arXiv preprint ·
Where ADS Crashes Differ: A Harmonized Comparison Against Human Baselines
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Crash-rate comparisons between automated driving systems (ADS) and human drivers require an exposure denominator that only a few operators publish. We instead ask a composition question: given a crash, does the mix of crash types differ between ADS and human-driven vehicles? The question needs no mileage and can therefore cover every ADS operator. We assemble the NHTSA Standing General Order (SGO) ADS incident files across both file generations into 2,450 distinct in-scope incidents (2021-2026), of which 828 fall within the 2021-2024 window covered by the Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS), the national police-reported human comparator. A schema-constrained large language model (LLM) codes each SGO narrative into the CRSS crash-type taxonomy. Because SGO compels reporting far below the police-reporting threshold, we bracket reportability with an objective severity floor and a reasonable-person rubric, and claim a difference only where it survives both. Two composition differences hold under every reportability definition, tow definition and weighting of the human side, and under both definitions of driverless operation: turn-across-path crashes are under-represented among ADS crashes (0.23-0.46x the CRSS share under the primary driverless definition) and so are single-vehicle crashes (0.19-0.56x). In severity-floor rear-end crashes the ADS vehicle is the striking party at a quasi-induced-exposure ratio of 0.121 (95% CI [0.05, 0.23]) against a human baseline of 1.000. If the ADS vehicle is also struck more often than its exposure implies, this ratio overstates the ADS-human difference. We also document three pitfalls in the federal data: an operator-specific coding of driverless operation, a tow-away criterion confounded by fleet recovery practice, and an occupancy confound that accounts for about 42% of the apparent ADS-human severity gap.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computers & Society
Language Non-Invariance in the Ideological Evaluation of Large Language Models
Do Social Influence Pressures Move LLM Agents? Evidence from Delegated Audit Judgment
GESIS Surf: An Open-Source Infrastructure for Privacy-Preserving Longitudinal Web Browsing Data Collection
Dual-Axis Policy Entailment: A Benchmark for Policy-Change Reasoning
The Ineliminable Anchor: Human Judgment as a Structural Requirement of Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Systems
Get the few papers worth your time in Computers & Society every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.