Nearly 20 years ago, I predicted that no street-legal, fully autonomous automobiles would be operating on the streets of American cities for the foreseeable future. That was received with scoffing by some of my readers. If Waymo is to be believed, nearly 20 years have now elapsed and the fine print tells the real story:
The Waymo Driver autonomously navigates tens of thousands of rider-only miles across San Francisco, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Austin daily. It can navigate common scenarios, like adhering to a crossing guard directing traffic, as well as more unique interactions like avoiding a swerving vehicle. As the Waymo Driver travels across town, it might contact fleet response for additional help.
Much like phone-a-friend, when the Waymo vehicle encounters a particular situation on the road, the autonomous driver can reach out to a human fleet response agent for additional information to contextualize its environment. The Waymo Driver does not rely solely on the inputs it receives from the fleet response agent and it is in control of the vehicle at all times. As the Waymo Driver waits for input from fleet response, and even after receiving it, the Waymo Driver continues using available information to inform its decisions. This is important because, given the dynamic conditions on the road, the environment around the car can change, which either remedies the situation or influences how the Waymo Driver should proceed. In fact, the vast majority of such situations are resolved, without assistance, by the Waymo Driver.
or, in other words, Waymo’s robotaxi is not fully autonomous. If the system requires human judgment to resolve edge cases in real time, it is not fully autonomous. It is largely autonomous and that is a development to be applauded.
The irony of this is that what they’re actually doing is the right way: autonomous with human oversight. For decades I have said that I would joyfully accept fully autonomous vehicles in our streets if strict liability applied. That would align incentives properly. Waymo’s mistake is in advertising their robotaxis as “fully autonomous” rather than what they actually are.
The main open question is whether you trust operators potentially thousands of miles away to get Waymos in San Francisco out of tricky situations.
I think you are mistaking “always autonomous” with “high autonomy”. Using the accepted standard for autonomy by industry and government (SAE); Waymo is “level 4”.
Level 4 is defined as “vehicles that can handle all aspects of driving, monitor the environment, and navigate safely without human intervention, but only within a specific, restricted geographical area or under certain conditions (geofencing) … If a system failure occurs or the vehicle approaches the edge of its operational area, the vehicle can independently navigate to a “minimal risk condition” (e.g., pulling over) without human input”.
Level 5 is defined as “where the vehicle’s system handles all driving tasks under all conditions, with no human interaction or steering wheel required”.
My understanding is the intervention rate for Waymo’s is very. low — much lower then a human driving a car would require.