Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F
Waymo’s expansion of its driverless taxi service beyond San Francisco is prompting comparisons with Uber and Lyft on price, safety, speed, and ride quality. Many riders praise the consistency, cleanliness, and cautious driving of the autonomous cars, especially for families and cyclists, while others criticize slower routes, freeway avoidance, higher fares, and concerns over data privacy and job loss for human drivers. Debates also touch on regulatory scrutiny, the reality of remote monitoring, and whether self-driving fleets will ultimately make roads safer or simply entrench another dominant tech platform.
Privacy & Data Use
- Some riders are wary of giving Google/Waymo detailed location histories, especially for sensitive trips.
- Others argue phones already leak similar data; debate over whether Google is effectively a “data broker.”
- Waymo’s policy allows sharing data for ad targeting under California law, but not selling raw data; some see this as standard ad-tech profiling, others as unacceptable.
User Experience & Ride Quality
- Many SF and Phoenix users strongly prefer Waymo over Uber/Lyft: predictable cars, quiet, good AC, no small talk, helpful with babies and sleep.
- Ability to set music profiles that persist across rides is appreciated.
- Some report glitches (e.g., AC bug or car refusing optimal drop‑off point), causing frustration.
Pricing & Economics
- Most report ~10% higher base prices than Uber/Lyft, but comparable after tips; some see much higher.
- Riders expect prices to drop with scale, but others think Waymo will charge what the market bears, especially while supply is limited.
- Debate whether AVs’ real point is cost savings for operators vs cheaper rides for users.
Safety, Speed & Driving Behavior
- Waymos are described as cautious: slower than traffic, long stop‑sign pauses, very courteous to cyclists.
- Some see this as a key safety benefit; others complain about longer trips and human drivers doing risky maneuvers to pass.
- Large subthread debates speed limits vs “flow of traffic” and whether slower AVs are objectively safer or create new hazards; consensus: humans often drive badly, but independent, non–vendor safety data is still desired.
Coverage, Routing & Airports
- Big limitations: no SFO service, historically no or limited freeway use, constrained geographic coverage (esp. Phoenix suburbs).
- Routing often avoids highways and prefers side streets, making some trips much longer; this is a major complaint for time‑critical trips (e.g., airport).
Autonomy vs Remote Assistance
- Waymo says cars are self‑driving but can receive guidance from “fleet response” operators.
- Operators can suggest paths or lane choices when cars get stuck, but reportedly don’t joystick‑drive the vehicle.
- Some commenters distrust the lack of detailed metrics (e.g., interventions per mile) and suspect heavier remote involvement.
Labor, Society & Politics
- Ethical tension: fans like not dealing with drivers; critics see this as dehumanizing and cheering job loss.
- Some view AVs as a way to remove dangerous human drivers; others emphasize economic harm to drivers.
- Local political opposition (e.g., SFO restrictions, safety FUD) is seen by some as disproportionate given reported safety.
Cleanliness & Maintenance
- Current fleet is consistently clean and new; skepticism about whether this will hold post‑“honeymoon phase.”
- Waymo has cleaning policies, cameras, and fee schedules for messes; some think centralized fleet management will outperform gig drivers, others expect standards to erode when competition thins.
Vandalism & Abuse
- Concern that widespread deployment may trigger more vandalism (already a few high‑profile incidents), or YouTubers probing edge cases to confuse cars.