Don’t fall prey to the current panic over automated vehicles

Skepticism, frustration, and even hostility met the California Public Utilities Commission’s decision last month to grant Waymo and Cruise permission to operate automated vehicles in San Francisco. The panic over AVs threatens to drown out the voices of those celebrating this technological advancement. 

As transportation researchers, we aim to present pathways that embrace technological progress and improve public transportation while being mindful of the cynicism. AVs are not the panacea to all transportation troubles, but let’s not discard this valuable innovation just yet. 

There are reasons for anti-AV angst. It has as much to do with a lack of thoughtful public policy as with the technology’s growing pains. Occasional unplanned stops or minor accidents by self-driven cars may be irritating and attention-grabbing, but they also overshadow the larger and more important issues behind the headlines. 

AV companies must be more transparent about their operations. This would improve public understanding, reinforce that safety is their true priority, and ensure that their vehicles are used to benefit the public interest, not just the interest of wealthy travelers and a few big corporations. 

Yes, an AV collided with a San Francisco fire truck last month. Another appeared to interfere with policing efforts. Those are concerning events. Even so, it’s important to keep in mind that Waymo, Cruise, and Zoox AVs have not caused a single fatality or major injury in the years they have been operating in San Francisco.

To put this in perspective, there are about 6 million crashes, 30,000 fire truck accidents, and more than 42,000 auto accident fatalities every year in the U.S. 

A single AV fatality occurred 5 years ago in Arizona, despite the presence of an Uber safety driver behind the wheel. The National Transportation Safety Board investigated Uber and found a pervasive lack of safety culture within the company. Other leading AV companies have differentiated themselves and have developed more rigorous safety reporting, which, unsurprisingly, is yielding better outcomes.

AVs have the potential to vastly improve the safety of vehicle occupants, bicyclists and pedestrians. Cruise claims that, when benchmarked against human drivers, their AVs were involved in 54 percent fewer total collisions, 92 percent fewer collisions as the primary contributor, and 73 percent fewer severe collisions for their first million miles of driverless operation. These calculations must be externally validated, but they suggest that, so far, their AVs are at least as safe as human drivers. Their vehicles don’t drink, fall asleep, or get distracted, and they diligently follow the speed limit. 

AVs can also offer affordable alternatives to car ownership and solo-driving. The costs of AV rides are not going to be dirt cheap right away, and costs may not come down until AV companies scale their service. But with a competitive marketplace emerging, costs will likely drop and consumers will have more choices. 

AVs represent one potential solution for the approximately 20 percent of adults who are hindered from accessing work, shopping, healthcare, or education due to physical, cognitive, or mental disabilities, or financial circumstances. Many people are marginalized by not having access to a reliable car; it is heartening that solutions are emerging. 

With smart regulations and policy, AVs could be a boon for safety and equity and improve the lives of many travelers. The challenge is formulating effective public policies that maximize the benefits and minimize the negative effects. 

There is much work to be done. For example, we know from research that if AVs are not shared, overall vehicle use will increase — and even more so if the vehicles are personally owned, since people may use the driverless vehicle as an office, hotel, and recreational center. That scenario could create more congestion, energy use, and greenhouse gas emissions.  

We recommend proactive federal regulations that ensure public safety and accountability, so there is more transparency about the successes and shortcomings of the industry. This means allowing AVs on the road as we gather more and better data, while also setting performance metrics to assess their risks and overall progress. 

Local and state governments should incentivize pooled rides, going beyond their largely failed efforts with carpool lanes, with an eye toward shared AV services. Better incentives at airports and busy curbs that provide preferential access to shared ride services may send the right price signals.

Regulators also need to embrace the arguments of disability advocates that “the promise and safety of AVs will only be realized if the vehicles and the surrounding infrastructure are fully accessible, and the safety elements consider the needs of all people with disabilities.” They should also complement new technology with public land use investment strategies that put accessibility at the forefront of policy decisions.

AV companies have invested tens of billions of dollars testing this technology with the goal of improving safety and accessibility. Now it is time for better policies that will enable scaling of this technology in a way that is in the public interest — that will improve safety for occupants and pedestrians, enable sharing, and provide greater accessibility to all riders. 

Daniel Sperling is founding director of the University of California Davis Institute of Transportation Studies, where Mollie Cohen D’Agostino serves as executive director of the Mobility Science, Automation and Inclusion Center.