Opinion - Autonomous vehicles should have to pass a driver's test, just like anyone else
As many as half of fatal crashes involve speeding and drinking. Autonomous vehicles do neither.
Yet the momentum toward broad deployment of these autonomous vehicles has stalled amid persistent consumer fears about safety since the first high-profile fatalities in 2018. In April, the Department of Transportation announced a new automated-vehicle policy intended to speed up the rollout of these vehicles across the country. However, the agency did not address the most significant barrier: the lack of a national safety performance testing standard.
Just as every licensed driver can sometimes cause an accident, so will autonomous vehicles. That doesn't mean we shouldn't deploy them to realize their benefits. But it does mean they should meet an objective safety standard, one that we all agree improves roadway safety over the status quo.
Last December, the federal highway agency proposed a program called AV STEP, but it is only a voluntary review and reporting framework. The federal government does not provide guidance on how autonomous vehicles should be tested, and AV STEP would not change that.
The absence of a national safety framework hinders wider adoption and public acceptance of autonomous vehicles, curtailing their clear promise to society, even as other nations are moving quickly to encourage adoption and to measure safety.
First-time drivers of any age must pass a basic test, but self-driving vehicles do not. Does that make sense?
Waymo, a subsidiary of Alphabet (formerly known as Google), operates robotaxis in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Phoenix, providing 250,000 autonomous rides weekly. In March, the company added service in Austin, Texas in partnership with Uber.
Waymo and Zurich-based insurance giant SwissRe recently studied third-party insurance claims from 25.3 million miles driven by Waymo vehicles. They found an 88 percent reduction in property claims on car accidents and a 92 percent reduction in bodily injury claims.
Waymo's record shows the benefits to public safety that would come from autonomous vehicles. Yet a recent survey, conducted by AAA, found that only 13 percent of drivers would trust riding in a self-driving vehicle. Six in 10 drivers report being 'afraid' to ride in a self-driving car and just 13 percent of drivers prioritize autonomous vehicle development as a top vehicle technology initiative, down from 18 percent in 2022.
We work at Mcity, a public-private research partnership at the University of Michigan devoted to transforming mobility. We have a solution to help overcome consumer concerns and provide the industry with a shared, trustworthy benchmark: autonomous vehicle safety assessment tests.
As states have basic requirements for driver training and on-road competency evaluations, the auto industry and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should support autonomous vehicle competency tests for on-road driving. We've developed a comprehensive two-part methodology to do that.
The autonomous vehicle 'Driver's Licensing Test' evaluates autonomous vehicles via on-road competency tests, just like millions of new drivers every year. We have roughly 50 tests and hundreds of driving scenarios. The 'Driving Intelligence Test' evaluates autonomous vehicle decision-making and response by challenging autonomous vehicle software with a diverse set of the most dangerous driving scenarios.
Mcity has proven our two-part protocol using open-sourced autonomous vehicle software in our fleet of research vehicles. In addition, we've put a range of commercial autonomous vehicle systems through the Driver's Licensing Test, identifying several behavior deficiencies that required refining the autonomous vehicle algorithm to improve driving safety.
Mcity's safety assessment tests do not have to be done in Ann Arbor. Industry or third parties can use our test methodology at adequately configured sites nationwide to conduct thousands of the rarest, most dangerous driving scenarios.
Successfully passing these tests and self-certifying would mean manufacturers, regulators and the public would have confidence that autonomous vehicles meet or exceed essential driving performance tests for safe operation. Importantly, our tests do this while ensuring proprietary AI data remains securely in the hands of innovators.
The potential benefits of driverless vehicles remain enormous: safer driving with fewer, less severe crashes; more efficient, lower-cost shipping; and expanded access to personal transport for Americans who need it most, such as the elderly, those with disabilities and those who don't or can't own or operate their own vehicle.
These benefits will not be fully realized unless autonomous vehicles are on our roads in significant numbers. And that won't happen unless consumers trust that these vehicles are safe.
Henry Liu is director of the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, which includes Mcity. He is the Bruce D. Greenshields Collegiate Professor of Engineering and director of the Department of Transportation's Region 5 Center for Connected and Automated Transportation. Greg McGuire is managing director of Mcity.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Chicago Tribune
22 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Tariffs are driving up the cost of saying ‘I do'
As engaged couples plan their dream weddings this summer, an unforeseen economic force is increasingly impacting their decisions and budgets: the intricate and fluctuating world of global trade. President Donald Trump's tariffs — and the accompanying rate changes, moratoriums and trade deals — are translating into higher costs for traditional wedding components, from floral arrangements to designer gowns and even the celebratory spirits that toast a new union. Small business owners like Brandi Kenison at Lee Floral Design, a small Livonia, Michigan-based floral company that mostly supplies arrangements for luxury weddings, say this year's peak nuptials season has been more financially challenging than the COVID-19 pandemic, when curbs on indoor gatherings crippled many businesses. 'Obviously, during COVID, that made sense. (Now) it's very hard to put into words,' Kenison said. 'Will it (a new tariff) go through? How much will it go through? … It's really difficult for us to be transparent with our clients because we truly don't know. 'What's even harder is when prices on our end jump 25%, but we're contractually only able to raise the price by 10%. That means we absorb the difference, which quickly eats into our margins,' she said. 'It's definitely been a struggle.' According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 80% of all cut flowers sold in the United States are imported, with the primary sources being South American countries, notably Colombia and Ecuador. With current tariffs of 10% on Colombia and 15% on Ecuador, wholesalers, florists and ultimately, engaged couples face higher costs. 'When tariffs are placed on these imports, it inevitably drives up costs — not just for wholesalers and florists, but ultimately for the customer as well,' Kenison said. 'And it's not limited to just flowers. A lot of our day-to-day supplies, like vases, candles, and other staples, are sourced from countries like China, which means those items are also affected by tariffs, further increasing our overall expenses.' Wedding planners say brides are also experiencing higher prices for dresses and facing shipping delays. Meagan McPhail, owner of Mitten Weddings, said in an email that 'prices are up and timelines are longer' for dresses due to rising fabric costs. About 12.2 million wedding gowns are produced each year in China, and 70% of them are exported, according to Deep Wear. 'Even some U.S. designers still source their fabrics internationally, so it all adds up,' McPhail said. Tariffs are adding to already pricey wedding costs that average $300 to $600 per person, according to wedding planners Emma and Rebecca Targett of Meriwether Social. The Ann Arbor, Michigan-based mother-daughter duo planned Sophie Partington and Nicholas Kuchar's Aug. 2 wedding at the Michigan League Ballroom. 'Now, more than ever, that conversation is a part of our everyday planning process with clients,' Emma Targett said. 'Things just cost more right now: food, floral, specifically. Anything that's really commodity-based like that, things that are very supply chain dependent. 'So much of our day-to-day now is explaining to clients that food costs more so these catering bills are higher, a lot of times venue minimums have gone up because they have to account for their increased food cost as well,' she said. According to a survey conducted by The Knot of 741 engaged couples planning 2025 or 2026 wedding receptions, over half of the couples, or 53%, reported that tariffs had already impacted decisions about their celebrations. The survey also found that instead of reducing their overall budget, many couples are hiring professionals to navigate cost challenges, including booking well ahead of time to avoid paying more. Take couple Lydia Karpack, 23, of Plymouth and Alex Winnie, 24, of Belleville, Michigan, who will tie the knot at Detroit's Book Tower on Aug. 30. The high school sweethearts got engaged in downtown Plymouth in May 2024 and sought out Meriwether Social to plan their downtown Detroit wedding that is expected to include 145 guests and cost over $75,000. 'There's definitely things that you see that number that a vendor gives you, it's a big number, you're a little shocked about it. Weddings are becoming such this big thing,' Karpack said. 'You really have to evaluate what you really want to splurge on and what's going to be worth it and what you can find alternative ways to get the same look you're going for. It's about balance.' Since Karpack had the venue, photographer and DJ booked in early 2025, she effectively sidestepped some of the tariff-related price increases from vendors. Still, she was sticker-shocked by the prices of hydrangeas and tulips. 'A lot of florists have minimums. You have to start out at $5,000 or $10,000 for flowers and that doesn't include tax or the design fee,' she said. 'It's like that number, I think, scares people. It's a lot of money to spend on flowers. That was something we realized, 'let's find a different solution here and scale back a bit.'' She said 'no' to a huge arched floral wall but yes to the dress and veil she would wear from Magnolia Laine Bridal – Detroit. Cost for those: More than $3,000. 'My veil was pretty expensive,' Karpack said. 'I had no idea how much veils cost — for a couple yards of fabric, it's like $600. I was very shocked about that. I was going to do an Etsy veil for like $100, but matching the color up to a dress and you're looking at the color on a screen … it just gets way too stressful.' Karpack said trimming the flower budget helped the couple afford their preferred reception site, the Book Tower. 'That was something we really wanted to splurge on and then find other ways to save around,' she said, 'so that we could still have the venue that we wanted.'


UPI
23 minutes ago
- UPI
Palestinian journalists killed by Israel mourned in Gaza funeral
1 of 4 | Mourners attend the funeral of Al Jazeera journalists Anas Al Sharif, Mohammed Qreiqeh, Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal and Moamen Aliwa, who were killed in an Israeli strike, in Gaza City, on Monday. An Israeli drone strike hit a tent sheltering Al Jazeera journalists near Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza, killing seven members of the press. Photo by Mahmoud Issa/UPI | License Photo Aug. 11 (UPI) -- Hundreds of mourners in Gaza gathered for the funerals of five Al Jazeera journalists killed by an Israeli strike on a press tent. The strike killed five reporters working for Al Jazeera, a Qatar-based news organization. The five were reporter Anas al-Sharif, correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh, and video journalists Ibrahim Zaher, Moamen Aliwa, and Mohammed Noufal. Freelance reporter Mohammed al-Khaldi was also among those killed. There were seven journalists in total killed. Al-Sharif, 28, was a popular reporter in Gaza. Israel alleged Sunday that Al-Sharif was a member of Hamas. Al Jazeera called that allegation false. Al Jazeera condemned the "targeted assassination" by Israeli forces, and accused the Israeli Defense Forces of deliberately striking the journalists. "The Israeli military admitted to their crimes," the network said, describing the attack as "another blatant and premeditated assault on press freedom." Footage verified by Al Jazeera showed mourners chanting slogans against the killings, saying, "With our soul and blood, we sacrifice for you, Anas." They carried the bodies of the journalists, covered in flags and press flak jackets, on their shoulders from al-Shifa Hospital to Sheikh Radwan Cemetery in central Gaza. The press tent where the attack happened was outside the al-Shifa Hospital. The Committee to Protect Journalists said it was "appalled" by the killings. "Israel's pattern of labeling journalists as militants without providing credible evidence raises serious questions about its intent and respect for press freedom," CPJ's regional director, Sara Qudah, said in a statement. "Those responsible for these killings must be held accountable." The United Nations Human Rights Office has condemned the killing of journalists in Gaza, calling it a "grave breach of international humanitarian law," CNN reported. "We condemn the killing by Israeli military of six Palestinian journalists by targeting their tent, in grave breach of international humanitarian law," the United Nations said on X, adding that "Israel must respect & protect all civilians, including journalists." At least 242 Palestinian journalists have been killed in Gaza since Oct. 7, 2023, the U.N. said, calling for immediate and safe access for all journalists to Gaza. The Committee to Protect Journalists says the number is 178.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
This AI Stock Just Crushed Palantir's Rule of 40 Score. Is It a Buy Now?
Key Points Palantir has delivered impressive growth on the top and bottom lines. Upstart's revenue more than doubled on strong loan origination growth. Some investors had concerns about the company's take rate. 10 stocks we like better than Upstart › Followers of Palantir (NASDAQ: PLTR) will know that the company likes to use the Rule of 40 as a performance benchmark. This standard in the software industry means that a company should have a combined revenue growth rate and free cash flow margin, or a similar profitability measure, of at least 40 in order to be investable. Palantir Chief Executive Officer Alex Karp hasn't been shy about touting the company's strong performance based on the Rule of 40, noting that it had a Rule of 40 score of 94 in its second-quarter report. That was made up of 48% revenue growth and 46% adjusted operating margin. There's no doubt that that's an impressive result and helps show why Palantir stock continues to soar. However, Palantir didn't have the best Rule of 40 score in the software sector this quarter. Upstart (NASDAQ: UPST), the artificial intelligence-based lending platform, beat Palantir in the Rule of 40. With revenue growth of 102% and an adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) margin of 21%, giving it a Rule of 40 score of 123. Unlike Palantir, which rose after its earnings report, Upstart actually tumbled despite that blowout Rule of 40 score. Should investors buy the dip on Upstart? Let's take a closer look. About Upstart's quarter A year after Upstart unveiled its improved screening model, Model 18, the company is delivering blistering growth, and that model has improved its conversion rates as the company predicted. Transaction volume jumped 159% to 372,599 loans approved, with a 23.9% conversion rate, meaning applications that became loans, up from 15.2% in the quarter a year ago. Revenue from fees, its core business, rose 84% to $241 million, and total revenue of $257.3 million was well ahead of the average analyst estimate at $225.4 million. Upstart impressed on the bottom line as well, as it flipped an adjusted EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) loss of $9.3 million to a profit of $53.1 million. It also reported a generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) profit of $5.6 million, or $0.40 per share on an adjusted basis, up from a loss of $0.17, and better than the estimate of $0.25. Upstart's outlook was strong as well, as it raised its full-year forecast and third-quarter projection was ahead of expectations. However, the reason the stock fell, according to analyst commentary, was that Upstart's take rate shrank, a sign that it could be getting harder for the company to convert origination volume into revenue. In the second quarter, originations reached $2.8 billion, and revenue was $257 million, giving it a take rate of 9%, which was down from 12% in the quarter a year ago. Is Upstart a buy? Although the critique about the take rate may be valid, that seems to be a result of Upstart moving into the super prime loan market, where risk and default rates are typically lower, so it's worth the trade-off. Additionally, Upstart is just starting to tap the vast home and auto loan markets. Auto loan originations jumped more than sixfold from a year ago to $114 million, and home loans reached $68 million, up ninefold from the same quarter a year ago. Those categories are still small and contribute just a fraction of total revenue, but they have the potential to be huge in the future. Furthermore, Upstart's surge in revenue and return to profitability has come without any help from lower interest rates. If interest rates fall, demand for loans through its platform could soar even faster. Overall, the sell-off in Upstart looks worth taking advantage of given the rapid growth, improving profitability, and its opportunity in the home and auto markets. If you've been impressed with Palantir's recent results, Upstart is worth taking a look at. Should you invest $1,000 in Upstart right now? Before you buy stock in Upstart, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Upstart wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $653,427!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,119,863!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,060% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 182% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 4, 2025 Jeremy Bowman has positions in Upstart. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Palantir Technologies and Upstart. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. This AI Stock Just Crushed Palantir's Rule of 40 Score. Is It a Buy Now? was originally published by The Motley Fool