WRFH/Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM - Ed Tarnowski: Is the Anti-Autonomous Car Push Really About “Safety"?

Episode Date: November 24, 2025

The driverless-taxi revolution just hit warp-speed, with Waymo is now rolling fully autonomous rides on freeways across San Francisco, Los Angeles and Phoenix. But behind the milestone lurks a sharp-edged tension: labor groups and city regulators are digging in their heels, warning that the cost of progress may include lost jobs, uneven oversight, and a future shaped by tech oligarchs rather than consumers.As unions and city regulators rush to slow or restrict autonomous fleets, the clash between innovation and entrenched power is erupting in real time. Senior Young Voices Contributor Ed Tarnowski offers his latest Reason article, about whether these crackdowns are truly about public safety or about protecting legacy interests from a future that’s already here. He joins Harry Birzer on WRFH to discuss.

This is Radio Free host at 101.7 FM. I'm Harold Berzer. With me today is Ed Tarnowski. Ed Tarnowski is a senior contributor at Young Voices and a policy and advocacy director at Ed Choice, where he hosts the State of Choice podcast. He wrote the article of today's discussion, The New Luddites,

want to pump the brakes on driverless cars, which is today's discussion. So, Ed, just wondering, what inspired you to write the article on who would want to stop driverless cars and why yeah well first thanks for everybody on the show today it's always nice to be on but yeah i mean the inspiration around this was primarily because what inspired me was way more recently released some new stats showing how much safer their driverless cars are than cars helmed by human human drivers we see

91% fewer serious injury crashes 92% fewer pedestrian crashes with injuries and 79% percent of your crashes resulting in airbag deployment. This shows that Waymo vehicles are vastly safer than cars with human drivers. This is not suggest that, you know, that we should do away with cars with human drivers, of course. No one is suggesting that. Merely that safety as a reason for preventing these cars from being on the roads is not, doesn't, doesn't add up with what we're seeing in the data. Okay.

Interesting. So how widespread is the rollout of driverless cars right now? Well, it's certainly spreading. It's really, really exciting right now. We're seeing an explosion and an expansion by Waymo. We're seeing new cities being added to the list that are where the company is planning a rollout. We're seeing Waymo expand now into highways, which is really exciting because for a while they were more limited to cities. But highway expansion means even more. safety, even more convenience for consumers, and more competition, which is good for everyone. Yeah, so I'm not too familiar with AVs. How far do you, are you tended to, sorry, how far are you usually able to go with them? You can't really go cross country yet, I assume. No, no, not quite yet, but what we, the role out, Waymo's rollout so far has mostly has been limited to cities. Essentially, oftentimes, like, Waymo will go on and map out. map out cities and they'll launch commercial services to them.

They're now beginning to expand it to highways, particularly in the Bay Area in California. So I'm really excited to see new data because a lot of the data that we see in is city data. So I'm really excited to see new data coming out of the highways and new added convenience and services to consumers. Okay. Do you think this will become more common than using traditional cars at some point in the future? I think it's very possible. I mean, what we're seeing is, like I said, vastly safer vehicles, and it's also a very convenient service.

What we're seeing in the, I think what we're going to see is, you know, healthy competition. We're going to see just as Uber and Lyft, Waymo is offering a similar service now. People are going to have another option. So all three of those companies and maybe more in the future are going to compete for the consumers. And, you know, whoever delivers the best service, save a service will likely win the job. day. So it's to be seen, but I think it's a really exciting time in tech and AV technology specifically with, and I think it's only going to continue to get better as we see an extent, we see more of an expansion. But with more of an expansion, I think we, there is the risk of

more arbitrary regulation and rules being placed in cities across the country. Okay. And do you think these restrictions on AV vehicles in cities like New York or Boston might lead to something worse? I do. I mean, what we saw in Boston, for example, was, so there were special interests that proposed an ordinance in city of Boston with the support of several city councilors that would essentially, it would create an advisory board of trade unionists,

what they say trade unionists, other stakeholders, which would essentially empower competitors in the industry to regulate their, their competitors. Now, this is a clear conflict of interest. We want to see market forces working. We want to see new companies that are offering new levels of safety and service, be able to offer that service to consumers if consumers wanted. They are often citing safety as the reason, which is, again, I saw that as not aligned with the data right away because we see all these stats out from Waymo showing how much safer it is, how it's, has the opportunity to save lives to save, to prevent injuries, et cetera. So when safety is cited, I become very skeptical of that

as a reason for heavy regulation or stringent regulation. In Boston, this ordinance, the Waymo spokesman warns that their proposal is go so far that it would quote, bannington autonomous vehicles based on vibes. It'd be the first city to do so. It was a what he said. So I think we should certainly heed that warning. Okay. Do you think the repercussions and the desire to get rid of AVs, does that come from an actual fear of them or just this notion of being against artificial intelligence?

I think it's a little bit of both. I mean, I think we see with any new innovation does come a level of fear. And it's on all of us to recognize that through. Like if we had let that policy for the culture of fear dominate through much of history, we may have never seen gas lights, street lamps move from gas lit to electricity, for example, or from horse carriages to automobiles. You can't stop the future. This is happening.

And I think it's something more that we should be more excited about than anything else. And I know there's often a sphere of particularly in Boston, they're citing, they say safety. And they also say the economy, which is code, I think, for they want, they want their, these are interests that want to protect their business interests. So essentially, they're worried about what autonomous vehicles for me will mean for certain jobs. But again, what history has shown us is with technological advancement, you do see changes in jobs, but on the whole, in the end, we see more jobs and often high quality, more high quality jobs as a result of technological innovation. So do you think the anti-artificial intelligence movement is a dangerous one? I do. I think the artificial intelligence movement, the anti-artificial intelligence movement more broadly, is a big risk.

And because right now, American capitalism gives us the tools to win this, to win the AI battle, to win the war for AI because we are seeing a lot of our competitors, for example, China, for example, with the launch of Deep Seek early this year, that sent alarm bells across the world. And, you know, whoever ends up leading in AI, who has the most advanced technology, will end up, will we have the influence and the power to decide things like the new lines of future battles, or hopefully preventing future wars, or how our ports are automated. So there is a, the anti-AI movement does really pose a danger. We don't want to go down the regulatory path of Europe, for example,

which has really regulated itself out of the out of a lot of the prosperity that could come out of technological innovation. But now the battle for AI is incredibly important. It's important that we win and that we get governed over the way and that we let innovators innovate. Right. So is it just deep seek in China we need to worry about? Or do we think they'll also make AVs and other automated vehicles that might compete with ours?

Yeah. I mean, I spoke of on national security, for example, but there are so many other examples of why it matters as well. you know, AI is going to be the future of how we, of things like innovation autonomous vehicles, but also in cancer research and in other infectious diseases and just kind of vital, it's going to write the lines for the future. And we don't want to let our adversaries jump past us in that because, you know, if AI is led by America and by the West, Then it's going to be, we're going to see AI that's based in our values, that values free expression into open, open ideas.

We don't want to see AI led by some of our adversaries that don't respect some of those things, like the basics of civil liberties and free speech and open ideas, open thought, free and freedom of information. So there are many reasons why it's important for America to win the AI rays. AVs is one of them. But there are many reasons across the board. And we should reject those who are fearing this advancement, this new age, technological age that we're entering. Okay. Do you think AI has reached its peak or is it just going to continue from now on? And what do you think that may look like in just five years down the line?

Yeah. Well, I think we're just at the beginning. I mean, look, think about what four years ago, what large language, the quality of large language models or the ability, like, photo generation capabilities and how much more real estate has come in just a few years. So in the next five years, I don't want to speculate because it's to be seen, but I think the possibilities are endless. I think right now we're just at the beginning of this AI revolution.

And I think the possibilities are endless in that it will continue to be very exciting and open up new opportunities for human flourishing, human progress, advanced. advancement. So I think we're just at the beginning. Okay. So also in your article, you mentioned that the AI, sorry, the automated vehicle accidentally killed a cat and there was a bit of an outcry from that. Do you think, sorry, do you think this is a possibility in the future or was the outcry deserved at all? All right. It's a great question. So what happened in San Francisco was there was a cat that had run out and a Waymo vehicle did unfortunately hit the cat.

So there was all this outrage that we sentationalized outrage that we saw out of it. We saw the San Francisco City Commissioner calling for new regulation in response to this, new stringent regulation in response to this. We saw coverage in Rolling Stone. And while the death of a pet is always a tragedy, what we need to go back to is basing policy off of data and real world evidence. What we see is Waymo vehicles are far safe. safer than cars driven by humans.

So in the end, overall, the more way more cars in the street means fewer pets being hit by cars. Because what we do know is that human drivers are far more likely to get into accidents. So while this one accident is a tragedy, there's a one-off on the whole, one of vehicles are safer. And that's how we need to measure. The measurement can't be and shouldn't be whether there are no ever-examined. accidents at all. It should be how much safer it is than human drivers. Okay. So if hypothetically there were to be like more accidents, maybe even on a greater scale, should AI companies be held responsible for these?

I don't think that they should, I don't think the company should be held responsible at any different level than, um, then we see you with accidents today. Again, I think that these, this policy needs to be based on. on if AVs are safer than human drivers, not if they are 100% safe, because nothing will ever be 100% safe. So I think going forward, we need to base the policy and in facts, and the facts point to them being vastly safer.

They are a capable service that we should be able to use, and we certainly shouldn't be banning them anywhere. In what ways do you think Waymo could improve upon itself to align with people's fears for road safety. All right. Well, I think they're doing everything right as we speak. I think what they're doing now is they continue to, in their expansion, they continue to map out to other cities.

They're being very cautious in finishing this process before launching. And I think they're doing a great job of communicating the safety. You know, these new stats are really exciting. They had what I saw as an effective strategy. And I think the more the word gets out about this, the more people will realize that over-regulation, over-restriction, is unwarranted, especially when safety is used as the reason. So multiple companies are aiming to make Robotoxy services. Which one do you think is likely to succeed? Is it Waymo or is it a different one?

or what conditions need to be present for them to be successful? Right. Well, to be seen, I don't want to speculate on who will be because it's impossible to predict the future. But I will say way most certainly leader right now. We're seeing them really expand. It's a really exciting time, as I said earlier. They continue to expandish new cities.

I see them online all the time announcing new cities that they'll be planning to operate in soon. So it's an exciting time. So I don't want to speculate on who, on which companies will be, well, we'll be leading in the future but I will say Waymo is certainly a leader now and it's paving the way to a future of autonomous vehicle services like this where they're vastly accessible and across the country okay I've also seen fears that AI is they're rushing it too much and not taking its time to fully to make it the best it can rather than rather they're trying to make the project stuff like

SORA and other things like that. Do you think it is being rushed or it is taking its natural course? I don't think it's being rushed at all. I think it is taking its natural course. And I think when you get into the conversation about being rushed, I think the risk there is putting arbitrary regulation on and on because like who, how is it, who decides what's rushed or what's not. It's very difficult to pinpoint. I think the best thing we can do is let the market run. scores. As with any technological advancement, there is always fear in the beginning among some. But in the end, it does result, the most technological advancement results in more human flourishment, improved livelihoods, more safety. So I think it's an exciting time. And as I mentioned

earlier, it's really crucial that America wins this war for AI. We don't want to see, we want see it we want to see the leading i um leading with our with our values and accessible with our values of you know and like i said free expression open ideas free from freedom of information so i think the risk of um this quote slowing down is that um you know our adversaries are not slowing down they're going to continue moving forward very quickly with it they are marching through uh so if we if we slow down others or others won't so we need to continue leading Right. So you've made it clear that we need to use AI to compete with other countries, which makes sense. But is AI really worth it in the end to, since it's kind of replacing a lot of human skills and bringing more reliance on technology? Well, I think as I mentioned earlier, what we've seen in the past is, yes, there will be changes to the economy in the beginning. And yes, there may be, it may be, it may take.

take time. There may be an adjustment period. But on the whole, what we see in cross history with tech advancement is, yes, you see certain jobs that may go away. But they are often and usually replaced by more jobs and higher quality jobs. And they make life vastly better for people. But think about, I mean, there are so many jobs today, for example, like if you go look, look, but think back to history of the way that, there were the protests of when the one electricity powered by light powered by electricity was coming into play you saw candlemakers and and companies and pushing the companies that were serving people with the gas light gaslight companies you saw them pushing back because they wanted they wanted to protect their jobs but when we look back today it would be absurd to suggest that we should have let them win the day and that we should have rejected technological progress,

then we should still just be dependent on gaslit streets and things like that today. It's clear that technological advancement vastly improved the human condition by allowing this new technology at the time to become widespread and commercialized, and to have restricted it from doing so, would have been to, you know, restrict what's clear, what was clear progress. Okay. Do you think there will be more economic repercussions as in more people losing their jobs in the future or are we past that?

I think it's CBC and it is certainly, like I said, I think we're at the beginning of this. I don't want to speculate too much on what it will look like, what it will look like because things could change. But I will say that it's coming. I think in the end, the economy will adjust, and I think we'll be better off for it. So you mentioned earlier that when I asked about whether anti-artificial intelligence movement is dangerous, I've noticed that there's kind of a trend among today's youth to also be against artificial intelligence, but still use it at the same time.

So do you think this will change, or people will still be kind of against. against artificial intelligence. I think it will change it over time, especially as AI only becomes more integrated in how we live our lives. I think, and on the whole, I do see AI as being, especially in just day-to-day use among, you know, average people.

I think at the end of the day, it's going to serve more as an enhancer than as something that is, you know, taking our positions or taking jobs. It's going to be more of an enhancer more than anything. it allows us to do to do tasks much more quickly,

much more conveniently, much more efficiently. And I think this is something that's only going to become more integrated as people do realize how much more efficient it can make them in their work

and their education, etc. I think it has a potential to really change the way we do work and how we educate. So I think over time people will only get more

used to AI, it'll become more integrated. And I see this is a positive thing because it makes, it allows us to get a lot more done for a lot less work. So adding on to that, what do you think of people calling these

clinkers? It's like an insult term that people are using for AI powered technology. Because I was a bit of a joke question. Right, right, right. Well, there's certainly a lot of But as there is with any cultural phenomenon, there are going to be some humorous memes surrounding it.

I don't know, but I don't know. That's an interesting one. I think people are having a lot of fun with it. I will say that. Okay. Well, that's about all of the time we have for today. Our guest has been Ed Tarnowski. I'm Harold Berzer, and this is Radio Free Hilsdo 101.7 FM.

Thank you for listening. I'm going to be a lot of I'm going to I'm I'm I'm

Thank you.