Waymo and Uber just announced a partnership that will bring Waymo's autonomous vehicles to the Uber app in Austin and Atlanta. Notably, this is an exclusive partnership, meaning the only way you'll be able to summon a Waymo vehicle in these cities will be through Uber.

The people who follow this space closely, people like Reilly Brennan of Trucks (VC) and Harry Campbell (The Rideshare Guy), think this is a really big deal for a number of reasons.

One, it signals a bifurcation in the industry where there will be companies, like Waymo, that supply autonomous vehicles, and companies, like Uber, that operate them and manage the overall ride hailing marketplace. As part of this deal, Uber is going to handle all of the maintenance and cleaning of the vehicles. This split is similar to the airline industry.

Two, it suggests, and this is Harry's argument, that Waymo needs Uber more than Uber needs Waymo. One of the reasons for this is that a 100% AV fleet is simply too expensive to operate if you're solving for peak demand loads. Because during off-peak times, you then need to pay for downtime.

Uber, on the other hand, doesn't pay for downtime with its human drivers. Most of its drivers are part-time and only plug in when they want to or when the surge pricing becomes too attractive to pass up. So they're the perfect compliment to an AV fleet. Harry argues that this is part of Uber's competitive moat.

And three, it signals that AVs are really starting to arrive, if not already here. The hype cycle certainly hit its trough of disillusionment and everyone switched to thinking that AVs weren't going to happen for many years, if not decades. But now it's happening. City by city.

Waymo has started releasing statistics for its autonomous vehicles. Here's the link.

There are a number of important considerations when comparing human-driven and autonomous vehicles. For instance, the two have different definitions of a crash. AV operators have to report any kind of physical contact (property damage, injury, or fatality). Human-driven cars, on the other hand, don't typically report accidents unless it was bad enough to necessitate a police report. So there are nuances to keep in mind.

That said, there is an argument to be made that AVs are already safer than human-driven ones. Through to June 2024, Waymo had already logged over 22 million rider-only miles. And here is what it is now reporting in terms of airbag deployments, injury-causing crashes, and police-reported crashes:

All of them are lower than their respective benchmark crash rates.

A few days ago, Waymo announced (on X) that its robotaxis are now doing more than 50,000 paid trips every week across Phoenix, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.

This means that the company is getting an average of 300 bookings every hour or five bookings every minute. And if you add in Austin, where it's currently offering a limited number of rides, the company has completed a total of over one million rider-only trips.

In the announcement, Waymo also went on to say that "fully autonomous ride-hailing is a reality and a preferred mobility option for people navigating their cities every day." All of this is something.

But perhaps the most important takeaway, right now, is that the company continues to claim -- by way of a study from Swiss Re -- that its robotaxis are already significantly safer than human-driven vehicles.

I don't personally know if this is true, but it's not hard to believe. I mean, human drivers suck. And assuming it is true, we should all want more robotaxis on the road, because statistically, we would be significantly safer.

The problem, though, is that autonomous vehicles suffer from a perception bias. We're all looking for them to fail. If a robotaxi gets into an accident, it's news. But if a human driver gets into an accident, it's standard operating procedure. It'll be interesting to see how and when this flips.