Robotaxis: are we ready to sack drivers?

<p>Robotaxis have arrived in London. Uber and British autonomous-driving company Wayve have launched the UK’s first public autonomous ride-hailing service, using specially equipped all-electric Ford Mustang Mach-E cars. You can now request an UberX, Uber Electric or Uber Comfort and, if fate is feeling futuristic, a self-driving car may turn up instead.</p><p>There is, however, one small detail.</p><p>There is still a driver.</p><p>For now, each of London’s first robotaxis carries a qualified human safety driver behind the wheel. The initial fleet is tiny, around <strong>15 cars</strong>, and passengers can refuse the autonomous option if they would rather be driven by a person with all the usual British motoring qualifications, including muttering at cyclists and becoming unexpectedly theological at roundabouts.</p><p>Then BBC technology editor Zoe Kleinman tried one.</p><p>Most of the journey apparently went perfectly well. And then, near the end, a van door suddenly opened into the robotaxi’s path and the human safety driver intervened.</p><p>Which is, admittedly, not quite the advertising slogan Silicon Valley was hoping for.</p><p>Wayve says its autonomous system would itself have reacted safely. That may well be true. But the sight of the human taking control at precisely the moment things became awkward rather neatly illustrates the whole question surrounding robotaxis.</p><p>Are we actually ready?</p><p>The argument for autonomous cars is stronger than many people assume. The UK government says drivers contribute to around <strong>88 per cent of reported road collisions</strong>, which means removing tiredness, distraction, drink, impatience and simple human stupidity could produce enormous safety benefits.</p><p>American evidence is encouraging too. UK government analysis cites peer-reviewed research based on <strong>56.7 million fully driverless Waymo miles</strong>, showing an <strong>85 per cent reduction in serious-injury crashes</strong> compared with human drivers, alongside large reductions in injuries involving pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists.</p><p>Britain’s legal standard is deliberately demanding. Under the Automated Vehicles Act 2024, approved self-driving vehicles must eventually perform at least as safely as a <strong>careful and competent human driver</strong>, not merely the rather more alarming statistical creature known as the average driver.</p><p>And yet driving is not merely following lanes and recognising traffic lights.</p><p>It is dealing with delivery vans, roadworks, emergency vehicles, cyclists appearing from nowhere, pedestrians doing something inexplicable and a bloke in a white Transit deciding that the pavement is temporarily a loading bay.</p><p>That is where the doubts begin.</p><p>Mark and Pete ask whether self-driving taxis really will make Britain’s roads safer, what happens to taxi drivers, who carries the blame when artificial intelligence gets it wrong and whether people will ever trust machines with their lives.</p><p>Because perhaps the biggest obstacle is not technology.</p><p>It is us.</p><p>If a human driver crashes, we call it an accident.</p><p>If a robotaxi crashes, we call for Parliament.</p>