Comparison of Waymo Rider-Only Crash Data to Human Benchmarks at 7.1 Million Miles
December 20, 2023 Β· Declared Dead Β· π Traffic Injury Prevention
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Kristofer D. Kusano, John M. Scanlon, Yin-Hsiu Chen, Timothy L. McMurry, Ruoshu Chen, Tilia Gode, Trent Victor
arXiv ID
2312.12675
Category
cs.RO: Robotics
Citations
39
Venue
Traffic Injury Prevention
Last Checked
6 months ago
Abstract
This paper examines the safety performance of the Waymo Driver, an SAE level 4 automated driving system (ADS) used in a rider-only (RO) ride-hailing application without a human driver, either in the vehicle or remotely. ADS crash data was derived from NHTSA's Standing General Order (SGO) reporting over 7.14 million RO miles through the end of October 2023 in Phoenix, AZ, San Francisco, CA, and Los Angeles, CA. When considering all locations together, the any-injury-reported crashed vehicle rate was 0.6 incidents per million miles (IPMM) for the ADS vs 2.80 IPMM for the human benchmark, an 80% reduction or a human crash rate that is 5 times higher than the ADS rate. Police-reported crashed vehicle rates for all locations together were 2.1 IPMM for the ADS vs. 4.68 IPMM for the human benchmark, a 55% reduction or a human crash rate that was 2.2 times higher than the ADS rate. Police-reported and any-injury-reported crashed vehicle rate reductions for the ADS were statistically significant when compared in San Francisco and Phoenix, as well as combined across all locations (except for any-injury-reported in Phoenix). The any property damage or injury comparison had statistically significant decrease in 3 comparisons, but also non-significant results in 3 other benchmarks. Given imprecision in the benchmark estimate and multiple potential sources of underreporting biasing the benchmarks, caution should be taken when interpreting the results of the any property damage or injury comparison. Together, these crash-rate results should be interpreted as a directional and continuous confidence growth indicator, together with other methodologies, in a safety case approach.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Robotics
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
AirSim: High-Fidelity Visual and Physical Simulation for Autonomous Vehicles
π
π
The Cartographer
A Survey of Motion Planning and Control Techniques for Self-driving Urban Vehicles
π
π
The Cartographer
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: A Survey on Civil Applications and Key Research Challenges
π
π
The Cartographer
A Survey of Autonomous Driving: Common Practices and Emerging Technologies
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Learning agile and dynamic motor skills for legged robots
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted