ARE WAYMOS SAFER THAN HUMANS DRIVING A CAR?

The race to develop autonomous vehicles (AVs) has reached a pivotal moment. Alphabet-owned Waymo, widely regarded as the frontrunner in the field, has rolled out fully driverless taxis in Phoenix, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, with plans to expand to additional cities. But as more Waymo vehicles hit public roads without human drivers, the question looms large: Are they truly safer than the people they’re replacing behind the wheel?

Autonomous Waymo Jaguar I-Pace.
Source: Wikipedia

The Promise of Safety


Every year, more than 40,000 people die in traffic crashes in the United States, and experts attribute over 90% of those deaths to human error—impaired driving, distraction, fatigue, and speeding. Waymo and other AV developers argue that by eliminating those human failings, autonomous systems could drastically cut fatalities.


Waymo's vehicles are powered by a combination of lidar, radar, high-definition mapping, cameras, and machine learning systems that allow them to perceive their surroundings in all directions, day or night. Unlike human drivers, they never drink, text, fall asleep, or get distracted. In theory, that gives them a major advantage.

Annual US traffic fatalities per billion vehicle miles traveled (red), miles traveled (blue), per one million people (orange), total annual deaths (light blue), VMT in tens of billions (dark blue), and population in millions (teal), from 1921 to 2017. Source: Wikipedia

The Data So Far


Waymo has been relatively transparent about its safety record, releasing annual safety reports and independent analyses. According to a 2023 study conducted with Swiss Re, Waymo's driverless vehicles were involved in roughly 85% fewer injury-causing crashes than human-driven cars in comparable settings. A separate analysis of Waymo's operations in Phoenix found that the company’s fleet had not been involved in a single fatal crash over millions of autonomous miles.


That said, AVs are not immune to incidents. Waymo vehicles have been in minor fender-benders, most often caused by other human drivers misjudging the AV’s conservative driving style. In San Francisco, for example, there have been reports of human drivers rear-ending Waymos that stop more cautiously than typical motorists. The good news: these crashes have been overwhelmingly low-speed and low-severity.

Waymo’s driverless system avoids and mitigates crashes more effectively than human drivers in simulated tests, supporting real-world findings of significantly lower injury crash rates. Source: Waymo

Comparing to Human Drivers


To fairly assess AV safety, experts compare crash rates per million miles driven. Human drivers in the U.S. experience about 4.2 crashes with police reports per million miles. Waymo’s autonomous fleet has consistently come in lower, with about 2.1 reportable crashes per million miles—and, importantly, none involving life-threatening injuries.


Yet skeptics argue that the data pool is still too small. While Waymo has logged more than 20 million autonomous miles on public roads, Americans drive over 3 trillion miles annually. That’s a vast gulf, and some say it’s premature to declare Waymo—or any AV—safer overall until billions of miles are logged.

Public Perception and Trust


Despite strong safety data, many Americans remain wary of robotaxis. A 2024 AAA survey found that 68% of U.S. drivers say they are afraid of riding in a fully self-driving vehicle. High-profile incidents involving competitors, such as GM’s Cruise—whose fleet was suspended in California after a pedestrian injury—have only fueled skepticism.


Waymo has largely avoided such scandals, but building public trust remains a challenge. The company has emphasized slow, deliberate rollouts, extensive safety testing, and transparent data-sharing. Its vehicles also include redundancies: two separate computing systems, fail-safe braking, and remote monitoring teams that can intervene if unusual situations arise.

Despite strong safety records, public trust in self-driving vehicles remains low—two-thirds of U.S. drivers report feeling afraid, a figure that has held steady in recent years. Source: AAA

Strengths and Limitations


Waymo’s cautious, rules-based driving style is both its biggest strength and its biggest criticism. On the one hand, the system virtually eliminates risky human behaviors like running red lights, speeding, or weaving through traffic. On the other, it can frustrate passengers and other drivers when the AV hesitates too long at an intersection or refuses to make an assertive lane change.


Another limitation: Waymo’s operations are geofenced. Unlike a human driver who can take you anywhere, Waymo currently only drives in pre-mapped service areas. Expanding to new cities requires intensive mapping and simulation work, slowing its growth compared to human drivers’ flexibility.

The Road Ahead


Regulators are watching closely. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has generally been supportive of AV development but has required companies like Waymo to file crash reports and safety disclosures. Some safety advocates argue that more stringent oversight is needed, especially as robotaxis expand into dense urban areas.


Waymo, for its part, is doubling down on transparency. Its safety reports outline not just crash data but also disengagement rates (times when human operators had to take over in earlier testing), system redundancies, and ethical approaches to difficult driving scenarios. The company has also invested heavily in simulation, logging over 20 billion simulated miles annually, which allows it to practice extremely rare but dangerous scenarios, such as a child running into the street.

The interior of a Waymo Jaguar I-Pace robotaxi as it autonomously drives through San Francisco. Source: Wikipedia

Conclusion: Safer, But Still Evolving


So, are Waymo’s driverless cars safer than human drivers? The evidence to date suggests yes—at least in the limited environments where they currently operate. Waymo’s vehicles avoid the most dangerous human failings and have logged millions of miles without a single passenger fatality.


But “safer” doesn’t mean “perfect.” AVs remain a new technology, with plenty of hurdles in public perception, regulatory approval, and scaling to new areas. For now, the best framing may be this: Waymo’s cars appear to be incrementally safer than human drivers and, if deployed widely, could reduce crashes and save lives.


The ultimate question is whether society will embrace a cautious, rule-abiding robot driver—even if it’s safer—over the faster, riskier, but all-too-familiar human behind the wheel.

TACKLING SAFETY: FOOTBALL, CTE, AND WHAT ACTUALLY MAKES THE GAME SAFER

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • October 13, 2025
We are now in the middle of another football season, and the question, as asked every year: Is this sport safe enough for our high school, college, and professional athletes to play? Football has always been a violent sport of collision, glory, and growing concern. Over the last decade, research tying repetitive head impacts to chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) has shaken parents, players, and the game’s governing bodies. The central realities are straightforward but sobering: repeated head impacts — both diagnosed concussions and the many “sub-concussive” blows players take — are linked to later-life brain pathology; helmets and add-ons can lower impact forces, but no helmet or cover has been shown to prevent CTE; and rule and culture changes that reduce the number and severity of head impacts are where the biggest gains lie.

CHAOS AT THE CDC: A THREAT TO AMERICA’S HEALTHCARE SYSTEM

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • September 10, 2025
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has long been viewed as the nation’s front-line defense against disease outbreaks, health emergencies, and public health threats. But today, the agency faces internal turmoil, political interference, and organizational confusion that experts warn could have dangerous consequences for the U.S. healthcare system—and for ordinary Americans.

TEXAS HILL COUNTRY FLOODS: DID WARNINGS FAIL VICTIMS?

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • August 7, 2025
From July 3–4, 2025, Central Texas—especially Kerr County and the Guadalupe River basin—experienced catastrophic flash flooding that claimed over 130 lives, including children and staff at Camp Mystic. As grief and outrage settle, survivors and officials alike are questioning whether enough was done to warn those most at risk.

TEXAS LEADS THE NATION: WARNING LABELS ON ADDITIVES

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • July 9, 2025
On June 22, 2025, Governor Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 25 (SB25), known as the Make Texas Healthy Again Act. Beginning January 1, 2027, Texas will require prominent on-pack warning labels whenever food sold in the state contains any of 44 specific additives—including synthetic colorants like Red 40, Yellow 5, Blue 1, titanium dioxide, bleached flour, and partially hydrogenated oils. The mandated label must declare the following:

WARNING: FDA DELAYS IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE THAT WOULD REQUIRE NEW NUTRITION LABELING

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • May 27, 2025
The FDA is delaying implementation of a rule that would require food companies to print nutritional information on the front labels of their products. The proposed rule was developed by President Biden’s Administration, with a comment period scheduled to close on May 16. The rule is designed to help consumers make better choices to avoid chronic health problems. Such problems—and consumer choices about nutrition—are things President Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has repeatedly touted. Even though hundreds of comments have been filed about the proposed rule, Kennedy’s Food and Drug Administration is delaying the close of the comment period by 60 days. Most of the comments filed so far have come from food companies and food industry trade organizations. “ A 60-day comment period extension allows adequate time for interested parties to submit comments while also not significantly delaying rulemaking on the important issues in the proposed rule ,” according to the FDA’s announcement about the delay. 

WARNING: THE GENDER BIAS IN CAR SAFETY TESTING PRESENTS AN ONGOING DANGER

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • April 30, 2025
Car accidents are a leading cause of injury and death worldwide, yet the safety measures designed to protect occupants in these life-or-death situations have long ignored a critical reality: women are more likely to be severely injured or killed in crashes than men. This disparity isn't rooted in biology alone—it’s also a result of a troubling oversight in the automotive industry’s safety testing protocols. For decades, crash-test dummies, which serve as proxies for human passengers in simulated collisions, have been modeled after the average male physique, leaving women out of the equation entirely. The Alarming Data Gap The implications of this gender gap in safety testing are both staggering and infuriating. Women, on average, have different body compositions than men—they tend to be shorter, lighter, and have different muscle distributions and bone densities. These physiological differences mean that women’s bodies interact with car safety features—such as seat belts, airbags, and headrests—in distinct ways. When vehicles aren’t tested with dummies that accurately represent female anatomy, crucial data about how to better protect women in crashes is simply ignored. Studies have revealed the dire consequences of this exclusion. Research from the University of Virginia found that women are 47% more likely to sustain serious injuries in car accidents compared to men, even when accounting for variables like seatbelt usage and crash severity. Women are also significantly more likely to suffer whiplash injuries due to the positioning of headrests, which are often designed with men’s neck dimensions in mind. These statistics aren’t just numbers—they represent lives cut short, families broken, and untold suffering that could have been mitigated with equitable safety testing.

WARNING: ARE MUSK, KENNEDY, AND TRUMP IGNORING THE GRAVE CONSEQUENCES OF SLASHING PUBLIC HEALTH FUNDING?

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • April 14, 2025
Recent budget cuts at the Health and Safety Science Services (HSSS) have sent shockwaves through the scientific and public health communities, threatening the very infrastructure designed to protect us from disease outbreaks, food contamination, and medical crises. These cuts have affected food inspectors, vaccine scientists, Alzheimer’s researchers, and experts studying bird flu, among others—positions that are essential to ensuring public safety and advancing critical medical research. The consequences of these decisions will be dire, potentially reversing years of progress and exposing society to increased health risks.

WARNING: IS ELON MUSK'S DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY JEOPARDIZING AIR SAFETY?

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • March 12, 2025
As Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) pushes for sweeping reforms and cost-cutting across federal agencies, concerns are mounting over the impact on critical public safety roles. Among the most alarming areas affected is the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), where staff reductions may threaten the lives of millions of air travelers. The DGE, established with a mandate to streamline government operations and reduce bureaucratic waste, has come under fire for its aggressive downsizing tactics. Critics warn that essential safety personnel, including air traffic controllers, are being cut under the guise of efficiency, leaving the nation's airspace dangerously understaffed.

WARNING: WILL TRUMP'S SURGEON GENERAL SUPPORT IMPROVED ALCOHOL WARNING LABELS?

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • February 11, 2025
Biden Administration former Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, on his way out of office, issued a Surgeon General's Advisory calling for new warnings on alcoholic beverages related to the cancer risk from consuming alcoholic beverages. Given that most individuals are unaware of the connection that consumption of alcoholic beverages can increase the risk for at least seven types of cancer, Murthy said in his advisory: "Given the conclusive evidence on the cancer risk from alcohol consumption and the Office of the Surgeon General's responsibility to inform the American public of the best available scientific evidence, the Surgeon General recommends an update to the Surgeon General's warning label for alcohol-containing beverages to include a cancer risk warning."

WARNING: TRUMP'S RE-ELECTION MEANS A DEREGULATORY NIGHTMARE FOR CONSUMERS

By Dr. Gerald Goldhaber • December 2, 2024
In my best-selling book, Murder, Inc.: How Unregulated Industry Kills or Injures Thousands of Americans Every Year...And What You Can Do About It , I propose a safety triad consisting of three components: manufacturers, regulators and consumers. All three must function properly in order to keep us safe. Manufacturers must produce and market safe (or safe as possible) products and warn us about any potential hazards so that we can make informed choices about whether or not to purchase their product and/or how to use it safely. Regulators , by imposing and implementing necessary rules and regulations, should hold manufacturers accountable for the above stated actions and to endure that they engage in "principled disclosure" by warning us about any potential hazards and dangers associated with their products. And, finally, Consumers , especially in the absence of well-meaning manufacturers or competent, well-intentioned regulators, must be highly diligent by researching products and learning about potential hazards prior to buying and/or using them. All three, manufacturers, regulators and consumers, must perform their jobs or the safety triad may fail to protect us and our loved ones. Think of a three-legged stool that distributes the weight of a person sitting on the stool, equally among the three legs. But what would happen if we leaned heavily to one side of the stool, essentially spreading the weight that was once borne by three legs to the two legs remaining braced to the floor. Unfortunately the third leg is no longer contributing to the stability of the stool, which may actually collapse because the two remaining legs may not be able to handle the amount of weight that was intended to be equally distributed among all three legs. 
Show More