On January 23, a Waymo autonomous vehicle hit a child in Santa Monica, California. The age and identity of the child are not public, but "minor injuries" were reported. Waymo responded with this blog post where they essentially argued that "if this had been a human driver, the accident would have been worse."

The event occurred when the pedestrian suddenly entered the roadway from behind a tall SUV, moving directly into our vehicle's path. Our technology immediately detected the individual as soon as they began to emerge from behind the stopped vehicle. The Waymo Driver braked hard, reducing speed from approximately 17 mph to under 6 mph [~9.7 km/h] before contact was made.

To put this in perspective, our peer-reviewed model shows that a fully attentive human driver in this same situation would have made contact with the pedestrian at approximately 14 mph. This significant reduction in impact speed and severity is a demonstration of the material safety benefit of the Waymo Driver. 

All car accidents causing human injury are unfortunate, but car accidents involving AVs are obviously more noteworthy right now. In my mind, it makes sense that a Waymo should be more responsive than a human driver in the face of a pedestrian jumping out into a roadway.

But being "less bad" is not going to win everyone over. The accident is being investigated to ensure "the Waymo AV exercised appropriate caution given, among other things, its proximity to the elementary school during drop off hours, and the presence of young pedestrians and other potential vulnerable road users.”

The headline is suboptimal for AVs, but it's very possible the Waymo did everything it could, and did it better than any one of us could ever do. We shall see.

Cover photo by Andri Aeschlimann on Unsplash

We've been talking a lot about autonomous vehicles, and in particular Waymo, on this blog. In my opinion, the safety records — which Waymo has published after driving more than 100 million driverless miles — already suggest that none of us should be driving cars anymore. Some or many of you will disagree with this statement, but there's a reason why car crashes are the number two cause of death for children and young adults in the US.

So not only is this a tech breakthrough and a profound city-building shift, but it's also a public health breakthrough. Here's a recent opinion piece published in the New York Times by Dr. Jonathan Slotkin, the vice chair of neurosurgery at the Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania. I found this statement particularly interesting:

In medical research, there’s a practice of ending a study early when the results are too striking to ignore. We stop when there is unexpected harm. We also stop for overwhelming benefit, when a treatment is working so well that it would be unethical to continue giving anyone a placebo. When an intervention works this clearly, you change what you do.

Now the imperative:

There’s a public health imperative to quickly expand the adoption of autonomous vehicles. More than 39,000 Americans died in motor vehicle crashes last year, more than homicide, plane crashes and natural disasters combined. Crashes are the No. 2 cause of death for children and young adults. But death is only part of the story. These crashes are also the leading cause of spinal cord injury. We surgeons see the aftermath of the 10,000 crash victims who come to emergency rooms every day. The combined economic and quality-of-life toll exceeds $1 trillion annually, more than the entire U.S. military or Medicare budget.

Dr. Slotkin goes on to talk about some of the cities that are pushing back against AV adoption, or simply erecting barriers, namely Washington, D.C. and Boston. That's too bad. This is a decision that can be easily guided by data: Which is the safest option for the greatest number of people? Just do that. Dr. Slotkin gets it right: "policymakers need to stop fighting this transformation and start planning for it."

September 2025 was a milestone month for Waymo in California: It reached 1,000,000 paid driverless rides. This represents a year-over-year increase of ~182%, which is a pretty good sign that the technology works and that customers like it.

(Note: The dramatic falloff in rides in June 2025 was because of anti-ICE protests and vandalism taking place in Los Angeles and San Francisco. The company decided to temporarily suspend operations.)

This is still a small fraction of the traditional ride-hailing market, though. According to the California Public Utilities Commission, Uber and Lyft combined complete somewhere around 300-320 million passenger trips per year in the state. That averages out to roughly 25-27 million trips per month for context.

Still, the writing is on the wall. AV usage is growing rapidly and I think it's only a matter of time until it supplants traditional ride-hailing, and perhaps even car ownership.

Chart via Charlie Bilello