Google: No, Our Self-Driving Cars Aren't Getting Dinged Up That Much

Google is pushing back on an Associated Press report this morning that claims three of the company’s self-driving cars have been involved in accidents since September, when California allowed autonomous vehicles to hit public roads. The report suggests that Google’s driverless cars were involved in property damage incidents at rates higher than the national average of human-driven cars.

Unsurprisingly, Google disagrees. It released updated figures on miles logged: 1.7 million since 2009; the AP originally reported 700,000. Then Chris Urmson, the head of the self-driving initiative inside Google X, authored a post on Medium, for the first time shedding light on figures from the secretive project:

Over the 6 years since we started the project, we’ve been involved in 11 minor accidents (light damage, no injuries) during those 1.7 million miles of autonomous and manual driving with our safety drivers behind the wheel, and not once was the self-driving car the cause of the accident.

Google declined to comment on the claim about the three accidents since September.

Since the fall, however, the company did admit it has accelerated testing with its 20-plus car fleet, taking it out for 10,000 miles a week. (U.S. drivers average around 13,000 miles a year.) With its project, Google has been adamant about its many safety features, including programming to pause rather than gun ahead when a light turns green. Urmson detailed a few of those measures in an interview with Re/code last May.

Google claims comparing its accident figures with existing ones is a fallacy. Many minor accidents — the dings and fender benders — go unreported when only human-driven cars are involved. Google wants them reported, in part, to prove the need for its autonomous systems. It may be a tricky balancing act for Google to weigh transparency with its self-driving project versus a public image of risky robotics.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via