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

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 →
Nominations Open for 2026 Fleet Safety Award
Nominations have officially opened for the 2026 Fleet Safety Award Winner.
Read More →
Turning Connected Vehicle Data Into Decisions That Matter
Fleet leaders have more data than ever, but turning that data into clear, actionable decisions remains a challenge. This white paper shows how leading organizations are using connected vehicle data to improve safety, reduce costs, and optimize fleet performance. Learn how to turn insight into action across your fleet.
Read More →
Cameras, Safety and Insurance: From Reactive Claims to Real-time Prevention
Commercial auto remains one of the most challenging and costly lines of coverage for fleet operators and insurers alike. Learn more about how to effectively address these issues from Onur Aksan, Enterprise Business Development Executive, Geotab.
Read More →
NAFA Fleet Safety Symposium to Collocate With 2026 Fleet Forward Conference
The daylong certificate program will precede the Fleet Forward Conference at the Gaylord National Harbor in Maryland.
Read More →
The Distractions You Can’t Turn Off: What Drivers Face Outside the Vehicle
Fleet drivers face constant visual, cognitive, and environmental interruptions the moment they hit the road. From roadside chaos to mental fatigue and digital overload, today’s biggest driving risks often come from outside the vehicle itself.
Read More →
FLASH Weather AI Launches First Deep-Learning Hail Prediction Model With High-Resolution Forecasting
FLASH Weather AI has launched a first-of-its-kind hail prediction model capable of forecasting hail size and arrival time at 1-kilometer resolution up to 55 minutes ahead, giving fleets and insurers critical time to prepare for severe storms.
Read More →
