Waymo's self-driving vehicles were involved in 68% fewer crashes than human drivers operating in the same areas and years, according to a new Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) report. The finding marks a significant milestone for the autonomous vehicle industry, which has long faced skepticism about whether robots can truly be safer than people behind the wheel.

What Does the IIHS Safety Data Actually Show?

The IIHS study analyzed Waymo's performance from 2021 to 2024 across four cities, comparing crash rates in driverless mode to human drivers in the same locations and timeframes. Waymo vehicles recorded 1.28 reportable crashes per million vehicle miles traveled, while human drivers averaged 4.06 crashes per million miles. When looking at specific crash types, the differences became even more striking. Waymo's rate of rear-ending another vehicle was 91% lower than human drivers, and the rate of being rear-ended was 40% lower.

The report concluded that Waymo "is maintaining a level of safety as its technology develops" in locations where its vehicles can safely operate in autonomous mode. This distinction matters because Waymo currently operates in limited geographic areas where its technology has been thoroughly tested and validated.

Why Are People Still Skeptical About Robotaxi Safety?

Despite the strong statistical evidence, Waymo vehicles have been caught on camera driving into flooded streets, passing stopped school buses, and impeding emergency vehicles. These incidents, often shared widely on social media, create a perception gap between the data and public sentiment. A single viral video of a robotaxi behaving oddly can overshadow millions of miles of safe operation.

Jonathan Adkins, CEO of the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), addressed this disconnect directly. He noted that the research reveals a fundamental double standard in how society evaluates autonomous vehicles compared to human drivers.

"For years, we have expected autonomous vehicles to be flawless while quietly accepting a human driving record that kills more than 36,000 people on our roads every year. This research is a powerful reminder that progress, not perfection, must be the standard for AVs, just as it has been for seat belts, airbags, automatic emergency braking and every other safety technology that eventually earned the public's trust," Adkins stated.

Jonathan Adkins, CEO, Governors Highway Safety Association

Adkins also emphasized the importance of data-driven evaluation over emotional reactions to isolated incidents. "This new IIHS research underscores why these technologies should be judged by consistent data collected over millions of miles, not by overreactions caused by a single viral video, isolated incident, or perception of a lack of safety that isn't supported by data," he said.

How Should Regulators Monitor Autonomous Vehicle Safety?

The IIHS report identified a critical gap in the regulatory landscape. Most autonomous vehicle companies do not publicly release vehicle miles traveled (VMT) figures, or they release only limited data. Currently, there is no national requirement for companies to report VMT, making it difficult for safety officials to track performance across the industry.

This lack of transparency creates challenges for policymakers trying to understand the true safety profile of autonomous vehicles. The IIHS cautioned that its findings may not apply to future areas where Waymo might operate or to other robotaxi companies operating different technology platforms. To address these gaps, experts recommend several regulatory improvements:

• Mandatory Reporting Requirements: Federal, state, and local safety officials need standardized data collection and reporting requirements so that all autonomous vehicle operators disclose crash rates and vehicle miles traveled in comparable formats.
• Performance Monitoring Tools: Regulators must have access to real-time or regular data feeds that allow them to identify emerging safety issues before they become widespread problems affecting public safety.
• Consistent Evaluation Standards: A unified framework for assessing autonomous vehicle safety would enable fair comparisons across different companies and technologies, preventing a patchwork of inconsistent safety standards across jurisdictions.

"As AVs become more common, federal, state and local safety officials must have the tools and information they need to monitor performance, identify emerging safety issues and respond effectively," Adkins concluded.

Jonathan Adkins, CEO, Governors Highway Safety Association

The IIHS report represents one of the most comprehensive independent analyses of autonomous vehicle safety to date, but it also highlights how much work remains to establish consistent oversight of the industry. As robotaxis expand to more cities and more companies enter the market, the need for standardized safety monitoring becomes increasingly urgent.

The data suggests that autonomous vehicles have already achieved a significant safety advantage over human drivers in controlled environments. The challenge now is ensuring that this advantage is maintained as the technology scales, while also building public trust through transparency and consistent regulatory oversight.