The coming robotaxi revolution

Fifteen electric Ford Mustangs have begun steering themselves around London this month as the capital’s first commercial self-driving taxi service. For now, a licensed driver still sits ready to seize control in case of mishaps, and this partnership between Uber and the UK-based AI start-up Wayve is hardly the first such service: autonomous “robotaxis” — many without safety drivers — operate in more than 20 cities in the US, China and the Middle East. Yet London’s narrow streets, teeming with pedestrians, cyclists and double-decker buses, present a special challenge. To borrow a phrase associated with another great world city, if robotaxis can make it here, they can make it anywhere.

Many residents are not convinced they should. YouGov in July found 42 per cent of Londoners opposed autonomous passenger vehicles, with only 29 per cent in support. Concerns ranged from safety to job losses. Still, more than 140,000 people have registered to try out Uber’s AVs. Robotaxis deserve to succeed, in London and elsewhere.

Despite some unfortunate and highly publicised accidents, data suggests the best AVs are already a lot safer than human drivers. Nearly 1.2mn people die globally every year in road crashes; human error is a contributing factor in the vast majority. An independent analysis found driverless vehicles from Alphabet’s Waymo in four US cities were involved in 68 per cent fewer crashes per vehicle mile than human drivers — though this is human drivers generally, not just professional ones.

Driverless vehicles can struggle with “edge cases” ranging from snow to traffic light failures. But they may become better at handling such situations over time as the technology evolves. Rather than relying on their training on high-definition maps, the latest “vision-language-action” models, developed by companies including Wayve, use cameras paired with language-based AI to improve their ability to interpret unfamiliar situations.

For now, robotaxis are costlier to operate due to development costs and extra kit. But Goldman Sachs says operational and scale efficiencies could cut costs sharply, and projects a $415bn global robotaxi market by 2035. As costs fall, driverless vehicles could start to displace driver-operated taxis and, in big cities, even private car ownership (the RAC found the average personal car in England is parked for 96 per cent of the time). AV evangelists suggest that could open the way, longer term, to their vision of “shared mobility”, easing congestion and cutting emissions — provided cheap AV rides do not encourage more journeys and lots of unnecessary miles by loitering vehicles.

News of cabbies losing their livelihoods could fan disquiet among a public already worried about the wider impact of AI on jobs. Cab drivers in many cities are understandably polishing their stories of emergency dashes to maternity units and touting their driving prowess, local knowledge and ability to help with bags or keep an eye on vulnerable passengers. Some human-driven taxis will always be needed. But provided serious safety issues are avoided, many consumers may be won over by AVs’ convenience and potentially lower fares.

Fragile trust means the robotaxi revolution will need careful handling by regulators and operators alike. The UK’s 2024 Automated Vehicles Act, which sets demanding safety requirements and makes operating entities liable for how AVs drive, could be a useful model. Some in the industry who have spent years trying to build trust worry about the re-entry of Travis Kalanick, the pugnacious former Uber chief, and Elon Musk’s aggressive promotion of controls-free Cybercabs. When it comes to acceptance, the pioneers of “AI on wheels” could learn from the backlash being felt by their cousins in frontier AI.