Waymo One is now open to all in Los Angeles
Waymo has opened its fully driverless ride-hailing service to the general public in parts of Los Angeles, prompting debate over safety, reliability, pricing, and the passenger experience compared with human-driven taxis and competitors like Tesla’s supervised systems. Commenters highlight practical concerns such as emergency stops, handling of threats or odd edge cases, remote human oversight, and limitations in geography and weather, while others note impressive performance in dense city traffic and rapidly growing trip volumes. A recurring theme is the broader impact on cities and labor: whether autonomous taxis will undercut public transit, reshape urban design around cars even further, and displace low-wage driving jobs, or instead improve safety and convenience enough to justify their expansion.
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.