California roads are home to two very different types of ride-hailing options: human-driven Uber vehicles and Waymo’s autonomous robotaxis. Crash data reported by both companies reveals stark contrasts in how injuries occur and who may be held responsible when things go wrong. Waymo’s self-driving vehicles, while still early and limited in deployment and covering far fewer miles than human-driven rideshares, report lower rates of injury-causing collisions, particularly with pedestrians, cyclists, and at intersections. However, these vehicles are not risk-free, and when a crash occurs, liability can involve complex questions about software performance, vehicle design, and human oversight. Because Waymo operates on a much smaller scale, the true reality compared to human-driven rideshares is as-yet unknown.
Uber rides, by contrast, expose passengers and the public to the realities of human error. Increasing numbers of fatalities, serious injuries, and even violent assaults highlight the dangers inherent to relying on a human driver. Determining liability in Uber crashes typically centers on driver negligence, but the company’s operational and legal structures can complicate responsibility for injuries, especially when multiple parties are involved.
This blog examines the crash data reported by Waymo and Uber, explores the patterns of harm associated with autonomous versus human-driven vehicles, and breaks down the legal considerations that shape liability in California. Understanding these differences is critical for anyone navigating the risks of modern rideshare and robotaxi travel.
Key Takeaways
- Autonomous vehicles probably reduce certain high-risk collisions.
Waymo robotaxis report fewer injury crashes, particularly with pedestrians, cyclists, and at intersections. Despite these improvements, accidents still occur, often involving rear-end collisions or software limitations. - Human error remains a serious risk in rideshares.
Uber trips expose passengers to distracted, fatigued, or impaired driving. Rising fatalities, serious injuries, and reports of assaults highlight the dangers that come with relying on human drivers. - Liability differs depending on vehicle type.
In Waymo crashes, responsibility may shift to software, vehicle design, or maintenance, while Uber accidents focus on driver negligence. Both scenarios can involve multiple parties, making recovery complex. - Riders face unique challenges after a crash.
Whether in an autonomous vehicle or a rideshare, victims must navigate complex liability, collect evidence, and understand insurance rules to protect their rights and secure compensation. - No system guarantees safety.
Both autonomous and human-driven vehicles can cause serious injuries. Even with advanced technology or safety protocols, crashes can happen, leaving passengers exposed to physical harm and legal complications.
Waymo Robotaxis: Safety Performance by the Numbers
Waymo’s self-reported safety data suggests its autonomous vehicles may significantly reduce many crash types that historically cause the most serious injuries. According to the company, Waymo cars have lower overall injury rates, fewer collisions with pedestrians and cyclists, and substantial reductions in intersection-related crashes. Despite these reported improvements, accidents involving autonomous vehicles still occur, and the consequences for victims can be severe.
It is important to note that Waymo’s robotaxis remain in early, limited deployment and have not been widely adopted. All available safety data comes directly from the company and has not been independently verified. As a result, any conclusions about overall safety remain provisional and should be interpreted with caution.
Key Safety Findings Reported by Waymo:
- 80% fewer injury crashes than human drivers. If human-driven cars would experience about 380 injury crashes over the same distance, Waymo vehicles reported roughly 20 percent of that number.
- 91% fewer serious injuries and fatal crashes. The company states that the most severe collision types were nearly eliminated within its operating areas.
- 92% fewer pedestrian injuries and 78% fewer cyclist injuries. Collisions involving walkers and bikers occurred at far lower rates compared to human-driven vehicles.
- Major reductions in intersection and multi-vehicle collisions. This includes an 89% decrease in motorcycle crashes involving injuries, a category strongly associated with intersection conflict.
- Regulatory crash reports show low injury rates despite growing mileage. Between 2021 and 2024, 696 Waymo-involved incidents were reported to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, but only 47 injuries and 3 serious injuries were documented. By mid-2025, only one fatal crash had been reported, involving a motorcyclist who rear-ended a Waymo.
Even with these reductions, autonomous vehicles are not immune to risk. Many reported crashes occurred when human drivers rear-ended stationary or slow-moving Waymo vehicles. Software limitations have also contributed to incidents, including a 2025 recall related to misidentifying stopped school buses. Other collisions occurred when Waymo vehicles braked sharply to avoid small animals, causing human-driven vehicles behind them to collide.
The overall picture is clear. Autonomous vehicles can reduce certain types of roadway harm, but they remain fallible machines operating in an unpredictable environment. When a crash occurs involving a Waymo, victims still rely on clear evidence, prompt investigation, and a thorough understanding of liability to protect their rights and secure compensation under California law.
Uber Rideshare: Accident Rates and Safety Issues
Uber’s safety data underscores the dangers of human-driven rideshare vehicles. Fatal crashes continue, many caused by third-party drivers, and pedestrians, cyclists, and other vulnerable road users remain at high risk. Reports show sexual assaults occur roughly every eight minutes on Uber trips, revealing systemic failures in passenger safety.
Three recently proposed initiatives from The Alliance for Corporate Abuse aim to hold Uber accountable and protect victims. They would preserve the right of accident and assault victims to choose their own attorney, strengthen protections against sexual assault, and require public reporting of crashes, safety violations, and company policies. Together, these measures would safeguard medical care, enforce corporate responsibility, and address Uber’s ongoing negligence. To learn more about these initiatives and how they protect California residents, visit consumerwatchdog.org.
Key Safety Findings Reported by Uber:
- Uber reported 153 fatalities in Uber-related crashes in the United States during 2021 and 2022. This represents an increase from the 101 deaths reported in the 2019 and 2020 period and reflects a rise in fatal outcomes on the platform during those years.
- Measured per mile traveled, Uber’s motor vehicle fatality rate increased by about 40% between the 2019–2020 and 2021–2022 reporting periods.
- Uber reports that 95% of fatal crashes involving risky driving behaviors on the platform in 2021–2022 were caused by third-party drivers. The data also shows that one-third of all Uber-related fatalities involved an alcohol-impaired driver, and every alcohol-impaired driver in these crashes was a third party. This highlights how often reckless non-Uber drivers contribute to the most serious collisions.
- Approximately 97% of Uber-related crash fatalities in 2021–2022 occurred in urban environments. Uber’s data also shows that many pedestrian fatalities happened in dark conditions on major urban roadways, consistent with nationally elevated nighttime crash risks in dense city settings.
- While there is no official national tally of all crashes involving Uber vehicles, research shows that rideshare drivers commonly experience collisions: one survey found that one-third of ride-share drivers reported being involved in a crash while working. This suggests that thousands of crashes involving Uber vehicles likely occur annually, and many result in injury.
- Uber disclosed 2,717 reports of the five most serious categories of sexual assault during rides in 2021–2022. This represents a substantial number of serious safety incidents on the platform and highlights risks that are unrelated to motor-vehicle collisions.
- Uber recorded 36 fatal physical assaults during rides in 2021–2022, nearly double the number reported in the prior period. This increase demonstrates that safety concerns on the platform extend beyond motor-vehicle collisions and include violent incidents involving both drivers and riders.
- Uber states that more than 99.9% of trips conclude without any reported safety issue. However, with an estimated 18.7 million Uber trips occurring each day worldwide, even a very small percentage of problematic rides translates into a substantial number of actual safety incidents.
Even with millions of trips completed each day, human-driven rideshare vehicles carry risks that cannot be eliminated through policy or technology alone. The rising number of Uber-related fatalities, the higher crash rate per mile compared to the national average, and the concentration of severe collisions in dense urban corridors all point to a central truth: human error remains the leading cause of rideshare injuries and deaths. Distracted driving, fatigue, speeding, and impairment continue to drive the most serious Uber crashes, including those that injure pedestrians and cyclists at disproportionate rates. The safety risks also extend beyond collisions. Thousands of reported assaults during Uber rides highlight the unique vulnerabilities riders face when relying on a human driver. The overall picture is clear. Human-driven rideshare services expose passengers to significant and well-documented dangers. When an Uber accident or safety incident occurs in California, victims must act quickly. Strong evidence, timely investigation, and a clear understanding of insurance coverage and liability rules are essential to protecting their right to full compensation under California personal injury law.
Human Error vs. Autonomous System: Understanding the Risk Factors
Autonomous vehicles experience fewer injury crashes than human-driven cars because they remove human error from the equation. Human drivers, including professional rideshare operators, face a variety of risky behaviors and limitations that increase the likelihood of accidents, including:
- Distracted driving: Texting, adjusting the GPS, or interacting with passengers can take a human driver’s attention off the road, making crashes far more likely. Waymo’s autonomous system does not get distracted and continuously monitors its surroundings.
- Fatigue and long hours: Rideshare drivers often work extended or irregular shifts, and drowsy driving slows reaction times, creating serious crash risks. Waymo vehicles do not get tired and maintain full attention around the clock.
- Speeding and aggressive driving: Human drivers may speed or drive aggressively to save time or out of impatience. Uber drivers might rush to reach the next passenger or meet personal quotas. Autonomous vehicles follow speed limits and maintain safe distances by design.
- Impaired driving: Some Uber drivers have been impaired while on the road, and many Uber-related crashes involve other drunk drivers. Autonomous vehicles never drive under the influence and remain fully attentive at all times.
Autonomous systems also face challenges that human drivers might navigate more effectively:
- Recognition errors: Self-driving technology can sometimes misidentify objects, such as mistaking a pedestrian for a static object or failing to recognize a school bus’s flashing lights. Human drivers often use context and common sense to anticipate unusual situations, like noticing someone crossing mid-block or expecting children near a stopped school bus.
- Over-caution or unexpected maneuvers: Autonomous vehicles can make defensive moves that surprise human drivers, such as braking suddenly for a small animal or stopping briefly when the system detects a potential hazard. Drivers following too closely may rear-end the AV because they did not anticipate the stop. Human drivers also interpret subtle social cues, like eye contact with pedestrians or hand signals at a four-way stop, which current autonomous systems do not recognize. These differences can contribute to minor collisions.
- System outages or bugs: Although uncommon, software errors or sensor failures can cause autonomous vehicles to behave unpredictably. For example, a Waymo vehicle experienced a mechanical failure when a wheel detached, and software issues affecting path planning could theoretically lead to a crash. Human drivers are also subject to mechanical failures, such as tire blowouts or brake malfunctions, but when an AV malfunctions, it introduces additional questions of product defect alongside driving error.
In sum, Waymo’s robotaxis avoid most of the crashes that stem from human mistakes, and that is a significant safety advantage. However, they introduce new risks tied to the limits of current technology. When a crash involves an autonomous vehicle, determining fault often requires reviewing sensor data and software logs to understand why the vehicle made a particular decision. The question becomes whether another driver caused the collision entirely or whether the AV failed to respond in a way a reasonably careful human would. These details matter, because they directly shape who is legally responsible for the resulting damages and injuries.
Liability in a Waymo Self-Driving Car Accident
A key distinction between a Waymo crash and an Uber crash is how liability is determined. In a traditional human-driven collision, fault usually rests on driver negligence. In a driverless Waymo crash, there is no human driver to blame at the scene, which means responsibility may shift to the autonomous technology or the companies that designed, maintained, or deployed it. Several parties can be held legally accountable in a Waymo robotaxi collision.
- Waymo as the operator and developer of the autonomous system
Waymo can be liable if the self-driving technology contributed to the crash. This includes software errors, faulty decision making, sensor malfunctions, or failures in the vehicle’s perception system. These claims often look like product liability cases, where the argument is that the AV operated in an unsafe or defective manner. If a coding flaw or sensor failure caused the collision, Waymo may be responsible for resulting injuries and damages.
- The vehicle manufacturer
Waymo’s fleet is built on vehicles produced by companies such as Jaguar or Chrysler. If a mechanical defect unrelated to the autonomous software causes the accident, the automaker may share liability. Examples include brake failures, steering issues, or defective parts that caused or contributed to the crash. In these situations, fault may be split between the AV software and the underlying vehicle manufacturer depending on what failed. - Human safety operators or passengers (in limited scenarios)
Although Waymo’s public service uses fully driverless vehicles, some testing environments still involve human safety drivers. If a safety driver overrides the system and makes a negligent maneuver that causes a crash, that individual and potentially Waymo as their employer may be liable. Likewise, if a passenger interferes with the vehicle’s operation, such interference may expose them to partial responsibility. These cases are rare but legally significant when they occur. - Other drivers, cyclists, or pedestrians
Most Waymo-involved crashes have been caused by human drivers hitting the AV, often by rear-ending it or violating traffic laws. When a human outside the Waymo vehicle is negligent, that person remains liable just as they would in any other collision. Their insurer would be responsible for damages. Even so, Waymo’s behavior will still be scrutinized to determine whether the AV reacted the way a reasonably safe system should have, which can lead to shared or disputed liability.
Determining liability in a Waymo collision requires a deeper technical investigation than a typical car accident. Investigators analyze sensor data, black-box logs, and software behavior to determine why the AV acted as it did. They look for system errors, hardware failures, outdated software, or unreasonable responses to road conditions. Because autonomous vehicle law is still developing, there are not yet many legal precedents. States like California require AV companies to carry significant insurance, but proving fault often involves highly technical evidence and aggressive corporate defense strategies.
The bottom line is that driverless car crashes raise novel legal questions. Injured victims must rely on prompt evidence preservation, expert analysis, and a clear understanding of both negligence and product liability principles to secure the compensation they are entitled to under California law.
Liability in an Uber or Rideshare Accident
In an Uber crash, the question of liability centers on human negligence and the interaction between several layers of insurance coverage. Unlike a driverless Waymo collision, where fault may shift to the technology, Uber accidents focus on the conduct of the human driver and the protections provided by Uber’s insurance policy. Several parties may be responsible in a rideshare collision.
- The Uber driver
If an Uber driver is negligent by speeding, violating traffic laws, or failing to maintain proper attention, the driver is legally liable like any other motorist. Although drivers are required to carry personal auto insurance, those policies are frequently inadequate for rideshare-related injuries. Uber’s commercial insurance is triggered only when the driver is logged into the app, and even then, the scope of protection has narrowed. Uber has significantly reduced the practical availability of its liability coverage by limiting when higher policy limits apply and shifting risk onto lower-tier or contingent policies whenever possible. Only during an active trip, beginning when a ride request is accepted and ending when the passenger exits the vehicle, does Uber provide up to one million dollars in liability coverage. This structure restricts meaningful recovery for many injured passengers, pedestrians, cyclists, and third parties, despite Uber’s central role in placing drivers on California roads. - Other drivers or third parties involved in the crash
If another motorist causes the collision, that driver is responsible for the resulting injuries and damages. For example, if a speeding driver hits the Uber vehicle while you are a passenger, your claim would typically be made against that at-fault driver’s insurance. Uber’s insurance policy also provides uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage in many states, including California. This coverage protects passengers when the at-fault driver has no insurance or carries limits that are too low to fully compensate for the harm caused. Whether the negligent driver is the Uber operator or another motorist on the road, passengers usually have access to a substantial pool of insurance coverage through Uber. - Uber as a company
Uber intentionally classifies its drivers as independent contractors in California, a designation that is central to limiting the company’s direct legal exposure when crashes occur. This classification forces injured passengers and third parties to pursue recovery through layered insurance policies rather than holding Uber directly accountable for the conduct of the drivers it places on the road. While this structure benefits Uber financially, it shifts risk away from the company and onto riders and the public.
Despite this classification, Uber exercises significant control over its platform. The company determines who may drive, establishes eligibility standards, conducts background checks, and retains the authority to approve, suspend, or remove drivers at any time. Uber also profits from every trip. When Uber allows drivers with known risk factors to remain active, including drivers with prior violent felony convictions that meet Uber’s eligibility criteria, it assumes responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of those decisions.
In limited but critical cases, Uber may face direct liability for negligent hiring or negligent retention. These claims arise when evidence shows that Uber failed to adequately screen a driver, ignored red flags, or permitted a dangerous driver to continue transporting passengers. These are not isolated technical claims. They expose a fundamental contradiction in Uber’s business model. Uber actively controls access to its platform and passengers while relying on contractor classification and insurance frameworks to shield itself from accountability. When safety policies are weakened or enforcement is lax, resulting injuries are not random events. They are the predictable outcome of corporate choices that prioritize expansion and operational flexibility over passenger safety.
Insurance coverage in an Uber crash depends heavily on the driver’s status at the exact moment of the collision, whether the driver was offline, logged into the app waiting for a request, or actively transporting a passenger. If the driver was completely offline, only the driver’s personal auto insurance applies. If the driver was logged in but had not yet accepted a ride, Uber provides only a limited tier of contingent liability coverage. The full one million dollar commercial liability policy applies solely during an active trip, beginning when a ride is accepted and ending when the passenger exits the vehicle. Establishing this timeline is critical, as Uber’s insurance obligations change dramatically based on app status. This is why trip data, GPS logs, and internal platform records are often central to resolving rideshare injury claims.
As Uber expands into advanced vehicle technology, including its partnership with Lucid to deploy Uber operated vehicles equipped with autonomous and semi autonomous driving systems, the liability landscape becomes even more complex. These vehicles still operate within Uber’s rideshare framework, meaning insurance coverage may continue to hinge on app status while also raising new questions about the role of vehicle technology, system limitations, and human oversight. When a crash occurs, determining whether fault lies with the driver, the automated system, the vehicle manufacturer, or Uber itself becomes far more difficult. This uncertainty does not protect the public. It protects the company.
These risks are compounded by Uber’s use of Proposition 22 to restructure responsibility and distance itself from crashes involving its platform. By classifying drivers as independent contractors and limiting corporate accountability, Prop 22 created a framework that allows Uber to avoid direct responsibility in a wide range of collision scenarios, including traditional rideshare, semi autonomous, and future autonomous operations. The result is a system where liability is fragmented across drivers, insurers, and technology vendors, while Uber remains insulated from full financial responsibility. What is framed as innovation ultimately shifts risk away from the company and onto California residents.
Rideshare collisions already involve multiple parties, overlapping insurance policies, and frequent disputes over fault. Uber and its insurance partners routinely challenge claims, delay investigations, and attempt to minimize payouts. Injured victims are left navigating a technical and adversarial process while facing medical bills, lost income, and long term recovery needs. Thorough investigations into driver conduct, app status, vehicle systems, and every available insurance layer are often required to prevent coverage gaps from unfairly shifting the financial burden onto the injured.
Without clear accountability and enforceable safeguards, Uber’s evolving business model and layered insurance structure continue to benefit the company while placing the financial and legal risk on the public. For Californians, this means that as technology advances, meaningful protection has not kept pace.
What Accident Victims Should Know (Waymo vs. Uber Crashes)
If you are injured in a crash involving a Waymo robotaxi or an Uber rideshare, the steps you take after the collision matter. While the technology behind these vehicles is different, you should treat both situations with the same level of caution and care. Knowing what to do in the moments and days that follow can protect your health, strengthen your claim, and help you secure the compensation you deserve.
- Prioritize safety and medical care. Move to a safe place, call 911 if anyone is injured, and get medical attention even if symptoms seem mild. Early treatment protects your health and creates the medical documentation needed for an injury claim.
- Report the crash. Contact law enforcement so an official police report is created, and notify Uber through the app or Waymo support if an autonomous vehicle was involved. These reports help preserve key facts and establish that the collision occurred.
- Collect evidence. If it is safe, take photos of the scene, vehicle positions, damage, and road conditions. Gather witness information and note any unusual vehicle behavior. A personal injury attorney can later obtain ride data, telematics, or autonomous vehicle logs.
- Protect your claim and seek legal help. Provide only essential information after the crash and avoid detailed discussions with insurers or company representatives until your rights are clear. Early statements can be misinterpreted or used to shift blame. Critical evidence can disappear quickly, and both companies have experienced legal teams, so involving a personal injury attorney is essential for preserving key data, managing insurer communications, and pursuing full compensation under California law.
As California roads continue to evolve, riders are increasingly faced with a difficult choice between human driven rideshare vehicles and autonomous robotaxis. Each option offers convenience, but each carries different safety risks and legal consequences when something goes wrong. Would you rather place your trust in a driverless vehicle guided by software and sensors, or accept the very real risks that can come with a human driver, including distraction, fatigue, impaired driving, or worse, the possibility of sexual assault during a ride? These are uncomfortable questions, but they reflect the realities riders must weigh today. Understanding how these services operate, how injuries occur, and how liability is handled after a crash allows you to make a more informed decision before you ever request a ride. While that choice is personal, awareness of the risks and your legal rights can make all the difference if the ride does not end safely.
Injured in a Waymo or Uber Accident? RMD Law Can Help
If that risk became your reality and you were injured in a crash involving a Waymo robotaxi or an Uber rideshare, the aftermath can feel overwhelming. These cases raise complex questions about technology, insurance coverage, and fault, while victims are left coping with painful injuries, mounting medical bills, and uncertainty about what comes next.
At RMD Law, our experienced California accident attorneys handle both autonomous vehicle collisions and rideshare crashes. We understand the unique challenges these cases present, from preserving critical autonomous vehicle data and system logs to navigating Uber’s layered insurance policies and corporate defenses. Our team knows how to investigate self-driving vehicle behavior, identify human driver negligence, and build strong claims that hold the appropriate parties accountable.
We manage every stage of the legal process, including evidence preservation, insurer communications, and settlement negotiations. When necessary, we are prepared to take cases to court to protect your rights. Our focus is on securing full compensation for your medical expenses, lost income, pain and suffering, and long-term recovery needs.
If you or a loved one was harmed in a Waymo or Uber incident, you do not have to face this alone. Contact RMD Law at (949) 828-0015 for a free consultation. We will evaluate your case, explain your legal options, and help you move forward with clarity and confidence. Our mission is to stand up for injured victims and pursue the justice and accountability they deserve.
FAQs
- Who may be held legally liable in a collision involving a Waymo robotaxi?
Liability in a Waymo collision may extend beyond a single party and can involve the autonomous driving system, the vehicle manufacturer, software developers, maintenance providers, or a third party motorist. Because Waymo vehicles operate without a human driver in control, fault analysis often focuses on whether the automated system functioned as a reasonably safe product under California law. This requires review of sensor performance, software decision making, system limitations, and compliance with regulatory standards governing autonomous vehicle deployment.
- How does fault analysis differ between Uber crashes and Waymo robotaxi crashes?
Uber crashes primarily involve traditional negligence principles centered on human driving behavior, such as distraction, fatigue, or traffic violations. Fault determination also depends on the driver’s status within the Uber app at the time of the collision, which dictates which insurance policies apply. Waymo crashes, by contrast, may involve product liability and complex technical causation, requiring examination of automated responses, system design, and interactions between human drivers and autonomous vehicles. Each type of crash demands a fundamentally different investigative approach.
- What legal considerations determine responsibility after an Uber or Waymo accident?
Responsibility is determined through a comprehensive legal analysis that considers operational control, regulatory compliance, and the allocation of risk structured by each company. Uber’s business model relies on classifying drivers as independent contractors and tiering insurance coverage based on app activity, which can complicate liability analysis. Waymo’s model shifts responsibility toward corporate systems and automated decision making, raising questions of product safety and system reliability. In both cases, liability determinations often depend on access to proprietary data and internal records that are not publicly available.
- What evidence is critical to preserve after a rideshare or robotaxi collision?
Preserving evidence promptly is essential in both Uber and Waymo cases. Important materials include police reports, photographs, witness statements, vehicle damage documentation, and ride activity records. In autonomous vehicle cases, sensor data, system logs, and software event records are particularly significant and may be overwritten or withheld without immediate legal action. Early evidence preservation can be decisive in establishing fault and protecting an injured party’s claim.
- Why are claims involving Uber and Waymo more complex than ordinary car accident cases?
Claims involving Uber and Waymo are inherently complex due to layered insurance structures, corporate control of critical data, and the rapid involvement of defense counsel. Uber and Waymo are both positioned to limit direct responsibility by shifting blame to drivers, third parties, or technical explanations. Injured individuals often face delays, data access barriers, and disputed liability theories that do not arise in standard vehicle collisions. Successfully pursuing these claims requires a detailed understanding of emerging transportation law, insurance frameworks, and technical evidence.
- Rideshare and Robotaxi Safety in California: What Waymo and Uber Crash Data Reveals - January 27, 2026
- How Does Road Infrastructure Affect Traffic Accidents in California - January 22, 2026
- Lane-Splitting Motorcycle Accidents in California: It’s Legal, But Who’s Liable? - January 15, 2026
