Skip to content 
Tesla’s latest foray into autonomous driving—the Robotaxi ride experience in Austin, Texas—showcases promising advancements in smooth vehicle control and human-like navigation. Yet it also revealed a potentially dangerous flaw in AI decision-making, highlighting the complex balance between cost-effective automation and true real-world readiness. In a head-to-head informal comparison with Waymo, Tesla’s Robotaxi appeared more fluid in motion and natural in behavior, but its single misjudgment underscores the high bar any full self-driving system must meet before public confidence and regulatory approval can fully follow.
First Impressions: Tesla’s Natural Feel vs. Waymo’s Hyper-Caution
In a ride-along session documented by the team at Munro, engineers and analysts contrasted the driving behavior of Tesla’s camera-based autonomous system with that of Waymo’s lidar- and radar-heavy platform. The Tesla Robotaxi immediately impressed with how naturally it accelerated and approached stop signs, particularly when compared to Waymo’s tendency to creep forward or brake sharply. Tesla’s drive “felt more like a friend coming to pick you up,” while Waymo, with its polished, robotic voiceovers and strict adherence to scripted paths, evoked more of a conventional taxi experience.
This difference in feel has real engineering implications. Tesla’s approach relies on visual input and neural network inference alone, eschewing costly lidar sensors. This design not only supports Tesla’s lean manufacturing ethos but dramatically reduces system cost and complexity—a potentially massive edge in mass-market viability. However, this simplification means the system must rely entirely on software sophistication to replicate the 3D sensing that Waymo achieves through hardware.
The Critical Mistake: A Human Error AI Shouldn’t Make
The ride was not without drama. In a critical moment caught on camera, Tesla’s Robotaxi missed the appropriate turn lanes and attempted a left turn from a middle lane—crossing a divider in the process. It then stopped in the middle of the intersection, confused by the red light and trapped by traffic. This decision forced the safety driver to intervene, calling for engineering support to guide the vehicle out.
While human drivers might misjudge lane positioning, this type of behavior is especially concerning for an AI. Autonomous vehicles must not only meet but exceed human reliability under uncertainty, and this episode illustrated that Tesla’s system, though confident and smooth in operation, still lacks the judgment needed in edge-case scenarios—especially in cities like Austin where construction, reroutes, and odd intersections are common.
Construction Zones: A Complex Test of Perception
Interestingly, Tesla’s Robotaxi handled construction areas with surprising finesse. It navigated tight squeezes, avoided cones, and smoothly passed bottlenecks where many driverless systems—including Waymo, by anecdotal accounts—might falter. One rider noted that the car “slowed down appropriately and navigated a tight squeeze between the construction and the curb absolutely perfectly.”
This reveals a key strength in Tesla’s vision-based AI: it mimics human decision-making in real time. The system recognized obstacles, adjusted trajectory, and prioritized lane centering and traffic flow. It’s a leap forward in intuitive response that reflects Tesla’s commitment to software-first engineering and iterative data training.
Human-Like Driving: Comforting or Concerning?
Tesla’s Robotaxi drew consistent praise for feeling human—almost too human. In contrast to Waymo’s hyper-defensive “twitchy” movements, Tesla’s vehicle merged, braked, and maneuvered more naturally. Riders described it as less jerky, more confident, and generally smoother.
However, this came with philosophical and safety questions. Should AI mimic human imperfection to make passengers feel more comfortable? Or should it prioritize absolute safety, even if that results in unfamiliar driving behavior?
One example highlighted this tension: when passing a pedestrian who briefly stepped off the curb, Tesla’s Robotaxi waited—then proceeded, just as a human might. By contrast, Waymo might have slammed the brakes or frozen mid-intersection. Though the Tesla response felt intuitive, the earlier mistake at the red light tempered confidence.
The Psychology of Trust in AI Vehicles
Much of the discomfort surrounding autonomous vehicles stems from predictability—or the lack thereof. Riders expect robotic systems to behave consistently and cautiously. When AI drivers make “human-like” choices, such as edging near a large truck or creeping around obstacles, the results can be unsettling even if statistically safe.
As one participant commented, “Even if it’s safer, the fact that it behaves in ways that are just a little different from people gives you kind of an uneasy feeling.”
Tesla’s edge may lie in overcoming that discomfort by creating systems that anticipate not just physical conditions but emotional expectations. Trust will hinge on the perception of logic, not just safety statistics.
Accessibility, Cost, and the Road Ahead
One of the key benefits of Tesla’s vision-only system is cost. Without expensive lidar arrays or multiple redundant sensors, Tesla can scale Robotaxi production at a fraction of the cost. This leanness aligns with Munro & Associates’ own design philosophy—eliminate waste, simplify parts, and optimize systems.
That same philosophy underpins Tesla’s design decisions: camera-based autonomy means faster updates, smaller hardware profiles, and easier integration into existing vehicles. As the Munro team pointed out, this approach makes Robotaxi adoption far more viable for everyday consumers and use cases like elderly mobility or airport shuttles.
As one analyst noted, “My dad still drives in his mid-nineties. And for people like him, not trusting an Uber driver but trusting a machine might be more appealing.”
Lessons from Cruise: Safety Must Equal Empathy
The conversation eventually turned to Cruise’s well-known failure in San Francisco, where a Cruise vehicle ran over a severely injured pedestrian after another car struck her. The Cruise AV failed to recognize the body and dragged it further—an action no human driver would ever perform. This tragedy underscored a critical truth: being safer than a human isn’t enough. Autonomous vehicles must behave in ways that mimic human empathy, caution, and responsiveness—even in rare, chaotic edge cases.
Tesla’s smoother, more relatable behavior may signal progress in that direction. But unless AI can predict and respond to truly erratic, life-threatening scenarios, it remains a beta solution in a real-world game.
Final Thoughts: Promising, But Not Quite There Yet
The Tesla Robotaxi experience, for all its positive qualities, remains a work in progress. It excels at comfort, flow, and naturalism—key elements for rider adoption. Yet, its lone critical error during a routine left turn illustrates that Tesla’s journey toward true autonomy is not complete.
In contrast, Waymo appears more cautious, more polished, and more technically robust—but less pleasant to ride in. These trade-offs define today’s AV landscape.
Explore More from Munro
For further expert breakdowns, teardown insights, and lean design evaluations, follow Munro Live or visit Munro & Associates. Stay ahead with in-depth reviews of autonomous driving tech, EV innovations, and cost modeling that shape the future of mobility.