Study Compares Human Drivers and Autonomous Vehicle Technologies
A report from the University of Michigan assesses the strengths and weaknesses of human drivers and the various technologies used in self-driving cars.

Photo of Waymo self-driving Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid minivan courtesy of Fiat Chrysler.

Photo of Waymo self-driving Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid minivan courtesy of Fiat Chrysler.
How do human driving skills — based on flesh-and-blood sensory perception, cognition and eye-hand coordination — measure up against autonomous vehicle technologies?
According to a new study, human drivers — when attentive, sober and well rested — still generally maintain an advantage in terms of reasoning, perception and sensing. But machines and computers are quite capable of performing tasks such as driving and have an edge in the areas of reaction time, power output and control, consistency and multichannel information processing.
The study, released by Sustainable Worldwide Transportation at the University of Michigan, offers a scientific take on the man-versus-machine driving debate. Human eyes, for example, are compared to autonomous vehicle radar, LIDAR and camera systems.
One advantage that people have is that their sensory powers are in a much more compact package.
“Matching (or exceeding) human sensing capabilities requires AVs [autonomous vehicles] to employ a variety of sensors, which in turn requires complete sensor fusion across the system, combining all sensor inputs to form a unified view of the surrounding roadway and environment,” the report noted. “While no single sensor completely equals human sensing capabilities, some offer capabilities not possible for a human driver (e.g., accurate distance measurement with lidar, seeing through inclement weather with radar.”
A fully connected autonomous vehicle — one that employs dedicated short-range communications, for example, to exchange data with other vehicles and infrastructure — offers the best potential to effectively and safely replace the human driver when operating vehicles at automation levels 4 (high automation) and 5 (full automation), according to the study.
Brandon Schoettle, a project manager at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute’s Human Factors Group, authored the report.
Below is a table summarizing some of his findings:
Performance aspect | Human | AV Radar | AV LIDAR | AV Camera | Connected vehicle with DSRC | Connected autonomous vehicle |
Object detection | Good | Good | Good | Fair | n/a | Good |
Object classification | Good | Poor | Fair | Good | n/a | Good |
Distance estimation | Fair | Good | Good | Fair | Good | Good |
Edge detection | Good | Poor | Good | Good | n/a | Good |
Lane tracking | Good | Poor | Poor | Good | n/a | Good |
Visibility range | Good | Good | Fair | Fair | Good | Good |
Poor weather performance | Fair | Good | Fair | Poor | Good | Good |
Dark or low illumination performance | Poor | Good | Good | Fair | n/a | Good |
Ability to communicate with other traffic and infrastructure | Poor | n/a | n/a | n/a | Good | Good |
Source: “Sensor Fusion: A Comparison of Sensing Capabilities of Human Drivers and Highly Automated Vehicles,” released by Sustainable Worldwide Transportation at the University of Michigan. DSRC refers to dedicated short-range communications.
More Safety

Nexar-Nauto Merger Aims to Give Fleets Better Safety Intelligence Through Larger Driving Dataset
Stefan Heck tells Automotive Fleet that combining more than 10 billion miles of driving history with Nexar's AI models will give fleets deeper insights into driver risk and roadway conditions than either company could provide independently.
Read More →From Silos to Solutions: Relationship Management for Safer Fleets
From telematics adoption and driver accountability to policy consistency and risk mitigation, this episode breaks down what it really takes to build a safer fleet culture without slowing business down.
Read More →
IIHS Launches First Commercial Vehicle Safety Evaluations
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has begun evaluating heavy-duty pickups and cargo vans for driver protection. Which models earned top marks?
Read More →
Reducing Risk by Eliminating Phone Use Behind the Wheel
Hosted with the cofounder of Lifesaver Mobile, this episode addresses phone use behind the wheel and how to design a driving environment that actually helps prevents accidents.
Read More →
Cameras, Safety and Insurance: From Reactive Claims to Real-Time Prevention (Part 2 of 2)
Part Two: Commercial auto remains one of the most challenging and costly lines of coverage for fleet operators and insurers alike. Continue learning more about how to effectively address these issues from Onur Aksan, Enterprise Business Development Executive, Geotab
Read More →
How 5-Second Telematics Data Is Changing Fleet Safety
This episode connects with Steve Santostasi of Ford Pro and covers how a few seconds of data can make a difference in fleet safety.
Read More →
Managing Road Risk at Scale: Why Fleet Safety Needs a Data-Driven Framework
Insights from the FIA Road and Driver Safety Indexes reveal how to manage road risk on a larger scale.
Read More →
Stellantis Recalls 1.3 Million Jeep Vehicles Worldwide Over Fire Risk
Stellantis is recalling more than 1.3 million Jeep Wrangler and Gladiator models worldwide over a fire risk linked to power steering pump wiring.
Read More →
Coaching Is Not Training, Even When AI Is Doing It
AI-powered safety platforms can detect risky behaviors and deliver immediate feedback. But effective driver development still requires a foundation of training followed by coaching that reinforces those skills.
Read More →
How Emotions Behind the Wheel Can Affect Fleet Safety
During National Safety Month, fleets are encouraged to look beyond distracted driving and recognize how stress, fatigue, and emotional well-being influence driver performance and crash risk.
Read More →
