Autonomous Robo-Taxis in London — who’s at the wheel, and where are we going?

WAYMO’S PLAN for autonomous vehicles in London sets a challenge for policy makers, regulators, transport planners and system managers alike. It offers - in theory at least- the benefits of potential safety improvements, increased mobility options, and new economic activity through technological innovation and job creation. But it also faces concerns related to public trust, complex urban traffic navigation, efficient roadspace management, transport network planning, competition with the taxi industry and other modes, and ensuring the technology is safe and beneficial for all road users.

There is much at stake. The London launch could represent a defining moment for both the company and the autonomous vehicle industry more generally. It shows how self-driving technology is maturing with both suppliers and public authorities now ready to test large-scale deployment. How they do that is the key question

Despite much loose talk in media and automotive industry circles about driverless cars and fantasies about every standard family saloon now getting a free personal AI chauffeur, what is actually on the table from Waymo is a plan for shared transport using vehicles being provided by a transport operator, not owned by the user.

It is thus a potential blueprint for future such ‘robotaxi’ services in urban areas. If successful, the London project could also be a turning point for urban mobility, adding a useful new mode of travel to the mix. It would show how autonomous collective mobility by energy-efficient low carbon vehicles can help enhance access, reduce emissions, improve safety and enhance the transport system.

But will it work? And what unwelcome outcomes might it have?

A critical issue with the coming of autonomous vehicles has been if they should be allowed everywhere, to be operating amongst general traffic, or should they be restricted to certain areas or roads? Another crucial dimension is how the overall network, of which they are part, is managed and optimised and whether control through some kind of central intelligent coordination beyond just the vehicle provider should be in place. This could ensure the deployment of such vehicles can make better use of capacity, and perhaps safer and more efficient use of resources including environmental externalities.

So should we be talking about a free market for just a new taxi service, or a concession or licence (with conditions) for a managed new element in the urban transport mix? In that regard it might be useful to learn quickly from the chaotic free-for-all seen recently in private bike and e-scooter sharing provision in London, and get ahead of anything similar occurring.

The public authorities – in this case the Mayor and Transport for London – should be carefully but speedily considering the position. They may spot one significant upside. A distinct advantage of any vehicle that is moving under its own command can, after all, be carrying people who would otherwise not be willing or able drive themselves – either due to lack of capability, skill, age or infirmity, or simply because they do not want to be ‘car owners’. And others who might be happy to ditch their personally-owned car.

With a ‘Robotaxi’ option it might also mean also that children could be ferried around without the parents needing to be with them – if personal safety concerns were not a problem- and that elderly and disabled people no longer able to drive, or perhaps never having done so, could make car trips as desired. This could much improve their mobility and accessibility beyond the sometimes stressful and unappealing underground and bus system, and the impractical option of cycling.

It would seem strange indeed if the prospect was simply of a new generation of privately owned autonomous vehicles to be sitting idly at the kerbside, in people’s garages, or in car parks, for most of the time as most cars do now, when they could be driving off and doing something else useful.

Properly handled, could this new mode mean the future is potentially not going to be the established model of individual car ownership as today, except that the vehicles can move around without a driver in control; or whether the new generation of autonomous vehicles offer a shared capacity more akin to taxi, hire or shared-ownership ‘car clubs’?

It would seem strange indeed if the prospect was simply of a new generation of privately owned autonomous vehicles to be sitting idly at the kerbside, in people’s garages, or in car parks, for most of the time as most cars do now, when they could be driving off and doing something else useful.

In any case, determining who was able to ‘own’ an autonomous passenger vehicle, could have significant consequences and complications. Including,for example, what kind of skills (if any) a user is required to have compared with current driver licensing; the replacement of the huge administrative machine that licences and tests for suitability and roadworthiness all privately-owned vehicles; and the insurance of them for any incidents in which they may be involved. For example, if an autonomous vehicles is owned privately, who is regarded as ‘the keeper’ for anything that it does, or happens to it, with or without the owner on-board?

The ‘Robo taxi’ option seems much more attractive than the ‘private robo car’ one. Inadequate regulation of the supply side issues apart, the last few decades have seen a completely new system of cycle use in urban areas with a very substantial number of bike trips being made on vehicles that the user does not themselves own, but simply has use of for few minutes or perhaps an hour or so.

Wouldn’t that be a lot better for car ownership and use too?

Navigating this significant inflection point well means the Transport Secretary, DfT, London Mayor and TfL taking a constructive but thoughtful view of where we want this autonomous car journey to go. It means giving Waymo (and other aspiring providers) a clear framework to work in, and creating a responsive and flexible pathway to test out the Robo Taxi possibilities, and learn lessons quickly to make appropriate changes so the idea can be fully and safely explored.

Two other approaches would each be equally bad. One would be to get too enthusiastic and starry eyed about the coming of the tech giants with their cutting edge propositions such that all barriers to what they are allowed to do are swept aside. The other would be instead to put up new barriers designed to simply protect the status quo.

Peter Stonham is the Editorial Director of TAPAS Network

This article was first published in LTT magazine, LTT925, 30 October 2025.