While Waymo maintains that these weren’t intentional targets and suspended downtown service out of caution, the broader context reveals deeper tensions. Protesters see Waymo’s vehicles not merely as autonomous taxis, but as moving surveillance units—carrying an array of 360-degree cameras and LIDAR sensors that continuously record and can be subpoenaed by law enforcement. The robotaxis represent an extension of data-driven policing, threatening anonymity in moments of collective resistance. The protestors free retaliation for their actions.
This distrust isn’t unique to Los Angeles. San Francisco has seen its share of anti-automation backlash. In February 2024, a Waymo robotaxi parked in Chinatown during Lunar New Year caught fire after fireworks were placed inside . Activists have also employed “coning”—placing traffic cones on AV hoods to freeze them—as a form of protest against tech overreach
Such actions reflect wider community frustrations: concerns about unequal deployment of autonomous technology, tech industry dominance, and job displacement. In L.A., the fires weren’t about self-driving tech per se or job losses; they were rooted in unease with mass immigration enforcement and authoritarian data collection.
Protesters point to Waymo’s inability to adapt dynamically in volatile scenarios. For instance, during celebrations in San Francisco, robotaxis froze amid fireworks and crowds—unable to retreat—leaving them vulnerable to vandalism . Critics argue this exposes a fundamental shortcoming of autonomous navigation: a lack of situational judgment and flexibility when human drivers would instinctively avoid danger.
Law enforcement itself has flagged challenges posed by robotaxis. In San Francisco, some Waymo vehicles reportedly obstructed emergency response, causing a fire truck to pause behind one refusing to pull over. In L.A., burning Waymos intensified already chaotic scenes, adding a hazardous dimension to civil unrest.
Protests aren’t about collision data—they’re about civil rights, surveillance, and societal trust. When communities experience AVs as passive participants—or even facilitators—of enforcement, the tech becomes emblematic of broader grievances.