Waymo robotaxis are now giving rides on freeways in LA, SF and Phoenix

2025-11-1216:06341437techcrunch.com

Waymo robotaxis will use freeways in Los Angeles, Phoenix, and San Francisco - an expansion that could reduce ride times by 50%.

Sixteen years ago, engineers working on the Google self-driving project conducted their first autonomous vehicle tests on the freeway that connects Silicon Valley to San Francisco.

The company would eventually become Waymo, and autonomous vehicle testing would expand — fanning out to other cities. Eventually, the company launched commercial robotaxi services in Phoenix, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Other cities soon followed.

But freeways, despite some of that early testing, would remain out of reach. Until today.

Waymo said Wednesday it will begin offering robotaxi rides that use freeways across San Francisco, Phoenix, and Los Angeles, a critical expansion for the company that it says will reduce ride times by up to 50%. That stat could help attract a whole new group of users who need to travel between the many towns and suburbs within the greater San Francisco Bay Area or quicken commutes across the sprawling Los Angeles and Phoenix metro areas.

Using freeways is also essential for Waymo to offer rides to and from the San Francisco Airport, a location the company is currently testing in.

The service won’t be offered to all Waymo riders at first, the company said. Waymo riders who want to experience freeway rides can note their preference in the Waymo app. Once the rider hails a ride, they may be matched with a freeway trip, according to the company.

The company’s robotaxi routes will now stretch to San Jose, an expansion that will create a unified 260-mile service area across the Peninsula, according to Waymo. The company said it will also begin curbside drop-off and pick-up service at San Jose Mineta International Airport. It already offers curbside service to the Sky Harbor Phoenix International Airport.

Techcrunch event

San Francisco | October 13-15, 2026

Image Credits:Waymo

“Freeway driving is one of those things that’s very easy to learn, but very hard to master when we’re talking about full autonomy without a human driver as a backup, and at scale,” Waymo co-CEO Dmitri Dolgov said in a media briefing with reporters. “It took time to do it properly, with a strong focus on system safety and reliability.”

Waymo robotaxis have been spotted on freeways for months. TechCrunch took a test ride last year in the Phoenix area that included freeways. The company has provided trips to employees for more than a year.

While many assume freeway driving is easier, it comes with its own set of challenges, principal software engineer Pierre Kreitmann said in a recent briefing. He noted that critical events happen less often on freeways, which means there are fewer opportunities to expose Waymo’s self-driving system to rare scenarios and prove how the system performs when it really matters. The company chose to augment its public road driving with a combination of closed course and simulation testing.

This expanded testing and validation of the software was done to ensure the vehicles transition smoothly and safely between freeways and surface streets, and recognize and adapt to the unique context of the road around them, Kreitmann said.

Waymo has also expanded its operational protocols, including how it coordinates with safety officials like California Highway Patrol, now that its robotaxis are on freeways.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By mmmlinux 2025-11-1217:0616 reply

    I was in SF a few weekend ago and rode both Waymo and normal Lyft style taxi cars. the Waymo was a better experience in every single way. One of the Lyfts i was in drove on the shoulder for a while like it was a lane. The Waymos were just smooth consistent driving. No aggressive driving to get you dumped off so they can get to the next fair.

    • By prismatix 2025-11-1217:154 reply

      I had a similar experience. A few months ago, I was in the city for a weekend and took Waymo for most of my rides. The one time I chose to use Lyft/Uber, the driver floored it before we even had a chance to shut the door or get buckled! The rest of the time we took Waymo.

      I rarely use ride-sharing but other experiences include having been in a FSD Tesla Uber where the driver wasn't paying attention to the road the entire time (hands off the wheel, looking behind him, etc.).

      I don't know if I trust Waymo cars with my life, but at least there are SOME standards, compared to the natural variance of humans.

      • By Swizec 2025-11-1217:251 reply

        > I don't know if I trust Waymo cars with my life, but at least there are SOME standards, compared to the natural variance of humans

        I’ve ridden in a lot of Waymos – 800km I’m told! – and they’re great. The bit that impresses me most is that they drive like a confident city driver. Already in the intersection and it turns red? Floor it out of the way! Light just turned yellow and you don’t have time to stop? Continue calmly. Stuff like that.

        Saw a lot of other AI cars get flustered and confused in those situations. Humans too.

        For me I like Waymos because of the consistent social experience. There is none. With drivers they’re usually chatty at all the wrong moments when I’m not in the mood or just want to catch up on emails. Or I’m feeling chatty and the driver is not, it’s rarely a perfect match. With Waymo it’s just a ride.

        • By astrange 2025-11-1219:331 reply

          I did have one drive straight through a big pothole in LA once, and I also felt like it chose extremely boring routes. But neither of those are very surprising.

          Oh, and it doesn't like to pull into hotel entrances but instead stops randomly on the street outside it.

          • By andsoitis 2025-11-1220:462 reply

            > and I also felt like it chose extremely boring routes

            $$ opportunity: pay $10 extra and Waymo will choose more exciting route.

            • By tgsovlerkhgsel 2025-11-1223:202 reply

              Or "pay $10 extra and it'll drive extremely aggressively" (in the acceleration/braking/taking turns at speed sense, i.e. only ways that don't affect safety, not "cutting people off").

              The sane default is obviously "boring", as it projects an image of safety and control, is comfortable, and reduces wear on the car... but if the user pays for the wear and wants an uncomfortable ride, why not?

              • By sdenton4 2025-11-130:52

                Maintaining safety across multiple driving "modes" multiplies the complexity of the problem, in a space where safety incidents can shift public opinion of the whole industry. This is a bad idea...

              • By socalgal2 2025-11-130:43

                roads are shared resources. As long as it's not breaking any laws then sure but please don't ask it to raise the risks to other people on the road. Just tune out on your phone/tablet/laptop and ignore the boring safer ride.

            • By kbaker 2025-11-1220:57

              I mean, if the scenic route is longer anyways, the revenue potential is there to fund it...

              just a 'take me the scenic route' checkbox?

      • By ericmcer 2025-11-1217:256 reply

        It must be interesting being an Uber driver right now and literally watching the robots that will replace you driving around with you.

        This has been a 15+ year process and will probably take a few more years. I don't feel too bad if they didn't manage to pivot in that time period.

        • By SirFatty 2025-11-1217:405 reply

          "It must be interesting being an Uber driver right now and literally watching the robots that will replace you driving around with you."

          You mean the way taxi drivers had to watch as Uber and Lyft replaced them?

          • By adventured 2025-11-1218:071 reply

            I imagine most traditional taxi drivers converted into Uber and Lyft drivers. Unique regulatory circumstances in places like NYC might have delayed that process some of course (eg trying to pay off a medallion).

            Uber and Lyft drivers are taxi drivers.

            • By SoftTalker 2025-11-1219:502 reply

              Drivers rarely owned the medallion. They leased the cab for 8-12 hours and drove it on behalf of the medallion owner.

              • By theoreticalmal 2025-11-1310:51

                I work for a company that owns (iirc) a large portion the medallions issued by NYC. We rent the vehicle and medallion out to people to drive/work

              • By jvanderbot 2025-11-1221:142 reply

                What a stupid process. It bothers me that farmers rarely own the land too. We can't shake our tendency to let wealth turn us into tiny little kings that live off the rent. (not so tiny in the case of farms, but you get it).

                • By Isamu 2025-11-130:412 reply

                  >It bothers me that farmers rarely own the land too

                  You will be glad to learn that most farmland is farmer owned:

                  https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/land-use-land-v...

                  • By jvanderbot 2025-11-132:57

                    I am glad to hear that. Thank you for correcting me.

                  • By NoGravitas 2025-11-1316:121 reply

                    This depends a fair bit on how you define "farmer", of course.

                    • By Isamu 2025-11-1317:061 reply

                      If you raise crops or farm animals, you are a farmer.

                      The USDA is not trying to pull a fast one with the definition of a farmer.

                      We could have a discussion about farmers that have other jobs and so are part time farming and part time something else. That tends to correlate with less intensive farming like corn and soybeans.

                      • By NoGravitas 2025-11-1318:39

                        Is a massive agribusiness conglomerate a farmer? Most farmland in the US is "owner operated". But really, that just means it's not rented out by a non-operator landlord, which is the distinction that USDA article makes.

                • By dzhiurgis 2025-11-130:431 reply

                  Medallion is an artificial scarcity. Land is actually scarce.

          • By sib 2025-11-1218:17

            I've been in plenty of Uber & Lyft rides in what were literally taxis.

          • By umeshunni 2025-11-1218:07

            > You mean the way taxi drivers had to watch as Uber and Lyft replaced them?

            For the most part, they were the same drivers I think

          • By anigbrowl 2025-11-130:15

            That was a slightly different business model, vs a different technology.

          • By ang_cire 2025-11-1218:554 reply

            It's funny how "exploit workers worse (medallions) and worse (rideshares) until we can fully cut them out" has played out in such a perfect microcosm, and yet somehow people here don't seem to register that it was never the workers' own fault.

            Taxis didn't lose because rideshares played the game better, they lost because rideshare companies used investor money to leapfrog their apps, ignored actual commercial transport regulations that would have made them DOA, and then exploited workers by claiming they weren't even employees, all so they could artificially undercut taxis to kill them off and capture the market before enshittifying.

            • By astrange 2025-11-1219:35

              Taxi drivers were already not employees, they were exploited contractors for the taxi companies.

              And do you not remember what using Yellow Cab was like in the Bay? It was like being kidnapped. They'd pretend their credit card reader was broken and forcibly drive you to an ATM to pay them.

              When I first moved here I went to EPA Ikea, afterwards tried to get home via taxi, and literally couldn't because there was a game at Stanford that was more profitable so they just refused to pick me up for hours. I had to call my manager and ask him to get me. (…Which he couldn't because he was drinking, so I had to walk to the Four Seasons and use the car service.)

            • By nradov 2025-11-1219:411 reply

              Taxis lost at least partly because the workers were assholes. Refusing to take credit card payments (the card reader is "broken") or not picking up members of certain ethnic groups or not driving to certain areas. Sure some cabbies were nice, honest people with good customer service skills but those were the exception in many cities.

              There was nothing stopping taxi companies from raising investor capital to build better apps and back end technology infrastructure. They were just lazy and incompetent.

              • By SoftTalker 2025-11-1219:52

                > some cabbies were nice, honest people

                Most were, in fact. You just remember the assholes a lot more.

            • By lotsofpulp 2025-11-1219:011 reply

              Taxi companies didn't have any apps to leapfrog in the first place. Uber and Lyft created a superior product that people wanted. Doesn't matter whose fault it is, the buyers preferred something that was more convenient.

              There was never a situation where uneducated cabbies on shoestring budgets were going to be able to develop an Uber/Lyft alternative.

              • By ang_cire 2025-11-1219:061 reply

                > Taxi companies didn't have any apps to leapfrog in the first place.

                This shows just how badly behind they were. All the large cab companies have had apps for years. No one knows about them.

                Here's YellowCab's: https://rideyellow.com/app/

                > uneducated cabbies on shoestring budgets were going to be able to develop an Uber/Lyft alternative.

                Are you under the impression that most cabs are/ were independent? That wasn't the case since at latest the 1980s. Having a radio dispatcher is a huge necessity as a cab driver.

                • By mattzito 2025-11-1219:48

                  I think you have to go market by market to make that statement. In NYC, for example, it was explicitly illegal for yellow cabs to accept radio/pickup calls, which was the domain of the livery cabs (black cars). The tradeoff was that only yellow cabs could do street hails. That worked for everybody for years - yellow cabs did a volume business, livery cabs were for outer boros or luxury/business travel and would sneakily try to pick up street hails.

                  In those days if you needed a car to take you someplace, aside from the outer boro examples, it was always faster to get a yellow cab. The car services could maybe get there in 45 minutes if you were lucky - big companies would often have deals with car service companies to have a few cars stationed at their buildings for peak times, so execs didn't have to wait for a car.

                  The yellow cab operators were essentially all independent - many rented their medallion/vehicle, either from a colleague or an agency, but they worked their own schedules and their own instincts on where to be picking up fares at given times.

                  No one expected something like uber - what is essentially a street hail masquerading as a livery cab. This basically destroyed yellow cabs and the traditional livery cab companies, but some of it is attributable to the VC spend, lowering prices (yellow cab fares are set by the city, livery cab fares are market-regulated) and incentivizing drivers. They made it so lucrative to drive an uber that you had thousands of new uber drivers on the road, or taxi drivers who stopped leasing their medallions and started driving uber.

                  At some point, though - the subsidies dried up, prices went up, and now its often faster to get a yellow cab than an uber/lyft. This is anecdata, but I take cabs a lot, and I've spoken with ~6 taxi drivers in the last year who either started with driving uber and shifted to driving a taxi, or went taxi-uber-taxi. Then I've had a lot more taxi drivers where they need passengers to put the destination into the driver's waze or google maps, even for simple things like intersections - I suspect they're uber drivers who became depedent on the in-app directions and native language interactions.

                  But the broader point I'm making is that in NYC, the drivers themselves were essentially unable to do anything about the changing market. The only power they had was to shift between the type of fares they were getting. And today when you order an uber, sometimes you get a yellow cab.

            • By energy123 2025-11-1222:15

              Enshittifying? It's still better than taxis ever were and competition between providers is preventing that from regressing.

        • By pa7ch 2025-11-1217:332 reply

          You say the term pivot like its a startup founder who has every option in life. You should feel bad for anyone who would struggle for a basic job.

          • By dekhn 2025-11-1219:112 reply

            the history of humans on earth has been pivots, even amongst people who had few options.

            I don't subscribe to feeling guilty every time somebody loses a job. I feel empathy, but telling people to "feel bad" is not constructive.

            • By kannanvijayan 2025-11-1311:31

              In a society where having a job is, for that vast majority not in the non-gilded classes, the only mechanism by which a person can secure their core needs.. losing a job is indeed a pitiable situation for most.

              If we've built a society that when it "pivots" leaves swathes of people smeared out as residual waste, I'd argue we should feel bad.

              We've certainly reached a point of technological advancement where many of these consequences at the individual level are avoidable. If they're still happening, it's because we've chosen this outcome - perhaps passively. But the clear implication of would be that we're collectively failing ourselves, as a species that tends to put some degree of pride in our intelligence.

              And we should feel bad about that failure. It's OK to feel bad about that failure. We tend not to improve things we don't feel bad about.

            • By phainopepla2 2025-11-1220:28

              "Feel bad for" is not the same as "feel bad". The former is the same as feeling empathy, in colloquial English

          • By starluz 2025-11-1323:38

            [dead]

        • By treis 2025-11-1218:442 reply

          It's interesting that we're on the cusp of a major change in our world and no one is really talking about it. Self driving cars will have a profound impact on society. Everything from real estate to logistics will be impacted.

          • By HPsquared 2025-11-1220:421 reply

            Looking forward to when they get rid of traffic lights and the networked cars just whiz through and avoid hitting each other. They'll also seamlessly zip lanes together on the highway, and traffic waves will be a thing of the past. Maybe China will do it first.

            • By onemoresoop 2025-11-1221:503 reply

              No thoughts on pedestrians? With no traffic lights it'd be a total nightmare to be a pedestrian

              • By HPsquared 2025-11-1222:491 reply

                You could still have pedestrian crossings with buttons etc which signal the cars to stop, just the same logic as we have now. Maybe even physical lights for redundancy. Pedestrians are pretty rare in most places though so this shouldn't slow things down too much.

                • By Moomoomoo309 2025-11-1313:361 reply

                  And if the button doesn't work, what should pedestrians do?

                  • By seanmcdirmid 2025-11-1316:31

                    Walk? Waymo already stops at crosswalks (marked or unmarked) if a pedestrian looks like they are crossing or starting to cross. That is more than I can say for human drivers. I’m confused why you don’t think this is just a win for pedestrians given how messed up things are now.

              • By xnx 2025-11-1315:52

                More likely that Waymo's will make it a paradise for pedestrians. It should be possible to cross any road at any point without so much as looking either way.

              • By kmacleod 2025-11-1320:58

                My Tesla FSD v14 will wait for any pedestrian stepping or approaching stepping into the road.

          • By nxor 2025-11-1222:03

            Some places are less car-dependent. That plays a role

        • By vinni2 2025-11-1218:171 reply

          Actually i spoke a uber driver about this and he said he was waiting for cars with FSD available to buy then he could make his car work for him.

          • By tuhgdetzhh 2025-11-1219:341 reply

            If he can create a buisness of operating a fleet of self driving cars fine, but 99% of regular taxi/uber drivers will loose their job.

        • By xnx 2025-11-1315:48

          > This has been a 15+ year process and will probably take a few more years.

          In 1995 Navlab 5 completed the first autonomous US coast-to-coast journey. Traveling from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to San Diego, California.

          The history is long, but the technology is finally here. Hopefully soon the technology will be everywhere.

        • By cynicalsecurity 2025-11-1218:141 reply

          > It must be interesting being an Uber driver right now and literally watching the robots that will replace you driving around with you.

          You mean just like programmers watching AI replacing them?

          • By ang_cire 2025-11-1218:574 reply

            AI doesn't replace programmers, it's used by programmers for efficiency.

            Waymo is most definitely not being used by taxi or rideshare drivers to be more efficient.

            • By dqh 2025-11-130:221 reply

              If a programmer is more efficient with AI then you need fewer programmers, assuming a fixed amount of work is needed. So in that sense AI would be replacing programmers.

              • By PlunderBunny 2025-11-130:31

                I've never worked at a company that would choose to have less programmers instead of choosing to do more work. I guess such companies exist though.

            • By JeremyNT 2025-11-1222:041 reply

              Waymo definitely uses human drivers in some markets... currently

              Just like AI still uses human programmers... currently

              • By sentientslug 2025-11-135:31

                Sorry, what? Waymo does not use human drivers for passenger trips, unless you’re referring to training drives (with no passenger).

                Edit: I think I get what you mean now, you mean when humans have to remotely intervene for whatever reason and pilot the car

            • By lotsofpulp 2025-11-1219:07

              As I understand, Waymo still uses humans in some circumstances. Theoretically, the drivers could do this job instead.

              https://waymo.com/blog/2024/05/fleet-response/

            • By emmelaich 2025-11-132:10

              If it doubles your efficiency, that's one less employee required.

      • By Lammy 2025-11-1221:291 reply

        > I don't know if I trust Waymo cars with my life, but at least there are SOME standards, compared to the natural variance of humans.

        The one thing you can trust Waymo to do is spy on you. Hurray, more surveillance-on-wheels! Every one of these things has 29 visible-light cameras, 5 LIDARs, 4 RADARs, and is using four H100s to process all of its realtime imagery of you: https://thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/2024/10/27/waymos-5-6...

        • By blibble 2025-11-130:021 reply

          if there's 4 H100s in there, that's effectively a gold bar in terms of value just sitting there

          in a vehicle that is unmanned and unguarded, which anyone can summon to a dodgy warehouse

          what do you think will happen once this becomes public knowledge?

          • By Lammy 2025-11-130:28

            Four H100s in an Alphabet datacenter somewhere, obviously.

      • By vdupras 2025-11-1317:43

          > A few months ago, I was in the city for a weekend and took Waymo for most of my rides.
          > [...]
          > I don't know if I trust Waymo cars with my life [...]
        
        I'm sorry to be that guy, but didn't you already?

    • By mmmlinux 2025-11-1219:23

      I also just wanted to mention one other nice thing about the way Waymo worked vs other ride share apps. as soon as you open the app, it tells you how long till you'll be picked up. even before you tell it where you're going. no waiting for some driver to choose your slightly out of the way trip for them. a car just shows up when its supposed to, to take you where you want to go.

    • By holler 2025-11-1217:293 reply

      I had my first waymo ride in Austin recently and it suddenly slowed down to 20mph in 40mph zone for 5+ mins before returning to normal speed. Cars were passing around us and it felt like the car was glitching out, which felt very sketchy.

      • By vjerancrnjak 2025-11-1217:311 reply

        I was doing this a lot in US whenever I’d see construction work speed limits and had similar experience. Realized no one cares about these custom signs.

        • By daemonologist 2025-11-1218:162 reply

          Yeah it always wigs me out going through those super narrow "55 mph" construction zones on US highways. I'm not in a hurry and want to slow down, but if I did I'd have semis blowing past at 75 which feels even more unsafe. Honestly I think they should put up speed cameras.

          • By Tade0 2025-11-1218:252 reply

            In my corner of the world it was the workers who demanded section control limiting speed to 70kmph in a segment of highway that was being renovated.

            Authorities later said that they only went after 30% of the worst offenders, because otherwise the sheer number of tickets would be to high to process in a reasonable timespan.

            Once word got out that the limit was actually enforced, speeds dropped. Now we have section control on some highways and personally I'm a fan, as I was always going around the speed limit anyway.

            • By bluGill 2025-11-1219:541 reply

              What do you mean by "section control"? A did a quick search and founds lots of possibilities but none that seem to apply to construction zone speed control.

              • By Tade0 2025-11-1220:061 reply

                Average speed camera. "Section control" is how they were named in Austria where I've first encountered them and the term translates to something similar in my language, so I assumed that was the English term, but it appears to be a case of Önglish.

                • By tialaramex 2025-11-1220:59

                  Yeah, Average Speed Camera is definitely the terminology in the UK.

                  This is distinct from just a Speed Camera which is measuring over a very short interval from a single camera, the Average Speed Camera involves two or more cameras, recording people passing different points and working out how fast, on average, they must be travelling to have done so.

            • By scoofy 2025-11-1221:26

              Enforcement of traffic laws for public safety?!? Clearly you don't have American priorities. You need to focus more on level of service and only level of service.

              https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09666...

              https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/9/9/improvement...

              Some of you may die, but that's a price we're willing to make.

          • By datadrivenangel 2025-11-1316:17

            In many US states they've started adding speed cameras to work zones!

      • By mdorazio 2025-11-1220:362 reply

        Are you sure it was actually a 40mph zone in that section? Austin has plenty of school and construction zones with lower speed limits that most drivers completely ignore.

        • By holler 2025-11-142:37

          Pretty sure but yeah it's possible, either way the traffic was moving fast and we slowed down to the point where it felt unsafe.

      • By thebytefairy 2025-11-1217:33

        I've been in ride shares where the driver has crossed a curb road divider or squeezed through tiny gaps in front of trucks. Going too slow sounds like a better 'bad' experience to me.

    • By nradov 2025-11-1218:032 reply

      Waymo cars are also more likely to be properly maintained. I've noticed that a lot of Uber / Lyft cars have some kind of warning light on the dashboard: check engine, low tire pressure, overdue for service.

      • By ang_cire 2025-11-1219:013 reply

        Waymo cars are new. Wait until their fleets are 10+ years old. They'll have all the same bad maintenance issues that airplanes, semis, rental cars, and any other company-owned vehicles have.

        • By bluGill 2025-11-1219:522 reply

          I expect that Waymo will have standards. In theory Uber does as well, but since the drivers own their own cars they can't enforce them. A 15 year old car that has been well maintained is still safe to have on the road (within the limits of the safety systems on board), while a 6 year old car with a lot of miles that hasn't been maintained can be deadly.

          • By bigstrat2003 2025-11-131:041 reply

            You may be right, but historically speaking, "this company will stick to quality standards" is a bad bet compared to "this company will cut corners to squeeze out more profit".

            • By choilive 2025-11-131:57

              I think the apt comparison is the rental car business. They are reasonably good at quality standards because the competition is stiff, and if the vehicles aren't reliable and clean, you will just use the company next door. This incentivizes prudent fleet management, and thanks to economies of scale, having in-house mechanics to constantly maintain the fleet quickly becomes cost efficient.

          • By tomduncalf 2025-11-130:34

            Yeah I’ve almost never got in an Uber that was notably unclean or damaged in some way in London. Most of the times I’ve got one in SF, it’s been an unpleasant experience and so I now Waymo when I can there.

        • By fragmede 2025-11-131:30

          If you have access to a Google campus that is 10 years old, they seem to be doing fine? A little bit worse for wear, perhaps, but it's not like Google hasn't encountered this issue ever before.

        • By nradov 2025-11-1219:281 reply

          Really? I fly a lot and Part 121 commercial airliners seem to be pretty well maintained.

          • By SoftTalker 2025-11-1220:072 reply

            Very few airliners depart in perfect working order. There is a "MEL" (minimum equipment list) that details which systems can be inop and still operate the flight.

            • By tialaramex 2025-11-1220:451 reply

              Sure, however that's why there's a minimum. The problem is that lots of GA aeroplanes aren't that well maintained.

              People aren't on the whole suicidal, they're not going to go up in a plane they expect to kill them, but they absolutely will push their luck in privately owned planes and statistically that doesn't end well. Go see the figures for yourself, inadequate maintenance isn't first on the list for why GA crash rates are too high, but it's on there.

              • By SoftTalker 2025-11-1221:22

                "Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."

                Alfred Gilmer Lamplugh

            • By nradov 2025-11-1220:43

              None of that stuff really impacts safety. They're not leaving the gate with under inflated tires or expired engine oil.

      • By dom96 2025-11-1223:311 reply

        This seems to be a US thing. Every time I take an Uber/Lyft in the US the car that shows up more often than not has a cracked windshield. In the UK this just doesn't happen, maybe because we have stricter laws around what is safe to drive and a cracked windshield wouldn't pass an MOT.

        • By gsnedders 2025-11-132:38

          I’ve been in so many Ubers in the UK with check engine lights and the similar — but at least some of the difference is Uber UK has much higher requirements for cars, which I expect is probably partly because of competition from private hires.

    • By lacker 2025-11-133:221 reply

      I was riding in a Waymo recently and it suddenly braked for no reason at an intersection where it didn't have a stop sign. I was like, what the heck, this Waymo is broken, it didn't see that the stop sign is only two way. Then a little kid on a bike riding along the sidewalk at an angle where I hadn't seen them just barely braked to a halt before riding into the street in front of the Waymo.

      These things must be saving lives, it's obvious. When my kids are riding their bikes around I want the other cars to be Waymos, not human drivers.

    • By proee 2025-11-1220:024 reply

      So it might come down to how many "9s" you're comfortable with. The experience is really good 99.999% of the time until it's not, and that "not" could be catastrophic. I suppose the data engineers are quite confident in the 9s.

      • By cheschire 2025-11-1220:231 reply

        Lyft is 99.99999% with 1.02 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled[0].

        Waymo is 100% with zero fatalities.

        But then again, the Concorde was the safest airplane ever built for nearly 30 years, until its first crash and then it was the most dangerous passenger jet ever with 12.5 fatal events per million flights.[1]

        Lies, damned lies, and statistics.[2]

        0: https://assets.ctfassets.net/vz6nkkbc6q75/3yrO0aP4mPfTTvyaUZ...

        1: https://www.airsafe.com/journal/issue14.htm

        2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statist...

        • By saghm 2025-11-1419:491 reply

          It feels like it would be useful to also know how many fatalities would be expected from Lyft in the number of miles Waymo has traveled based on their calculated rate (which should be fairly straightforward to calculate with only the rate you gave and the number of miles Waymo has traveled, although I'm not sure if it's known) and the probability that Lyft would also see zero fatalities with that number of miles traveled (which I think would require more detailed knowledge like variance, although I admit I haven't spent enough time to convince myself with complete confidence that this is correct).

          I imagine it also goes without saying that not every mile of road is equally risky, and I have to imagine that Waymo's miles traveled probably on far less risky roads on average given the way they've been rolled out (which isn't a bad thing, but it does make extrapolations from the data about relative safety a bit more dubious).

          • By cheschire 2025-11-1419:54

            I think you’re spot on.

            Unfortunately stats can be spun in whatever way you need them to in order to support or hinder an effort.

            To use your example, risk per mile is a sliding scale, not necessarily a Boolean value. So then someone could conceivably draw the line on that scale wherever most benefited the company they were trying to support.

      • By AceJohnny2 2025-11-1220:141 reply

        > and that "not" could be catastrophic

        Any different than with a human taxi driver?

        It's not about absolute reliability, it's about how well it compares to the alternative, which is human taxi drivers. And the thing is, you don't hear about human car accidents because it's so common that it's not worth making the news.

        • By AceJohnny2 2025-11-1220:151 reply

          > you don't hear about human car accidents because it's so common that it's not worth making the news.

          Another very interesting thing about robotaxis is agency and blame. Taxi driver had an accident? Just that driver is suspect. Robotaxi had an accident? They're all suspect.

          • By hn8726 2025-11-1222:57

            I mean it does make sense though - robo taxis (of one company) are much more homogeneous than any two human drivers could ever be.

      • By timerol 2025-11-1220:11

        This also applies to getting in a car with a human driver, or to driving yourself. Or to any other way of getting from point A to point B

      • By jsbg 2025-11-1220:34

        How many 9s does lyft guarantee?

    • By FuckButtons 2025-11-1219:231 reply

      They’re a good experience, but consider, the other day I took an uber in sf with a gay taxi driver who sang along to the Tina turner he had on full blast, told me I was fabulous and almost caused a crash at a 4 way stop. 5 stars. No notes.

      • By Greed 2025-11-1221:37

        Absolutely. The value proposition for me with rideshare services has ALWAYS been the conversations and experiences you get to have with a diverse cross section of humanity. I'd take the bus / train otherwise.

    • By sharts 2025-11-1321:08

      Having driven behind waymo vehicles — the experience for everyone outside of that box is pretty terrible.

      These vehicles very regularly block traffic because they can’t maneuver in congested areas with the finesse of a human driver.

      Aggressive driving isn’t always bad. Sometimes it’s to unblock others waiting behind you so they can get somewhere they need to be.

    • By dec0dedab0de 2025-11-1219:343 reply

      I feel like I won the lottery whenever I have an aggressive driver that knows the city well. It makes me wonder if breaking the law will be the main value proposition of human drivers at some point.

      • By bugufu8f83 2025-11-1219:38

        We have very different value systems, is the politest way I would react to this. Aggressive drivers suck for everyone else on the road and when I ride with one I feel like I've lost something, not won something.

      • By jimmydddd 2025-11-1220:361 reply

        In NY city, I've noticed that taxi drivers will get agressive when we are stuck in traffic. They will start honking, yelling, or changing from one almost stopped lane to another almost stopped lane. I always thought it was theatrical, to show me that they were trying hard, and not just letting the fee increase while they sat stopped in traffic.

        • By o_____________o 2025-11-1222:33

          I think this is too much credit given for emotional labor. NY has an intrusive din and these people live in their cars all day. They evolve toward chronic irritation alleviated with impotent shows of force.

      • By netsharc 2025-11-1222:281 reply

        That is dumb. Go to a developing country and see what happens when everyone is aggressive. Everyone cuts off everyone else and drivers brake a lot (none of this waiting for a gap before entering from a side street, for example, the understanding is they'll brake for you). The end result is much more slower traffic.

        • By saghm 2025-11-1419:56

          I think that's kind of their point; if no one else is being aggressive, than being in the one car driven aggressively might be viewed as an advantage. A more civic mindset might prefer a driver doesn't try to take advantage of this because of how it might affect others and a pragmatist might be concerned with the potential to influence others to do the same and ruin the status quo, but I think empirically there are a sizeable number of people who would view it as an opportunity rather than something to avoid .

    • By ZeroGravitas 2025-11-1311:08

      Is that human vs robo or is it just that one had the enshittification dial turned up earlier?

      If you were running a private equity robotaxi firm and your bonus relied on 1% more rides wouldn't you be dialing up the aggressive driving? Repeat for a few quarters and the robot will be cutting the same corners that the human is forced to.

      Some future Fight Club reboot will reference your ChatGPT logs that show you asked how much the corporation would need to pay to the people killed in crashes vs increased profit to find the profit maximising level of dangerous driving.

    • By quantummagic 2025-11-130:001 reply

      I'm surprised by all the uncynical compliments for the service, by so many on this site. We're just in the pre-enshittification days of this service. It's fine to enjoy it now, but it will definitely get worse once all the competition has been put out of business. Please enjoy these mandatory ads while we drive you to your destination...

      • By asdfman123 2025-11-130:322 reply

        There's no way for this technology not to be funded by multibillion companies, for now at the very least.

        • By quantummagic 2025-11-130:39

          Yeah, but that doesn't mean it's praiseworthy, or that we should forget what is inevitably coming along with the deal. Maybe we should be supporting human drivers, rather than dissing them as being less-desirable. That makes the mistake of comparing them with the loss-leader version of these services, not what they will really be when fully unmasked.

        • By fragmede 2025-11-131:32

          http://comma.ai seems to be doing alright, they just announced the new coma four. I tell all of my friends about it and that they should get one, or get a better car that supports it, unless they've got a Tesla. It's not self driving, it's just really really good cruise control.

    • By supportengineer 2025-11-1221:07

      next fare

    • By AtlasBarfed 2025-11-1220:281 reply

      Oh great! Doing life-threatening activities is now verified by anecdotal evidence.

      I get there. Basically isn't any laws for corporations anymore, is there any way I can see anything in regards to the safety of this at a statistical level?

      Where is NHTSA? Oh right, no federal agencies exist anymore except for those that maintain the oligarchy.

      And I don't give a crap if Uber has really good statistics and studies and evidence. We are talking about one of the least ethical companies in the last 20 years.

      I want independent Federal testing.

      • By donut_rider 2025-11-1222:031 reply

        You could, you know, just Google it: https://waymo.com/safety/impact/. TLDR ~90% reduction of serious injury compared with human drivers.

        Now, before you say this peer-reviewed paper is corporate propaganda, all self-driving companies are required by law to disclose accidents they are involved in, whether liable or not, in CA. You could access each raw accident report published by the CA DMV periodically and come up with your own statistics.

        • By AtlasBarfed 2025-11-1316:27

          Is it from NHTSA with a NHTSA or an auto industry group diving deep into the software and testing its edge cases? No?

          Yes, it is corporate propaganda. "Peer reviewed" doesn't mean anything if it is SPONSORED BY THE COMPANY. There is peer reviewed studies to kingdom come that are industry sponsored and have plagued our society for at least a century.

          I AM NOT THE PERSON that should be doing this research. A FEDERAL AGENCY TASKED WITH HIGHWAY SAFETY should be doing it, barring that, the auto insurance industry groups should be doing it. Not a corporate sponsored shill paper.

    • By dzhiurgis 2025-11-130:39

      Have you tried Tesla's service? I saw reviews they are much smoother than Waymo.

    • By LZ_Khan 2025-11-1217:385 reply

      Waymo is overly conservative last time I checked. Driving the speed limit basically means getting to your destination twice as slow.

      • By Night_Thastus 2025-11-1218:025 reply

        "Twice as slow" is not even slightly accurate.

        If you're driving 45 in a 40, that may sound like 12% faster, but once you add traffic, lights, stop signs, turns, etc - you'll find that the 12% all but evaporates. Even if you're really pushing it and going 15 over, at most speeds and for most typical commutes, it saves very little.

        Most of the time speeding ends up saving on the order of seconds on ~30 minutes or shorter trips.

        Just about the only time it can be noticeable is if you're really pushing it (going to get pulled over speeds) on a nearly empty highway for a commute of 1.5+ hours.

        • By panarky 2025-11-1219:162 reply

          93% of American drivers think they're better drivers than the median driver [0].

          This overconfidence causes humans to take unnecessary risks that not only endanger themselves, but everyone else on the road.

          After taking several dozen Waymo rides and watching them negotiate complex and ambiguous driving scenarios, including many situations where overconfident drivers are driving dangerously, I realize that Waymo is a far better driver than I am.

          Waymos don't just prevent a large percentage of accidents by making fewer mistakes than a human driver, but Waymos also avoid a lot of accidents caused by other distracted and careless human drivers.

          Now when I have to drive a car myself, my goal is to try to drive as much like a Waymo as I can.

          [0] https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/1981-svenson.pdf

          • By Night_Thastus 2025-11-1219:35

            It's not just overconfidence, it's selfishness.

            Speeding feels like "I'm more important than everyone else and the safety of others and rules don't apply to me" personally. It's one thing to match the speed of traffic and avoid being a nuisance (that I'm fine with) - a lot of people just think they're the main character and everyone else is just in their way.

            It's a problem that goes way beyond driving, sadly.

          • By treis 2025-11-1220:11

            Eh this doesn't mean much. The quality of drivers is pretty bimodal.

            You have the group that's really bad and does things like drive drunk, weave in and out of traffic, do their makeup and so on.

            The other group generally pays attention and tries to drive safely. This is larger than the first group and realistically there's not all that much difference within the group.

            If you're in group two you will think you're above average because the comparison is to the crap drivers in group one.

        • By bcrosby95 2025-11-1218:451 reply

          Yeah, I chuckle a bit when the person who blew by me on the freeway at 80mph is just 2 cars ahead of me at the offramp stop light.

          • By ang_cire 2025-11-1219:05

            Yeah, speed shouldn't be about time-to-destination except for emergency vehicles. It's about fahrfegnuggen.

        • By mostly_harmless 2025-11-1219:061 reply

          I'll add on that speeding is the biggest contributing factor in accidents. And accident outcomes get exponentially worse above 30mph. For every 10 mph of increased speed, the risk of dying in a crash doubles.

          • By dekhn 2025-11-1219:16

            There's a great paper which I can't find any more that said "going faster makes you take longer to get to the destination"; they showed the expected value for arrival time was longer at speed due to higher accident rates.

        • By TulliusCicero 2025-11-1222:25

          Twice as slow was probably accurate when comparing Uber with freeways vs Waymo (which wasn't using freeways yet).

          But now that Waymo is gonna use freeways, that major speed difference is gonna evaporate.

        • By bluGill 2025-11-1219:58

          In the real world 45 in a 40 will often enough get through lights just before they turn to red often enough that your real speed is more than twice as fast! Unless the city has timed their lights correctly - which sounds easy but on a grid is almost impossible for all streets. It all depends on how the red lights are timed.

      • By superfrank 2025-11-1217:422 reply

        I've ridden in Waymos in LA, SF, and Phoenix. You're right about them being a bit conservative, but only in Phoenix did I feel like that really slowed my ride. In LA and SF there was so much traffic that even if cars pulled away from us, we'd catch them at the next red light.

        • By whimsicalism 2025-11-1217:44

          My understanding was waymo in LA does not yet take freeways (maybe this announcement will change that) which makes it a strictly worse experience in LA specifically.

        • By jessriedel 2025-11-1218:29

          I check Google maps ETA estimates when I get in a car in SF; they are accurate for Uber or Lyfts, but Waymos are absolutely slower there. This is especially, but not exclusively, true for routes where a human would take the 101 or 280, for obvious reasons.

      • By BurningFrog 2025-11-1217:44

        At this point, any accident or rule violation can whip up a luddite storm threatening the whole industry, so self driving taxis will be extremely cautious until the general public have lost their fear.

      • By pastureofplenty 2025-11-1222:29

        Waymo may be currently safer than human drivers, but this right here is why I don't believe for a second they'll stay that way. People will complain it took to long to get somewhere because "stupid car was following all the rules!" and they'll be programmed to become more aggressive and dangerous (and due to regulatory capture they'll get away with this of course). I've already noticed this in San Francisco.

      • By lo_zamoyski 2025-11-1217:411 reply

        You realize it's technically illegal to drive faster than the speed limit, right? In the eyes of the law, it's doesn't matter whether everyone else is doing it or not.

        • By throwup238 2025-11-1218:014 reply

          It’s more complicated than that because several (most?) states have contradictory laws about impeding traffic. It can technically be illegal to drive at (or below) the speed limit because it creates an unsafe environment for all the other cars on the road that are driving faster, even if they’re all breaking the legal speed limit.

          It’s not a viable defense if you get a ticket for speeding but in practice the speed limit is really the prevailing speed of traffic plus X mph, where X adjusted for the state. I.e. in my experience Texas is more strict about the speed limit even on their desolate highways, LA is about 10 mph faster than San Francisco, in Seattle it depends on the weather, you’ll never hit the speed limit in New York anyway, and in Florida you just say the gator ate the officer who pulled you over.

          • By mikestew 2025-11-1218:202 reply

            It’s more complicated than that because several (most?) states have contradictory laws about impeding traffic.

            No they don’t, you’ve misinterpreted what was written. “Not impeding traffic” is not codified as “exceed the speed limit if everyone else is, or get a ticket”.

            Or perhaps you have a documented counter-example.

            • By SoftTalker 2025-11-1220:261 reply

              The rule in Indiana is that on a multilane highway you must move to the right to allow overtaking traffic to pass. You are not there to enforce the speed limit; the fact that another car that is passing you might be speeding does not give you the right or duty to block them.

              "a person who knows, or should reasonably know, that another vehicle is overtaking from the rear the vehicle that the person is operating may not continue to operate the vehicle in the left most lane"

              With of course some reasonable exceptions.

              https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/title-9/article-21/chap...

              • By mikestew 2025-11-1221:082 reply

                The rule in Indiana is that on a multilane highway you must move to the right to allow overtaking traffic to pass.

                That's a rule just about everywhere, but that's not what's being discussed. I'm in the right lane doing the speed limit, and OP claims that's "technically" illegal due to contradictory laws. (Where there is no real contradiction, because the Chesterton's Fence is that we don't want Farmer Jones driving his tractor to his fields down I-75 through Atlanta.)

                • By sbuttgereit 2025-11-1422:44

                  What does happen in that situation sometimes is that if you're speeding along with everyone else, that sometimes gets allowed as a defense against a speeding ticket; basically the argument is that if driving the speed limit when all surrounding traffic is driving over the speed limit, that the relative speed difference can matter. At least that was true when I learned to drive (many, many years ago).

                • By SoftTalker 2025-11-1221:251 reply

                  Right. What's (maybe) illegal (and definitely unsafe) is staying in the left lane, although driving at the posted speed limit, and impeding traffic that wants to pass.

                  • By mikestew 2025-11-1221:46

                    Oh, as a Washington resident[0] I completely agree.

                    [0] The "joke" here being that WA drivers are notorious about parking in the left lane while driving 5mph under the limit.

            • By throwup238 2025-11-1218:491 reply

              I don’t know what you mean by “documented” but here is Georgia:

              > No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation. [1]

              Versus California:

              > No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, _or in compliance with law_. [2] (underscore emphasis mine)

              It’s part of the Uniform Vehicle Code but each state has its quirks in how they adopt it since theres no federal mandate.

              My apologies though, this seems way less common than I thought. As far as I can tell Georgia and Oregon are the only two states left that don’t have that compliance exception.

              On the other hand “in compliance with law” is it’s own barrel of monkeys because it doesn’t specify priority.

              [1] https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-40/chapter-6/arti...

              [2] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

              • By bcrosby95 2025-11-1218:591 reply

                > I don’t know what you mean by “documented” but here is Georgia:

                Georgia isn't going to punish you for going the speed limit in the right lane, they passed that law recently and called it the 'slow poke law'.

                > On the other hand “in compliance with law” is it’s own barrel of monkeys because it doesn’t specify priority.

                It really isn't.

                • By throwup238 2025-11-1219:393 reply

                  > Georgia isn't going to punish you for going the speed limit in the right lane, they passed that law recently and called it the 'slow poke law'.

                  So you’re saying they had to pass a law clarifying a contradiction in previous laws? Those contradictions were my original point. And it still only applies to the slow poke lane.

                  > It really isn't.

                  Oh you sweet summer child.

                  • By bcrosby95 2025-11-1219:451 reply

                    [flagged]

                    • By throwup238 2025-11-1219:49

                      Projection. Projection. Projection.

                      You’re literally viewing the law as a precise programming language, whereas I’m arguing that the reality is that laws are written in natural language that contains not only semantic ambiguity, but temporal ambiguity where one law is not coherent with another because they were created by different people at different times with different incentives.

                      You also didn’t bother responding to the meat of my argument, but hey you do you. Personally I’ve found that anyone who refers to other human beings as “NPCs” is void of any substance.

          • By JumpCrisscross 2025-11-1218:55

            > It’s more complicated than that because several (most?) states have contradictory laws about impeding traffic

            As others have mentioned, this is dead wrong.

            But the actual complication is enforcement usually requires a margin of error, and in some states (e.g. Wyoming) you can go 10 mph over when passing.

          • By lo_zamoyski 2025-11-1220:23

            > It’s not a viable defense if you get a ticket for speeding but in practice the speed limit is really the prevailing speed of traffic plus X mph, where X adjusted for the state.

            A lot of laws aren't enforced consistently in practice, sure. The implicit point is that while that may be so, it is nonetheless enforceable and nonetheless the law. So while individual people may be comfortable about being flexible in following traffic laws, having that behavior encoded or permitted by software is basically a declaration of broad intent to violate the law made by a company.

    • By toast0 2025-11-1217:315 reply

      > Waymo was a better experience in every single way. One of the Lyfts i was in drove on the shoulder for a while like it was a lane.

      These sentances conflict. I recently took a taxi from JFK to Manhattan during rush hour, and I estimate if the driver didn't use all of the paved surface, it would have taken at least 10 more minutes to arrive. (And it wouldn't have been an authentic NYC experience)

      It's ok if you prefer the Waymo experience, and if you find it a better experience overall, but if a human driver saves you time, the Waymo wasn't better in every single way.

      I am assuming the Lyft driver used the shoulder effectively. My experience with Lyft+Uber has been hit or miss... Some drivers are like traditional taxi drivers: it's an exciting ride because the driver knows the capabilities of their vehicle and uses them and they navigate obstacles within inches; some drivers are the opposite, it's an exciting ride because it feels like Star Tours (is this your first time? well, it's mine too) and they're using your ride to find the capabilities of their vehicle. The first type of driver is likely to use the shoulder effectively, and the second not so much.

      • By JumpCrisscross 2025-11-1217:56

        > it would have taken at least 10 more minutes to arrive. (And it wouldn't have been an authentic NYC experience)

        Lived in New York for 10+ years and still go back regularly. This is unacceptable behaviour by a cabbie.

        Given the amount of construction and thus police presence on that route right now, you’re lucky you didn’t get a 60-minute bonus when the cab got pulled over. (The pro move during rush hour and construction is (a) not to, but if you have to, (b) taking the AirTrain and LIRR.)

      • By QuercusMax 2025-11-1217:341 reply

        You want your cab driver to drive on the shoulder and break the law? What?

        • By CPLX 2025-11-1217:401 reply

          You may want to become aware of the existence of New York City. It's a pretty interesting place.

          • By QuercusMax 2025-11-1217:441 reply

            Yeah, that sounds like NYC nonsense. I assume it's still illegal to drive on the shoulder in New York.

            • By CPLX 2025-11-1217:504 reply

              Perhaps. But if you have a taxi or car service driver who's not willing to ever break any traffic laws in New York, you will not arrive at your destination in anything approaching a reasonable amount of time.

              For example, getting at the back of the line for an exit rather than trying to go to the front and cut your way in could be a multi-hour mistake.

              • By dboreham 2025-11-1218:14

                Apart from not having to deal with a human, observance of traffic laws is the main advantage I see in autonomous vehicles. Once there are a decent proportion of them on the road we can ratchet up penalties against human asshole drivers, conviction aided by evidence gathered by the sensors on the surrounding non-human vehicles.

              • By crazygringo 2025-11-1218:092 reply

                This is absurd, and it's a**hole behavior you're defending.

                You don't need to break any laws to get to where you're going, what are you even talking about? And you think that just because you're in a taxi you should get to magically cut to the front of a line of cars, made of the vast majority of New Yorkers who actually respect each other? What could possibly make you feel so entitled?

                And if you think waiting in line for an exit takes multiple hours, I question whether you've ever been to NYC in the first place.

                • By CPLX 2025-11-1218:153 reply

                  No, I don't think it's because you're in a taxi. I think everybody should try to cut to the front of the line. That's what everybody does in New York, and it works pretty well. It's pretty easy to understand what's gonna happen next.

                  I've lived in New York for longer than most HN posters here have been alive, most likely. A couple of times a year, I'll end up in a car with someone who doesn't understand how this whole thing works, and they'll do something insane like getting on the Brooklyn Bridge and then just staying in the right lane the entire time waiting to get off to the right. Or they'll sit on the BQE at the Flushing Avenue exit a mile back from the exit, causing me to waste large portions of my life that I will never get back.

                  • By senordevnyc 2025-11-1219:121 reply

                    I live and drive in NYC, and this is utter bullshit. To the extent that it's difficult to drive here, it's because of assholes who think they deserve to cut the line and fuck it up for everyone else.

                    Please stop driving here, you clearly aren't qualified to do so.

                    • By CPLX 2025-11-1221:56

                      Come to the dark side.

                  • By crazygringo 2025-11-1218:21

                    > I think everybody should try to cut to the front of the line. That's what everybody does in New York, and it works pretty well.

                    I'm sorry, but you clearly don't live here, or at least don't drive here. You're describing some kind of Mad Max fantasy, like the image of New York people get from movies and fiction where everyone is flipping everyone else the bird every thirty seconds.

                    People in NYC are pretty cooperative. Driving isn't every-man-for-himself. I don't know why you're trying to paint this picture of some lawless fantasy. Maybe you think it's exciting, but it's not connected to reality.

                  • By fra 2025-11-134:54

                    This guy ^ runs a conference on corporate values. You can't make this stuff up...

                • By pastureofplenty 2025-11-1222:26

                  Americans are increasingly adopting the kind of mindset Israelis have, where following the rules makes you a sucker. https://www.thejc.com/judaism/jewish-words/freier-fa15k306

              • By triceratops 2025-11-1218:05

                I hope robocars get really good at maintaining close formation and keeping out asshole linecutters.

              • By renewiltord 2025-11-1218:081 reply

                Haha, this is both entirely true and entirely the reason why NYC is pretty much stuck where it is. If cities were parables, NYC would be The Parable of the Tragedy of the Commons. Globally, among cities I've been to it would have to be Delhi, but NYC is certainly in that category of South Asian cities where the infrastructure is far outpaced by the population and the population is like a swarming rat king constantly jockeying for a few inches more.

                It's a viral race to the bottom.

                • By QuercusMax 2025-11-1218:281 reply

                  This just sounds like an argument to ban cars for private use and invest more in transit.

                  • By renewiltord 2025-11-1218:50

                    Certainly it sounds like that. However whatever cultural transformation turns Man into Rat King has already occurred so you'll notice that it costs over a billion dollars per mile of subway in NYC. Everyone who hasn't figured out how to leech off the government is a fattened milk cow whose production is harvested industrially.

                    New Yorkers are already incapable of non-extractive development. Like the GP they have been transformed into zero-sum zombies by their city. A cautionary tale of culture.

      • By estearum 2025-11-1217:352 reply

        > These sentances conflict. I recently took a taxi from JFK to Manhattan during rush hour, and I estimate if the driver didn't use all of the paved surface, it would have taken at least 10 more minutes to arrive. (And it wouldn't have been an authentic NYC experience)

        My hot take is that people who "use all of the paved surface" because their whiny passenger is "in a rush" (which of course everyone stuck in traffic is) should permanently lose their license on the very first offense.

        It is just gobsmackingly antisocial behavior that is 1) locally unsafe and 2) indicative of a deep moral rot.

        Obviously exceptions can be made for true emergencies and what not, but "I need to save 10 minutes" is not one of them.

        • By CPLX 2025-11-1217:511 reply

          [flagged]

          • By QuercusMax 2025-11-1218:041 reply

            "People should break traffic laws" is a very strange position to take.

            • By CPLX 2025-11-1218:122 reply

              I'm sure it is in places that are dominated by strip malls and tract housing.

              Here in New York City, we have a different approach altogether.

              I find it much simpler and more straightforward and easy to understand. You always know exactly what another car is about to do. They are going to try to get in front of you and try to get where they are going, while not caring if that helps you go where you're going.

              I never have to wonder what's going to happen next.

              Meanwhile, I get off the plane in some flat state, hop in a rental car, and have immediately have no idea what the drivers are planning, what they have in store for me. It's exhausting.

              • By estearum 2025-11-1218:581 reply

                I live in New York City: no.

                If everyone drove on the shoulder like a few assholes do, we just wouldn't have shoulders.

                This is extremely silly.

                • By CPLX 2025-11-1219:001 reply

                  I don't drive on the shoulder as a way of getting around people.

                  However, if I was behind someone who had gone all the way to the end of an exit lane but then was trying to cut back in to the regular flow of traffic, and I was in a car that wasn't willing to go around this person by driving on their shoulder to get around them as they tried to force their way in at the very last second, I would lose massive chunks of my life.

                  And yes, this is a daily occurrence. For example, drive on the BQE towards South Brooklyn approaching Tillary Street, and see how your life goes if you're not willing to go around the last-minute people on the shoulder.

                  • By estearum 2025-11-1219:49

                    This is not the scenario that GP is referring to

                    (Disclaimer: I used to live off the Tillary exit and this is a unique problem – one that's mostly caused by the same types of people who drive on the shoulders because they're so important!)

              • By QuercusMax 2025-11-1218:27

                I live in Portland where we generally drive like sane humans. Your insinuation that anyone who cares about driving safely is from a flyover state is frankly baffling.

        • By jeffbee 2025-11-1217:384 reply

          My hot take is that anyone who would take a taxi from JFK to Manhattan, along the most well-served transit corridor on the continent, is probably a psycho and we shouldn't ask for their input on transportation topics.

          • By estearum 2025-11-1217:40

            JFK to Manhattan is actually not that easy for a newcomer. JFK → Airtrain → LIRR → Subway is a very stupid design.

            That said, yes GP is obviously a psycho.

          • By sib 2025-11-1218:261 reply

            There are many, many, many airports to which it is easier to travel via public transit from their associated city than it is from Manhattan to JFK. For example, all of these global-top-25 airports have single-train access:

            London Heathrow (LHR)

            Tokyo Haneda (HND)

            Amsterdam Schiphol (AMS)

            Paris-Charles de Gaulle (CDG)

            Frankfurt (FRA)

            Dubai (DXB)

            Seoul Incheon (ICN)

            Guangzhou (CAN)

            Shanghai Pudong (PVG)

            New Delhi (DEL)

            Madrid Barajas (MAD)

            Beijing Capital (PEK)

            Chicago O'Hare (ORD)

            Denver (DEN)

            • By jwagenet 2025-11-1218:581 reply

              I don't get the gripe. AirTrain gets you to A,E,J,Z, and LIRR, all of which get you to "Manhattan" or a significant number of intermediate destinations in about an hour. LGA is far worse.

              • By crazygringo 2025-11-1222:331 reply

                Having to take AirTrain beyond the terminals at all is annoying. LIRR should just go to JFK directly. AirTrain is slow as molasses, and the fact that it costs money is absurd. It works and I'm glad it exists, but it's nothing like e.g. the Paris RER connecting CDG.

                You generally never want to take A/E/J/Z because they're sooo much slower than LIRR, unless you live along them.

                Yes, LGA is far worse.

                • By jwagenet 2025-11-1223:261 reply

                  > the fact that it costs money is absurd

                  Bart from SFO to downtown SF is about $11 due to a surcharge and the combined fare AirTrain + subway is also about $11.50. LIRR is a bit more expensive. The Paris RER is €13. I don’t see how the fare is objectionable.

                  I personally appreciate the subway connections exist. Taking LIRR would require a subway transfer to most destinations anyway.

                  • By crazygringo 2025-11-1312:39

                    You're comparing apples and oranges. The LIRR already is the train ticket. I'm complaining about the fact you have to pay two fares. Using two different systems.

                    And like I said, you don't want to take the subway unless you live along its route, it's so much slower.

                    If you need to pay for the construction cost of the AirTrain, it should just be funded as part of the airport generally, because that's what it is. Charging for it is as silly as if you charged to take the AirTrain between terminals.

          • By crazygringo 2025-11-1218:151 reply

            You do realize that public transportation doesn't provide luggage carts? That you can't take those out of the airport?

            If you're traveling with a family or group, it really is often going to be much easier to take an XL Uber than deal with turnstiles and transfers and stairs and everything.

            • By QuercusMax 2025-11-1218:322 reply

              So what you're saying is if you're not in a big group or traveling with family, you absolutely SHOULD take public transportation.

              • By toast0 2025-11-1317:25

                Taxis are public transportation.

              • By crazygringo 2025-11-1218:40

                ...no? Maybe re-read the first half.

                I've come from abroad with two large checked bags, a carry-on, and a backpack. You think I'm trying to take all that through the subway?

                Obviously, yeah if you're traveling solo with a carry-on, most people take public transportation.

                Or not, if it's 1 am and you don't want to be waiting 20 minutes for each connection.

                Also, if you're a tourist new to the city after a long flight, the last thing you want to do is figure out the massively complicated transit system. Just having someone take you straight to your hotel where you can shower and sleep and deal with jet lag can be an important priority.

          • By CPLX 2025-11-1217:41

            Oh my sweet summer child.

            I've got news for you about how dysfunctional New York City transit planning has been and the status of transit to our three giant airports.

      • By asadm 2025-11-1217:371 reply

        couldn't you have arrived 10 minutes later or was endangering life worth it?

        • By toast0 2025-11-1219:51

          I certainly could have arrived 10 minutes later, but I wouldn't say that arriving 10 minutes later would result in a better experience in every way. It might result in a hypothetically safer experience (in the instance, there were no collisions so safety was achieved) or a morally better experience (according to the HN consensus morals that deem me a psychopath for either taking a cab at all or because I did not intervene and let the cab driver drive as he saw fit). Up to you what criteria you judge the overall trip on, I'm just pointing out that if the trip time is longer, the trip is not better in every way; at least absent an unusual requirement such as if you wanted to see the sights on the way, a shorter but less scenic trip would be a negative; or if you had a timing constraint that you must not arrive before a certain time, a shorter trip might infringe that constraint and would be a negative --- no such constraint was mentioned.

          I don't know that any life was endangered either. I would accept an argument that property was endangered, certainly the margin between vehicles was very close, but at speeds where a collision would not have been injurious.

      • By lo_zamoyski 2025-11-1217:38

        Uh...driving in the shoulder is illegal.

  • By vasusen 2025-11-1217:424 reply

    I am really excited for this. Once going home with my family via Uber in SFO we realized on the freeway that our driver was high and driving at 80-85 mph.

    It was a really scary experience and I couldn’t do much about it in the moment.

    • By Austin_Conlon 2025-11-1219:382 reply

      One time my driver had a TV show playing on their dashboard phone on 101.

      • By cflewis 2025-11-1222:151 reply

        This happens to me >70% in the Bay peninsula now.

        • By usageranonyme 2025-11-131:42

          I tried to report this and Uber does not make it easy. It does not fit in any of the multiple choice categories and there's no freeform. At least there was none back then, started to use waymo.

      • By joeconway 2025-11-146:04

        I also had someone do this while their Tesla was in self driving mode. When I insisted he turn it off, he said “it’s not about you bro”.

    • By boulos 2025-11-1220:23

      Make sure to do whatever "express interest" is required inside the app. We've often done a first-come, first-served approach for getting people off of waitlists, so get in now :).

    • By kjkjadksj 2025-11-1218:551 reply

      How could you tell they were high?

      • By JumpCrisscross 2025-11-1218:571 reply

        > How could you tell they were high?

        In New York it's not too difficult. Fidgitiness, twitchiness, rambling series of non sequiturs that make even my ADD brain rattle. Screaming at traffic and running on the margin one second and then asking me if I know that the archangel who visited Muhammed was actually a demon the next. (I'm not Muslim. The conversation wasn't addressed to anyone in the vehicle.)

        Like, I guess I can't say they're taking too much of a substance. But if they aren't, they're taking too little.

        • By kjkjadksj 2025-11-1321:261 reply

          That is just how a lot of people are. They could be on the spectrum. They could be talkative. You don’t know them. You have no baseline for their behavior.

          • By 6thbit 2025-11-1321:381 reply

            Would you say the same if the claim was they were drunk?

            • By kjkjadksj 2025-11-145:33

              Sure if there was no obvious physical impairment

    • By whimsicalism 2025-11-1217:435 reply

      high on what?

      • By junon 2025-11-1218:042 reply

        Does it matter? Can't think of a single substance that's safe for driving a car.

      • By starik36 2025-11-1218:56

        High on life!

      • By asadm 2025-11-1218:521 reply

        mj likely? which should be illegal.

        • By GuinansEyebrows 2025-11-1316:33

          is there any place on earth where it's not expressly illegal to be under the influence of cannabis while operating a motor vehicle?

      • By iammattmurphy 2025-11-1218:12

        Speed?

  • By NullHypothesist 2025-11-1216:2412 reply

    This is a huge sign of confidence that they think they can do this safely and at scale... Freeways might appear "easy" on the surface, but there are all sorts of long tail edge-cases that make them insanely tricky to do confidently without a driver. This will unlock a lot for them with all of the smaller US cities (where highways are essential) they've announced plans for over the next year or so.

    • By embedding-shape 2025-11-1216:598 reply

      > Freeways might appear "easy" on the surface, but there are all sorts of long tail edge-cases that make them insanely tricky to do confidently without a driver

      Maybe my memory is failing me, but I seem to remember people saying the exact opposite here on HN when Tesla first announced/showed off their "self-driving but not really self-driving" features, saying it'll be very easy to get working on the highways, but then everything else is the tricky stuff.

      • By xnx 2025-11-1217:132 reply

        Highways are on average a much more structured and consistent environment, but every single weird thing (pedestrians, animals, debris, flooding) that occurs on streets also happens on highways. When you're doing as many trips and miles as Waymo, once-in-a-lifetime exceptions happen every day.

        On highways the kinetic energy is much greater (Waymo's reaction time is superhuman, but the car can't brake any harder.) and there isn't the option to fail safe (stop in place) like their is on normal roads.

        • By bryanlarsen 2025-11-1218:001 reply

          Those constraints apply to humans too. So it seems likely that:

          - it's easier to get to human levels of safety on freeways then on streets

          - it's much harder to get to an order of magnitude better than humans on freeways than it is on streets

          Freeways are significantly safer than streets when humans are driving, so "as good as humans" may be acceptable there.

        • By GloamingNiblets 2025-11-1218:048 reply

          I don't have any specific knowledge about Waymo's stack, but I can confidently say Waymo's reaction time is likely poorer than an attentive human. By the time sensor data makes it through the perception stack, prediction/planning stack, and back to the controls stack, you're likely looking at >500ms. Waymos have the advantage of consistency though (they never text and drive).

          • By embedding-shape 2025-11-1218:332 reply

            > but I can confidently say [...] you're likely looking at >500ms

            That sounds outrageous if true. Very strange to acknowledge you don't actually have any specific knowledge about this thing before doing a grand claim, not just "confidently", but also label it as such.

            They've been publishing some stuff around latency (https://waymo.com/search?q=latency) but I'm not finding any concrete numbers, but I'd be very surprised if it was higher than the reaction time for a human, which seems to be around 400-600ms typically.

            • By AlotOfReading 2025-11-1219:301 reply

              Human reaction time is very difficult to average meaningfully. It ranges anywhere from a few hundred milliseconds on the low end to multiple seconds. The low end of that range consists of snap reactions by alert drivers, and the high end is common with distracted driving.

              400-500ms is a fairly normal baseline for AV systems in my experience.

              • By embedding-shape 2025-11-1219:35

                > Human reaction time is very difficult to average meaningfully

                Indeed, my previously stated number was taken from here: https://news.mit.edu/2019/how-fast-humans-react-car-hazards-...

                > MIT researchers have found an answer in a new study that shows humans need about 390 to 600 milliseconds to detect and react to road hazards, given only a single glance at the road — with younger drivers detecting hazards nearly twice as fast as older drivers.

                But it'll be highly variable not just between individuals but state of mind, attentiveness and a whole lot of other things.

            • By GloamingNiblets 2025-11-1218:591 reply

              My experience is from another prominent AV company; I do not have Waymo insider knowledge.

              • By xnx 2025-11-1316:19

                > My experience is from another prominent AV company;

                Better technology is one of the reasons that Waymo has an active autonomous ride service and no one else does.

          • By viftodi 2025-11-1218:48

            Even if we assume this to be true, waymos have the advantage of more sensors and less blind spots.

            Unlike humans they can also sense what's behind the car or other spots not directly visible to a human. They can also measure distance very precisely due to lidars (and perhaps radars too?)

            A human reacts to the red light when a car breaks, without that it will take you way more time due to stereo vision to realize that a car ahead was getting closer to you.

            And I am pretty sure when the car detects certain obstacles fast approaching at certain distances, or if a car ahesd of you stopped suddenly or deer jumped or w/e it breaks directly it doesn't need neural networks processing those are probably low level failsafes that are very fast to compute and definitely faster than what a human could react to

          • By crazygringo 2025-11-1218:341 reply

            What gives you that confidence?

            You're quite wrong. It tends to be more like 100–200 ms, which is generally significantly faster than a human's reaction.

            People have lots of fears about self-driving cars, but their reaction time shouldn't be on the list.

            • By GloamingNiblets 2025-11-1218:56

              The better part of a decade as a SWE at another AV company. In practice the latency is a not a concern, I was just sharing some trivia.

          • By acdha 2025-11-1223:39

            Beyond the questions about human braking, this seems worse than the dedicated AEB systems many vehicles are using now. Do they really use the full stack for this case instead of a faster collision avoidance path? I remember some of their people talking about concurrency back in the DARPA Grand Challenge days and it seems like this would be a high priority for anyone working on a system like this.

          • By tgsovlerkhgsel 2025-11-1223:25

            Humans can provide a simple, pre-planned reaction to an expected event (e.g. "click when the reaction test shows a signal") within typically 250-300ms, but 500ms from vision to physically executed action for an unexpected event seems pretty optimistic for a human driver.

          • By TulliusCicero 2025-11-1222:32

            > I don't have any specific knowledge about Waymo's stack, but I can confidently say Waymo's reaction time is likely poorer than an attentive human.

            Wait, so basically, "I don't know anything about this subject, but I'm confident regardless"?

          • By overfeed 2025-11-1218:34

            Waymo "sees" further - including behind cars - and has persistent 360-degree awareness, wheres humans have to settle for time-division of the fovea and are limited to line-of-sight from driver's seat. Humans only have an advantage if the event is visible from the cabin, and they were already looking at it (i.e. it's in front of them) for every other scenario, Waymo has better perception + reaction times. "They just came out of nowhere" happens less for Waymo vehicles with their current sensor suite.

          • By blinding-streak 2025-11-1218:30

            It's actually a really interesting topic to think about. Depending on the situation, there might be some indecision in a human driver that slows the process down. Whereas the Waymo probably has a decisive answer to whatever problem is facing it.

            I don't really know the answers for sure here, but there's probably a gray area where humans struggle more than the Waymo.

      • By jfim 2025-11-1218:072 reply

        It's easier to get from zero to something that works on divided highways, since there's only lanes, other vehicles, and a few signs to care about. No cross traffic, cyclists, pedestrians, parked cars, etc.

        One thing that's hard with highways is the fact that vehicles move faster, so in a tenth of a second at 65 mph, a car has moved 9.5 feet. So if say a big rock fell off a truck onto the highway, to detect it early and proactively brake or change lanes to avoid it, it would need to be detected at quite a long distance, which demands a lot from sensors (eg. how many pixels/LIDAR returns do you get at say 300+ feet on an object that's smaller than a car, and how much do you need to detect it as an obstruction).

        But those also happen quite infrequently, so a vehicle that doesn't handle road debris (or deer or rare obstructions) can work with supervision and appear to work autonomously, but one that's fully autonomous can't skip those scenarios.

        • By potato3732842 2025-11-1313:48

          >But those also happen quite infrequently, so a vehicle that doesn't handle road debris (or deer or rare obstructions) can work with supervision

          Rare obstructions are exactly where "supervision" fails because the reaction is needed faster than the supervisor can take over.

        • By xnx 2025-11-1316:22

          > No cross traffic, cyclists, pedestrians, parked cars, etc.

          These are all present, but less common, on divided highways. If you're driving as many miles as Waymo, you'll encounter these situations every day.

      • By jerlam 2025-11-1217:28

        One of the first high-profile Tesla fatalities was on a highway, where the vehicle misunderstood a left exit and crashed into a concrete barrier.

        https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?g...

      • By ramraj07 2025-11-133:27

        Everybody you replied to you made a completely different hypothesis but the waymo head itself mentioned why they waited on highways: on regular roads, if the computer fails to maneuver, you have an extremely simple, generally safe temporary solution: you just stop the car. Stopping a car is always kinda acceptable in regular roads. Its not an acceptable solution to undefined problems in the highway. This becomes important because in a Tesla theres still a requirement for a driver to be there to take care of worst case scenarios but in a waymo thats not true.

      • By notatoad 2025-11-1217:08

        the difficult part of the highways is the interchanges, not the straight shots between interchanges. and iirc, tesla didn't do interchanges at the time people were criticizing them for only doing the easiest part of self-driving.

      • By richardubright 2025-11-1220:04

        I think the key is, it's easy to get "self-driving" where the car will hand off to the driver working on highways. "Follow the lines, go forward, don't get hit". But having it DRIVERLESS is a different beast, and the failure states are very different than those in surface street driving.

      • By JumpCrisscross 2025-11-1218:59

        > remember people saying the exact opposite

        It was a common but bad hypothesis.

        "If you had asked me in 2018, when I first started working in the AV industry, I would’ve bet that driverless trucks would be the first vehicle type to achieve a million-mile driverless deployment. Aurora even pivoted their entire company to trucking in 2020, believing it to be easier than city driving.

        ...

        Stopping in lane becomes much more dangerous with the possibility of a rear-end collision at high speed. All stopping should be planned well in advance, ideally exiting at the next ramp, or at least driving to the closest shoulder with enough room to park.

        This greatly increases the scope of edge cases that need to be handled autonomously and at freeway speeds.

        ...

        The features that make freeways simpler — controlled access, no intersections, one-way traffic — also make ‘interesting’ events more rare. This is a double-edged sword. While the simpler environment reduces the number of software features to be developed, it also increases the iteration time and cost.

        During development, ‘interesting’ events are needed to train data-hungry ML models. For validation, each new software version to be qualified for driverless operation needs to encounter a minimum number of ‘interesting’ events before comparisons to a human safety level can have statistical significance. Overall, iteration becomes more expensive when it takes more vehicle-hours to collect each event.”

        https://kevinchen.co/blog/autonomous-trucking-harder-than-ri...

      • By zipy124 2025-11-1217:47

        Highway is easier, but if something goes wrong the chance of death is pretty high. This is bad PR and could get you badly regulated if you fuck it up.

    • By 0_____0 2025-11-1216:42

      Waymo (prev. Chauffeur) were cruising freeways long before they were doing city streets. Problem was that you can't do revenue autonomous service with freeway-only driving.

      The real reason I see for not running freeways until now is that the physical operational domain of for street-level autonomous operations was not large enough to warrant validating highway driving to their current standard.

    • By dekhn 2025-11-1219:221 reply

      This reminds me of the time I was driving on 101 south of SF and saw a sea lion flopping across the road (https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/seal-otter-on-freeway...). It took my brain quite some time to accept that I was seeing what I was seeing. Felt like a real edge case.

    • By svat 2025-11-130:51

      The article has a couple of quotes from Waymo leads on the topic:

      > “Freeway driving is one of those things that’s very easy to learn, but very hard to master when we’re talking about full autonomy without a human driver as a backup, and at scale,” Waymo co-CEO Dmitri Dolgov said

      and

      > While many assume freeway driving is easier, it comes with its own set of challenges, principal software engineer Pierre Kreitmann said in a recent briefing. He noted that critical events happen less often on freeways, which means there are fewer opportunities to expose Waymo’s self-driving system to rare scenarios and prove how the system performs when it really matters.

      Both point to freeway driving being easier to do well, but harder to be sure is being done well.

    • By sjducb 2025-11-1217:15

      Slow roads are easier because you can rely on a simple emergency breaking system for safety. You have a radar that looks directly in front of the car and slams on the breaks if you’re about to crash. This prevents almost all accidents below 35mph.

      The emergency breaking system gives you a lot of room for error in the rest of the system.

      Once you’re going faster than 35mph this approach no longer works. You have lots of objects on the pavement that are false positives for the emergency breaking system so you have to turn it off.

    • By NullHypothesist 2025-11-1216:25

      Looks like they've opened up SJC Airport, too! SFO imminent?

    • By terminalshort 2025-11-1216:375 reply

      Freeways are easier than surface streets. The reason they held off allowing highways is because Waymo wants to minimize the probability of death for PR purposes. They figure they can get away with a lot of wrecks as long as they don't kill people.

      • By repsilat 2025-11-1216:551 reply

        "Easier" is probably the right one-word generalization, but worth noting that there are quite different challenges. Stopping distance is substantially greater, so "dead halt" isn't as much of a panacea as it is in dense city environments. And you need to have good perception of things further away, especially in front of you, which affects the sensors you use.

        • By andy99 2025-11-1217:04

          Also on surface roads you can basically stop in the middle of the street and be annoying but not particularly dangerous. You can’t just stop safely dead in the middle of a freeway.

      • By jordanb 2025-11-1216:413 reply

        There's also the risk of a phantom breaking event causing a big pileup. The PR of a Waymo causing a large cascading accident would be horrible.

        • By xnx 2025-11-1217:141 reply

          Do Waymos phantom brake? Given the number of trips hey do I would imagine there would be a ton of videos if that was happening.

          • By razingeden 2025-11-1217:241 reply

            they brake to “suss out” certain things, that ive noticed:

            construction workers, delivery vehicles, traffic cones.. nothing unreasonable for it to approach with caution, brake for, and move around.

            the waymo usually gets about 2 feet away from a utility truck and then sits there confused for awhile before it goes away.

            it usually gets very close to these hazards before making that maneuver.

            it seems like having a flashing utility strobe really messes with it and it gets extra cautious and weird around those. now, it should be respectful of emergency lights but-

            i would see a problem here if it decided to do this on a freeway , five feet away from a pulled over cop or someone changing a tire.

            it sure does spazz out and sit there for a long time over the emergency lights before it decides what to do

            i really wish there was a third party box we could wire into strobes (or the hazard light circuit) that would universally tell an autonomous car “hey im over here somewhere you may not be expecting me , signaling for attention.”

            • By jordanb 2025-11-1217:34

              > sits there confused for awhile before it goes away.

              Probably what you're witnessing is the car sitting in exception state until a human remote driver gets assigned

        • By bluGill 2025-11-1220:10

          Only because most drivers are tailgating and so if someone touches the brakes everyone needs to do a panic stop just in case. If people maintained a safe following distance at all times there would be space to see the lights and determine that no action is needed (or more likely you just take your foot off the gas but don't flash your brakes thus not cascading).

          Of course the above needs about 6 times as many lanes as any city has. When you realize those massive freeways in Houston are what Des Moines needs you start to see how badly cars scale in cities.

        • By potato3732842 2025-11-1218:00

          This. Stop in a dumb way and a garbage truck bumps you on a city street and it's no big deal. Applying a bunch of brake at the wrong time and you could easily cause a newsworthy sized (and therefore public scrutiny sized) accident.

          The real public isn't an internet comment section. Having your PR people spew statements about "well, other people have an obligation to use safe following distances" is unlikely to get you off the hook.

      • By QuadmasterXLII 2025-11-1217:202 reply

        It sounds like you are saying freeways are easier than surface streets if you don’t care about killing a reasonably small number of people during testing.

        Really it’s a common difficulty with utilitarianism. Tesla says “we will kill a small number of people with our self driving beta, but it is impossible to develop a self driving car without killing a few people in accidents, because cars crash, and overall the program will save a much larger number of lives than the number lost.”

        And then it comes out that the true statement is “it is slightly more expensive to develop a self driving car without killing a few people in accidents” and the moral calculus tilts a bit

        • By terminalshort 2025-11-1222:29

          It's not just slightly more expensive. And you have to consider substitution effect. If you take the more expensive route and it takes 10 years longer to deploy, then there will have been another 400K car collision deaths in just the US, and over 10 million in the world in those 10 years that could have potentially been saved. So was the delay for the safer product worth it? The only reasonable answer to this question is "I don't know" because you can't predict how much safer the expensive system will be and how much longer it will take.

        • By bluGill 2025-11-1220:07

          The more important question is how many people are killed by non-autonomous cars in the same situation. It is inevitable that someone will be killed by a self driving car sometime - but we already know lots of people are killed by cars. If you kill less people getting autonomous rolled out fast than human drivers would that is good, but if you are killing more people in the short term that is bad (even if you eventually get better)

      • By CPLX 2025-11-1217:42

        I mean, if you define "easier" as "less likely to involve death," then freeways are not easier. And I'm pretty sure that's a good way to define "easier" for something like this.

    • By creer 2025-11-1218:58

      Isn't really the main problem, the Waymo "let's just stop right here" current failure mode? Which really is not ideal on city streets either. Hopefully they have been working on solving that.

    • By ddp26 2025-11-1217:202 reply

      I agree, but it's funny to think that Project Chauffeur (as it was known then) was doing completely driverless freeway circuits in the bay area as far back as 2012! Back when they couldn't do the simplest things with traffic lights.

      I think anyone back then would be totally shocked that urban and suburban driving launched to the public before freeway driving.

      • By toast0 2025-11-1217:43

        When it started, from what I've heard, the design goal was for part-time self-driving. In that case, let the human driver do the more variable things on surface streets and the computer do the consistent things on highways and prompt the user to pay attention 5 miles before the exit. They found that the model of part time automation wasn't feasible, because humans couldn't consistently take control in the timeframea needed.

        So then they pivoted to full time automation with a safe stop for exceptions. That's not useful to start with highway driving. There are some freeway routed mass transit lines, but for the most part people don't want to be picked up and dropped off at the freeway. In many parts of freeways, there's not a good place to stop and wait for assistance, and automated driving will need more assistance than normal driving. So it made a lot f sense to reduce scope to surface street driving.

      • By philistine 2025-11-1218:05

        If you understand physics, it's easy. When you double the speed, you quadruple the kinetic energy. So you're definitely going to do slower speeds first, even if it's harder to compute.

    • By kappi 2025-11-1217:20

      This is correct. Freeways have lot of edge cases of hitting random objects and it becomes serious issue. Check the youtube video of bearded Tesla whose car hit a random metal object making them replace the entire battery pack.

    • By dlsfjke 2025-11-1218:25

      Ahh yes, the US tech sector, a universally benevolent force known for its slow pace due to lack of confidence from an over abundant concern for safety finally showing some confidence in their product roll outs.

    • By lumens 2025-11-1217:143 reply

      Perhaps more a reaction to pressure from Tesla; the latest FSD builds show full autonomy is coming very soon. Without highway driving, Waymo would quickly be seen as a distant second in the race when the safety driver is removed from Robotaxis in Austin (supposedly before EOY 2025).

      • By TulliusCicero 2025-11-1222:361 reply

        "Ignore the previous eighteen wildly off predictions; this time we got it for sure!"

        Note, in July of this year, Musk predicted robotaxi service for half the country by the end of 2025. It's November now and they haven't even removed the safety monitors, in any city!

        • By dzhiurgis 2025-11-131:421 reply

          > how dare they beta test this on public

          > they haven't even removed safety drivers, loooosers!

          Can't win either of you guys.

          • By TulliusCicero 2025-11-177:53

            I didn't say either of those things, but I understand that engaging with what I said instead of just strawmanning my position would be rather inconvenient for you.

      • By boulos 2025-11-1220:25

        Not at all. We've been working on this for a while, and we're now comfortable with the reliability bar we've hit to begin a gradual rollout to the public. As people said, this has been years in the making.

      • By eloncuck 2025-11-1217:261 reply

        [flagged]

        • By lumens 2025-11-1217:323 reply

          Truly curious - have you tried it recently?

          • By wstrange 2025-11-1218:071 reply

            I have HW4, and have tried FSD with every major release.

            It works brilliantly, 99.5% of the time. The issue is that the failure mode is catastrophic. Like getting confused with the lane marking and driving off the shoulder. And the complete inability to read construction zone signs (blasting through a 50 KM zone at 100 KM).

            I'm deeply skeptical that the current sensor suite and hardware is going to have enough compute power to safely drive without supervision.

            It will no doubt improve, but until Tesla steps up and assumes liability for any accident, it's just not "full self driving".

            • By dzhiurgis 2025-11-131:241 reply

              > The issue is that the failure mode is catastrophic.

              Given FSD does at least 10x more miles than Waymo, we'd see people getting killed themselves daily. Instead we see tons of videos on Waymo erratic behavior and crashes. Something doesn't add up.

              • By 7e 2025-11-135:311 reply

                Um, 100% of these Teslas have human drivers behind the wheel, constantly saving themselves, Tesla, and the innocent public from very bad outcomes. Waymos operate autonomously with tens of thousands of miles driven between interventions. Contrast with 13 miles or less with Tesla.

                • By dzhiurgis 2025-11-1320:25

                  Waymo had safety drivers, it's California law. In Texas safety person is in passenger seat. He can and does intervene.

          • By TulliusCicero 2025-11-1222:37

            This is how the Tesla superfans treat every single new FSD version.

            FSD 18 is out, 17 is garbage for babies, 18 is amazing! Wait, 19 just released, why are you still talking about 18, that shit was never gonna work, it's 19 that's nearly at unsupervised driving! Wait a second, 20 just came out...

          • By eloncuck 2025-11-1217:371 reply

            Daily. I'm still unable to leave my culdesac without phantom leaves causing phantom braking.

            There was a time when I believed in the hype, I'm less skeptical than most. But the evidence now is incontrovertible.

            • By lumens 2025-11-1217:592 reply

              I assume this is not a HW4 vehicle?

              I am empathetic to the disappointment of older vehicle owners who have been promised this capability for years and still don't see it (because their hardware just can't -- and the hardware upgrade isn't coming either).

              That said, the new Y with 14.1.x really does do as claimed.

              • By senordevnyc 2025-11-1219:15

                These threads always give me deja vu. I've been reading these exact comments for a decade. Only the version numbers change.

                But yes, I'm sure any day now.

              • By eloncuck 2025-11-1218:25

                2024 MY with HW4. I've been through all the shenanigans, updates, sending logs, etc etc. I'm done with it, and it'll take a lot of evidence to convince me that people reporting it's great don't have either a financial interest in TSLA, poor memory, or the easiest daily route.

HackerNews