The hype surrounding driverless cars a decade ago promised a mobility revolution. Such revolutions in practice often require years of patience. So-called “robotaxis” have now become operational in a small but growing number of cities globally. As London prepares to take its turn, Glenn Lyons argues a closer look is needed if we want to avoid new problems ahead.
Robotaxis have arrived in London, sort of. At this stage, a small fleet of vehicles is “undergoing training” (being manually driven around, before being machine driven with human safety drivers). Fee paying customers are hoped for by the end of this year, if a regulatory green light is given to proceed. But lots of questions still need asking about the purpose and value of introducing this new technology to our streets, and what its unintended consequences might be.
Challenges faced
We’re told the conditions for the robot cars are more testing compared to the grid patterns of roads where they operate in US cities and where jaywalking is illegal, there are fewer pedestrians and cyclists, and the weather is more dependable.
The road ahead may well have some bumps in it. It’s worth noting too that the rise of the machines is gradual and assisted. The robotaxis to date are watched over by humans – so-called “teleoperation” means remote monitoring and assistance is on hand should the artificial intelligence (AI) not know what to do in “edge case” situations it encounters.
Asking the right questions
Beware of being seduced by the siren sound of technology. It can be all too easy to mistake engineering ingenuity and its big-tech, big-bucks backing, for progress. Governments have a tendency to be drawn into a “race mentality” where the promised prizes on offer are jobs creation, inward investment and “world-leading” status.
With such seduction, it is possible to become myopically focused on only one exam question, namely: how to get a machine to take a human occupant from A to B without directly harming them or other (vulnerable) road users? That question addresses a simple problem. One that engineering ingenuity may be able to address. Addressing it is necessary but not sufficient. There is another, ultimately more important, exam question, namely: how to ensure driverless vehicles deliver societal impact that is acceptable and beneficial? That question addresses a wicked problem. A wicked problem is characterised by it being hard for us to agree on the nature of the problem itself, facing knowledge gaps and uncertainties about the problem, and the problem having a complex relationship with other problems.
Governments have a tendency to be drawn into a “race mentality” where the promised prizes on offer are jobs creation, inward investment and “world-leading” status.
What problems are robotaxis addressing? After all, London is no stranger to already having human-driven taxis. When the UK’s Automated Vehicles Act became law on 20 May 2024 it was stated that “Road safety is at the heart of the legislation, with automated vehicles expected to improve road safety by reducing human error”. Meanwhile, it is claimed that “black cabs are the safest way to travel in London” and in 2024 there were “no reportable deaths of taxi / private hire vehicle occupants” on London’s roads.
So, are robotaxis a case of a solution looking for a problem? Road safety is not perfect for London’s black cabs – data for 2024 in the “killed or seriously injured” category included 12 taxi users, and 67 other road users where a taxi was involved (figures are similar for private hire vehicles). So, replacing all taxis in London with robotaxis (if the first exam question is successfully addressed) could offer some improvement.
The problem of unintended consequences
All else being equal, that seems like a prize worth considering. But what if the prize can only be secured if rules of the road for other means of going about London have to change? Suppose we were to start applying the US concept of jaywalking in London, constraining pedestrian behaviour to help robotaxis negotiate street environments successfully? Suppose AI can’t fully cope with London’s cycling boom without keeping cyclists “in their own lane”?
What if people are discouraged from using more sustainable modes of transport like buses, cycling and walking? What could the longer-run implications be for public health?
It seems hard to believe all else will remain equal. Suppose robotaxis rise to dominance on London’s streets and human-driven black cabs disappear. Suppose the ultimately profit-hungry robotaxi operators hike their fares, as private-hire vehicle operators like Uber have recently threatened to do? London is already facing apparent increased traffic due to app-based platforms like Uber, with Government recently rejecting calls for “powers to cap the number of private hire vehicles (PHVs) operating in the capital”. What if robotaxis make this problem worse? What if people are discouraged from using more sustainable modes of transport like buses, cycling and walking? What could the longer-run implications be for public health? Who will have access to the data being collected about robotaxi use in London? Where will the balance of power lie between the authorities and the private sector players as circumstances shift over time?
Suppose instead of having a goal of persuading the public to accept robotaxis we openly consider whether robotaxis are acceptable to the public (when made aware of potential consequences unfolding further ahead) and deserve a green light?
Robotaxis serving London’s interests and not the other way round
Perish the thought that we look back and realise we were asking what London can do for robotaxis rather than asking what robotaxis can do for London.
The vision for London is one where the city excels globally by “expanding opportunities for all its people and enterprises, achieving the highest environmental standards and quality of life and leading the world in its approach to tackling the urban challenges of the 21st century, particularly that of climate change”. Are robotaxis part of the answer to realising such a vision? Perhaps there are alternatives that might be as good or even better, regardless of whether they all have the ‘tech appeal’ of resource-intensive (albeit zero-tailpipe emission) machines on wheels?
And worth noting that Waymo (responsible for bringing robotaxis to London) is not seemingly putting its investment dollars to work in pursuing robobuses. Is that in the “too difficult” box, or is there no foreseen profit in it?
Taking a principled approach
Before the world was rocked by a pandemic, evangelists for, and opponents of, the prospect of driverless cars were brought together. They considered what principles were needed to steer a course away from future dystopia and towards future utopia in terms of mobility prospects ahead involving driverless cars. Resulting principles included: being outcomes focused, having proportionate regulation, making mobility noticeably safer, positively contributing to the modal hierarchy (that sees vulnerable road users prioritised), contributing to social inclusion, being environmentally friendly, maximising use of vehicle space (occupancy) and minimising space taken by vehicles; sharing usage data to understand the contribution being made by such vehicles; and fostering mutually beneficial public/private sector cooperation.
Principles matter. Going for your first ride in a robotaxi might be a novel experience akin to a new fairground attraction, and the ride might be smooth and pleasant. But that’s the window dressing compared to sizing up the true implications of this facet of the march of technological innovation that is shaping our lives – for better or worse – in the digital age. Let’s be careful what we wish for.
Enjoyed this post? Sign up to our newsletter and receive a weekly roundup of all our articles.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image credit: Tada Images on Shutterstock
