Introduction
On October 1st, local time in the United States, the autonomous driving industry in the United States welcomed a historic moment: the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) officially issued a license to Cruise under General Motors and Waymo under Alphabet (Google’s parent company) to provide autonomous driving services to the public for a fee. This means that a major obstacle to commercial operations in policy in California has been removed for Cruise and Waymo. In the future, with approval from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), Robotaxi can officially operate on California roads.
Although the widespread adoption of autonomous driving for passenger cars is difficult in the short term due to more complex road conditions, L4 in limited scenarios has always been the goal of leading companies in autonomous driving technology, including Cruise and Waymo. From human-driven to driver-supervised to fee charging, the continuous depth and evolution of this business model bring hope for profitability to the Robotaxi project. After all, before obtaining government approval, Robotaxi provides free services to customers for data testing purposes. If further development eliminates the need for a driver, it will not only significantly reduce the company’s operating costs but also make transportation more affordable for people, creating a win-win situation. In Europe and America, the high wages of drivers have always been one of the key reasons for the high cost of local taxi fares.
Differences Between the Two Licenses
Although both Cruise and Waymo have obtained licenses, the biggest difference between the two licenses is whether or not a safety steward is needed.
Cruise has obtained a “fully unmanned deployment permit,” which means that it can provide passenger travel services without a driver in the front seat and charge fees.
Waymo, on the other hand, has obtained a “driving deployment permit,” which means that it still needs a safety steward in the driver’s seat. This discrepancy is not due to Waymo’s inferior technology compared to Cruise, but rather because Cruise has been testing Robotaxi in the San Francisco area for a longer time, which has accumulated a large amount of data. Waymo only started the Trusted Tester program in San Francisco in August this year, providing passengers with free travel services with safety stewards, and has accumulated relatively limited data on various road conditions. At least in the eyes of local governments, Waymo needs more practical test data to convince the approval department to grant larger permissions.## Differences in Limitations between Cruise and Waymo
Having different licenses does not mean that the San Francisco government is biased towards one company. Cruise has obtained a license for deploying fully driverless vehicles with a fee, but the service it provides is subject to significant limitations in terms of vehicle model, time, speed, and area. According to the California DMV license, Cruise’s Chevrolet Bolt fully driverless vehicles are allowed to operate at a maximum speed of 30 miles/hour between 10 PM and 6 AM in designated areas of San Francisco (public streets, but the exact range has not been announced yet).
As for Waymo, because it has a safety operator, it is much less restricted. Waymo’s vehicles are allowed to drive on public roads in some areas of San Francisco and San Mateo County at a maximum speed of 65 miles/hour, without time restrictions. Therefore, in terms of driving experience, Waymo’s timeliness and service experience will be better. However, because it has a safety operator, Waymo’s cost will still be much higher than Cruise’s, which depends on how the two companies choose. Another point worth mentioning is that vehicles from Cruise and Waymo are allowed to operate in light rain or fog.
Open fees are small, gaining investor confidence is big
Different from ordinary drivers who do not necessarily need driverless vehicles, whether it is a long-haul logistics truck, a commercial vehicle that delivers goods within the city, or a vehicle like Robotaxi, the operational nature of these vehicle types greatly reduces the cost of daily operations with driverless technology, making it more lucrative for investors and providing greater commercial prospects.
From the order of California’s opening of Nuro, Cruise and Waymo, it is worth learning from for the relevant departments in China. From unmanned freight vehicles to Robotax without safety personnel to chargeable Robotaxi services, the low-speed unmanned driving is often the best way to solve the commercial operation of unmanned vehicles. As for promoting the Robotaxi service, related opening needs to be more cautious. After all, in the scenario of Robotaxi, it is possible to meet the passenger’s demand for higher vehicle speed, while there are also passengers in the car. Although we do not think that truly opening the Robotaxi charging service can make much profit for self-driving technology companies in a short period of time, this administrative opening provides a good signal for capital market and investors. It can provide the most solid support for the continuous financing of these early investment-intensive self-driving technology companies and the later IPO listing.
For China, which is also not weak in autonomous driving technology, in addition to our relevant technology companies needing to continuously optimize the software and hardware platforms of autonomous driving, from the perspective of policy makers, it is also necessary to loosen the operation of these autonomous vehicles. Of course, there will also exist various problems and risks in this process. Clarifying the responsibilities of all parties and actively introducing insurance companies are the key to promoting relevant commercial operation. Only when Robotaxi companies can begin to charge, can their subjectivity be maximally mobilized, and it is possible to obtain more resources to deploy more vehicles, collect more test data, and promote this trillion-dollar market to undergo profound changes through a gradual and progressive approach.
This article is a translation by ChatGPT of a Chinese report from 42HOW. If you have any questions about it, please email bd@42how.com.