I was wary of driverless cars and their tech overlords – but they could give me a different future | Gabriel Stewart

The robotaxis are coming! The robotaxis are coming! Well, actually, they’re already here. Until now they’ve been the stuff of science fiction, but this summer London’s streets have seen Silicon Valley-based company Waymo testing out self-driving cars. It hasn’t been the smoothest of introductions – from cars getting stuck in a cul-de-sac and repeatedly waking up the residents of Shoreditch to one driving into a crime scene, after a double stabbing in Harlesden.

The automated vehicles (AVs) have so far had trained drivers waiting behind the wheel to take control if needed, but will soon be shedding their human minders. Waymo and British rival Wayve are hoping to launch driverless minicabs in the capital this year, subject to approval from the British government and Transport for London, among others. A subsidiary of Google parent Alphabet, Waymo currently operates ride-hailing services in 10 US cities, but London, with its narrow streets and densely populated centre, will serve as one of its biggest challenges yet.

Is this a good thing? I have to admit I was initially suspicious, being naturally resistant to all forms of modernity and any “solution” proposed by the tech industry. Plus, the clunky camera-laden Jaguar SUVs hardly scream sex appeal.

But there is an aspect to this too little considered: for me, and others with accessibility needs, AVs offer a different future, a possibility of independence that feels otherwise unattainable. I will never be able to drive due to my poor vision, a reality that has left me unable to apply for many jobs and made me reliant on others to get around – especially when outside of cities. Many rural areas simply don’t have trains or taxis, causing an accessibility minefield for anyone living there or visiting. Driverless taxis may not solve that but they offer a roadmap towards the wider rollout of self-driving cars that could.

It’s no small matter. Transportation barriers limit the ability of disabled people to get jobs, access health care and socialise, with only 42% of those with difficulty seeing, and 54% of those with other disabilities, being in employment in the UK, according to 2022 analysis by the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB). With about one in four people in the UK living with a disability, this technology could be an important vehicle for social inclusion and participation.

None of this is to wash away the consequences of inviting the tech lords to dominate our streets, especially by using disabled people as pawns in their arguments to do so. There are questions to be answered around surveillance – sensors within the cars will record information about our journeys and interactions with other vehicles or humans en route. It is possible the tech firms involved could use this to sell products and services to users. Proper regulation, rather than an aversion to the life-changing technology, is needed.

The cost of job losses for taxi and delivery drivers as the technology advances must also be taken into account. A 2025 report from rideshare data collection company Gridwise found that hourly pay fell for taxi drivers in all cities with AVs from July 2024 to July 2025, with the sharpest drops observed in Austin (-5.3%) and San Francisco (-6.9%). This contrasted with a 1% increase in hourly pay for rideshare drivers nationally. The government should listen to trade unions seeking assurances that any transition towards autonomous passenger services includes protections for affected workers.

And then there is safety: naturally the main port of call for critics. Individual examples of vehicle mishaps are often highlighted when raising concerns. But, the reality is self-driving cars have so far been less likely to get into crashes than their human-driven counterparts. Recent analysis analysis by the nonprofit news site LA Reported found that over almost 38m driverless miles in Los Angeles between March 2024 and December 2025, there were only 28 Waymo crashes reporting injuries and only one in which the robotaxis were at fault. Humans driving the same distance would have had about 60 such crashes, so Waymos ended up in 64% fewer crashes with injuries.

When it goes wrong, we know all about it. In December, a video emerged showing a Waymo robotaxi driving a passenger through the scene of a police standoff in downtown LA. Last month, 3,800 of the robotaxis were recalled after a software issue led to an empty Waymo vehicle entering a flooded road and being swept into a creek in Texas. Driverless cars may never be completely safe but neither are human drivers. If one is said to cause fewer deaths and injuries, it is surely advantageous to adopt it.

There is no denying that self-driving cars are fraught with moral and societal complications and that those will have to be dealt with carefully through greater government regulation and protections. But this is an opportunity for disabled rights that is too great to be missed. As well as revolutionising the lives of those with disabilities, these cars could transform the safety of everyone else – assuming that, as they develop, they continue to be much safer than human-driven cars. There must be a positive conversation and disabled people must be a part of that conversation. The government should set up an accessibility advisory panel with representation from across the disability spectrum.

The robotaxis are coming! Think what that could do for you; think what that could do for me and millions like me.

• Gabriel Stewart is a freelance writer and an intern on the Guardian’s positive action scheme

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.