Self-Driving Cars: Safer Roads, Hard Choices
Autonomous vehicles promise safer, more efficient travel but raise tough ethical questions and job displacement fears.
Topics: technology, individual and values, politics
Example
On 2 October 2023, a Cruise driverless car in San Francisco ran over a pedestrian who had been thrown into its path by another car, then dragged her about 20 feet while trying to pull over. On 24 October 2023, California suspended Cruise's driverless permits, saying the company had not fully disclosed what happened. Owner General Motors ended the Cruise robotaxi business in December 2024. Meanwhile Waymo kept expanding: by early 2026 it gave about 500,000 paid rides a week across 10 US cities.
Key facts
- General Motors ended its Cruise robotaxi business in December 2024.
- By early 2026 Waymo was providing about 500,000 paid driverless rides a week across 10 US cities.
Limitations
- One crash cannot show whether driverless cars are safer overall; that needs crash rates per mile from independent data, and company figures should be read with care.
Evaluations
technology evaluation
Support
Waymo's growth to hundreds of thousands of weekly rides shows driverless technology working at scale in real city traffic, not only in tests.
Counterargument
The Cruise crash shows a failure humans would rarely make: the car did not recognise that a person was trapped underneath and kept moving.
Rebuttal
Rare but strange failures are a reason for careful testing and reporting rules, while overall safety should be judged on crash rates, not single events.
Additional support
GM's exit after investing more than US$10 billion shows that the technology is also a hard business, not only an engineering problem.
individual and values evaluation
Support
Supporters value the lives that could be saved if machines remove drunk, tired or distracted driving, a major cause of road deaths.
Counterargument
When a machine harms someone, it is unclear who is morally responsible: the passenger, the company or the programmer.
Rebuttal
The Cruise case gives a practical answer: regulators held the company responsible, especially for not being open about what happened.
Additional support
The California regulator's main complaint was a lack of honesty, which shows that public trust depends on transparency as much as on safety.
politics evaluation
Support
California's quick suspension shows regulators can act decisively when a company's safety record or candour is in doubt.
Counterargument
Cities such as San Francisco had little power to stop the cars, because state agencies granted the permits, leaving local residents without a say.
Rebuttal
This points to a design problem in who regulates, which governments can fix, rather than a reason to ban the technology.
Additional support
Federal regulators also fined Cruise for its incomplete crash report, showing more than one level of government responding to the same incident.
Sources
- Mission Local (2023-10-24): Cruise robotaxis grounded in SF by DMV, effective immediately
- Axios (2024-12-10): GM pulls the plug on Cruise robotaxi business
- Claims Journal (Bloomberg) (2026-02-12): Waymo Co-CEO Outlines Path to 1 Million Weekly Trips in 2026