logo
The life-or-death case for self-driving cars

The life-or-death case for self-driving cars

Vox04-05-2025

is an editorial director at Vox overseeing the climate, tech, and world teams, and is the editor of Vox's Future Perfect section. He worked at Time magazine for 15 years as a foreign correspondent in Asia, a climate writer, and an international editor, and he wrote a book on existential risk.
A white Waymo self-driving car with rooftop sensor equipment is stopped at an intersection in San Francisco's Financial District on March 18. Gado via Getty Images
I have some bad news: You are almost certainly a worse driver than you think you are.
Humans drive distracted. They drive drowsy. They drive angry. And, worst of all, they drive impaired far more often than they should. Even when we're firing on all cylinders, our Stone Age-adapted brains are often no match for the speed and complexity of high-speed driving. There's as much as a 2.5-second lag between what we perceive and how fast we can react in a vehicle traveling 60 mph, which means a car will travel the equivalent of two basketball court lengths before its driver can even hit the brake.
The result of this very human fallibility is blood on the streets. Nearly 1.2 million people die in road crashes globally each year, enough to fill nine jumbo jets each day. Here in the US, the government estimates there were 39,345 traffic fatalities in 2024, which adds up to a bus's worth of people perishing every 12 hours.
The good news is there are much, much better drivers coming online, and they have everything human drivers don't: They don't need sleep. They don't get angry. They don't get drunk. And their brains can handle high-speed decision-making with ease.
Because they're AI.
AI takes the wheel
The average American adult will spend around three years of their life driving. If robots could take the wheel instead, well, think of all the Netflix shows we could stream instead.
But the true benefit of a self-driving revolution will be in lives saved. And new data from the autonomous vehicle company Waymo suggests that those savings could be very great indeed.
In a peer-reviewed study that is set to be published in the journal Traffic Injury Prevention, Waymo analyzed the safety performance of its autonomous vehicles over the course of 56.7 million miles driven in Austin, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and San Francisco — all without a human safety driver present to take the wheel in an emergency. They then compared that data to human driving safety over the same number of miles driven on the same kind of roads.
The results of the study, almost certainly the biggest and most comprehensive research on self-driving car safety yet released, are striking.
A master class in driving safety
Compared to human drivers, the Waymo self-driving cars had:
81 percent fewer airbag-deploying crashes
85 percent fewer crashes with suspected serious or worse injuries
96 percent fewer injury crashes at intersections (primarily because Waymo detects red lights faster than humans)
92 percent fewer crashes that involve injuries to pedestrians.
Had the typical human-driven fleet of cars covered those same 56.7 million miles, the Waymo researchers project it would have resulted in an estimated 181 additional injury crashes, 78 additional air-bag crashes, and 11 extra serious-injury crashes.
But the numbers really get eye-popping when you extend this data across all 3.3 trillion vehicle miles driven by humans in the US in a typical year. Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that if the same 85 percent reduction seen in serious crashes held true for fatal ones — a big if, to be clear, since the study had too few fatal events to measure — we'd save approximately 34,000 lives a year. That's five times the number of Americans who died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.
Don't get in the way of progress
Of course, there are plenty of caveats to the Waymo study and even more obstacles before we could ever achieve anything like what's outlined above.
In part because serious injury crashes are (thankfully) very rare, even 56.7 million miles isn't long enough for researchers to be really sure that such crashes would occur significantly less often with robot drivers, so more data will be needed there. Waymo's cars were also being driven largely in warm, sunny locations, operating in geofenced areas that had been heavily mapped by the company. It's far less certain how they might do in, let's say, the snowy streets of Boston in the winter.
This is also a company-run study, though it has been peer-reviewed by outside experts. And even if we decided to go all in on AI drivers, actually producing enough autonomous vehicles to begin to replace human-driven cars and trucks would be an enormous undertaking, to say the least.
Still, the data looks so good, and the death toll on our roads is so high that I'd argue slowing down autonomous vehicles is actually costing lives. And there's a risk that's precisely what will happen.
Too often the public focuses on unusual, outlier events with self-driving cars, while the carnage that occurs thanks to human drivers on a daily basis is simply treated as background noise. (That's an example of two common psychological biases: availability bias, which causes us to judge risk by outlier events that jump easily to mind, and base-rate neglect, where we ignore the underlying frequency of events.) This misapprehension is something I often see in news coverage and consumption, and it's one of the reasons I started Good News.
The result is that public opinion has been turning against self-driving cars in recent years, to the point where vandals have attacked autonomous vehicles on the street. And of course, given that nearly 5 million Americans make their living primarily through driving, any wide-scale movement to self-driving vehicles would bring significant economic disruption.
But still, 34,000 lives saved on an annual basis would represent tremendous progress. Maybe, after about 100 years of trying, it's time to give something else a chance behind the wheel.
A version of this story originally appeared in the Good News newsletter. Sign up here!

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Strongwell products to be distributed throughout Europe
Strongwell products to be distributed throughout Europe

Yahoo

time36 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Strongwell products to be distributed throughout Europe

BRISTOL, Va. (WJHL) — Strongwell, headquartered in Bristol, Virginia, announced on Thursday it has entered an agreement with Module Solutions & Systems AS (MSS) of Norway. The agreement allows MSS to distribute Strongwell's products in Europe, excluding the United Kingdom, according to a news release posted by the City of Bristol, Virginia. 'We are excited to have MSS as our European distribution partner,' Strongwell Vice President of Sales and Engineering David Gibbs said in the release. 'Their experience and presence in the region will allow us to better serve international customers with Strongwell's high-performance, American-made composite products.' Crews to start building baseball field elements inside Bristol Motor Speedway MSS will distribute standard and non-standard FRP products from Strongwell. 'This agreement with Strongwell marks an exciting new chapter for MSS,' MSS Managing Director Morten Alstadsæther said in the release. 'Strongwell's FRP solutions are world-class, and we are proud to offer European customers local access to these proven, high-performance products. Our team is fully committed to supporting clients with technical expertise and responsive service, ensuring the success of every project we're part of.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Musk says Trump would have lost election without him
Musk says Trump would have lost election without him

The Hill

time37 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Musk says Trump would have lost election without him

Tech billionaire Elon Musk on Thursday said President Trump would have lost the 2024 presidential race if it were not for him, escalating a feud that erupted earlier that day between the two former allies. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,' Musk said on X. 'Such ingratitude,' he added. Musk spent millions of dollars backing Trump's election in 2024 and appeared alongside the president on the campaign trail during its final weeks. He then led the Department of Government Efficiency with the goal of cost-cutting efforts and overhauling the federal government; his last day in the administration was on Friday. Musk's comments came amid an influx of posts on his social media platform X, in which he called for the Trump-backed 'big, beautiful bill' to be killed in Congress. The Tesla CEO, who was a near-constant presence at the side of the president until last week, continued to share old posts on X from Trump talking about the debt and the need for a balanced budget. The president had moments before said in the Oval Office that he was 'very surprised' and 'disappointed' by Musk's harsh criticism of the legislation and said he was uncertain about the future of their relationship. 'I've always liked Elon. And so I was very surprised. You saw the words he had for me, and he hasn't said anything about me that's bad. I'd rather have him criticize me than the bill. Because the bill is incredible,' Trump said during a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will any more,' Trump added. Musk responded on X after Trump's remarks, repeating his assertion that a bill cannot be 'both big and beautiful.' Musk first railed against the 'big, beautiful bill' earlier this week, calling it 'an abomination' and 'pork-filled' due to its effects on federal deficits. 'In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people,' he wrote in a separate post, while sharing another that highlighted criticisms of Republican lawmakers.

Anthropic CEO: GOP AI regulation proposal ‘too blunt'
Anthropic CEO: GOP AI regulation proposal ‘too blunt'

The Hill

timean hour ago

  • The Hill

Anthropic CEO: GOP AI regulation proposal ‘too blunt'

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei criticized the latest Republican proposal to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) as 'far too blunt an instrument' to mitigate the risks of the rapidly evolving technology. In an op-ed published by The New York Times on Thursday, Amodei said the provision barring states from regulating AI for 10 years — which the Senate is now considering under President Trump's massive policy and spending package — would 'tie the hands of state legislators' without laying out a cohesive strategy on the national level. 'The motivations behind the moratorium are understandable,' the top executive of the artificial intelligence startup wrote. 'It aims to prevent a patchwork of inconsistent state laws, which many fear could be burdensome or could compromise America's ability to compete with China.' 'But a 10-year moratorium is far too blunt an instrument,' he continued. 'A.I. is advancing too head-spinningly fast. I believe that these systems could change the world, fundamentally, within two years; in 10 years, all bets are off.' Amodei added, 'Without a clear plan for a federal response, a moratorium would give us the worst of both worlds — no ability for states to act, and no national policy as a backstop.' The tech executive outlined some of the risks that his company, as well as others, have discovered during experimental stress tests of AI systems. He described a scenario in which a person tells a bot that it will soon be replaced with a newer model. The bot, which previously was granted access to the person's emails, threatens to expose details of his marital affair by forwarding his emails to his wife — if the user does not reverse plans to shut it down. 'This scenario isn't fiction,' Amodei wrote. 'Anthropic's latest A.I. model demonstrated just a few weeks ago that it was capable of this kind of behavior.' The AI mogul added that transparency is the best way to mitigate risks without overregulating and stifling progress. He said his company publishes results of studies voluntarily but called on the federal government to make these steps mandatory. 'At the federal level, instead of a moratorium, the White House and Congress should work together on a transparency standard for A.I. companies, so that emerging risks are made clear to the American people,' Amodei wrote. He also noted the standard should require AI developers to adopt policies for testing models and publicly disclose them, as well as require that they outline steps they plan to take to mitigate risk. The companies, the executive continued, would 'have to be upfront' about steps taken after test results to make sure models were safe. 'Having this national transparency standard would help not only the public but also Congress understand how the technology is developing, so that lawmakers can decide whether further government action is needed,' he added. Amodei also suggested state laws should follow a similar model that is 'narrowly focused on transparency and not overly prescriptive or burdensome.' Those laws could then be superseded if a national transparency standard is adopted, Amodei said. He noted the issue is not a partisan one, praising steps Trump has taken to support domestic development of AI systems. 'This is not about partisan politics. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have long raised concerns about A.I. and about the risks of abdicating our responsibility to steward it well,' the executive wrote. 'I support what the Trump administration has done to clamp down on the export of A.I. chips to China and to make it easier to build A.I. infrastructure here in the United States.' 'This is about responding in a wise and balanced way to extraordinary times,' he continued. 'Faced with a revolutionary technology of uncertain benefits and risks, our government should be able to ensure we make rapid progress, beat China and build A.I. that is safe and trustworthy. Transparency will serve these shared aspirations, not hinder them.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store