Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Keeps on being rolled out in red states while being delayed in blue states, quite unfortunate.


Divide this differently:

- states where the major cities commonly have snow for > 3 months

- states where the major cities commonly have snow for < 1 month

Inclement weather is likely the differentiator. Blue state California gets Waymo in its biggest cities, which handily do not get much snow. The other Waymo cities are all below the Mason-Dixon Line.


Blocked even from testing in NYC. Blocked from DC and Boston. Unfortunately this does have more to do with bad government than bad weather.


Boston, according to Waymo[1], is dependent on the legislature making autonomous vehicles legal. Apparently NY state laws also require a human driver at the wheel.

The only surprising thing about this is that other states did not require changes in law. It's Good, Actually, that big companies are (sometimes) bound by the same laws that bind the rest of us.

In any case, there are more than 2-3 "blue" states. We can note that it's also not running in cold "red" states either. The climate angle fits the data best and aligns with what Waymo says, which aligns with what we have known about the tech for at least a decade.

(That note also suggests they are still testing their cold-weather kit and are not quite ready.)

1 - https://waymo.com/blog/shorts/back-to-boston/


> Apparently NY state laws also require a human driver at the wheel.

Earlier this year, Waymo had a permit to test 8 autonomous vehicles with safety drivers in NYC. The permit was not renewed [1]. Waymo can no longer drive autonomously (even with a safety driver) in NYC.

What changed between when the testing permit was issued and when a renewal of permit was declined? NYC had a political shift in leadership.

[1] https://www.thecityreporter.nyc/2026/04/06/waymo-driverless-...


> that big companies are (sometimes) bound by the same laws that bind the rest of us

Not if they’re stupid laws!


Even then. There is value in uniform rule of law.


> There is value in uniform rule of law

Sure. OP's point is these products and investments are accruing disproportionately to red cities and states. Sinking together isn't a great pitch.


I think elected state leaders should move to understand theses issues, hear from experts and the public, and craft good laws for these services.

My state (CA) is doing well this. If your state is not, and this is important to you, I suggest you get involved in the process.

Having companies ignore the law is not an alternative to the democratic process.


> My state (CA) is doing well this

Yup. And I invest there. I’m pulling back from New York, which is a shame, because I love it and still have interests there.

> Having companies ignore the law is not an alternative to the democratic process

Straw man. Nobody said this. The point is the current system of incumbent worship is not working. If it takes flipping parties to prove that, I guess yeah, but that won’t result in more rule of law.


> these products and investments are accruing disproportionately to red cities and states

Is this true at the city level?

> Sinking together isn't a great pitch.

Surely it's a worse pitch to suggest that companies can ignore laws they don't like, and operate above the law?


> it's a worse pitch to suggest that companies can ignore laws they don't like, and operate above the law?

It’s also worse to murder kittens. That isn’t the choice at hand.

The difference is between states adapting with a regulatory framework and those sticking with economic incumbents.

(Also, when the taxi medallion industry was at its peak, lenders did run roughshod over the law.)


In context, your comment reads as a defense of companies ignoring laws:

>> that big companies are (sometimes) bound by the same laws that bind the rest of us

> Not if they’re stupid laws!

States won't adapt to new technologies at the same time, this is embedded in the design of federalism.


> States won't adapt to new technologies at the same time, this is embedded in the design of federalism

…how are you missing this.

I’m saying the states failing to adapt need to do so or have their governments replaced. That all of these states are also facing multi-party insurgencies doesn’t strike me as a coïncidence. Pretending the corruption in e.g. New York around this is fine is just such a weird take.


>…how are you missing this.

Yeah, you added that in a later comment because your original comment did read as "ignore stupid laws."

Yes, I agree state governments should be responsive to the citizens. Corruption is bad. Ignoring "stupid" laws also goes hand in hand with corruption, and is antithetical to responsive government.

> multi-party insurgencies

This is interesting in that we kind of expect a healthy representative government to have vigorous competition among multiple groups. I'm not sure this is bad...

But a key point of federalism is that each state will adapt in different ways due to having different priorities. Mississippi adapts to the realities of 2026 in very different ways than California. I suspect the same will be true in 2056 and 2096.


The desire to slow down and consider the fate of cab drivers (very hard working, low income people) is not automatically corruption.


Getting around Boston is very easy. Flooding the streets with more cars won't make it easier.

A government that listens to the people it governs is a good government.


Eh, the impression I got from this podcast (https://www.searchengine.show/the-trial-of-the-driverless-ca...) was that unions and other special interests were blocking something that the broader population would be interested in.


Ok. As someone who lives there, I get the impression that the broader population is not interested in more cars on the streets.


They tried to roll out in New York City, but the city did not approve.

https://www.twu.org/twu-tech-newsletter-waymo-no-mo-in-nyc-f...


I personally saw a Waymo in NYC on June 26th at 14th St and 8th Avenue, so they’ve done some recent testing at least.


It's still legal for Waymo to manually drive them around for mapping.


That could definitely be it. I didn’t get a clear view of the driver’s seat, so I don’t know whether or not the driver was manually controlling it.


NYC's government is focused on maximizing the pain and inconvenience for its citizens. So this tracks.


State law requires a human driver to operate vehicles at all times. This is not coming from NYC.


At the start of this year, Waymo had a permit to test eight autonomous vehicles with a safety driver behind the wheel in NYC. The permit expired March 31st [1]. Waymo may no longer test autonomous driving (even with a safety driver) in NYC.

Waymo is not currently testing in NYC for political reasons.

[1] https://www.thecityreporter.nyc/2026/04/06/waymo-driverless-...


Seattle was announced as a Waymo upcoming city nearly 2 months before Houston, gets a foot less of rain than Houston each year, and usually has only 2 or 3 snow days a year. That's at least one counter example to your theory.


NYC has Mamdani, who is a very progressive populist mayor, and a longtime (active) supporter of the taxi drivers union.

There is close to zero chance it gets approval in NYC before 2030. I'd be totally floored if he goes against the union, but the optics are absolutely terrible for cabs.


Waymo can't launch anywhere in NY state due to state law, but by all means, trot out your favorite whipping boy.


They have been fully open here in Los Angeles for almost two years now.


Waymo has logged 67M miles in the SF Bay Area and 50M miles in LA of autonomous miles driven with a passenger [1]. It looks like the rollout is going quite well in California.

[1] https://waymo.com/safety/impact/


the metro areas where it gets rolled out are all blue regardless of state


It is unfortunate, but we're still in the early days of AV's. I think that more cities and states will be amenable to them once they have proven themselves as indispensable.


It's easier to roll out in places where it seldom snows.


Definitely true, but snow affecting driving conditions is becoming pretty rare in cities like Chicago.


Seems about as common as it ever was? (I'm very bullish on Waymos here).


You're right. I remembered some headlines about road salt usage and took them at face value, but the long-term trends are not clear.


Road salt means I can drive as if it was summer a few hours after the snow stops falling. While the snow is falling I still have to be careful. Ideally I would never drive when the snow is falling, but I live where that happens often enough that we cannot shutdown life for a little snow/ice so we try to make it work - as a result people go in the ditch a lot.


maybe weather events that disrupt travel, but impact things like visibility, lane definition, etc? That's still super-common in Chicago and a lot of the US.


"Maybe it's something you've got that they haven't got." - Owen Kellogg


Is it unfortunate, though?


[flagged]


What “anti-science slopulism” are you referring to? And what does corporate rollout strategy have to do with science?


History of being anti-nuclear. Now against "AI" and self driving cars because they like trains.


Self driving cars and AI aren’t science. Not sure what being pro or anti nuclear or AI has to do with corporate rollout strategy.


The science shows self driving cars are already safer. The same was (and is) true of nuclear compared to oil/gas.


Anti nuclear, anti AI, pro-rent control, anti-self driving tech, anti-automation


What does rent control have to do with corporate rollout strategy?




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2027 batch! Applications are open till November 2.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: