Are robotaxis the future? Or instead, the past?
Are robotaxis the future? Or instead, the past?
SF Standard reports on Zoox publicity event for their hot dog toaster shaped vehicle. It should be noted that Zoox does not even have a permit to provide passenger service and they are woefully behind Waymo and even Cruise. Should also be noted that this hot dog shaped design is standard for robotaxis.
SF Examiner reports on the new Waymo "safety" dashboard, which is basically just company propaganda. If Waymo was actually interested safety then they would pivot to providing cost effective driver assist technology. And they would instead alternative forms of transit, and of course, better road design.
Washington Post reports on California legislation that would require vehicles built after 2030 to warn drivers when they are speeding. Even though this would obviously improve safety, it is being fought against by automobile manufactures and the constitutional right to recklessly speed community. But if safety is the goal, this type of technology would make much more of a difference than robotaxis, given it would apply to all new cars.
NY Times reports on the myth of "driverless" robotaxis. It turns out that all of the robotaxi companies have large and expensive remote operation centers, where actual humans help drive the vehicles for the inevitable situations where automation simply does not work.
NY Times asks the truly pertinent question: is Waymo a viable business that will continue? While most articles dwell on safety issues, the NY Times digs into how Waymo might not continue once it realizes it is in a hopeless taxi business where they have to front all the costs.
SF Examiner reports on how Cruise has vanished from SF by their ineptitude, but that Waymo has continued to grow.
