Science & the Public | Science News



Support credible science journalism.

Subscribe to Science News today.

Science & the Public

Where science
and society meet

Science News

Science & the Public

Science & the Public

When it comes to self-driving cars, what’s safe enough?

self-driving car

As autonomous cars take to the streets with empty driver’s seats, experts are still debating: How safe is “safe enough” for self-driving vehicles?

Sponsor Message

Self-driving vehicles passed a major milestone in November when Waymo’s minivans hit the streets of Phoenix without backup human drivers — reportedly making them the first fleet of fully autonomous cars on public roadways. Over the next few months, people will get a chance to take these streetwise vehicles for a free spin as the company tries to drum up excitement — and a customer base — for its launch of a driverless taxi service.

But even as these cars are ditching human supervisors, many people doubt the safety of machine motorists. A whopping 85 percent of baby boomers and even 73 percent of millennials confess to being afraid to ride in self-driving cars, according to a recent AAA survey. And while Waymo claims its vehicles are designed to be the world’s most experienced drivers — based on road tests as well as clocking millions of virtual miles — there’s still no consensus among experts about how safe is “safe enough” when it comes to street-smart cars.

It’s especially difficult to tell whether self-driving cars have earned their licenses when scientists are still writing the driver’s test.  

Besides the sheer convenience of being able to take your hands off the wheel, the major appeal of self-driving cars is safer roadways. After all, mechanical chauffeurs can’t get drunk or distracted — factors involved in 29 and 10 percent of fatal accidents, respectively. But the only surefire way to evaluate autonomous cars’ reliability is test-driving them in real traffic, explains Nidhi Kalra, an information scientist at the RAND Corporation in San Francisco. “I think a lot of people were thinking, ‘Oh, we’ll just wait until the companies do enough test-driving,’” she says. “You could wait until the next millennium until that happens.”

In a 2016 study, Kalra and a colleague showed that self-driving cars would have to trek hundreds of millions or perhaps billions of miles to demonstrate with comfortable certainty that they caused fewer fatalities than the average person (about 1.1 per 100 million miles driven). Based on the current number of self-driving cars, that task could take decades or centuries to complete.

Tech developers hardly have that kind of time, so companies like Waymo assess their vehicles’ safety by pairing real driving time with practice on a private track and millions of miles a day in computer simulations.

Still, simulations can’t replace the value of actual road experience, says Philip Koopman, an electrical and computer engineer at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. “What about the scenarios they didn’t know [to simulate]?” he says. “Weird, weird, weird stuff happens out on the roadways.”

Since current self-driving safety assurances aren’t exactly airtight, Koopman argues that self-driving cars should be held to a way higher standard than human drivers — say, 10 times safer than the average human — before they’re given the green light. That would provide enough wiggle room in the margin of error to assume that the driverless car actually is safer, Koopman reasons.

But getting to that point could take a long time, and miss the opportunity to save many lives, Kalra says. She’s confident because her team forecast a future — actually lots of different futures — where self-driving cars hit the road when they were 10, 75 or 90 percent safer than the average human driver. At 10 percent, fatalities drop to one death per 100 million miles. Maybe that doesn’t seem like a lot, but with those cars much closer to being ready to roll, some 500,000 lives could be saved between 2020 and 2050, the team forecasts, compared with the imagined futures where people hold out for way higher safety standards.

But just aiming for 10 percent safer doesn’t provide much margin for error, Koopman argues. “You’re cutting it pretty close.”

And a lower safety standard could mean more accidents at first — and a public backlash, says Azim Shariff, a psychologist at the University of California, Irvine. People may be less inclined to accept mistakes made by machines than humans, and research has shown that people are more risk-averse when it comes to risks that they can’t control.  

“What happens when a 4-year-old in the back of a car that’s operated by her mother gets killed by an autonomous car?” Shariff asks.

Success depends on buy-in. “So public opinion is really going to matter,” Shariff says.

Right now, most Americans may not be lining up to hop aboard fully autonomous cars. But “once people start knowing people who have been in them and lived to tell the tale, so to speak, I think it will change quickly,” says David Groves, a policy analyst at the RAND Corporation in Santa Monica, Calif.

Kalra also suspects that people will fear autonomous cars less when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration establishes a self-driving car safety rating, like its crash test ratings for traditional cars. That kind of rating system “will probably come after the technology is on the road, just as it did for regular cars,” she says. “We didn’t have a safety rating system when the Model T came out. It sounds like it’s the cart before the horse to have cars before safety ratings, but that’s often how it happens.”

Pollution,, Health

When coal replaces a cleaner energy source, health is on the line

By Laura Sanders 2:30pm, April 4, 2017
Health concerns prompted a shift from nuclear power to coal. But that shift came with its own health troubles, a new study suggests.
Science & Society,, Psychology

Online reviews can make over-the-counter drugs look way too effective

By Bruce Bower 2:48pm, March 14, 2017
Online patient reviews put a far more misleading spin on medications than clinical trials do.
Science & Society

Data-driven crime prediction fails to erase human bias

By Rachel Ehrenberg 10:00am, March 8, 2017
Software programs that predict where crimes will occur don’t eliminate bias; they exacerbate it.
Human Development,, Science & Society,, Health

Transgender children are at greater risk of mental health problems

By Laura Sanders 7:00am, March 1, 2017
The Trump administration has rescinded federal protections for transgender kids in public schools, a move that the American Academy of Pediatrics condemns.
Astronomy,, Technology

Citizen scientists are providing stunning new views of Jupiter

By Ashley Yeager 6:00am, February 17, 2017
A camera aboard NASA’s Juno spacecraft is giving citizen scientists a crack at discovering never-before-seen features of Jupiter.
Science & Society

Trump administration clampdowns on research agencies worry scientists

By Rachel Ehrenberg 4:00pm, January 26, 2017
Mixture of bans on federal research communications create confusion and fear.
Psychology,, Science & Society

You’ve probably been tricked by fake news and don’t know it

By Erika Engelhaupt 6:00am, December 4, 2016
In the fight against falsified facts, the human brain is both the weakest link and our only hope.
Technology,, Science & Society

Obama worried about research funding

By Janet Raloff 11:25am, April 30, 2013
Barack Obama offered yet another argument about why the current federal-budget stalemate is so risky: “[T]he sequester, as it’s known in Washington-speak — it’s hitting our scientific research.” As things now stand, “we could lose a year, two years of scientific research as a practical matter, because of misguided priorities here in this town.”
Technology,, Humans & Society,, Life & Evolution,, Genes & Cells,, Earth & Environment,, Ecology

Antarctic test of novel ice drill poised to begin

By Janet Raloff 12:37am, December 15, 2012
Any day now, a team of 40 scientists and support personnel expects to begin using a warm, high pressure jet of water to bore a 30 centimeter hole through 83 meters of ice. Once it breaks through to the sea below, they’ll have a few days to quickly sample life from water before the hole begins freezing up again. It's just a test. But if all goes well, in a few weeks the team will move 700 miles and bore an even deeper hole to sample for freshwater life that may have been living for eons outside even indirect contact with Earth’s atmosphere.
Subscribe to RSS - Science & the Public