Atlanta Doubles Down on Driverless Vehicle Launch

I wrote about the imminent emergence of autonomous vehicles in Georgia last fall. Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson announced plans for driverless podcars to shuttle jetsetters from the airport to the Georgia International Convention Center, and Waymo and Uber announced a partnership to bring robotaxis to Atlanta.

Now ridesharing app Lyft in collaboration with May Mobility is also getting into the action and will offer autonomous taxi rides in the state’s capital. At this rate, it may not be much longer before you see an autonomous vehicle in a city near you. As I have repeatedly stated, this should be cause for celebration, but there is a sizable segment of the population that is—sometimes irrationally—opposed to new technology.

10 months ago, a furious horde attacked a driverless taxi in San Francisco and set it ablaze. This was only one of numerous instances of anti-autonomous vehicle violence. To paraphrase an oft repeated internet joke, “This kind of irrational behavior is why the aliens won’t talk to us.” I am being lighthearted of course, but this vandalism is concerning and strange.

In Georgia, we haven’t witnessed these troubling outbursts, but as more and more companies announce that they are bringing driverless fleets here, there seems to be increased suspicion regarding the technology. I understand that to a degree. Anything that is cutting edge will elicit this response, but many criticisms aren’t merited, no matter where they originate.

Sen. Josh McLaurin, D-Sandy Springs, is one policymaker who has voiced some concerns. “If we’re unleashing a fleet of driverless cars on the metro [area], we’re going to want to be sure that the companies trying to do this are working in conjunction with [the Georgia Department of Transportation], to make sure that we can handle the excess capacity,” he exclaimed. “People want convenience, certainly. But they also want to be sure they’re safe. That there’s no margin of error, before they trust their lives with these vehicles.”

I agree that motorists want to be safe, and thankfully, insurer Swiss Re conducted an in-depth study published days ago that should allay some of McLaurin’s apprehensions. Swiss Re investigated Waymo’s driverless vehicles and compared their track record to human driven vehicles, and the results were astounding.

“Waymo’s low frequency of auto liability insurance claims, despite increased mileage and smaller confidence intervals, underscores its consistent safety performance,” the report read. “Compared to the overall driving population there was an 88% reduction in property damage claims and a 92% reduction in bodily injury claims.”

The reason for this seems obvious. Driverless vehicles are adorned with sensors and cameras to avoid wrecks and, unlike humans, don’t drive drunk or distracted. Scaling up this kind of success would translate to saved lives, fewer injuries and reduced insurance premiums.

To address McLaurin’s other point, fewer wrecks thanks to more driverless cars will reduce—not create—traffic congestion. That’s a win for Georgia’s stressed infrastructure, but this isn’t enough to quell the debate.

WRDW-Augusta muddled the conversation even further by claiming, “The state of Georgia has little to no regulation over autonomous vehicles.” I am not sure where they are getting their information because autonomous vehicles are regulated under Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia, and the Georgia General Assembly carefully and thoroughly debated these measures specifically aimed at driverless cars before they became law. Beyond that, there are federal and local regulations governing autonomous vehicles. So this isn’t some driverless wild west scenario.

There are always going to be opponents to new technologies. Sometimes the opposition stems from an honest misunderstanding of them, but other times, it appears more self-serving. Perhaps some of the staunchest opponents of driverless cars are unions and many trial lawyers who have joined ranks to undermine the rise of autonomous vehicles.

Unions have called them a “menace to society.” They fear that they will take union jobs away, in the same way that the 19th century textile workers, known as the luddites, opposed mechanized textile looms. The luddites ultimately lost their endeavor, and we are better for it. Meanwhile, some trial lawyers’ opposition may boil down to a deadly calculus. They likely worry about their bottom lines. After all, fewer wrecks means fewer lawsuits.

Regardless of their resistance to autonomous vehicles, they promise to be life-saving tools that will also reduce traffic congestion, and they’re poised to revolutionize transportation.