News
Will driverless taxis make Suffolk County roads safer, and who is responsible when something goes wrong?
Imagine ordering a taxi in Huntington, getting into the back seat, and traveling to Smithtown without anyone behind the wheel. No driver to greet you. No hands on the steering wheel. Just a vehicle navigating Long Island’s roads entirely on its own.
It may sound like something from a science fiction movie, but this technology is already operating in cities throughout the United States.
Waymo, the self-driving taxi company owned by Google’s parent company, Alphabet, is transporting paying passengers without human drivers. Its vehicles navigate intersections, respond to traffic signals, avoid pedestrians, and make driving decisions using sophisticated computers and sensors.
As a Long Island personal injury attorney, I find this development fascinating. I have spent my career representing people injured in motor vehicle accidents. Most of those accidents involve some form of human error. A driver was distracted, traveling too fast, following too closely, or failed to yield the right of way.
What happens when we remove the human driver from the equation?
The answer could fundamentally change automobile safety, insurance claims, and personal injury litigation in Suffolk County and throughout New York.
Waymo began in 2009 as Google’s self-driving car project. The original goal was ambitious: develop a vehicle capable of safely navigating public roads without human intervention.
Google spent years testing autonomous vehicles, initially in California and later in other parts of the country. In 2016, the project became Waymo, a separate company under Alphabet.
The first major commercial breakthrough came in Phoenix, Arizona.
In December 2018, Waymo introduced Waymo One, a ride-hailing service that allowed passengers to request rides in autonomous vehicles. The initial service was limited, and some vehicles still had human safety operators.
By October 2020, Waymo was offering fully driverless rides to the public in its Phoenix service area.
The company subsequently expanded to San Francisco, Los Angeles, Austin, and Atlanta. During 2026, Waymo continued expanding into additional cities, including Miami, Orlando, Dallas, Houston, Denver, San Diego, and Tampa.
By September 2026, Waymo reported providing fully autonomous passenger trips in 14 cities, although access remained limited in some newer markets.
This is no longer simply an experiment. Driverless taxis have become an established transportation option in several major American cities.
Waymo’s vehicles use a combination of cameras, radar, lidar, detailed mapping, and artificial intelligence to navigate public roads.
Cameras identify traffic signals, lane markings, pedestrians, and other vehicles. Radar helps determine the location and speed of surrounding objects. Lidar uses laser pulses to create a three-dimensional representation of the vehicle’s surroundings.
The vehicle’s computer combines this information to determine where it is, what is happening around it, and how it should respond.
For example, when approaching an intersection, the system must identify the traffic signal, recognize approaching vehicles, anticipate the movement of pedestrians, and determine whether it is safe to proceed.
All of this happens without a human driver making the decisions.
There is also an important distinction between Waymo and Tesla.
| Waymo | Tesla Autopilot / Full Self-Driving (Supervised) |
|---|---|
| Operates fully autonomous vehicles within designated service areas and operating conditions. | Requires an attentive human driver who remains responsible for operating the vehicle. |
Tesla’s commonly available Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (Supervised) systems require an attentive human driver who remains responsible for operating the vehicle. Waymo operates fully autonomous vehicles within designated service areas and operating conditions.
I have previously discussed these technological developments on my Long Island Self-Driving Car Accident Lawyer page.
The distinction matters because when an autonomous vehicle causes an accident, determining who is legally responsible can become considerably more complicated.
This is probably the most important question.
If driverless vehicles can substantially reduce serious automobile accidents, their widespread adoption would be a tremendous benefit to the public.
And the early evidence is encouraging.
According to Waymo’s published safety data, its vehicles accumulated approximately 271 million miles of fully autonomous driving through June 2026.
When compared with human drivers traveling comparable distances in the same operating areas, Waymo reported:
Those are impressive statistics.
To put them into perspective, imagine if we could reduce serious motor vehicle accidents on Long Island by even half. Think about the number of families who would be spared the consequences of catastrophic injuries or the death of a loved one.
However, I would caution against assuming these statistics mean driverless vehicles are incapable of making dangerous mistakes.
Waymo’s comparisons concern vehicles operating in specific geographic areas and conditions. They do not necessarily establish that the technology would perform equally well on every roadway in the country.
The statistics also include crashes regardless of which vehicle was responsible.
Nevertheless, I believe it would be a mistake to dismiss the safety benefits of this technology simply because accidents still occur.
The question is whether Waymo can maintain that safety record as it expands into more complicated driving environments.
Yes.
Despite Waymo’s favorable overall safety statistics, its vehicles have been involved in accidents that raise legitimate questions about the technology.
In January 2026, a Waymo vehicle struck a nine-year-old pedestrian near an elementary school in Santa Monica, California. The child reportedly sustained injuries. Federal safety investigators began examining the incident.
Waymo has also faced scrutiny involving vehicles passing stopped school buses with their warning equipment activated.
In December 2025, Waymo recalled software affecting thousands of vehicles because of concerns involving stopped school buses.
Other software-related recalls have involved the vehicles’ responses to roadway barriers and similar obstacles.
These incidents do not establish that autonomous vehicles are generally less safe than human drivers.
They do demonstrate that removing the human driver does not eliminate the possibility of negligence, defective technology, or serious injury.
In some respects, it simply changes the nature of the risk.
Yes, and one California lawsuit illustrates the legal challenges that autonomous vehicles present.
In June 2025, a bicyclist named Jenifer Hanki filed a lawsuit against Waymo and Alphabet in San Francisco.
According to the complaint, Hanki was riding her bicycle when a passenger in a stopped Waymo vehicle opened a door into her path.
She allegedly struck the door and was thrown into a second Waymo vehicle.
Hanki claims she sustained serious injuries, including a traumatic brain injury.
The lawsuit raises questions about Waymo’s vehicle positioning and its Safe Exit system, which is intended to warn passengers about approaching bicyclists and pedestrians.
The allegations remain disputed and should not be confused with findings of liability.
What makes the case particularly interesting is that the accident did not involve a traditional driving mistake such as running a red light.
Instead, it raises questions about whether the company adequately designed and operated technology intended to protect people outside the vehicle.
In August 2026, the court addressed discovery disputes involving information about prior cyclist-related incidents and the Safe Exit system.
I expect these types of disputes to become increasingly important as autonomous vehicles become more common.
Waymo has expressed interest in expanding into New York, and the company has conducted testing in New York City with human safety operators.
However, as of October 2026, Waymo has not announced a commercial launch date for Suffolk County or Nassau County.
New York’s existing legal framework remains a major obstacle to operating fully driverless taxis.
In February 2026, Governor Kathy Hochul withdrew a proposal that would have permitted limited commercial autonomous vehicle pilot programs outside New York City.
The withdrawal followed concerns about whether the proposal had sufficient legislative support.
New York lawmakers have also introduced legislation addressing autonomous vehicle operation, insurance, licensing, and safety requirements.
Until an appropriate legal framework is established, Waymo cannot simply begin offering driverless taxi rides throughout Long Island.
My expectation is that we could begin seeing commercial driverless taxi services in selected parts of Long Island within the next several years, assuming the Legislature authorizes them.
I would not be surprised if limited service eventually reaches Suffolk County before the end of this decade, although there is no confirmed timetable.
This is a question I believe deserves more attention.
Much of Waymo’s operating experience has been accumulated in metropolitan areas such as Phoenix, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.
Long Island presents a different driving environment.
Consider Route 347 in Smithtown, Route 110 in Huntington, Middle Country Road, or Montauk Highway.
These roads combine relatively high speeds, heavy traffic, frequent intersections, commercial driveways, and unpredictable driver behavior.
A driverless vehicle must be capable of handling all of these conditions.
Many Long Island roads have speed limits of 40, 45, or 55 mph.
At 45 mph, a vehicle travels approximately 66 feet every second.
A delay in recognizing a dangerous situation can have serious consequences.
Unprotected left turns are another concern. The vehicle must accurately judge the speed and distance of approaching traffic before deciding whether it is safe to turn.
Some residential and secondary roads in Suffolk County have faded lane markings, narrow shoulders, or no centerlines.
Others have unusual intersections, curves, and obstructed sight lines.
Although Waymo does not depend exclusively on painted lane markings, these conditions can make navigation more complicated.
Long Island also experiences snow, ice, heavy rain, fog, and occasional coastal flooding.
These conditions can interfere with sensors, obscure road markings, and reduce traction.
An autonomous vehicle must recognize when weather conditions make continued operation unsafe.
Long Island’s suburban roads present other challenges.
School buses make frequent stops. Children may enter the roadway unexpectedly. Deer cross roads. Landscaping trucks stop along narrow shoulders. Vehicles back out of concealed driveways.
None of these hazards is necessarily beyond Waymo’s capabilities.
However, before expanding into Suffolk County, I would want to know whether the company has adequately tested its vehicles under comparable conditions.
A strong safety record in San Francisco does not automatically establish that the same system will perform equally well on every road in Suffolk County.
Injured by a driverless vehicle?
If you’ve been hurt in an accident involving a self-driving car on Long Island, the company operating the vehicle or the makers of defective technology may be accountable. Preserving electronic evidence early matters. Contact us to discuss your options.
This may be the most significant legal question. In a traditional automobile accident, we generally investigate whether a driver violated a traffic law or failed to exercise reasonable care.
Suppose a driver makes an unsafe left turn at the intersection of Route 347 and Nicolls Road. We would investigate whether the driver failed to yield the right of way under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141.
Now imagine the same accident involving a fully autonomous Waymo vehicle.
There is no human driver to question about what happened. Instead, we need to determine why the vehicle made the turn.
Did its sensors identify the approaching car? Did the computer accurately calculate its speed? Was there a software error? Had the company previously experienced similar problems?
Potentially responsible parties could include Waymo, the vehicle manufacturer, or another company involved in developing or maintaining a defective component.
Depending on the circumstances, claims could involve negligence, defective design, manufacturing defects, or failure to warn.
However, the fact that an autonomous vehicle was involved in an accident does not automatically establish that its technology was defective.
As with any personal injury case, liability must be established through evidence.
|
01
The operator
Waymo The company operating the vehicle. Did its sensors identify the approaching car? Did the computer accurately calculate its speed? Was there a software error? Had the company previously experienced similar problems?
Negligence
|
|
02
The builder
Vehicle Manufacturer The company that built the vehicle may share responsibility where the design itself contributed to the crash rather than a one-off failure.
Defective Design
|
|
03
The suppliers
Component Makers Another company involved in developing or maintaining a defective component, from sensors to software, could be a responsible party depending on the circumstances.
Manufacturing Defect
|
I believe autonomous vehicles will eventually change the way automobile accident cases are investigated and litigated.
For decades, most car accident cases have focused on human conduct.
Was the driver speeding? Was the driver distracted? Did the driver fail to yield? Was the driver following too closely?
Autonomous vehicles introduce an entirely different set of questions.
Sensor recordings, vehicle speed, braking activity, steering commands, object recognition data, software versions, and communications with remote assistance personnel could establish precisely what the vehicle detected and how it responded.
Autonomous vehicle cases may require engineers, accident reconstruction experts, and specialists familiar with automated driving systems.
A Waymo accident could involve a large corporation and potentially several companies responsible for different aspects of the vehicle.
Modern vehicles already record information that can help reconstruct an accident.
I discussed this in my article, Your Car May Be a Witness: How Black Box Data Is Changing Long Island Car Accident Cases.
Autonomous vehicles take electronic evidence to another level.
Depending on the system and what information was preserved, potentially relevant evidence may include sensor recordings, vehicle speed, braking activity, steering commands, object recognition data, software versions, and communications with remote assistance personnel.
This information could establish precisely what the vehicle detected and how it responded.
It could also reveal that the system failed to recognize a hazard or made an unreasonable driving decision.
Preserving this evidence immediately after an accident will be critical.
I also anticipate substantial discovery disputes involving proprietary software, confidential technical information, and records of prior similar incidents.
In many traditional automobile cases, liability can be established through eyewitness testimony, photographs, and the police accident report.
Autonomous vehicle cases may require engineers, accident reconstruction experts, and specialists familiar with automated driving systems.
Those experts may need to evaluate sensor data, software behavior, and the vehicle’s decision-making process.
This could make some cases considerably more expensive to litigate.
On the other hand, electronic records may eliminate factual disputes that would otherwise require a trial.
Traditional automobile negligence claims often involve an individual driver and an insurance carrier.
A Waymo accident could involve a large corporation and potentially several companies responsible for different aspects of the vehicle.
These defendants may have substantial financial resources, but they may also have strong incentives to defend cases involving important questions about their technology.
I would not assume that a case against Waymo would necessarily be easier to settle.
Generally, yes.
The fact that a vehicle operates without a human driver does not automatically eliminate New York’s no-fault insurance system.
Injured occupants, pedestrians, and other eligible individuals may still have access to first-party benefits, depending on the circumstances and applicable insurance arrangements.
Likewise, New York’s serious injury threshold will remain an important consideration in covered automobile accident claims.
An injured person generally must establish a qualifying serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d) to recover damages for pain and suffering in an action governed by the threshold.
Autonomous vehicle accidents may also create additional questions concerning commercial insurance, corporate responsibility, and product liability.
These issues will become clearer as New York develops its regulatory framework and courts begin addressing claims involving fully driverless vehicles.
For more information about automobile accident claims, visit my Long Island Car Accident Lawyer page.
For claims involving conventional ride-hailing services, I also discuss the issues on my Long Island Uber and Lyft Accident Lawyer page.
I believe they could.
If autonomous vehicles continue to demonstrate substantially lower accident rates than human drivers, widespread adoption could reduce the number of serious motor vehicle accidents.
That would be a welcome development.
I have represented enough people whose lives have been permanently changed by automobile accidents to appreciate the importance of preventing those injuries in the first place.
But I do not believe automobile accident litigation will disappear.
For many years, autonomous vehicles will share the roads with human drivers.
Accidents will still occur, and some will involve serious injuries or wrongful death.
The legal questions may become more complicated, particularly when responsibility involves software, sensors, vehicle manufacturers, and corporate decisions about when and where the technology should operate.
Many of the same steps that apply to traditional automobile accidents remain important.
| 1 | Seek medical attention
Get evaluated promptly, even if injuries seem minor at first. |
| 2 | Report the accident
Make sure the crash is officially documented. |
| 3 | Photograph the scene and gather witnesses
Obtain photographs and witness information while details are fresh. |
| 4 | Document your injuries
Keep a record of your injuries and the treatment you receive. |
| 5 | Identify the operator and preserve electronic evidence
Identify the company operating the vehicle and take prompt steps to preserve relevant recordings, data, and electronic records. |
Seek medical attention, report the accident, obtain photographs and witness information, and document your injuries.
However, accidents involving autonomous vehicles present an additional concern.
Electronic evidence may be essential to determining what happened.
It is important to identify the company operating the vehicle and take prompt steps to preserve relevant recordings, data, and electronic records.
An injured person should not assume that the absence of a human driver means there is no one legally responsible.
Depending on the circumstances, there may be viable claims against the company operating the vehicle or entities responsible for defective technology.
The same principles apply when a driverless vehicle strikes a pedestrian. I discuss pedestrian injury claims in greater detail on my Long Island Pedestrian Accident Attorney page.
I expect autonomous vehicles to become an increasingly important part of transportation over the next decade.
Whether Waymo ultimately becomes a common sight on Suffolk County roads will depend on New York lawmakers, regulatory approval, public acceptance, and the company’s ability to demonstrate that its technology can operate safely in our communities.
I am encouraged by the possibility that this technology could prevent serious injuries and save lives.
At the same time, I believe the companies developing and operating these vehicles must be held accountable when their negligence or defective technology causes harm.
Technology may change how we drive, but it should not diminish the responsibility to keep other people safe.
For me, that is the most important issue.
A person seriously injured by a driverless vehicle deserves the same opportunity to pursue fair compensation as someone injured by a negligent human driver.
And as this technology continues to develop, our laws must be prepared to protect them.
Waymo is an autonomous ride-hailing company owned by Alphabet, Google’s parent company. Its vehicles use cameras, radar, lidar, and computer software to navigate roads without human drivers. Passengers request rides through an app. Unlike conventional driver-assistance systems, Waymo’s vehicles can operate without someone sitting behind the steering wheel within approved operating conditions.
Waymo’s published safety data indicates that its driverless vehicles have substantially fewer injury-producing crashes per mile than human drivers in comparable operating areas. However, these statistics do not mean autonomous vehicles are incapable of causing accidents. Their safety on Long Island will depend on roadway conditions, weather, traffic patterns, and how effectively the technology responds to unexpected hazards.
As of October 2026, Waymo has not announced a launch date for Suffolk County or Nassau County. New York must first establish an appropriate legal framework for commercial driverless taxi operations. Limited service could potentially arrive within the next several years, but there is no confirmed timetable for Waymo operating on Long Island.
Liability depends on the circumstances of the accident. Potentially responsible parties may include the company operating the autonomous vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer, or a business responsible for defective technology. Establishing liability may require reviewing electronic driving data, software performance, maintenance records, and evidence showing whether the vehicle operated safely under the circumstances.
Potentially, yes. If a Waymo vehicle causes an accident through negligence or defective technology, an injured person may have grounds to pursue compensation. The available claims depend on the facts, applicable state law, and any relevant contractual agreements. The absence of a human driver does not automatically prevent an injured person from bringing a lawsuit.
New York’s no-fault insurance laws can apply to accidents involving autonomous vehicles. Eligible injured people may receive benefits for medical expenses and certain lost earnings, subject to statutory limits and coverage rules. Determining which insurer must provide benefits may be more complicated when a commercial autonomous vehicle and multiple corporate entities are involved.
In a New York automobile accident claim governed by the serious injury threshold, an injured person generally must establish a qualifying injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d) to recover pain and suffering damages. The presence of autonomous technology does not automatically eliminate that requirement. The applicable legal theory and circumstances of the accident remain important.
Electronic evidence may be especially important after an autonomous vehicle accident. Relevant information can include camera footage, sensor recordings, braking data, steering commands, software versions, and remote assistance communications. Photographs, witness statements, police reports, and medical records also matter. Prompt preservation requests may be necessary because important electronic information could otherwise be lost or overwritten.
Long Island presents challenges that differ from those found in dense urban environments. Higher-speed roads, unprotected left turns, faded lane markings, winter weather, and frequent commercial driveways may complicate autonomous driving. However, there is not enough local operating data to conclude that Waymo vehicles would necessarily be less safe in Suffolk County.
Autonomous vehicles could reduce some accidents caused by human error while creating new legal disputes involving software, sensors, corporate negligence, and product liability. Attorneys may increasingly rely on electronic evidence and technical experts to establish fault. New York courts and lawmakers will also need to address insurance coverage and responsibility for vehicles operating without human drivers.
The information provided in this blog is for general informational purposes only and reflects the opinions of the author. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different, and results depend on the specific facts and applicable law. You should not act or rely on any information in this blog without first seeking advice from a qualified attorney regarding your individual situation.
