Waymo One is now open to all in Los Angeles

User experience & safety controls

• Several riders report Waymo trips in SF and LA as smooth, predictable, and less stressful than human drivers; some call it the “best tourist attraction.”
• Cars have a “pull over now” / emergency stop control; doors can be opened from inside even in motion, though the system protests.
• Some note delay between hitting “pullover” and actual stopping; occasionally opening the door is faster.
• Concerns about feeling “trapped” are common; mitigations include emergency controls, ability to call support/911, and extensive cameras.

Coverage, rollout & capabilities

• LA service covers ~80 square miles, not all of LA; hills and some neighborhoods are excluded so far.
• People compare rollout to cable/fiber: city-by-city, with each area needing mapping and regulatory work.
• Users observe good behavior on narrow, unmarked streets and in “single-car-width” situations; deadlocks can occur when multiple Waymos meet around obstacles.
• Winter and snow are seen as a hard but not impossible problem; Waymo is testing in snowy regions.

Safety statistics & comparisons

• Raw crash counts are criticized as meaningless without miles-driven or context; miles per crash also seen as an imperfect metric.
• Thread strongly distinguishes Waymo’s L4 robotaxis from Tesla’s L2/L3 “Full Self-Driving (Supervised).”
• Multiple comments claim Tesla’s ADAS has far more serious crashes and fatalities than competitors; others counter that Tesla has more equipped cars, so denominators matter.

Remote assistance & true autonomy

• Debate over how much Waymo relies on remote operators:
  • One side asserts cars are “essentially remotely driven.”
  • Others cite Waymo materials and basic latency constraints, arguing operators only assist in edge cases (construction, blocked roads, problematic passengers) and cannot real‑time “joystick” cars.
  • Extent of remote involvement remains unclear; all agree some human-in-the-loop exists.

Security, crime & personal safety

• Some worry AVs may stop and freeze when harassed, unlike a human who might “gun it” to escape.
• Others feel safer than in Uber/public transit: no risk of driver assault, lots of cameras, heavy logging.
• Hypothetical abuse scenarios (carjackings, homeless sleeping in cars, cones trapping vehicles) are discussed; mitigations suggested include account bans, remote monitoring, sending staff, or driving to hubs/police, but details are speculative.

Economics, pricing & labor impacts

• In SF/LA, pricing reports vary: sometimes near UberX parity, sometimes 20–100% higher; surge patterns may differ.
• Some are willing to pay extra for cleanliness, no small talk, and perceived safety; others emphasize long‑term pressure on taxi/ride‑hail driver incomes.
• There’s debate over whether AVs will ever be much cheaper once vehicle, maintenance, lidar, and supervision costs are fully loaded.

Urbanism, transit & societal impact

• Strong split between excitement about the tech and concern it will further entrench car‑centric cities and justify underinvestment in public transit.
• Some argue robotaxis are cheaper than building rail in the US; others say externalities (roads, health, pollution, sprawl) aren’t priced, making that comparison misleading.
• References to critical videos/articles (e.g., “self‑driving will destroy cities”) reinforce worries about a “self‑driving dystopia,” even if the tech works well.