The London Assembly Transport Committee says it has not heard enough evidence to welcome driverless passenger services in London. It wants Transport for London to publish strict rules and to withhold consent where an operator does not meet them. The report, published on 9 October, is not a ban, and TfL has not adopted it. The report
What is already on the road
No Automated Passenger Service permit has been granted. Those permits are issued by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. For a service in London, TfL has to consent. It does not licence these services the way it licences taxis and private hire.
Three groups are testing, and all three want a fully driverless passenger service.
Waymo, owned by Alphabet, is testing with a safety driver and no passengers. Its London test fleet is just under 100 vehicles. Ben Loewenstein, its head of policy for the UK and Europe, told the committee that if a permit is granted, the number available for commercial bookings this year would be in the low hundreds, with no safety driver.
Uber and the British firm Wayve already have private hire licences for 15 cars fitted with the technology. A licensed driver is legally in control. Wayve calls that a supervised autonomous ride. TaxiFeed has covered that launch: Why London's driverless Uber-Wayve launch still has a driver. They have not said when a service with no driver would start.
Freenow, owned by Lyft, is testing in Brent with Baidu Apollo vehicles, again with a safety driver and no passengers. Freenow told the committee it intends to carry passengers in 2027, starting with a small fleet, alongside the taxis and private hire cars already on its app.
What consent should require
The legal test for this technology is a careful and competent driver. The committee says that is too low for London. It wants a Vision Zero standard, and evidence that the vehicles would reduce danger on London's roads, including for people walking, wheeling and cycling. If an application does not meet the published criteria, TfL should not consent.
As a condition of consent, the committee wants:
Crashes and near misses reported within 24 hours, with the vehicle's decision-making in the lead-up to the incident, in a format TfL sets.
Empty miles recorded and published, with traffic and congestion figures. If TfL later gets full powers, worse congestion should be a reason to withdraw consent.
A passenger survey of why people chose the car, and how they would otherwise have travelled. Harm to walking, cycling or the reliability of public transport should also be a reason to withdraw consent, if those powers exist.
A personal-safety standard at least equal to taxis and private hire, including safeguarding training and a DBS check for remote assistants. Those assistants should be based in the UK.
A shared rulebook with the Met, the London Ambulance Service and the London Fire Brigade. An operator that does not follow it should lose consent, again if TfL has the power to withdraw it.
The vehicles on trial are not wheelchair accessible, and the plan is to run them with no driver to help an older or disabled passenger. The committee says one test for consent should be that the service was designed with disabled people.
The chair, Caroline Russell, says the committee also did not hear a convincing plan for a passenger who is assaulted, taken ill, or coerced.
The powers it wants in 2027
The current permit system should be treated as a small pilot. When the full regulations under the Automated Vehicles Act are made in 2027, the committee wants the Government to give TfL the power to issue permits, set conditions, withdraw them, and cap how many of these vehicles can work in London, including different caps in different areas.
During the pilot, it wants a formal route for TfL to ask for a permit to be suspended. If TfL asks, the permit should stop at once, until the Transport Secretary decides.
Drivers
Private hire drivers told the committee they are desperately worried about their livelihoods. If permits are issued, TfL should draw up a transition plan with drivers, their representatives and the operators. That should cover job losses, retraining, redeployment, and how the plan is paid for.
What Londoners said
A YouGov survey of more than 1,000 Londoners, published on 15 July, found 42 per cent opposed these vehicles and 29 per cent supported them. The same share, 29 per cent, said they were likely to use one if it were available.