Lessons from Waymo: How UK Councils Can Build Public Trust in Robotaxis
In LA, robotaxis were set alight. How can we avoid the same fate here?
When fifty Waymo robotaxis began beeping through the night in the Los Angeles neighbourhood of Santa Monica, residents discovered that a decade-old law to protect blind pedestrians had turned their neighbourhood into a 24/7 alarm. No local councillor could stop it. Within weeks, curious locals became vocal opponents. They blocked the depot with traffic cones. They called emergency services. Some positioned their own cars to trap the vehicles.
Residents across Los Angeles collected grievances and public mistrust boiled over. By June 2025, protestors against big tech set Waymo vehicles on fire. This is a lesson in how councils shape public trust in robotaxis, whether they know it or not.
Regulators fell into a trap caused by overlapping responsibilities. What was initially a nationwide push for safety became a local nuisance over a decade later. In 2010 pedestrian safety law required electric vehicles to beep when reversing to protect blind pedestrians. America’s vehicle safety agency (NHTSA) implemented technical specifications by 2018. The rules apply to every electric vehicle: a single Prius backing out of a driveway, or fifty Waymo vehicles cycling through a charging depot at 3am.
No one anticipated that autonomous vehicle fleets would concentrate dozens of reversing vehicles in residential areas around the clock. When Waymo subleased a Santa Monica lot in January 2025, every stakeholder operated under rules designed for individual cars, not fleet operations. The city council had no idea the depot existed until residents complained. By then, the damage was done. Public trust eroded.
In San Francisco, Waymo captured over 20% of the ride-sharing market after only two years of operations. In Los Angeles, it’s only 2.4% after a year of operations. One regulatory mistake transformed the narrative from innovation to invasion. In these communities, residents viewed robotaxis as imposed on them by big tech rather than part of the city’s transport system.
Why should councillors in the UK care?
This technology is coming to London and the rest of the UK next. The Department for Transport announced that commercial pilots for automated passenger services will begin in 2026. These services include autonomous ride-hail and autonomous buses. They will start in London and spread across the country.
Inner-city London boroughs have months, not years, before the first deployments. Officially, TfL is the licensing authority for private-hire and autonomous vehicles. But, the Department for Transport made the decision for Automated Passenger Services in London. TfL now has the responsibility to make the transport policy work.
Operators will make the first move for the rest of the country, and councils will then decide whether to grant them licenses. The government is on track to complete the Automated Vehicles Act regulatory framework by late 2027. This will give local transport authorities permitting powers over autonomous vehicles in their area, just like with private-hire vehicle licensing. Some of these powers will transfer to new local transport authorities and mayors, following the government’s local-government reforms
UK councils are stretched thin. Budgets are tight, staff are overworked, and it feels jarring to be told that robotaxis are on the horizon whilst basic services are struggling and roads are filled with potholes. Robotaxis might feel like someone else’s problem, or something implausible and easier to ignore.
But the choice is between easier work now or crisis management later. Proactive planning takes hours. Reactive crisis management takes months. E-bikes and Uber arrived without preparation and forced councils to take corrective action after the most vocal residents made their anger known. The stress could have been avoided. The arrival of robotaxis offers the same choice.
Councils face a choice between two paths.
The high-trust path
Proactive measures can help councils deliver a better, inclusive transport system. Robotaxis are electric and can cut emissions as people choose ride-hailing instead of driving themselves. More transport options will increase local journeys and high-street footfall, potentially boosting the local economy. Over time, fewer private cars will free up land and resources. This improves accessibility, reclaims parking space, and lowers housing pressures.
Phoenix shows what this looks like in practice. Waymo officials sat down with local leadership, law enforcement, and community stakeholders before entering the city. The company educated officials about the technology and answered questions early. They engaged economic development organizations who saw autonomous vehicles as a natural part of a future transport strategy, not a threat. This early dialogue created local champions who supported the rollout. By the time Waymo launched public service, community leaders understood the technology and had addressed concerns before they boiled over. Human-driven and autonomous ride-hailing now coexist without dramatic tensions.
The low-trust path and a lesson from e-bikes
Without preparation, councils risk repeating their painful experiences of e-bikes deployments. Weak public trust leads to noise complaints and intentional traffic disruptions. When companies that rely on public space enter without community engagement, unnecessary frustration follows. E-bikes stand as an example, the firms allowed passengers to park bicycles wherever they wished, which led to blocked pavements until TfL brought about enforcement mechanisms. Councillors will face resident complaints regardless of whether they approved the deployment. These issues could arise with robotaxis as well, in fact there are hundreds of scenarios where vehicles could block traffic. Letting deployments roll out without planning did not serve Santa Monica well.
Trust can be rebuilt, but it requires action
In 2023, over 50% of San Francisco residents opposed fully autonomous vehicles. Activists placed traffic cones on Waymo hoods to immobilize them. Two years later, 67% support the technology on their streets. The shift happened as Waymo proved its safety record through peer-reviewed research and millions of miles driven without major incidents. Experience with the technology changed opinions. Residents who took rides experienced the technology firsthand and recommended them to friends. As a result, Opposition dropped from over 50% to 29%. Less than 24 months later Waymo holds over 20% of San Francisco’s ride-sharing market. This transformation took time, public controversy, and extensive data to overcome initial mistrust. Phoenix’s approach avoided that painful period entirely.
Councils have the authority to shape this
These three paths show that outcomes are not predetermined. The technology is the same in Phoenix, San Francisco, and Santa Monica. What differs is how early councils prepared. Phoenix engaged before deployment and avoided conflict entirely. San Francisco had less early preparation, leading to years of public controversy before trust gradually rebuilt through experience. Santa Monica reacted after problems emerged and lacked the authority to fix them. UK councils have an advantage that US cities did not: they can learn from all three examples and act proactively.
How to prepare: map the robotaxi lifecycle before pilots begin
There will be open questions to explore during this planning phase:
What locations are likely to become depots?
How can intentional traffic disruptions be prevented?
How will emergency services redirect robotaxis?
These conversations should start now. Councils should review traffic ordinances to account for the edge cases. New training should give traffic officers the authority to address incidents quickly during emergencies. Currently Waymos don’t respond to hand-signals so officers will need to use other methods for redirecting the vehicles. Councils should establish dedicated public consultation and complaint channels. Complaint data can create live indicators of public sentiment and identify disruption patterns. For example, Enfield Council provides a clear reporting page for unauthorised road markings. These systems must be visible and responsive; residents need to know that their concerns reach decision-makers, not disappear into a void. A well-designed council webpage that tracks complaints and shows how feedback influences decisions will build far more trust than generic contact forms. Councils can mitigate some of these complaints by mapping stakeholder concerns, such as those of taxi unions and residents’ committees, to understand potential opposition and address their needs in planning.
The contrast between Santa Monica and Phoenix illustrates a simple truth: public trust in robotaxis is not determined by the technology itself, but by how councils prepare and govern from the start. Councils that engage early create communities that embrace autonomous vehicles. The result is cleaner air and better mobility. The councils that wait hand over control to tech companies and angry residents. London boroughs face this choice in months. The rest of the country will follow not long after. Which route they take is a navigation decision council members soon must take.
