigrants in states that don't have the equivalent of AB 60 licenses who are perfectly safe drivers. Perhaps even safer than licensed drivers, since they have more to lose from moving violations.
We're not talking about people who are here illegally, we're talking about people who have already proven they are incapable or unwilling to operate a motor vehicle safely, get punished for it, and decide to drive anyway.
It really depends on whether there's shame attached, which isn't easy to control.
A private chef sounds good to me; having to go and collect specially marked "safe" meals at the supermarket with a card that's only given to adults the state deems incapable of looking after themselves, not so much.
It kinda works already without outright banning them: the mandatory insurance will get more and more expensive the more accidents they have.
So they price themselves out.
Of course, they may then decide not to have insurance at all. In most countries that is illegal and doing that in a premeditated way is criminality and something else entirely.
Not sure if insurance is mandatory in the US or not - I assume instead you just get into a gunfight with the other party instead?/s
Not sure if insurance is mandatory in the US or not
It's mandatory and requiring proof when you register your car. Your insurer also has a line to the DMV (car registration government) to say, "FYI this guy is not insured" and the DMV gets mad.
In the report California states up to 13% of the US residents of some areas do not happen to possess documentation documenting their legality of being in the US. Often they came from countries with no insurance requirement, so they are unaware of American culture and policies in this regard. The report also states 10% of drivers are uninsured. I'm not sure why the DMV isn't getting mad in this case, being informed the car is not insured. So it's "mandatory" but 10% of drivers are not insured. Similar to how in California retail theft is technically "illegal" but a lot of people will do that without consequences. Honestly if you ask me we need to be waiving the insurance requirement for cultural reasons and take a verbal Spanish-first policy to help accommodate people who have undocumented English skills or are without documentation of being literate.
Just because it costs the government 10mil or whatever when they have an oopsie and kill someone doesn't mean anyone outside the .gov is actually seeing a cent. It's mostly overhead of cleanup, both physical and legal/process.
I bet the actual payouts to families are similar for normal deaths that don't result in a media spectacle and the court of public opinion being involved.
They can't charge $20k/yr because that costs more than buying a POS, not registering it and getting it out of impound a couple times and then abandoning it.
With numbers like that you're fundamentally running against the people's willingness to comply (which includes the cop's willingness to enforce).
They're not losing money. They're taking it from everyone else.
"oh you hit a mailbox during an ice storm that we paid out $50 for after your deductible, that'll be a $400/6mo increase in premiums for the next five years"
Still doesn't seem to add up. Consider someone that causes accidents at a rate of £20k/yr, and whose insurance is £4k/y. Either they're insanely wealthy and are paying the repair costs themselves via deductibles, or the insurance companies are losing money.
You don't understand. Insurance is using that person as a pretext to jack up the rate of everyone who shares demographics with that person. Even if that person is only paying in 80% of what they cost on a 5yr basis a bunch of cheaper people are getting screwed into paying 200%. It works better for insurance company this way because at least they're getting 80% out of the guy rather than zero.
Demographic risk pooling makes sense for moderate-risk individuals (despite being ethically horrendous). But for extreme outliers like this, the insurance company has a very high expectation that they're going to lose money in the coming year if they offer a premium below 15-20k. It just doesn't make financial sense to do so. At least in the UK you're obliged to declare the last five years of accidents and claims when applying for insurance, and I'd be surprised if they're not looking out for red flags like this.
It’s mandatory. That doesn’t stop people from driving a relative’s car with no insurance. Or driving with expired tags.
Good luck if such a person hits you; they’ll simply drive off. Recently a friend of mine had a fender bender with someone else, most likely his fault. That person didn’t have a valid registration or insurance and wasn’t at fault but begged to just go without calling the police. My friend handed them the cash out of his pocket since he felt bad for damaging their car, but they did NOT want to see the police.
The only way to enforce not having expired tags/no licence/no insurance is strict police enforcement. A lot of Americans don’t like that and so police agencies end up being lenient, preferring to focus on more violent crimes instead of just trying to pull every car with expired tags over.
Sorry if you're having a car crash every 6 months or less, you shouldn't have a license.
Driving a car is privilege granted to you by your state, and this state is negligent in its protection of everyone else by letting this idiot continue to drive. Sell your car, take the bus, move closer to work, I don't care.
More than 3 at-fault crashes in a year or more than 10 at-fault crashes ever and you should permanently lose your license forever. That seems more than generous enough.
> Sorry if you're having a car crash every 6 months or less, you shouldn't have a license.
Actual traffic enforcement does not seem to produce this result. This woman is fairly famous on Reddit for her erratic driving, and was reported in 2019 as having been involved in 31 crashes since 2000: https://www.wral.com/story/lawyer-stayumbl-driver-a-victim-o...
There is already a mechanism for this that the government doesn’t even have to be directly involved in - insurance. At some point you become prohibitively expensive to insure.
However, the government still has to do its part and actually enforce insurance requirements.
My pet hypothesis is that there is a tipping point where the feedback loop between driver safety, ai advancements, and insurance costs will doom manually driven cars faster than most people think.
Here in Norway we've got a point system[1], and I'm sure we didn't invent it.
Each point lasts for 3 years, and if you accumulate more than 8 you lose your license for 6 months.
A speeding ticket is at least two points, and running a red light or tailgating is three for example. You get double points the first two years after getting your license.
It's probably some old "bingo and church" driver who has a 50-50 shot of winding up in the ditch if it snows during Bingo and that "20k" is actually "8yr", the kind of thing insurance would never know about if you're not getting towing coverage through them.
Waymo definitely operates on bad weather. In fact, that is when I use it most since I don't want to walk or bike in the city when its pouring. The wait times are longer on those days.
City driving is very chaotic. Though speeds tend to be lower so likely accidents would be just fender benders. They don't operate on freeways.
> Serious crash rates are a hockey stick pattern. 20% of the drivers cause 80% of the crashes, to a rough approximation. For the worst 20% of drivers, the Waymo is almost certainly better already.
I would wager that those 20% of drivers also are disproportionally under the influence of drugs, impaired in any way (i.e., stroke, heart attack, etc), or experiencing sudden unexpected events such as equipment malfunction.
You forgot "being an idiot" and it's strange, because the vast majority of the accidents are caused by that. Have you never watched "idiots driving" videos on YouTube?
Stupid behavior is not exclusive to being on drugs, heart attack or equipment malfunction though.
While I like watching those videos I suspect a fair share of them has a deeper explanation than "being an idiot”. But it’s a lot less fun to watch when you imagine the guy driving may be in a desperate position.
Btw the meaning of idiot is “someone ignorant". As contextless external watchers of a crash, the real idiots are probably you and me, the YouTube watchers.
You'd be correct. At least as far as fatalities are concerned. 50% of all fatalities involve drugs or alcohol. Around 50% of all fatalities are single vehicle accidents though. 15% are motorcycles. 15% are pedestrians.
And of course around 80% involve youth, testosterone and horsepower in some combination. The rest are almost always weather or terrain related in some way. Massive pileups on the highway in the winter and upside down vehicles on waterways in the summer.
Very rarely does a fatal accident happen without several factors being present.
What about the benefit to the 80% if the 20% were obligated to use software instead of their own wetware in a hypothetical world where this was feasible in all respects. Imagine if you transitioned to most new drivers for instance being issued only permits to use self driving vehicles and older drivers being obligated to switch at 65.
As someone getting on towards 65 I have to point out that insurance rates are less for the 65-70s than for any group younger that 55, and claim rates are lower than for any of the under 65s. My relatives didn't really start crashing into stuff till they got to about 90. And then it was kind of slow motion. (for this data https://www.abi.org.uk/products-and-issues/choosing-the-righ...)
Is that because you're better or because you're less exposed?
Not a lot of 65yo people working 80hr weeks, slogging out 50-100mi commutes or plowing into moose while blinded by the 6am sun on their way back from 3rd shift.
Insurance rates have a mileage component that should address that, although the smallest mileage category may be too large to really capture that. But if you're doing a 100 mile commute 5 days a week, that's likely beyond the lowest category.
There is talk of per-mile insurance becoming a thing, maybe when per-mile registration taxes finally are? This would benefit a lot of us that come way under the lowest band.
Yes, I’ve seen a few but so far never cheaper than per mile insurance, at least where I live. I’ll talk to my agent next year to see if my current home owner insurance company has one that works that way. My current policy uses my phone to track and reward driving habits, but it tracks my bus rides as car rides as well, which sucks. Can’t they come up with an Apple car app or something?
I don’t want to be penalized if I come to a sudden halt on a remote back road, with no one around, to remove a turtle, or a tire, or a bedframe from the road.
(Yes, I’ve done all of the above, multiple times.)
They are more careful. They drive more slowly. They are more afraid. They are safer drives considering outcomes. The problem here is that people say "better driver" can be evaluated in various ways, safety only one of them. Many people think, for example, that if you get there faster, you are better driver. Or if you can show quick thinking by sudden movements.
> Not a lot of 65yo people working 80hr weeks, slogging out 50-100mi commutes or plowing into moose while blinded by the 6am sun on their way back from 3rd shift.
People who drive in that state are one of two things: irresponsible or poor with no other choice.
Driving regularly while tired and sleep deprived is a big factor in accidents ... and that many people are somehow seeing it as heroship rather then being irresponsible is a cultural issue.
Personally I'd say a mix of factors. Experience, a bit more cautious / laid back as in driving slower / leaving more distance, and probably less miles overall.
New drivers become better drivers by driving and gaining experience. This is why some states implement a mandatory minimum practice duration before you can get a license. Mandating they don't practice would be detrimental to the driving culture as it would skew in favor of AI by preventing learning in the first place.
Some Australian provinces give you "P-Plates." These limit your privileges even after getting your license. Limits on number of passengers, times of day you can drive, and a horsepower limit. All of which are from many bloody lessons.
Tbf, like with many things in that country, I think it's fair to say Australians take this way too far. You're a grown adult who can drink alcohol, go fight for your country, get married etc etc....but god forbid that you drive after dark.
While Australia does take things too far, I’m actually on their side here. Driving has been too normalized. You’re operating a 2 ton chunk of metal at 60+ mph inches away from other people. Australia has far fewer pedestrian deaths per capita than the US does, and enforcing a higher skill bar for more difficult situations must be part of that.
Saying you can't drive with 2 passangers at night has nothing to do with skill - if it did, you could pass a test to demonstrate that you can do this safely. Instead it's just another "you're not mature enough to do this" restriction which is bonkers. Again, you can drive this 2 ton chunk of metal, but at night? With passangers?? Phwoar, we can't have that.
Isn't it rather saying that you're not experienced enough to do this. Speaking only for myself, I passed my driving test no problem and after a couple of month of driving I thought I was a great driver. Yet looking back now with the benefit of experience I know for a fact I did some really stupid things that first year of driving and it was only luck rather skill that led to me not getting into an accident.
Again, that would make sense if it applied equally for all new drivers - but if you're over 25 then there is no such restriction, even if you got your licence a day before. You have zero experience behind the wheel but you're fine to drive in a car full of people, but someone who has been driving for 7 years but is one day short of 25 can't do it - who is the more experienced driver there?
So yeah, it's all about "not being mature enough".
The main reason we don't revoke licenses more aggressively right now is that America's infrastructure is so car-oriented that forcing people to never drive again can be a disruption on-par with being added to the sex-offender registry (1).
If self-driving cars became prevalent, I can absolutely see it leading to an increase in license revocation as a punishment for unsafe driving.
(1) Setting aside one's personal opinion on which is more dangerous to society: people on the sex-offender registry or drunk drivers.
I think that no matter how good Waymo is doing, there is still the problem of who is responsible when a self driving is involved in a serious accident.
The only solution to that is probably to only let self driving cars onto the road, in an all-or-nothing solution.
Honestly, at this point I am more interested in whether they can operate their service profitably and affordably, because they are clearly nailing the technical side.
For example data from a 100 driver study, see table 2.11, p. 29. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/37370 Roughly the same number of drivers had 0 or 1 near-crashes as had 13-50+. One of the drivers had 56 near crashes and 4 actual crashes in less than 20K miles! So the average isn't that helpful here.