Robotaxi Trust Gap
London's driverless taxis launch this summer — but the public wants to watch first.
Would you be willing to ride in a driverless taxi for your regular trips?
No, prefer human drivers
Yes, after others test it first
Yes, immediately
Other
On this page
Share It On
Executive summary
London's first driverless taxi service is months away from launch — and the public is watching with one hand on the door handle. Uber and British AI firm Wayve plan to deploy robotaxis on London streets this summer, with human safety drivers initially on board, but a new survey of 184 people reveals that enthusiasm for the concept does not translate into willingness to ride.
The headline number: 37% describe themselves as cautiously optimistic about the launch, but 33% are outright worried about safety — and only 17% say they're excited to try it. When asked whether they'd actually get in, 40% said they'd wait for others to test it first, tied exactly with the 40% who said they'd prefer a human driver altogether. Just 18% would ride immediately.
Trust in AI is the single strongest predictor of whether someone would ride. Respondents who rated AI trustworthiness low were far more likely to refuse entirely. And in a striking paradox, people who scored highest on openness to new ideas were actually less likely to say they'd take a driverless taxi — suggesting that intellectual curiosity about the technology stops at the cab door.
For Wayve and Uber, the regulatory path is advancing but not yet cleared. The practical challenge ahead is less about the vehicles and more about convincing a skeptical, wait-and-see public.
Takeaway: How do you feel about Uber and Wayve's driverless taxi launch in London?
Takeaway: How do you feel about Uber and Wayve's driverless taxi launch in London?
Context
This summer, London is set to become one of the first major European cities to host a commercial driverless taxi service. Uber has partnered with Wayve, a British AI startup valued at roughly $8 billion and currently in talks to raise a further $2 billion from SoftBank, Microsoft, and Nvidia, to launch robotaxis on the capital's notoriously complex streets. Wayve has been testing its vehicles in London since 2018 and describes the city — with 20 times more roadworks and 10 times more vulnerable road users than San Francisco — as the ultimate proving ground for autonomous technology.
The rollout will begin with human safety drivers behind the wheel while Wayve awaits formal permits from the Department for Transport, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, and Transport for London. The UK government fast-tracked its autonomous vehicle pilot timeline to spring 2026 under the Autonomous Vehicles Act 2024, pulling forward a target that had previously been set for late 2027. The regulatory framework mandates criminal record checks for safety drivers, reporting on safeguarding and accessibility, and strict safety standards — but formal approval has not yet been granted.
Against that backdrop, this pulse survey of 184 respondents was conducted to measure real-time public sentiment toward the launch. The four-question study captured both structured responses — how people feel about the development and whether they'd ride — and open-ended views on concerns, benefits, and trust in AI. Free-response themes were analysed for underlying dimensions including safety perception, demand for human oversight, and reliability over time.
The results arrive at a moment when the gap between technological capability and public confidence is the central challenge facing the autonomous vehicle industry. Waymo's safety data — 170.7 million rider-only miles logged through December 2025, with 92% fewer serious-injury crashes than an average human driver — has not moved the needle on public trust in the way its engineers might have hoped. This survey captures why: the public is not waiting for more data. It is waiting for social proof.
Reliability Over Time
Several participants emphasize current technical problems (glitches, malfunctions), while others argue that once these issues are resolved the technology will be advantageous.
Hover over dots to see real answers.
Respondents split sharply between fears of malfunctions and hacking today versus optimism about long-term safety and accessibility gains.
Highlighted answers
- Current glitches and malfunctions are a major concern
“Driverless taxis have already shown that they have no concept of safety/self-preservation. (Waymo driving through a police stand-off!) What guarantee do we have that the "human safety drivers" will actually be able to take over driving in the event it becomes necessary?”
Cites a real-world incident to challenge both AI readiness and the safety-driver fallback central to Wayve's London rollout plan.
- Current glitches and malfunctions are a major concern
“Glitches in pedestrian recognition”
Pinpoints the specific technical failure mode most feared in a dense, complex city like London.
- Current glitches and malfunctions are a major concern
“Its not ready to be in a environment that it will not be able to adapt to”
Directly echoes the survey's wait-and-see majority who want proof of reliability before riding.
- Future reliability will deliver net benefits
“I see it as a major benefit to me because I have Cerebral Palsy and don't drive.”
Illustrates the strongest pro-adoption case — transformative mobility access for people who cannot use conventional transport.
- Future reliability will deliver net benefits
“cleaner transit, safer streets, and better mobility for disabled or elderly populations”
Captures the future-benefits argument, contrasting with current-glitch concerns and reinforcing the accessibility theme.
Safety Perception
Respondents are split between worries about accidents, hacking, and obstacle responsiveness and the belief that autonomous taxis could be safer than current human‑driven cabs.
Hover over dots to see real answers.
Respondents range from vivid fears about system failures and hacking to quiet confidence that removing human drivers will make roads safer.
Highlighted answers
- Self-driving taxis increase safety risks
“Driverless taxis have already shown that they have no concept of safety/self-preservation. (Waymo driving through a police stand-off!) What guarantee do we have that the "human safety drivers" will actually be able to take over driving in the event it becomes necessary?”
Directly references real autonomous-vehicle incidents and questions the safety-driver safeguard central to Wayve's London rollout plan.
- Self-driving taxis increase safety risks
“That they could still get in accidents and there won't be a way for a human to "take over" the car safely. Also wonder how they will make sue people can't hack the taxi and cocntrol it themseles.”
Captures the two dominant low-pole fears — loss of human override and malicious hacking — in a single response.
- Self-driving taxis increase safety risks
“If they fail, all hell can break loose.”
The starkest expression of catastrophic-risk anxiety, anchoring the fearful end of the safety spectrum.
- Self-driving taxis improve overall safety
“Faster and less accident prone than humans. They also can't rob you.”
Concisely flips the safety narrative, framing autonomy as protection from both road accidents and human-driver crime.
- Self-driving taxis improve overall safety
“cleaner transit, safer streets, and better mobility for disabled or elderly populations”
Broadens the high-pole case beyond accident statistics to wider urban safety and accessibility benefits.
Conclusion
London's robotaxi moment is arriving whether the public feels ready or not. Wayve has regulatory applications in motion, a formidable funding base, and a CEO calling this "a defining moment for UK autonomy." But the survey data shows the defining moment will be shaped less by the technology and more by what happens in the first few weeks of public operation.
The 40% who will ride after others test it first are the audience that matters most. They are persuadable, and they are watching. Early rides that go smoothly, covered with specificity — not just "it worked" but "here's the data" — have a real chance of moving them. Incidents, even minor ones, will travel faster.
For Uber and Wayve, three priorities stand out. First, lead every public communication with safety evidence, not innovation narrative — the openness paradox shows that excitement doesn't convert. Second, treat the human safety driver not as a regulatory concession but as a trust-building asset, and resist pressure to remove it faster than public confidence grows. Third, address the labour displacement concern proactively: MP scrutiny is already live, and a P&O-style controversy would harden the baseline-disengaged 12% into active opponents.
The technology may be ready for London. The question is whether London — and the regulators watching it — will decide London is ready for the technology.
Takeaway: Uber is partnering with British AI firm Wayve to launch driverless taxis in London this summer, with human safety drivers initially. How do you feel about this development?
Cautiously optimistic
Worried about safety
Excited to try it
Not interested
Other
Takeaway: Uber is partnering with British AI firm Wayve to launch driverless taxis in London this summer, with human safety drivers initially. How do you feel about this development?
See echo in five minutes.
Bring a question. Get a real answer from real people, on the AI they already use.