Most automobile manufacturers and several technology companies are testing automated vehicles (AVs) on public roads. While automation of the driving task is expected to reduce crashes, there is no consensus as to how safe an AV must be before it can be deployed. An AV should be at least as safe as the average driver, but national crash rates include drunk and distracted driving, meaning that an AV that crashes at the average rate is somewhere between drunk and sober. In this paper, safety benchmarks for AVs are explored from three perspectives. First, crash rates from naturalistic driving studies are used to determine the crash risk of the model (i.e., sober, rested, attentive, cautious) driver. Second, stated preference surveys in the literature are reviewed to estimate the AV risk acceptable to the public. Third, crash, injury, and fatality rates from other transportation modes are compared as baseline safety levels. A range of potential safety targets is presented as a guide for policymakers, regulators, and AV developers to assist in evaluating the safety of automated driving technologies for public use.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeikerS.History and Status of Automated Driving in the United States. In Road Vehicle Automation (MeyerG.BeikerS., eds.), Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2014, pp. 61–70.
TeohE. R.KiddD. G.Rage Against the Machine? Google’s Self-Driving Cars Versus Human Drivers. Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 63, 2017, pp. 57–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2017.08.008.
4.
BlancoM.AtwoodJ.RussellS.TrimbleT.McClaffertyJ.PerezM.Automated Vehicle Crash Rate Comparison Using Naturalistic Data. Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, Blacksburg, VA, 2016.
5.
BoggsA. M.ArvinR.KhattakA. J.Exploring the Who, What, When, Where, and Why of Automated Vehicle Disengagements. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 136, 2020, p. 105406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2019.105406.
6.
LII. 49 U.S.C § 30102(a)(8). Legal Information Institute, Ithaca, NY, 2012.
7.
SmithB. W.Automated Vehicles Are Probably Legal in the United States. Texas A&M Law Review, Vol. 1, 2014, pp. 411–521. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2303904.
8.
LII. 49 U.S.C. §§ 30118-30120. Legal Information Institute, Ithaca, NY.
VárhelyiA.MäkinenT.The Effects of In-Car Speed Limiters: Field Studies. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2001, pp. 191–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-090X(00)00025-5.
11.
RadunI.OhisaloJ.RajalinS.RadunJ. E.WahdeM.LajunenT.Alcohol Ignition Interlocks in all New Vehicles: A Broader Perspective. Traffic Injury Prevention, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2014, pp. 335–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2013.825042.
12.
SparrowR.HowardM.When Human Beings Are Like Drunk Robots: Driverless Vehicles, Ethics, and the Future of Transport. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 80, 2017, pp. 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2017.04.014.
13.
KalraN.PaddockS. M.Driving to Safety: How many Miles of Driving Would it Take to Demonstrate Autonomous Vehicle Reliability?Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 94, 2016, pp. 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.09.010.
14.
ShladoverS. E.NowakowskiC.Regulatory Challenges for Road Vehicle Automation: Lessons from the California Experience. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 122, 2019, pp. 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.10.006.
15.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Critical Reasons for Crashes Investigated in the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey. Publication DOT HS 812 115. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2015.
16.
KoopmanP.Safe Autonomy: A Reality Check on the 94 Percent Human Error Statistic for Self-Driving Cars. Safe Autonomy, Pittsburgh, PA, 2018.
17.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Drowsy Driving 2015. Publication DOT HS 812 446. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2017.
18.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. NHTSA Field Crash Investigation 2018 Coding and Editing Manual. Publication DOT HS 812 620. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2020.
19.
M. Davis and Company, Inc. National Telephone Survey of Reported and Unreported Motor Vehicle Crashes. Publication DOT HS 812 183. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 2015.
20.
BlincoeL. J.MillerT. R.ZalashnjaE.LawrenceB. A.The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010 (Revised). Publication DOT HS 812 013. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 2015.
21.
AntinJ. F.LeeS.PerezM. A.DingusT. A.HankeyJ. M.BrachA.Second Strategic Highway Research Program Naturalistic Driving Study Methods. Safety Science, Vol. 119, 2019, pp. 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.01.016.
22.
DingusT. A.GuoF.LeeS.AntinJ. F.PerezM.Buchanan-KingM.HankeyJ.Driver Crash Risk Factors and Prevalence Evaluation Using Naturalistic Driving Data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 113, No. 10, 2016, pp. 2636–2641. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1513271113.
23.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Safety Facts Annual Report Tables. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 2020. https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/tsftables/tsfar.htm. Accessed July 13, 2020.
24.
FischhoffB.Acceptable Risk: A Conceptual Proposal. RISK: Health, Safety & Environment, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1994, pp. 1–28.
25.
LiuP.YangR.XuZ.How Safe is Safe Enough for Self-Driving Vehicles?Risk Analysis, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2019, pp. 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13116.
26.
LundI. O.RundmoT.Cross-Cultural Comparisons of Traffic Safety, Risk Perception, Attitudes and Behaviour. Safety Science, Vol. 47, No. 4, 2009, pp. 547–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2008.07.008.
27.
NeesM. A.Safer than the Average Human Driver (Who Is Less Safe than Me)? Examining a Popular Safety Benchmark for Self-Driving Cars. Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 69, 2019, pp. 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2019.02.002.
PeckR. C.KuanJ.A Statistical Model of Individual Accident Risk Prediction Using Driver Record, Territory and other Biographical Factors. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 15, No. 5, 1983, pp. 371–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(83)90015-5.
30.
PeckR. C.McBrideR. S.CoppinR. S.The Distribution and Prediction of Driver Accident Frequencies. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1971, pp. 243–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(71)90042-X.
31.
LourensP. F.VissersJ. A. M. M.JessurunM.Annual Mileage, Driving Violations, and Accident Involvement in Relation to Drivers’ Sex, Age, and Level of Education. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 31, No. 5, 1999, pp. 593–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(99)00015-9.
32.
MassieD. L.GreenP. E.CampbellK. L.Crash Involvement Rates by Driver Gender and the Role of Average Annual Mileage. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 29, No. 5, 1997, pp. 675–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(97)00037-7.
33.
HorswillM. S.WaylenA. E.TofieldM. I.Drivers’ Ratings of Different Components of their own Driving Skill: A Greater Illusion of Superiority for Skills that Relate to Accident Involvement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2004, pp. 177–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02543.x.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). National Household Travel Survey. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2017. https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed May 24, 2019.
American Public Transportation Association. 2020 Public Transportation Fact Book Appendix A. American Public Transportation Association, Washington, D.C., 2020.
39.
LeeY.KimT. S.ChoH.-S.SungD. K.ChoiB. D.Performance Analysis of an Elevator System during Up-Peak. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol. 49, No. 3, 2009, pp. 423–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2008.09.006.
40.
McCannM.Deaths and Injuries Involving Elevators and Escalators. Center for Construction Research and Training, Silver Spring, MD, 2013.
HicksD. J.The Safety of Autonomous Vehicles: Lessons from Philosophy of Science. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2018, pp. 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2018.2795123.
44.
HanssonS. O.The Ethics of Risk: Ethical Analysis in an Uncertain World. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York, NY, 2013.
45.
CreggerJ.DawesM.FischerS.LowenthalC.MachekE.PerlmanD.Low-Speed Automated Shuttles: State of the Practice. Publication FHWA-JPO-18-692. John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, MA, 2018.
46.
GuoF.KlauerS. G.HankeyJ. M.DingusT. A.Near Crashes as Crash Surrogate for Naturalistic Driving Studies. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2010. 2147: 66–74.
47.
KieferR. J.LeBlancD. J.FlannaganC. A.Developing an Inverse Time-to-Collision Crash Alert Timing Approach Based on Drivers’ Last-Second Braking and Steering Judgments. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2005, pp. 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2004.09.003.
48.
GoodallN.More than Trolleys: Plausible, Ethically Ambiguous Scenarios Likely to Be Encountered by Automated Vehicles. Transfers, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2019, pp. 45–58. https://doi.org/10.3167/TRANS.2019.090204.
