by: Gowri Sunil
Local Editor

With their marketed efficiency, robotaxis have quickly taken over the commuting world. They now replace a typical drive that once required a licensed individual, despite the hidden risks. Policymakers must caution against the use of robotaxis in order to protect the public’s safety and privacy while preventing overreliance on the technology.

With any new mode of transportation, the biggest concern is safety. While things like driver’s education and handbooks set guidelines, driving requires responses to unpredictable conditions. Unlike humans, robotaxis rely on a large amount of pre-programmed data to assess situations. The APM Research Lab noted that “if a vehicle’s onboard artificial intelligence encounters an unfamiliar situation, it will contact a human remote operator… but these human operators do not have the ability to take control of the vehicle.” This limitation is critical, as without human intuition, robotaxis struggle to navigate complicated environments including construction zones and harsh weather.

Beyond its safety risks, robotaxis also pose a new form of surveillance. Already, websites and social media collect people’s data, which robotaxis add to since they rely on cameras and tracking systems to operate. The Electronic Frontier Foundation warns that this creates “the possibility for people’s movements to be tracked, aggregated, and retained by companies, law enforcement, or bad actors—including vendor employees.” They add that “the sheer mass of this information poses a potential threat to civil liberties and privacy for pedestrians, commuters, and any other people that rely on public roads and walkways in cities.” People consider cars private spaces, yet robotaxis threaten this comfort as they monitor daily commutes with no clear guidelines.

In addition, the adoption of robotaxis results in a decrease in essential human skills. Currently, Artificial Intelligence and navigation tools like GPS have considerably reduced human ability to function autonomously. However, with driving, the situation is much more dire because it requires judgment and responsibility, which technology cannot easily replace. With growing dependence on robotaxis, driver’s licenses and permit tests could become useless and forgotten, leaving individuals unable to adapt when robotaxis fail.

While some may argue that robotaxis are not much different from automated trains, this assumption overlooks the key differences between controlled and unpredictable environments. Furthermore, APM Research reported that for every million miles Waymo, Google’s robotaxis, travelled, they had around 4.5 crashes. This is well over the 1.94 crashes per million miles for human drivers, though the company argues it is because of underreported human crashes. Despite the convenience of robotaxis, society must not overlook their risks to safety and privacy. Roads are nowhere near a controlled system, and technology designed for predictable scenarios should not handle them. Until policymakers fully address these issues, society must approach robotaxis with caution and clear limits.

(Sources: APM Research, EFF, TechExplore)