Waymo, the autonomous driving tech firm whose so-called ‘robo-taxis’ are now roaming the streets of London, has allegedly told cycling campaigners that expecting their driverless cars to respect cycle lanes is “too high a bar” – because their customers want to be dropped off in them.
But Waymo has denied making such a claim, instead pointing out that their cars are designed to “take the safest action available” when picking up or dropping off, noting that the vehicles will often “circle the block” to find an appropriate spot.
According to the Highway Code, motorists “must not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation” or block a bike lane marked by a broken white line “unless it is unavoidable”.
Drivers are also told that they should give way to cyclists using the bike lane and wait for a “safe gap in the flow of cyclists” before crossing the infrastructure.
However, just as its robo-taxis begin driving autonomously in the UK for the first time, cycling campaigners in the US have claimed that Waymo has told them that the cars are programmed to pull into cycle lanes to pick up and drop off passengers.

Speaking to Streets Blog NYC, Christopher White, executive director of the San Francisco Bike Coalition, said that Waymo has told campaigners that it is “normal practice” for the autonomous vehicles to veer into bike lanes and block cycling infrastructure.
“People always point out that unlike human driven cars, the AVs stop at lights and obey the speed limit,” White said.
“However, they are really only as good and effective and safe as they are programmed to be. Waymos pull over into bike lanes all the time for pickups and drop-offs and that’s neither legal nor safe.
“But the companies say that is a normal practice and that’s what customers expect.”
However, Waymo has refuted White’s claims, telling road.cc that their vehicles are programmed to prioritise the safety of cyclists and pedestrians, as well as their passengers.
“The Waymo Driver is designed to prioritise the safety of other road users and our riders, and to take the safest action available during the few minutes we spend picking up or dropping off,” the spokesperson told road.cc.
“As many riders know, our vehicles will often move down the street from their destination or circle the block to find an appropriate pick up or drop off spot.”
Last June, a cyclist in San Francisco sued the Google-owned company after she was seriously injured when one of the brand’s driverless taxis stopped in a cycle lane and a passenger opened its back door, striking the cyclist and causing her to smash into another Waymo car that was also illegally blocking the bike path.
According to the lawsuit, the Safe Exit system employed by Waymo, which aims to alert passengers of surrounding dangers and hazards, failed – leading 26-year-old Jenifer Hanki to claim that Waymo knows its cars are ‘dooring’ cyclists.
Following the “violent” crash, which left her with a brain injury, as well as spine and soft tissue damage, preventing her from working or riding her bike, Hanki sued Waymo and Google’s parent company Alphabet in San Francisco County Superior Court alleging battery, emotional distress, and negligence, while seeking unspecified damages.

Waymo, formerly known as the Google Self-Driving Car Project, announced in January that a pilot service for its robo-taxi service will launch this year in London, in preparation for the UK government’s plans to change its regulations on driverless vehicles at some point in the second half of 2026.
In November 2019, Waymo – owned by Google’s parent company Alphabet – secured permission from the California Department of Motor Vehicles for its vehicles to carry passengers without the need for a safety driver who could intervene in the case of a potential collision, making it the first company in the world to secure such clearance.
It has since established itself as the market leader in the United States for self-driving taxis, with commercial operations in San Francisco, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Austin, and began testing its autonomous ‘robocabs’ in New York City last year.
After being driven around London by a ‘safety driver’ mapping the capital’s roads since last autumn, earlier this month Waymo confirmed that their cars are now starting to be controlled by artificial intelligence – though a human is still sitting in the driver’s seat, in case anything goes wrong.
Waymo described the move as the “the next step” towards a “fully autonomous passenger service later this year, pending government approval”.
Once the government signs off on the proposed new regulations, when the scheme eventually launches, it will be driver-free, with customers able to hail a robo-taxi through an app, with fares at a “competitive but premium” price, the company says.
According to Waymo, their cars use four sensor systems to gather data from the world outside – radar, lidar, vision, and microphone – enabling the vehicles to be “aware” of their surroundings up to a distance of three football pitches, and including during bad weather.
A powerful computer in the boot processes the data obtained by the sensor, determining how the car acts and reacts in “real time”.
However, questions have been raised concerning the scheme’s safety features, with the London Cycling Campaign expressing reservations to road.cc about the taxi service’s ability to adapt from the wide, straight roads of California to London’s winding lanes.
“As with all new innovation, it’s really early days for Waymo and other autonomous ride-hailing services in London,” the campaigns chief executive Tom Fyans told us in January.
“Waymo claims they’re far safer in the US than traditional taxi services. But whether that is still the case on London’s infamously complex, congested and contested streets, remains to be seen.
“At LCC, we talk to political leaders, innovators and private companies of all stripes all the time – to make sure everyone’s working hard to make London a better place for healthy, safe cycling for everyone. We hope new ride-sharing services will add to that, rather than detract from it.”
When it first launched as Waymo back in 2016, the firm said its cars are programmed to recognise cyclists as “unique users of the road”, drive conservatively around them, and recognise common hand signals.
In 2019, the company also released a video showing one of its vehicles predicting that cyclists will move out onto the road to pass a car blocking a cycle lane, with the taxi slowing to allow them to safely move across.
However, in February 2024, another San Francisco cyclist was left with “non-life-threatening injuries” after one of the company’s taxis failed to detect his presence and struck him.
According to the company, “the cyclist was occluded by the truck and quickly followed behind it, crossing into the Waymo vehicle’s path. When they became fully visible, our vehicle applied heavy braking but was not able to avoid the collision.”
And things haven’t got off to the best start in London either, with a TikTok video posted on Thursday showing a Waymo driving through a police cordon in the west of the city – though Waymo has since stated that the vehicle was being driven manually at the time of the incident.
@zonjy.mediaDriverless taxi waymo driver almost hit someone and drove straigh into crime scene tape almost hit a police officer obviously driverless taxi software seems like are not trained to avoid crime scene, crime scene tape, police car blue lights or ambulance blue lights in case of an accident. i think in my opinion this driverless taxi waymo are more risk than the public thinks. do you think this is safe enough to be in the streets of london. it puts police officers and emergency service people at risk last night.♬ original sound – London News
The argument that self-driving cars will make city streets safer – by cutting out human error – has also been criticised by journalists and campaigners, who point out that driverless taxis could encourage people to use cars more and public transport less, increasing the chances of crashes.
“We shouldn’t be asking only like, ‘Hey, are robotaxis safer than humans on a per-mile-driven basis?’ because there’s a real risk that AVs induce people to take a lot more car trips or to replace transit,” Bloomberg reporter David Zipper told Streets Blog NYC this week.
“We could end up with a lot more driving. And even if every individual, self-driven mile is safer, if you have that much more driving, you have more crashes overall.”

36 thoughts on “Expecting driverless taxis to respect bike lanes “too high a bar” – because customers want to be dropped off in them, autonomous vehicle firm Waymo tells cyclists”
Ah, so if a company ‘expects’ its customers to want the law to be broken, it should just accept this and comply?
Good luck trying that with, say, banks and money laundering regulations.
If they take their lead from the banks, presumably they’ll just find some poor mid-low ranking engineer and let them take the fall for it.
Works for Govts
“If they take their lead from the banks…” … or just non-autonomous * motoring, which like the banks has quickly become “too big to fail” (or indeed be brought under control).
* do auto-gnomes drive minis?
Hillman Imps, surely?
Well they already have with standard human-piloted motor cars; customers expect to be given cars that can far exceed the legal speed limit and so they’re allowed them.
This is an interesting video exploring driverless cars:
While I believe autonomous vehicles are safer than humans, they swap faults such as road rage, arrogance and anti-cyclist mindsets for inability to ‘see’ hazards in complex environments. Therefore ‘as bad’ but in a different way.
I meet plenty of humans every single day who have an inability to see hazards in complex environments, even when the hazard is wearing a fluorescent yellow helmet, jacket and gloves and riding a white bicycle with daylight running lights.
I would expect the company will put in place software that prevents their taxis from stopping on double red lines or not encroaching box junctions so I would expect them to be able to program it to not stop to allow passengers out in cycle lanes.
This isn’t a technical issue, its a “we don’t want to do it” issue. Much the same as companies like deliveroo don’t want to have to employ their delivery riders or have any responsibility for their behaviour or actions. They could, but it would cost them money.
Once you have watched the video, now read the Highway Code, page 4 and 5.
I quote:
“While the vehicle is driving itself, you do NOT need to monitor it.”
“While a self driving vehicle is driving itself…you are NOT RESPONSIBLE for how it drives.”
This is the CURRENT road traffic legislation in the UK.
Well, yes – but that only applies to vehicles that the Secretary of State for Transport has designated as being capable of safely driving themselves, so it’s kind of definitional – you don’t need to monitor a vehicle that you don’t need to monitor.
Basically it comes down to how much you trust the SoS’s ability to assess when vehicles have reached that threshold [left as an exercise for the reader].
And if it does all go wrong, the SoS is held responsible. By, er, having to write a report about it…
My understanding is, some vehicles will be getting DoT approval this year.
Meanwhile, people are figuring out how to come and go at the same time: https://sfstandard.com/2023/08/11/san-francisco-robotaxi-cruise-debauchery/
Maybe this’ll lead to a new variety of dogging?
Dog-sledding?
Waymo-dogging or Way-more-dogging
1) If customers/passengers are expecting the vehicles to stop in cycle lanes to enable pick up and drop off, this clearly shows those people are NOT concerned about being hit by cyclists.
As apposed to the usual media blaring about how people are scared of cyclists.
2) If company execs are openly admitting their vehicles are not following the rules, clearly making their products less safe than they should be, then the agreement to allow them on roads should be torn up.
Preposterous! Imagine if black cabs and Ubers started doing the same, it’d be carnage!
/s
That’s ok, just issue a fine to them every time they do, that will sort it out
…. a graduated fine. $ for a first offense, 2$ second offense, 4$ for a third offense, 8$ for the fourth offense, ……
In 2026 it’s technologically possible to deactivate on the spot a robot-taxi that breaks traffic regulations. Although driverless, points could be added to or deducted from, depending on where it drives, its driving licence. The company that owns and operates these cars shall be held responsible for damages and injuries, and accountable for fines and compensations.
I think Mitsky will be all over the language in this one!
“Possible”, “could” and “shall” … if you look at how loath our legal system is already to take action against human drivers
… and then look at how much more ready it is to take action against individuals versus companies (never mind some of the richest businesses the planet has probably seen…)
…AND that “technical complexity” (even if it’s just finance) often *really* slows down the enforcers…
… then you’ll appreciate just how much more likely it is they will be trusted to mark their own homework than see any effective outside regulation!
Waymo will soon discover it’s “normal practice” for cyclists to kick its doors in.
Black spray paint over vision sensors. No one gives a 5hit about road safety in the UK, and thanks to Murdoch brainwashing, most UK residents hate people riding bikes, including DfT/TfL. If a company doesn’t care about my life, I don’t care about their dangerous vehicles, which are easy to incapacitate.
However, taxis are legally allowed to enter a cycle lane to pick up/drop off, at least in London: see TfL’s FAQs below, so the autonomous cabs would only be doing what’s already permitted to drivers.
Seen their cars a few times up in town.
Worryingly they appear to be LHD with the “safety” driver sat over there which surely can’t help with them watching what’s actually happening?
As for the cutting across cycle lanes bit I got into a bit of an argument with the backseat passenger of one vehicle I’d yelled at for nearly left hooking the rider ahead of me.
Their answer to it?
“You can stop!”
I wonder if she’d like the same logic if a bus just turned across their path?
““However, they are really only as good and effective and safe as they are programmed to be. Waymos pull over into bike lanes all the time for pickups and drop-offs and that’s neither legal nor safe. “But the companies say that is a normal practice and that’s what customers expect.”
Customers expect drivers, and their computer equivalents, to commit crime.
Customers expect drivers, and their computer equivalents, to commit crime
There’s nothing surprising about this, when the police condone and assist the criminal offence of driving vehicles without MOT on public roads. I’ve shown HN21 VXB on here many times – no MOT for 9 months, no VED for 2 years. It’s owned by M Wright Carpentry Ltd, known at Companies House, on social media, seen a lot around Garstang, completely ignored by police. Police apologists would just say ‘they can’t find the vehicle and driver’. Of course they could! They just don’t want to. The PCC is useless and is now on paid holiday because they’ve been abolished.
A simple solution if you see this happening is to ride to the front of the car and block its progress.
What!?!?!??? A (*&(^%#!!! bike in the bike lane???
What!?!?!??? A (*&(^%#!!! bike in the bike lane???
They might change their minds when the injury claims start rolling in
That might be optimistic. With cars 1.0 (at the beginning of the 20th century) in the US this was not dealt with by changing the problem, but by lobbying to create a new offense of jaywalking!
Much more recently it took a *lot* of money being paid out in claims for crashes facilitated by some poorly designed parts of Edinburgh council’s new tramline before they did anything at all (and this far it’s mostly been “paint and sign”).
How many points/accidents/tickets does it take, to take away a drivers license, no matter how many cars he owns? In this case, the “driver” is the company.