Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Transportation

Uber Says Waymo Autonomous Vehicles Outperforming 99% of Human Drivers in Austin 130

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Waymo's autonomous vehicles operating on Uber's platform in Austin are completing more trips per day than over 99% of human drivers in the market, according to Uber's Q1 2025 earnings report [PDF] released Wednesday. The fleet of approximately 100 autonomous Waymo vehicles, launched exclusively on Uber in March, has "exceeded expectations," CEO Dara Khosrowshahi stated in the report.

He cited the performance to "Waymo's safety record and rider experience coupled with Uber's scale and reliability." Uber has rapidly expanded its autonomous vehicle operations, reaching an annual run-rate of 1.5 million mobility and delivery AV trips across its network. The company plans to scale to hundreds of vehicles in Austin in the coming months, while preparing for a launch in Atlanta by early summer. Khosrowshahi said that autonomous vehicle technology represents "the single greatest opportunity ahead for Uber."

Uber Says Waymo Autonomous Vehicles Outperforming 99% of Human Drivers in Austin More | Reply

Uber Says Waymo Autonomous Vehicles Outperforming 99% of Human Drivers in Austin

Comments Filter:

  • Doubt (Score:3, Insightful)

    by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2025 @10:48AM (#65358825) Journal

    I had a waymo use a left turn lane to pass stopped traffic on the left and jump two lanes to the right, so no lol.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by MBGMorden ( 803437 )

      You ever saw a human driver do something stupid too?

      Remember that the goal isn't perfection - its performance better than human drivers.

      • Remember that the goal isn't perfection - its performance better than human drivers

        But if they are driving way more miles, then it probably is a net loss for Austin. Remember, the likelihood of an event is the probability of the event times exposure. Adding hundreds of cars driving around all day and all night, even if they are fairly high performing, will likely result in more damage and death than without them.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          Remember that the goal isn't perfection - its performance better than human drivers

          But if they are driving way more miles, then it probably is a net loss for Austin. Remember, the likelihood of an event is the probability of the event times exposure. Adding hundreds of cars driving around all day and all night, even if they are fairly high performing, will likely result in more damage and death than without them.

          Not necessarily. Remember that Waymo cars aren't currently owned by individuals. They drive around a large number of people in a given day. If those people would have driven themselves, then that one car drove more miles than any one driver would have, but it took 10x, 50x, or even 100x as many drivers off the road, and probably drove only a few percent more miles than the sum total of those drivers would have.

          Also, people who rarely drive are likely to be out of practice, and therefore are likely to be

      • Re:Doubt (Score:4, Insightful)

        by eepok ( 545733 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2025 @01:23PM (#65359289) Homepage

        Their growth goal is "better", but their financial goal needs to be "nearly perfect".

        If Waymo or any other autonomous vehicle company wants to survive being responsible for harming and killing people (as they eventually will be), they need to be damn near perfect. Consider:

        Currently: 42,000 road deaths per year. All of those liabilities are distributed among 42,000 responsible drivers.
        Future: Waymo controls 30% of vehicles on the road and road deaths have dropped 70%. They're also responsible for 400 road deaths per year. Can they survive that kind of liability? 300 deaths? 200? 100?

        How perfect will they need to be to financially survive? "Damn near perfect."

      • Better than humans in what way? Not having pesky wages or labor laws? Yeah that's better for uber. Better for the rest of us? Fuck no.
    • Yes, but they're saying that if you retire drivers for doing things like that, you'll be mistakenly retiring 99 humans for every replicant.

    • I can believe it, because I've driven in Austin.

      Every year when it first rains there are literally hundreds of accidents because Austinites forget it makes roads slippery.

      • And the idea that if you are leaving one car length or more as following distance it is apparently interpreted as "tailgate me, then pass me recklessly, and then recklessly move to fill that empty space."

    • I had a waymo use a left turn lane to pass stopped traffic on the left and jump two lanes to the right, so no lol.

      I've not seen humans do that. I've seen humans continue down the oncoming lane, turn left and then get hit by a truck though. Your anecdote is meaningless and it's absolutely shameful that someone modded you insightful.

    • I had a waymo use a left turn lane to pass stopped traffic on the left and jump two lanes to the right, so no lol.

      When the Uber CEO talks about "exceeding expectations" and exceeding human performance, he's not talking about safety but rather about productivity. After all, machines don't need bathroom or meal breaks or mental/physical rejuvenation time. For Uber, safety only matters if productivity is impacted, e.g., if there is a collision or a traffic ticket (hmm, how does a policeman give a robotaxi a ticket?).

      One other thing. Robotaxis don't drive for both Uber and Lyft, so that's another reason the CEO would lo

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by batkiwi ( 137781 )

      How many humans have you seen do that? (likely a tonne)
      It's easy to see a waymo on the road and notice it.

      Also, one anecdote doesn't override large aggregate data, it forms one single data point.

      I once saw a magpie that only swooped men. Does that mean I doubt that magpies swoop women?

  • And after wide straight roads with 90deg turnings. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Viol8 ( 599362 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2025 @10:55AM (#65358837) Homepage

    Why not see how well it does in London, Paris, Rome or Delhi in the rush hour with narrow streets, drivers often ignoring the rules, having to push in from a turning as no one will let you in and frequent use of headlights to signal others (can the AI understand that yet?). It'll be lucky to make it to the destination at all in any reasonable time.

    • Same reason it was only SF and Phoenix to start, those were the only cities to create openings in the laws that would allow them to stop operating. As far as I know places like those cities are not allowing Waymo type systems to pilot out much less run service in.

      I think VW's Moia AV system is testing out in Germany though, it's just a wholly different regulatory environment.

      You are right though in that transiting EU cities with their tight roads is a new challenge but I have no doubt Waymo will get there

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by flink ( 18449 )

        Same reason it was only SF and Phoenix to start

        Also those cities don't have weather, to speak of. Would love to see one of those things operate in the wake of a nor'easter when lanes markings, crosswalks, road signs, and curbs are all invisible and you need to navigate around plows and people walking in the street because sidewalks are obstructed.

        • Yeah when I have taken them in SF they worked well but I was thinking how it will feel when these are barreling down the highway at 75mph and you look at nobody in the driver seat. No reason it shouldn't work though.

          The weather point ties into that ethos though, gotta be able to handle easy weather before you think about introducing the system to inclement weather. I think the drip by drip method here is obviously paying off than trying to tackle everything at once like Tesla is trying.

          You can see that in

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by PCM2 ( 4486 )

            Yeah when I have taken them in SF they worked well but I was thinking how it will feel when these are barreling down the highway at 75mph and you look at nobody in the driver seat. No reason it shouldn't work though.

            I think we're still a long way from that. I'm told Waymo has been given permission to start training its vehicles on highways in California, but it has yet to do so. The company rolls its stuff out very carefully and thoughtfully, the way it needs to be.

            • Which is interesting to contrast the approaches here, where Tesla seems to do well on highways and struggles in a city.

              To be fair though the stakes are different when you know for sure there's a human in the seat at those velocities.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Sloppy ( 14984 )

          One of the things that makes automated driving as a service (as opposed to a product) such a great idea, is that if the current weather makes the job too hard, then it can simply decide to not take the job. "Stupid storm. I'm not driving in this. [click click] Shit, Waymo doesn't want to drive in this either."

          Same goes for other oddball situations that you might run into in places like Rome: just don't serve Rome, if you really think the place itself is too hard (e.g. narrow streets).

          They aren't selling a g

          • Yes I'm sure people will love the experience of trying to get home in a snowstorm and finding all the cars are stopped. Nothing can go wrong there.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Sloppy ( 14984 )

              Under those conditions, the people are already in a bad situation, whether Waymo exists or not.

              Why would anyone care whether the driver who says "No" is a robot or a human? No means it matters even less than if they had said yes.

              • In what city do human taxi drivers stop driving because of snow?

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Sloppy ( 14984 )

                  I don't know. In what city should human taxi drivers stop driving because of snow?

                  If the humans say yes and then kill some of their passengers, and Waymo says no and doesn't kill anyone, then I think Waymo wins some bragging rights. Or at least their liability lawyers would look pretty smug.

                  Just Say No is an underused strategy, and I'm really just trying to say that as a service, Waymo can use it when they think it's the right one for the moment, whereas someone like Tesla would have a much harder time. Hum

          • Something i noticed about at least of may 10-ish or so Waymo rides in SF is that I was surprised how aggressive it could be in the city and traffic areas. Not aggressive as in dangerous but the type you have to be to navigate in those spaces. SF isn't Rome but there were a ton of pedestrians and things like double parked cars, people cutting to get into lanes, you know, rush hour in a metro. It asserted it's space when it had to. A couple times I even had to say "Good for you Waymo"

            My bet is when Waymo'

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          Also those cities don't have weather, to speak of.

          Phoenix has monsoon seasons and sandstorms, which can be pretty brutal, with zero visibility. San Francisco has torrential mists, which are a different kind of annoying to drive in, not to mention fog.

          But you're right that neither has snow, typically.

    • At this point, we have data that shows that Waymo cars are safer than human drivers, based on comparison against human drivers driving in the same areas where Waymo drives: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2... [arstechnica.com]

      Probably Waymo can't handle Rome or Delhi right now, but it's already saving lives in the environments where it does operate.

    • Why not see how well it does in London, Paris, Rome or Delhi in the rush hour with narrow streets

      Why? What does that have to do with driving in America? What about we see how well it does on the moon? It's every bit as relevant of a whataboutism.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by batkiwi ( 137781 )

      Because they aren't trying to solve the problem of "replace every driver in every city in every circumstance".

      This is like people saying no one should buy EVs because you can't go on a 2000km drive with only a 5 minute stop or two for fuel, or you can't tow the 3 tonne caravan you use once every 18 months.

  • Are they comparing to humans in modern vehicles with proximity sensors and all the safety equipment or are they comparing to people in old vehicles with huge blind spots?
    • They're comparing them to Austin drivers. Which is a low bar. Just by using the turn signal you're outperforming most of Texas.
      • I can’t find the article but I was reading about how two Waymo cars caused a huge traffic jam in Austin. Two Waymo cars met at a four way stop intersection that had a lot of pedestrian traffic. With that scenario, both cars tried to yield to the other Waymo car while traffic backed up for miles. Complicating that is any pedestrian traffic would cause the car to reset whatever decision it decided to make.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Alumoi ( 1321661 )

        Oh, come on, I'm sure not all Texans drive BMW.

      • Austin's pretty fond of the turn signal and tends to respect it. It's Houston and Dallas where you take your life into your own hands. Houstonites take a blinker as a challenge to protect the lane. Consequently, 3 of the 5 most dangerous stretches of highway are in Dallas and Houston.
    • They are “in it to win it”, so they would utilize whichever category of human-driver data gives them the best results in comparison. This is marketing and business, not scientific control group in a well-designed experiment.
    • They are not even comparing things like safety. The metric they cited is "completed trips per day". An autonomous car is going to have more trips per day than a human by the simple fact the autonomous car does not take breaks for silly things like eating, sleeping etc.

  • This wreaks of hubris, when you brag like this and there's even one accident .. the whole thing will be in jeopardy. Don't ruin the party for everyone.

  • The 1% (Score:5, Funny)

    by DamnOregonian ( 963763 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2025 @11:55AM (#65359047)
    Worry not, this is slashdot.org. You will soon see where all of the 1% of drivers that are better are hanging out all day.
    • You joke, but we just want to see honest numbers as opposed to numbers good for profit.
      • I'm not joking- I'm 100% sure you drive better than anybody you've ever met, and every AI ever made is far, far, worse than you are- but maybe not your wife... But also maybe.

  • So? (Score:3)

    by Berkyjay ( 1225604 ) on Wednesday May 07, 2025 @11:57AM (#65359055)

    This really isn't the concern. There are far greater concerns about the cost of operating AVs and the need for these companies to eventually recoup their investments. Once these things have reached a certain critical mass, these companies will start lobbying governments to ban human drivers in their markets of operation (mainly cities for now), under the guise of public safety, in order to establish their monopoly on transportation.

    • Over time autonomous cars will not only be much safer than human-driven cars, but will also be networked to communicate and coordinate with each other in ways no human ever could, further increasing both safety and efficiency.

      I can see how that could lead to human drivers being banned from public roads at some distant point in the future, but I'd expect that well before that, manually driving your car will become a hobby rather than a practical necessity, and this hobby will become more niche and expens

      • We do NOT need a future where our transportation is controlled by tech megacorporations. We will NEVER get personal AVs. The processing power they require and the underlying software is far too expensive for that. And again, this is NOT about safety. It's about liberty. If somehow the technology became cheap enough to have personally owned AVs, then sure, go nuts. But it's NOT going to go down like that.

    • these companies will start lobbying governments to ban human drivers in their markets of operation

      Oh I really hope so. Humans behind the steering wheel are just the worst. If you don't smoke and aren't obese a human behind the wheel is one of the most likely reasons your life will get cut short.

    • If they are safer than human drivers, then why shouldn't human drivers eventually be banned?

  • In the summary it says that Waymo cars are "completing more trips per day than over 99% of human drivers". Of course they are. They can run 24/7 while humans need to take breaks. Number of trips per hour worked would be more useful. It does not say that the cars are better drivers than humans. I would not be surprised if the numbers were skewed with parameters like restricting coverage to the downtown area where quick trips are the norm as opposed to airport runs which may take at least an hour roundtrip.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by zlives ( 2009072 )

      they can run 24/7.. maybe not as 1% humans are beating them... somehow

      • Which humans are included in the comparison would be important. I suspect most human drivers take a wide range of routes lasting a few minutes to an hour. If some of them only pick short routes and selective busy times to work they might beat the Waymo in the one metric of trips per day.

  • Test the thing in New York City or Boston and then get back to me. I want to see video with sound so I can see how often it gets honked at, cut off, and given the finger.

    • Automated driving proponents only care about how safe the actual automated cars are, not how frustrating they are to drive with. I hear they drive super slow and sometimes don't keep up to the speed of traffic. So maybe they don't get into an accident, but how many accidents are caused by people avoiding the blockage that they are causing?
  • "completing more trips" ?!

    That is a stupid metric.

    We need to see the accidents per mile rate.

    Why are they bullshitting us?

    • Fortunately, because human drivers easily spot Waymo, they give them a wide berth, thus avoiding accidents, boosting Wamo's statistics.

      • BS, many people try to challenge it actually. From what I have personally seen in San Francisco .. even pedestrians try to challenge it. I don't know if they are looking for a payout or what. It's a good thing there's camera coverage every place nowadays. Reference: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2... [arstechnica.com]

  • Ah, yes, Uber's claimed a ridiculous number in their earnings report. If I were to publish such a claim on a paper, I'd be gone over with a fine-toothed comb. Actual data and analysis or we're just looking at more marketing "puffery." It's important to remember that Uber's only stated business strategy to become profitable is to obtain a monopoly on all ride-sharing and taxi service the world over so they can juice the prices. They're... not exactly reliable.
  • I hope that no one is hit by a Waymo car, but if anyone is, it should be a Waymo executive.
  • Errr, breaks. They work 24/7; they should do more trips in a day than a human.

Slashdot Top Deals

"We are on the verge: Today our program proved Fermat's next-to-last theorem." -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982

Close