Self-Driving Cars Have Arrived. They Will Make Us Safer.
The good news: Regulators have exercised unusual restraint.

The driverless car is here!
Finally.
Google has harnessed artificial intelligence to create a self-driving car they call Waymo, standing for "Way Forward in Mobility."
Regulators in San Francisco and Phoenix legalized Waymo cars because the robo-cars drive better than people do. They've already driven millions of miles on public roads without any fatalities. Not one. No injuries either.
Waymo achieves that with sensors attached to the top and sides of the cars. The sensors constantly shoot out lasers that bounce back, telling the car precisely where other objects are.
The magic of the driverless vehicle is the artificial intelligence behind the sensors. That allows the cars to operate like a human nervous system. Sensors and radar are the eyes and ears. The brain is algorithms trained by billions of simulated trips.
The more the robo-cars drive, the more they learn, and the smarter and safer they get.
The big automotive safety problem is people, not robo-cars. It's people who kill nearly 43,000 Americans every year. Drunk drivers kill 13,000 people. 6,000 of us die because we fall asleep while driving.
Waymo cars have accidents, too, but almost all happen because of human error: a human driver hits the Waymo.
Another robo-car, Cruise, owned by General Motors, is almost as safe, but Cruise cars have gotten into bigger accidents.
California regulators then said they pose an "unreasonable risk to public safety," and suspended their permit to drive. But California limited the ban to Cruise cars' autonomous mode, meaning Cruise can still operate so long as they have a human in the front seat as backup.
I'm surprised that the regulators have been so reasonable. Often, after accidents, bureaucrats simply ban new ideas. California regulators have exercised unusual restraint. 500 Waymo cars still operate freely in large sections of San Francisco and Phoenix.
They are wise to allow this because self-driving cars increase safety.
Still, there will be problems.
First responders in San Francisco told my executive producer, Maxim Lott, "[Waymo cars] freeze in front of us. It's a 15-to-30-minute fix waiting for a technician. That's time we don't have when a building is on fire."
Driverless car companies say they're making adjustments to let first responders move the cars in an emergency.
"We've heard that, too," the fire chief told Lott. "It hasn't happened."
The media hype other risks.
Quoting a magazine headline, Lott asks Alex Roy, former executive at Argo AI, "What if a hacker gets into Waymo and hacks 1,000 robo-taxis, ordering them off the road?"
"These what-ifs don't make much sense," replies Roy. "For every technology that's ever arrived, there was a 'what if.' The 'what ifs' played out…. Solutions arrived and everybody moved on."
Still, many Americans object to robo-cars. Unions complain that they will take away taxi driver jobs, delivery jobs, and especially truck driving jobs. They are right, but in the long run, that will actually be good for most workers. I'll make that argument in a future column.
Meanwhile, some anti-car activists in San Francisco are vandalizing robo-cars.
But most people who try them like them.
"It's one of the few things you can do today that makes you feel like people must have felt 100 years ago," says Roy. "First time they saw a light bulb, first time they saw a plane."
Fully driverless cars are here, and they're a very good thing.
More places should allow them.
The bigger threat, as usual, is overregulation. Delaying self-driving cars would cost thousands of American lives.
COPYRIGHT 2023 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
No, thanks. I’m willing to wait another 30 years or so on this technology. At least.
What? We only have 12 years left!
The government’s transition into picking and choosing who can even drive is < one generation away, so who gives a shit?
Generations?
The elections are next year.
Your choice. But given my choice of leaving my elderly mother completely dependent when we have to take her keys and letting her maintain independence for a couple more years, you'll understand when the rest of us disagree.
Shoot, I'd give up my own keys when I'm working too late and barely staying awake on the drive home.
Driverless cars don't have to be better than the best drivers to be a good idea, they only have to be better than the worst drivers. And they're already well beyond that state.
I know the guy that bought the world’s first hovercar. Never regretted it for a second…
I’m willing to wait to the end of time to keep this shit off the road.
Fatties hoping for self-driving mobility scooters.
The magic of the driverless vehicle is the artificial intelligence behind the sensors. That allows the cars to operate like a human nervous system. Sensors and radar are the eyes and ears. The brain is algorithms trained by billions of simulated trips.
John... John... John....
This is how easy it is to fool the human-like nervous system.
Personally, I find it hard to focus on the flaws of the self-driving car when the 'intelligence' behind them makes the leap to placing cones on cars is vandalism and a car (thus) stopped in the road is a hazard.
It has a very Disney-esque "Fuck you potential customers. You'll use our product and like it (or we'll call the fucking cops)." highway-robbery brilliance to it.
This statement is everything wrong with the current version of "Duct-choice Capitalism" (as I now call it):
I really, really miss the guy in a plaid suit selling me a used car. No, I really mean that. I knew what the game was. He knew what the game was. Now I feel like when a company is trying to sell me on a product or a service, he's trying to make me and everyone else into the New Soviet Man.
I don't miss him at all. And if consumer surveys* are to be believed most people prefer car buying now of days where companies put their cars at the lowest prices they can, don't budge/haggle, and consumers can go from dealership to dealership trying to find the best deal without having to haggle.
*Note: this is based on talking to a few friends that are in the car selling business.
^Tell me you don't know what the game was or is without saying "I don't know what the game was or is." A response of "Yeah, I didn't like plaid either." would've been more cogent and/or honest. Your attempt to jump and reach Diane/Paul's comment that went at least 30 ft. over your head is laughably pitiful.
I'm not sure he did miss the meaning of my comment. I think it's entirely possible that JoeJoetheIdiotCircusBoy likes the process of being able to choose the color of his mandated electric vehicle at a stable carbon-market set price, unburdened by Trump tariffs, while knowing that he made a the world more sustainable, helped alleviate food deserts in San Francisco, and did his part to rid the world of systemic racism and the patriarchy.
Ted Talks Head Mic Capitalism Plus!
Nope. Companies like Tesla set a flat price. Which is always MSRP. Instead of being able to haggle for a potentially much lower price.
I like the old days. Where things were much less expensive.
How well do the sensors handle snowstorms?
How well do most drivers handle snowstorms?
Mark I eyeballs work better in winter weather than the safety sensors on my vehicle, so I wonder.
Depends on where you are. Atlantans freak out at the prospect of trace snow. Yoopers drive through while it's snowing quite heavily at speed.
This reminds me of a story a friend of mine told. His sister lives in Atlanta. There was just a little snow coming down and she went out to run some errands. A cop pulls her over:
Cop: Why are you driving in all of this snow?
Sister: I grew up in Pennsylvania.
Cop: Oh. Well, be careful.
They don't. Saw a car in the ditch this morning.
Better than an electric vehicle that doesn't know what a "road" is.
The smart ones slow down and compensate for increased braking distances while driving past idiots in the ditch. Especially the first storm of the season.
Are we talking drivers in functioning vehicles or drivers suffering lack of maintenance and/or mechanical failure? Because around here, sun, wind, rain, snow, I'd put the ratio of vehicles on the side of the road at 20:1 in favor of mechanical/maintenance failure, which added sensor arrays and AI does *nothing* to alleviate and *everything to exacerbate* especially if the underlying issue is something like repair cost, time, and/or technical expertise.
"around here" being Chicagoland.
Since when did Chicagoans ever do maintenance on their vehicles? I swear I see more rusty vehicles here missing bumpers (and license plate for that matter), with mismatched doors and fenders, or using bungee cords for trunk or hood tie downs. The garbage bag window is a favorite of mine. And for those who ask, no, Illinois does not have any inspections beyond those for selling a vehicle at a car lot or emissions, and those are only in about 10 counties or so.
Culturally, it's a bit funny in a street clothes/church clothes sort of fashion. We absolutely had old farm implements rusting to death behind the barn. Friends and neighbors absolutely had cars on blocks, multiple, in their yards. I absolutely drove cars with holes in the floor big enough for an adult to fall/climb through. The idea of driving those on The Skyway/Tollway was regarded as insane. Not that the Skyway or Tollway was anything fancy, but that the diesel with the rusted headers that rolled smoke out from under the hood was something you kept to yourself and didn't inflict on the general public.
Even better than the missing bumpers, since the days of metal bumpers are fading, are the flapping bumpers. FFS, have the decency to tear that shit off before you go hurtling down the road and have it come off at 80 mph.
And the million dollar question: How well do the self driving tractor trailers do in the snow. Because that's not a fun task.
I believe automated driving will exist and be the norm in 50 years, probably sooner.
I believe in most cases automated driving does cause fewer accidents.
But they are not ready for prime time. They suck at anything abnormal, as shown by the ones stopped by putting an orange safety cone on their hoods. They don't work in bad weather. They can't handle faded highway markings or emergency flashers on the side of the road.
I'd be glad to get the gubmnt out of regulating them -- then the companies would be treated like every other driver and held responsible for their faults instead of hiding behind government permits.
I believe automated driving will exist and be the norm in 50 years, probably sooner.
We were supposed to have a hundred gajillion self-driving cars on the road by five years ago.
I don't expect we'll see it become "the norm" in 50 years, especially as our society becomes increasingly 'low trust'.
I tend to agree with you in terms of their performance in "normal" driving conditions. I'm in Phoenix a couple times a week and I see these cars all the time and they drive fine. Barely pay them any attention. However, I routinely see them drive like jackasses when things aren't normal. For example, if I go to a concert in downtown Phoenix, its always a cluster fuck when it lets out and I regularly see the Waymo cars driving like assholes. Granted, this is usually in response to other humans driving like assholes. Maybe they can work this out with more road testing.
When in an asshole battle with a Waymo car, who are you supposed to yell at and flip the bird to? Seems like a design flaw.
The camera, so the computer can see you doing it.
Or just start merging over. It'll have been programmed to give way.
They need some kind of warning device on the outside to let you know they're in Asshole mode.
I believe automated driving will exist and be the norm in 50 years, probably sooner.
I don't. The programming isn't even close to handling any and all situations yet. And it sure as hell cannot make a judgement call. It can follow programming unless said programming doesn't cover the situation. I'd rather invest in better driver training than automated driving.
"The programming isn't..."
Compare to "50 years".
In 50 years auto driving autos may be a thing but the way things are going you will not be allowed to own them, only rent a ride from the government or government favored companies.
That’s kinda what I was thinking. Perhaps your car tells you it isn’t driving to the store today because you were just there yesterday… we have to save on emissions and all that.
It is impressive how much the tech has progressed in the last decade or so. I still don't want it. And I still don't think it could do my commute to work in a snow storm.
And I still don’t think it could do my commute to work in a snow storm.
It can't.
What about when the sun is in your eyes? I know the smart cruise control shuts down when it is.
California's regulators will fuck this up in ways you cant even begin to imagine.
zero interest in trading liberty for safety here.
+1 Funny thing is, it doesn't have to be a trade, but progressive technocrats and useful optimistic tech idiots like John, Ron, and others have to force it to be.
Like wanting to have mileage-based road tax instead of a fuel tax, because ... I dunno, you can't tax electricity refueling stations same as gasoline? As for home stations, they are too puny to be very useful, and if some little old grandma drives herself to church 5 miles once a week, she's not wearing out the road.
No borders, except for the one around Manhattan that denotes the congestion pricing zone! Ain't libertarianisming grand?
I kinda want to punch Roy in the face for being so stupid, just like someone would've done 100 yrs. ago and when he says, "Hey! That's not what I meant!", reply with "Oh, OK, sorry!" and then jab him with a(nother) syringe full of functional semi-random mRNA sequences against his will.
I think it's the lightbulb bullshit that bugs me the most. It's kinda like the retardation that Columbus discovered the world was round in 1492. There was about 40 yrs. between the time Edison discovered the bulb, the bulb became brighter than a candle, and your average US home had electricity to power the lights. It wasn't until about 1940-50 that not having electricity meant you were a weirdo on the outskirts of town and, at that time, only about 50% of US households had *a* car.
"The big automotive safety problem is people, not robo-cars. It's people who kill nearly 43,000 Americans every year. Drunk drivers kill 13,000 people. 6,000 of us die because we fall asleep while driving."
Nope. It is the cars that do all that damage; just like guns, not people kill people. It can never be the fault of a single human being. Nothing can. Ever.
OK, maybe, just maybe, the booze is in a conspiracy with the car, but it is never the drunk person at fault.
"It's one of the few things you can do today that makes you feel like people must have felt 100 years ago," says Roy. "First time they saw a light bulb, first time they saw a plane."
Fucking Eloi just begging to be culled and eaten.
"self-driving car they call Waymo"
gay name
Because it's "way mo' ?"
If you are gonna sell this shit to middle-America you have to come up with a more exiting name. People buy the Ford F150 Lightning. Not the Ford F150 eco-sunshine-fairy. Waymo sounds like the name of a Japanese talking toilet.
They're not and never will sell it to Middle America. Not because they want to sell it to Middle America and they can't, but because they don't want to, and it's not purposed for "Middle America". It's going to be sold as "fleet vehicles" for scheduled trips you'll be allowed to make into town during your lottery travel days when drivered (?!!) cars have been banned-- and the self-driving cars can actually operate without crashes because they're the only ones on the road.
Is it waymo gay than the Ford Raptor?
The "Y" is silent.
wam-o.
I'm surprised too, Johnnie!
The big game changer is AI. That means the programs that drive the cars can learn, so they don't require a programmer writing code for every possible scenario.
But behind the wheel, AI hallucinations can have serious consequences.
I'm just imagining trying to get your car to go where you ask it to go when... after you get in, it tells you your account has been terminated due to a violation of the terms of service.
Or because you're been immobilized by order of the NSA.
Go ahead and take one guess who's going to be held legally liable if your self-driving car malfunctions and runs over and kills your neighbor's 6 year old kid playing out in the middle of the street.
If you're struggling with this one I'll give you a little hint: it won't be the manufacturer of the vehicle or any of the parts that failed.
Section 230.
*drops microphone*
acceptableNoOfNeighbors6yrOlds.toRunOver() = 1acceptableNoOfNeighbors6yrOlds.toRunOver() = 0
add, push, done.
malfunctions
It's not a malfunction. It's an Easter Egg that one of the coders put in for anyone who names their car 'Christine'. Change the car's name to something else and that should fix the problem. If the car is still running over your neighbor's 6 yr. old kid playing in the middle of the street after the name has been successfully changed, you may need to perform a factory reboot.
But where’s my flying car?
Same place self-driving cars will always be: sci-fi.
What if there’s a psychopath with a machete chasing you and your only way out is to drive through a chain link fence… but your self-driving car refuses to do that?
You should've pre-registered at least 72 hours prior for the permit to own your smart gun and had it keyed to your identity in anticipation of being chased by machete-wielding psychopath.
We need common-sense machete control.
These are not "self-driving" cars. They are driven by very complex computer programs written by programmers who cannot possibly anticipate all of the circumstances in which the cars will find themselves. Perhaps Waymo vehicles are safer, but let's not take Mr. Stoessel's word for it, let's see the reports to local, state, and federal regulators. When rain turns to freezing rain and the SUV in front of your VW Vanagon starts doing donuts in the road, will your self-driving car also hit its brakes and start spinning? My human-driven Vanagon didn't, safely put two wheels on the shoulder, passed the spinning car, and safely returned to the road.
Yeah, until someone starts hacking them. No thanks.
If anyone thinks there are currently 'functional', you have not been stuck behind one which refuses to move forward for some reason or other.
After some 10 years of 'we'll have these working in no time!', it turns out driving is a hell of a complex activity. MUCH more so than, say, general aviation in a small plane.
Self-delude much, Stossel? You probably think autonomous cars (ACs) will have other technologies that are "only five years away," like augmented reality headsets, 3D volumetric displays, 100K qubit quantum computers, and skull jacks for direct mental stimulation of your Facebook feed. Let me see what the latest AC disaster is ... here we go. October 3, San Francisco: "A woman was found trapped under a driverless car." November 28th: "GM to cut spending on Cruise after accident." December 20:"If you rode in a Tesla in 2023, you had the highest accident risk."
Oh by the way (hah), don't try to drive a Waymo outside its GPS area. This alone shows that Waymo's data has been cherrypicked and is in no way (hah) comparable to human data, because humans drive all over the place where Waymo fears to go.