Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Self-driving cars: A tech miracle or a public safety threat?

white car

A self-driving car from Waymo and Jaguar moved through traffic in San Francisco in 2021.

Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

Will self-driving cars transform our transportation infrastructure? For several years we have been hearing that driverless vehicles will be taking over the streets, and that this transportation revolution will be a great thing for consumers as well as society.


Imagine, your own personal robot driver who picks you up and drops you off, 24/7. No more parking woes or falling asleep at the wheel. Leading companies like Tesla and Waymo have claimed that their robo cars are safer than human-driven vehicles. Waymo, which is a subsidiary of Google/Alphabet, says its vehicles have logged more than 7 million practice miles on public roads, and also 20 billion miles in “simulation.”

That sounds like a lot until you realize that there are 243 million licensed drivers in the United States who drive on average about 13,500 miles a year. That’s a total of 3.3 trillion miles driven every year.

Will any of these driverless services ever live up to the Silicon Valley hype? It’s one thing to test-drive on a track or a computer simulation, but the chaos and confusion of streets in the real world have proven to be a greater challenge than the brash entrepreneurs at Waymo or Tesla’s Elon Musk will admit. Now that the companies are required to report all accidents, it turns out there have been a lot more of them than the public knew.

Recently Waymo became the target of a new federal investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Its investigators flagged nearly two dozen recent incidents when Waymo's vehicles were involved in a collision or exhibiting erratic behavior. There have been increasing reports of collisions with stationary objects, such as gates and parked vehicles, as well as violations of traffic laws.

Waymo’s main competitor, Cruise, paused operations entirely after numerous incidents of erratic operation. That includes an incident in San Francisco that resulted in a pedestrian being dragged 20 feet by a Cruise vehicle, even as Cruise withheld video of the incident from regulators.

Previously an Uber robo vehicle killed a pedestrian, and San Francisco’s fire chief warned that driverless cars interfered with emergency vehicles nearly 40 times in 2023 alone. In April, the NHTSA opened investigations into collisions involving self-driving vehicles run by Amazon-owned Zoox, as well as partially automated driver-assist systems from Tesla and Ford.

NHTSA has identified at least 13 Tesla crashes involving one or more deaths while drivers were using Autopilot, and many more involving serious injuries.

Many members of the public are not happy about this new danger on city streets. In San Francisco, an angry crowd set fire to a Waymo driverless taxi just days after a Waymo car hit a bicyclist. Previously, a Waymo vehicle had struck and killed a dog.

So it looks like industry hype is outracing reality. Part of the issue is one of “trust.” The motto of Silicon Valley has always been “move fast and break things” and “apologize later.” When that reckless attitude gets applied to robo cars, it’s fair to ask whether it is OK that these companies act as if our streets are their laboratory and we’re their guinea pigs.

I enjoy my smartphone and a few techno-trinkets as much as anyone, and certainly many new technologies can bring welcome benefits. But I remember back in 2017 when several tech companies and investors revealed their latest shiny object — flying cars. Uber announced that it would be piloting an aerial taxi service in Los Angeles by 2020. At the time Uber was losing billions of dollars because it used predatory pricing to subsidize each ride as a way to monopolize the market and drive out competitors (including public transportation).

Yet the media lapped it up, even though Uber didn’t even have a working prototype for a service where the equivalent of a fender-bender in the air would be death. Unsurprisingly, the Jetsons’ taxi never took off.

Silicon Valley’s dirty little secret is that seven out of 10 start-ups fail and nine of 10 never earn a profit. Silicon Valley is a casino where investors roll the dice. So the entrepreneurs often feel pressured to sound like circus impresario P.T. Barnum trying to over-hype their latest show.

Don’t get me wrong, the fact that these vehicles can self-drive at all is a marvel. And Waymo counters that 40,000 people are killed by human-driven vehicles every year. But that’s misleading because it’s spread across three trillion miles. How will society decide the threshold for when robo cars are deemed safer than humans?

Maybe these companies should have to create a test city in the desert and experiment there. Currently, the limited abilities of robo cars make them suitable for a Disney World ride, or as shuttles on a university campus or industrial park where the vehicle could safely drive the same repetitive route. Or perhaps they can be used as long distance delivery trucks, which would only have to drive straight on an interstate, and at the city limits a human could drive it into the city.

Instead, regulators mostly have been hands-off, with California recently allowing scandal-plagued Waymo to expand in Los Angeles. The Waymo-ification of our streets seems to be proceeding against all common sense, even as its actual benefits remain elusive.

Read More

Someone wrapping a gift.

As screens replace toys, childhood is being gamified. What this shift means for parents, play, development, and holiday gift-giving.

Getty Images, Oscar Wong

The Christmas When Toys Died: The Playtime Paradigm Shift Retailers Failed to See Coming

Something is changing this Christmas, and parents everywhere are feeling it. Bedrooms overflow with toys no one touches, while tablets steal the spotlight, pulling children as young as five into digital worlds that retailers are slow to recognize. The shift is quiet but unmistakable, and many parents are left wondering what toy purchases even make sense anymore.

Research shows that higher screen time correlates with significantly lower engagement in other play activities, mainly traditional, physical, unstructured play. It suggests screen-based play is displacing classic play with traditional toys. Families are experiencing in real time what experts increasingly describe as the rise of “gamified childhoods.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

Rising costs, AI disruption, and inequality revive interest in Louis Kelso’s “universal capitalism” as a market-based answer to the affordability crisis.

Getty Images, J Studios

Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

“Affordability” over the cost of living has been in the news a lot lately. It’s popping up in political campaigns, from the governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia to the mayor’s races in New York City and Seattle. President Donald Trump calls the term a “hoax” and a “con job” by Democrats, and it’s true that the inflation rate hasn’t increased much since Trump began his second term in January.

But a number of reports show Americans are struggling with high costs for essentials like food, housing, and utilities, leaving many families feeling financially pinched. Total consumer spending over the Black Friday-Thanksgiving weekend buying binge actually increased this year, but a Salesforce study found that’s because prices were about 7% higher than last year’s blitz. Consumers actually bought 2% fewer items at checkout.

Keep ReadingShow less
Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

US Capital with tech background

Greggory DiSalvo/Getty Images

Censorship Should Be Obsolete by Now. Why Isn’t It?

Techies, activists, and academics were in Paris this month to confront the doom scenario of internet shutdowns, developing creative technology and policy solutions to break out of heavily censored environments. The event– SplinterCon– has previously been held globally, from Brussels to Taiwan. I am on the programme committee and delivered a keynote at the inaugural SplinterCon in Montreal on how internet standards must be better designed for censorship circumvention.

Censorship and digital authoritarianism were exposed in dozens of countries in the recently published Freedom on the Net report. For exampl,e Russia has pledged to provide “sovereign AI,” a strategy that will surely extend its network blocks on “a wide array of social media platforms and messaging applications, urging users to adopt government-approved alternatives.” The UK joined Vietnam, China, and a growing number of states requiring “age verification,” the use of government-issued identification cards, to access internet services, which the report calls “a crisis for online anonymity.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The concept of AI hovering among the public.

Panic-driven legislation—from airline safety to AI bans—often backfires, and evidence must guide policy.

Getty Images, J Studios

Beware of Panic Policies

"As far as human nature is concerned, with panic comes irrationality." This simple statement by Professor Steve Calandrillo and Nolan Anderson has profound implications for public policy. When panic is highest, and demand for reactive policy is greatest, that's exactly when we need our lawmakers to resist the temptation to move fast and ban things. Yet, many state legislators are ignoring this advice amid public outcries about the allegedly widespread and destructive uses of AI. Thankfully, Calandrillo and Anderson have identified a few examples of what I'll call "panic policies" that make clear that proposals forged by frenzy tend not to reflect good public policy.

Let's turn first to a proposal in November of 2001 from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). For obvious reasons, airline safety was subject to immense public scrutiny at this time. AAP responded with what may sound like a good idea: require all infants to have their own seat and, by extension, their own seat belt on planes. The existing policy permitted parents to simply put their kid--so long as they were under two--on their lap. Essentially, babies flew for free.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) permitted this based on a pretty simple analysis: the risks to young kids without seatbelts on planes were far less than the risks they would face if they were instead traveling by car. Put differently, if parents faced higher prices to travel by air, then they'd turn to the road as the best way to get from A to B. As we all know (perhaps with the exception of the AAP at the time), airline travel is tremendously safer than travel by car. Nevertheless, the AAP forged ahead with its proposal. In fact, it did so despite admitting that they were unsure of whether the higher risks of mortality of children under two in plane crashes were due to the lack of a seat belt or the fact that they're simply fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less