Safer than the average human driver (who is less safe than me)? Examining a popular safety benchmark for self-driving cars

Abstract

Although the level of safety required before drivers will accept self-driving cars is not clear, the criterion of being safer than a human driver has become pervasive in the discourse on vehicle automation. This criterion actually means "safer than the average human driver," because it is necessarily defined with respect to population-level data. At the level of individual risk assessment, a body of research has shown that most drivers perceive themselves to be safer than the average driver (the better-than-average effect). METHOD: Using an online sample, this study examined U.S. drivers' ratings of their own ability to drive safely and their desired level of safety for self-driving vehicles. RESULTS: This study replicated the better-than average effect and showed that most drivers stated a desire for self-driving cars that are safer than their own perceived ability to drive safely before they would: (1) feel reasonably safe riding in a self-driving vehicle; (2) buy a self-driving vehicle, all other things (cost, etc.) being equal; and (3) allow self-driving vehicles on public roads. CONCLUSIONS: Since most drivers believe they are better than average drivers, the benchmark of achieving automation that is safer than a human driver (on average) may not represent acceptably safe performance of self-driving cars for most drivers. Practical applications: If perceived level of safety is an important contributor to acceptance of self-driving vehicles, the popular "safer than a human driver" benchmark may not be adequate for widespread acceptance.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 59 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.