Are robotaxis the future? Or instead, the past?
Are robotaxis the future? Or instead, the past?
The news media has expended considerable effort researching and publishing information about the robotaxi business. This channel highlights some of the important articles.
Washington Post reports on how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has fined Cruise $1.5 million for withholding key information from regulators.
Governor Newsom rejects technology that would have greatly improved automobile safety. He completely took the Republican side.
A bunch of examples of Waymos doing dumb things, over just a short couple of weeks.
SF Chronicle reports that Newsom puts the interest of big corporate donors above safety. He vetoed bills that would have required human operators on large trucks. He also vetoed simple yet effective reporting requirements so that the public would actually be able to know how safe autonomous are (what are they hiding??). And to make things even worse, he signed a bill that exempts robotaxi companies from receiving tickets when their vehicles do something dangerous.
SF Chronicle reports that Cruise is gearing up for a return to the Bay Area. Note that they are not actually returning, but just "gearing up" to do so. If Cruise considers this feeble attempt newsworthy then they are indeed in deep trouble.
404 Media reports on how one of their delivery robots caused a pedestrian to be knocked down and injured. The company offered Promo Codes to make it all better. Meanwhile, they are pursuing felony charger against a couple of drunk students who temporarily snatched one of their robots.
Reuters reports that Waymo is looking at yet another vehicle to use, given that its current Jaguar vehicles are being discontinued. But the possible use of the Hyundai Ionic 5 vehicle appears to be very uncertain.
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.
Now we know Waymo's full business plan: stealing luggage when dropping people off at the airport. No wonder they aren't allowed at SFO.
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.
SF Examiner reports that the California state Legislature has once again approved requiring vehicles over 10,000 to have a human operator on board. It is now up to Gov Newsom to sign the legislation. But given his love of lobbyists he will most likely veto it for the second time.
