Are robotaxis the future? Or instead, the past?
Are robotaxis the future? Or instead, the past?
SF Chronicle publishes a marketing piece for Waymo as an op-ed. William Riggs, the author, is paid by Waymo and other robotaxi companies to do their bidding. Not stating that William Riggs is funded by robotaxi companies is journalistic malpractice by the newspaper.
StreetsBlog NYC reports that despite claims by Waymos, their robotaxis mean more cars rather than fewer. They encourage riders to not just take Waymos, but also other ride hail vehicles. The result is less transit usage and more congestion.
A More Perfect Union created an excellent short video on the ramifications on workers if robotaxis are widely adopted. The situation is grim.
SF Chronicle reports on potential California legislation Bill 1246 that would require a local technician for every three autonomous vehicles. Industry lobbyists for Waymo of course bitched an moaned and went all apocalyptic.
East Bay Times reports on new potential California legislation that would require to have adequate local technicians, one for every three self-driving cars. This is due to the disaster traffic jams that Waymo robotaxis caused during the San Francisco power outage in December '25.
TechCrunch reports that an AVRide autonomous vehicle drove over and killed a mother duck - and Austinites are rightfully outraged.
