No. You can't take the whole average.
You can only compare with collisions that are the fault of drivers who are:
1) experienced
2) sober and not high
3) not obviously deliberately driving like an idiot
4) not texting or otherwise significantly distracted in a really dumb way
5) not doing some other things I missed
When you do that, you'll require a reasonable and much higher standard,.
Under those parameters, there wouldn't be enough data to compare.
![Face with tears of joy :joy: 😂](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f602.png)
Taking out weather-related ones, and mechanical failures as well.
How many accidents
don't involve someone: drunk/high, distracted, or otherwise intentionally breaking the law?
What's left? How else do accidents occur? Only happens due to a driver not paying attention or a misjudgment, right?
That's the whole purpose of autonomy, full-time attention, safer decision making.
You cannot remove
any of those statistics for "human" errors/behaviors.
The whole point is to get a true representation of the difference autonomy would make. Drunk drivers wouldn't have to be driving. Texters wouldn't have to be paying attention. Idiots don't have to make the decisions.
All accidents count. You don't get to choose which accidents count and which don't, for humans or autonomy.
Both are judged the same.
At the end of the day, how many more lives would be saved if we removed humans from the driving? How good does autonomy need to get to be just 1% better than the best human drivers? That's my bar. Because once we reach that level, it'll only continue to improve the more it learns, so if it's better than any human, even a tiny bit, than it's time to let it take the wheel.