As the cab approaches without a driver at the wheel, a blend of excitement and caution fills the air. It’s a scene that once seemed distant but is now a reality, raising complex sentiments and concerns among the public in San Francisco.
The autonomous cab halts before me, its door beckoning to be unlocked via a smartphone app. In a matter of moments, it sweeps me away into the nighttime. However, as I prepare to step inside, a passerby intervenes.
“They’re not safe,” he cautions. He recounts a near miss involving a robotaxi almost colliding with a pedestrian, urging me to exercise caution. This individual stands as a representative of a faction within San Francisco that holds reservations about the integration of robotaxis. They view the city’s acceptance of this innovation as a risky experiment that jeopardizes lives.
Some dissidents have even gone to the extent of disabling the cars by placing cones on their hoods. A campaign group, Safe Street Rebel, has garnered attention for its actions, with some of its videos going viral. Despite this resistance, city officials remain committed to allowing autonomous vehicles to operate on the streets, at least for the time being.
On August 10, 2023, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) voted to grant 24-hour operational status to two cab companies, Waymo and Cruise. This decision marks a shift from their previous authorization, which permitted them to offer paid rides only during nighttime hours.
The road leading up to this pivotal vote was paved with a six-hour public commentary session. During this time, a multitude of voices expressed hopes and concerns. Uber and Lyft drivers expressed worry that self-driving taxis would erode their livelihoods. A representative from the garbage disposal sector criticized the cars for impeding their vehicles due to frequent breakdowns. Even the fire service of San Francisco condemned the vehicles for similar reasons, claiming 55 instances of obstruction this year.
Critics also argued that the technology remains unproven in terms of safety. While supporters emphasized the potential of robotaxis to reduce accidents caused by human error, skeptics like Matthew Sutter, a cab driver, insisted that the technology was not yet mature enough to ensure public safety.
Advocates of the technology were also present, such as orthopaedic surgeon George Janku, who praised the behavior of these vehicles on the road and claimed to trust them more than erratic or distracted human drivers. Individuals with disabilities, like Jessie Wolinsky, attested to the sense of security provided by Waymo cars, which had given her a safer transportation experience than traditional ride-hailing services.
Amid the divided sentiments, a mother shared her experience of being rejected by taxi drivers due to her children’s car seats—an occurrence that would never happen with a driverless vehicle.
Navigating this complex landscape, I personally encountered both sides of the debate. Having used Cruise’s robotaxis on multiple occasions without incident, I also encountered a breakdown that halted traffic and frustrated fellow drivers.
Merely eight days after the pivotal CPUC vote, a Cruise taxi found itself in an accident involving a fire engine, underscoring the challenges and uncertainties that accompany the expansion of driverless taxis in San Francisco.
