My top five bad arguments from this anti-robotaxi piece in
@TheAtlantic:
🚫 Sure, 1.2 million die in car crashes each year, but "90% are in low- and middle-income countries, which are not in Waymo's expansion plans."
By that logic, why bother inventing vaccines? Most child deaths happen in the developing world anyway — except vaccines got rolled out everywhere, because adoption drives down cost. Smartphones weren't designed for poor Africans either, yet there are 700 millions of them in Africa now, with penetration rates around 70%.
🚫 Robotaxis could "displace millions of people employed as drivers."
So did the mechanical cotton picker, which replaced millions of stoop laborers. Does anyone wish that brutal work back? Before the industrial revolution, the vast majority of people worked in agriculture. Self-driving cars will actually help poor people by making private transportation affordable for everyone. Protecting low-wage jobs by forbidding the safer, cheaper alternative just traps people in poverty.
🚫 "When companies talk about safety… they just want to sell their product."
Sure, and so do the makers of seatbelts, fire extinguishers, and antibiotics. I guess you should never buy those? Companies profit from safety precisely because people value safety and will pay for it. That's not a gotcha; it's free markets working as advertised.
🚫 "The taxi is one of the few places we brush against other ways of living."
Nobody is banning human contact, not even in transportation. By all means, take a human Uber if you feel so inclined. Or chat with your barista, or strike up a conversation with a stranger on the street. Or pay for a human guide. Keeping people in dangerous, low-wage driving jobs is just using humans as set decoration.
🚫 "Studies show automated vehicles are less able to detect people of color."
This was a preprint. In the peer-reviewed version, the racial gap disappeared — a 29.71% vs 30.15% miss rate. And it tested generic open-source camera models, not Waymo, which navigates with lidar and radar, where skin tone is physically irrelevant. (See
@KelseyTuoc's debunk:
theargumentmag.com/p/no-waym…) Even if it were real, it would be a simple, solvable engineering problem. You're really clutching at straws.
✅ What the piece leaves out entirely:
@Waymo reports ~92% fewer serious car crashes and ~92% fewer injury-causing pedestrian crashes than human drivers.
It's a shame that this was published in my favorite magazine
@TheAtlantic, which is generally pro-progress and pro-abundance.
theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/0…