Sabotaging Waymo and Cruise in San
Francisco is really dumb - here’s why
Given the terrible dangers of self driving cars, from the likes of Waymo and GM Cruise,
the good people of San Francisco are fighting back - putting cones on Waymo and
Cruise cars to disable them. Meanwhile, the authorities have woken up to the
appalling risks of a Silicon Valley fantasy no one wants and are looking to shut
down Waymo and Cruise in the city. That at least is the media narrative. But is
it true?
Type the words ‘self
driving car’ into Google any time and what you’ll see is an avalanche of
FUD – fear, uncertainty and doubt. I know this because I do it every day and
have done for years. I’ve obsessively followed progress in self
driving because I see huge potential benefits – freeing up time, wealth
and real estate, lowering the costs of private transport, but most importantly radically
reducing the death toll on our roads.
And the truth is plain. Since Waymo
launched their trial service in Chandler five years ago, fully self driving cars have killed no one (though a Waymo did sadly
kill a dog that ran under the wheels in San Francisco recently). Meanwhile,
human drivers have killed perhaps 6 million other humans worldwide (and countless
dogs too). The statistics from Waymo and Cruise (and, yes, even Tesla’s FSD) is
that self driving cars are indeed safer. So why the
FUD, the cones, the media hate?
Three reasons:
1) Self driving cars will disrupt powerful vested
interests - car manufacturers and dealers, insurance, parking, gas stations and
more
2) Enthusiasts of cars and driving know it
will kill their hobby once it becomes clear that robot drivers are overwhelmingly
safer
3) Self driving has been dragged into the culture
wars. Robo-taxis will disrupt transit because they will be safer, more private
and more convenient. But to most socialists, diesel bus good, electric robotaxi totally bad
These vested interest groups are
using FUD in the form of media hit pieces to convince individuals and
authorities that self driving is dangerous, even
though the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary. It’s working. As I wrote years
ago, I suspect it will succeed in killing self driving
in the west. But China.
You see, China is completely
different. The ruthlessly rationalist Chinese state sees the giant benefits of self driving, especially the economic ones, and wants them
now. Chinese companies are behind in self driving, but
not for long, as companies like Baidu roll out their own services, encouraged
(even sponsored) by the state and unlikely to be stalled by the death of a dog
or a blocked intersection.
In just a few years, Chinese cities
will become cleaner and safer. Car parks and gas stations will turn into shops
and housing. People with disabilities will be free to move around like everyone
else. Women can hail a late-night cab without fear. Travel costs will drop
dramatically. Hospital beds will be freed up as traffic accident numbers drop
towards zero. A child will be able to step into the road and not be immediately
killed. What transit remains will be cheaper and more reliable now it has
competition. Chinese cities will be better places to live.
The upshot is that we in the west will
get self driving in the end, even in San Francisco,
once the benefits are too obvious to ignore. The disruption will still happen.
Yes, transit will be affected. No, road racing will no longer be a thing. But
overall we’ll be better off, financially and socially. All’s well that ends
well, then? Really not.
The problem for the west is that the
huge revenues from this revolution will go to China. This will be profoundly
negative for western economies. We will suffer the disruptions, but not benefit
from the revenue, wealth creation and jobs. As with electric vehicles, those modern
Luddites putting cones on Waymos will only succeed in
handing a giant economic victory to China.