Editor:

GadZOOX! There is WAYMO Crap on Our Streets

The deployment of robocars in San Francisco reveals a troubling trend of technological “innovation” that prioritizes corporate profits over community well-being. While proponents claim autonomous vehicles will improve street safety, the reality is far more complex and problematic.

Waymo and similar companies have already deepened urban inequality. These robocars create more problems than they solve, causing significant issues for San Francisco’s transportation ecosystem. Every day, over 600 robocars aimlessly prowl the City’s streets, competing with thousands of ride-share vehicles and creating unprecedented congestion.

The most glaring issue is how these autonomous vehicles fundamentally disrupt urban mobility. Unlike traditional transportation, robocars spend hours wandering streets between passengers, dramatically increasing vehicle miles traveled without improving transportation efficiency. What used to be a 10-minute cross-town drive now takes 40 minutes, all because of these “four-wheel zombies” constantly blocking traffic.

Economic inequities are stark. Waymo is expensive and primarily accessible to affluent residents, effectively creating a two-tier transportation system. Requiring smartphone apps for access further marginalizes lower-income individuals, the elderly, and those uncomfortable with digital technology. Traditional taxi services have been nearly eliminated, removing more accessible transportation options.

The economic impact extends beyond convenience. Waymo and similar technologies actively destroy jobs without providing corresponding economic benefits. The revenue generated is funneled directly back to tech companies, leaving little economic advantage for the local community. These robocars contribute nothing to San Francisco’s vibrant urban character and instead threaten to transform the city into a sterile, automated landscape.

Safety claims are equally dubious. Robocars’ cautious programming actually creates more potential for accidents by disrupting normal traffic flow. By strictly adhering to speed limits and moving unpredictably, they frustrate human drivers and create dangerous bottlenecks. Police, fire and emergency vehicles are also significantly impeded.

Privacy concerns are another critical issue. These vehicles constantly gather data about passengers’ movements, with no compensation or consent. The potential for data misuse by corporations, advertisers, or potentially government entities is substantial.

The broader context is a tech industry prioritizing profit over societal welfare. Waymo represents a solution searching for a problem, funded by venture capitalists eager to recoup investments in a fundamentally unnecessary technology. As the author pointedly argues, no city needs autonomous passenger cars—what we truly need are better public transit options like improved buses, trains, and subways.

In conclusion, the deployment of robocars isn’t an inevitable technological progression but a deliberate choice that undermines urban community, economic equity, and traditional transportation infrastructure. San Francisco doesn’t need robocars “like a hole in the head” – it needs transportation solutions that genuinely serve all residents, not just the privileged few.

Tom Zimberoff