Avride vs Waymo
These two cannot be compared on crash rate. 4 of 5 conditions fail, and the reasons are more informative than the comparison would have been. Both are measured on the 2026 Q2 filings, against California driverless mileage.
Comparability
Five conditions must hold before two operators' crash rates mean the same thing.
| Condition | What the record shows | |
|---|---|---|
| Both have reports in the period | Avride 26, Waymo 322 | |
| Both have published exposure | Avride publishes no mileage anywhere, so no per-mile rate exists for it. This is a disclosure gap, not a safety result. | |
| Divisors measure the same thing | Not testable: Avride has no exposure figure, so there is no second quantity to match against. | |
| Each rate covers most of its record | Only 0% and 57% of reports are rateable. A rate covering half the record cannot be set against one covering all of it. | |
| Both file crashes the same way | Severity mix differs sharply — 18% vs 40% of filings are 5-Day. The two are not applying the same threshold, so their counts are not measuring the same population of events. |
The two rates
Shown because withholding them would be its own distortion, but read the verdict first.
no rate computable
No CPUC driverless deployment VMT filed for this operator and period. Source: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/regulatory-services/licensing/transportation-licensing-and-analysis-branch/autonomous-vehicle-programs/quarterly-reporting
6.50 per M mi
California · 2026Q2 · 95% CI 5.59 – 7.52
183 reports ÷ 28,143,285 miles
56.8% of its record is rateable
Do not put these two numbers in a sentence together. Avride publishes no mileage anywhere, so no per-mile rate exists for it. This is a disclosure gap, not a safety result.