
Can Tesla's Cybercab Share the Road with America's Myth of the Highway?
In the American psyche, the automobile—that great democratizer of distance—has always been about more than transportation. It's freedom incarnate: the ability to leave and become someone new three states over. It's James Dean smoking a cigarette, leaning against a fender—masculinity codified in chrome and horsepower, sexuality expressed through gear ratios and exhaust notes. It's Thelma and Louise escaping not just their dreary lives but all that's wrong with their culture. We've had the Corvette, the Mustang, the Charger, the Eldorado, the Camaro, the Thunderbird—and soon we will have the Cybercab.
Elon Musk revealed the Cybercab prototype last October, with production targeted for 2026, and today a convoy of 10 to 20 Model Y robotaxis has begun paving the way for its launch, testing the safety of Tesla's autonomous driving tech on a geofenced loop in Austin, Texas. But the Cybercab stands out in the emerging genealogy of robotaxis. Whereas the motto of Amazon subsidiary Zoox's robotaxi—which resembles a cross between an art deco toaster and a subway carriage—is 'It's not a car,' the Cybercab, for all its streamlined science-fiction minimalism, remains squarely in car territory: a sleek two-seater with butterfly doors—the unmistakable hallmarks of a glamorous ride. Yet there's no wheel to grip, no gas pedal to stomp to the floor. The shape of the car says you can still escape your life, but now AI does the driving. The promise might seem seductive: all the mobility; none of the responsibility.
More than a century after the first Model T shipped for $825 in 1908 (nearly $29,000 today), we've forgotten how quickly and profoundly car ownership changed American culture. In 1900 fewer than 1 percent of American households owned cars. By 1913 Henry Ford's moving-belt assembly line cut build time to 93 minutes, and cheap Texas oil kept the tank full, turning personal mobility from luxury to the default setting. A 1927 survey found that 55.7 percent of American families owned at least one car.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Not until 1926, however, did the American myth of the highway truly boot up, when Route 66—John Steinbeck named it the 'Mother Road' in The Grapes of Wrath —linked Chicago and Santa Monica, Calif. In the book Hip to the Trip, historian Peter Dedek called the route 'a pillar of mid-twentieth-century automobile culture,' a corridor where vacationers, beatniks, cowboys and Okies fleeing the dust bowl contributed to myths of freedom and transformation. Photographer Robert Frank revealed in his 1958 book The Americans how windshield glass turned travelers into both spectator and exhibit. The cars that Frank famously depicted were as much social containers as machines. Robin Reisenfeld, who curated the Toledo Museum of Art's exhibition Life Is a Highway: Art and American Car Culture, argued in an interview with Antiques and the Arts Weekly that 'the automobile has defined our society' and been used as 'a means of self-expression and status and identity.'
After World War II, the G.I. Bill financed suburban mortgages, so millions fled dense cities. And in 1956 the Federal-Aid Highway Act funded 41,000 miles of interstate—an asphalt backbone justified as civil defense infrastructure but experienced as a coast-to-coast permission slip for self-reinvention. The tail fins and chrome of the late 1950s signaled cold war optimism, while Jack Kerouac's 1957 novel On the Road and Chuck Berry's 1958 song 'Johnny B. Goode' hard-coded the romance of endless motion into the culture's firmware. Yet the myth of the open road has always been about who's in the driver's seat. The driver is king: one hand on the wheel, eyes on the horizon, free to turn down that dusty side road on a whim. Control over one's vehicle equated to control over one's destiny. Cars changed the sound of our music, with rock guitars emulating the roaring of engines, and they changed how we courted, providing not just a means of transportation but also a destination, allowing couples to get away from 'porch swings, parlor sofas, hovering mothers, and pesky siblings,' as historian David L. Lewis explained in his Michigan Quarterly Review article 'Sex and the Automobile: From Rumble Seats to Rockin' Vans.' A number of films, such as Drive-In (1976), Grease (1978) and American Drive-In (1985), depicted cars as popular places for trysts.
The highway lore, however, was never without critics, and the choice of the word 'king' (followed by 'of the road,' for example) was not accidental. Men were predominantly at the wheel, and even as highways offered freedom, they carved concrete canyons through neighborhoods, separating communities. Public transportation didn't keep pace to help those without cars cross ever larger distances between home and work or to accommodate those with disabilities or older people. Studies have since revealed the scope of corporate efforts to dismantle public transit systems and thus encourage car ownership. In 1998 architecture critic Jane Holtz Kay wrote in the book Asphalt Nation that 'mobility has vanished completely for the third of the nation that cannot legally drive—those 80 million Americans who do not operate automobiles because they are too old, too young, or too poor.' A 2012 Brookings report found that in the 100 largest U.S. metro areas, the typical job could be reached by transit within 90 minutes by only 27 percent of workers.
In many ways, debates around robotaxis have flipped the narrative. Critics say they reduce personal agency while writing us into an information network against our will (though simply carrying a smartphone does this well enough), whereas defenders argue that autonomous vehicles could offer freedom to the very groups who benefitted least under the car kings of yore. Those with disabilities and older people might find work and community more easily, or they might simply experience more: stare out at that far highway horizon and go wherever. A 2017 report estimated that autonomous vehicles could allow two million individuals with disabilities to enter the workforce, and it highlighted a potential annual savings of $19 billion in health care expenditures as a result of fewer missed medical appointments. Robotaxis could even offer freedom from the grueling commute, the exhausting hours spent jockeying in traffic, and allow naps or Netflix bingeing, time to answer e-mails or—for a couple or a parent and child—time to talk and connect. A 2023 study in Frontiers in Future Transportation and another from 2020 in Sensors recorded lower stress levels in autonomous vehicle passengers. One might argue that ride-sharing already provides similar freedoms to those offered by robotaxis, but drivers for hire can be tired, cranky or in a rush, and there's a social dynamic and a rating system, which can limit other freedoms—even one as simple as the desire to be quiet with one's thoughts.
The Cybercab may look like a miniature sportscar dipped in sci-fi, but the engine's roar has been replaced with silence, and the inside is spacious. There will no doubt be glitches and accidents heaped with media coverage. Yet the car will likely obey speed limits, never get drowsy or drunk and never rubberneck or give in to road rage. With robotaxis, more teenagers may arrive home safely and more grandparents may set out on the adventure of a lifetime. As for design, there will always be disagreement; the very concept of aesthetics invites debate, and our sensitivity to fashions are often deeply entwined with the politics of change and the people in power.
The greatest challenge facing autonomous vehicles, however, will likely be public opinion. A recent poll of 8,000 Americans conducted by the market research initiative Electric Vehicle Intelligence Report found that 71 percent of the respondents were unwilling to ride in robotaxis and that 43 percent thought they should be illegal. Yet recent research shows different numbers after people have ridden in autonomous vehicles. A 2021 report on a pilot of an autonomous shuttle service in Utah found that 95 percent of surveyed riders had more positive views toward the technology and that 98 percent said they felt safe. And as adoption rises, prices are anticipated to fall. Whereas Goldman Sachs Research estimated that the driving costs of robotaxis were $3.13 per mile in 2024, it expected that number to drop below $1 by 2030 and to reach 58 cents by 2040. A 2022 McKinsey & Company analysis expected a more than 50 percent drop in robotaxis' costs per mile between 2025 and 2030. Though robotaxis are currently more expensive than traditional ride-hailing services in the U.S., last year a Chinese state media outlet reported that a robotaxi available in Wuhan, China, could be up to 87 percent cheaper than a standard hailed ride.
As for the myth of the highway, if you're craving the freedom to outrun a thunderstorm or race through an amber light, take an impromptu detour down a country lane or make an unplanned stop at a 'last chance' diner, conventional cars will remain part of American culture as a hobby, just as people still ride horses for pleasure. But we may see new narratives arise. The road trip movie of the future may feature two friends in a Cybercab arguing over which streaming service to watch until they realize the true meaning of their journey. And maybe the next Kerouac will write a novel on their laptop as an autonomous car carries them across the continent. With its wide windshield, the Cybercab appears suited to the highway, and it may end up being as much a means of transportation as a destination. In brief, the car itself may become the drive-in theater.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Tech stocks are powering this record-setting rally on Wall Street — but how long can it last?
After months of anxiety over tariffs, inflation, Middle East tensions and so much more, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite have scaled yet another wall of worry — mounting a strong comeback and returning to record territory for the first time in months. See: S&P 500 scores record high for first time in 4 months. What could push stocks higher from here? My wife and I have $7,000 a month in pensions and Social Security, plus $140,000 cash. Can we afford to retire? My job is offering me a payout. Should I take a $61,000 lump sum or $355 a month for life? 'He doesn't seem to care': My secretive father, 81, added my name to a bank account. What about my mom? I'm a stay-at-home. Do I take a part-time job to spend more time with my kids — or get a job for six figures? What drove stock market's record-breaking week? Don't overlook growing rate-cut expectations. Investors now wonder whether the new records signal the start of a longer-lasting rally in the U.S. stock market, or if it's merely a short period of boom before the next big shakeout. For some strategists, the answer hides in one of the market's most longstanding questions: How broad is the rally? Technology stocks have been at the forefront of the market's record-setting rally. The so-called Magnificent Seven cohort of megacap tech names — which includes Apple Inc. AAPL, Microsoft Corp. MSFT, Nvidia Corp. NVDA, Inc. AMZN, Google parent Alphabet Inc. GOOGL GOOG, Meta Platforms Inc. META and Tesla Inc. TSLA — have collectively added $4.7 trillion in market capitalization since the stock market's April 8 closing low, bringing their total market value to nearly $18 trillion as of Friday afternoon, according to Dow Jones Market Data. Also leading the gains on the S&P 500 SPX were shares of Coinbase Global Inc. COIN, which have surged over 140% since April 8, making it the top performer among the large-cap index's 500 components. Following closely behind are shares of Seagate Technology Holdings STX and Microchip Technology Inc. MCHP, which also logged notable gains of over 100% in the same period, according to Dow Jones Market Data (see table below). Beyond individual names, tech-related sectors have also stood out as the best performers on the S&P 500 since April 8. The S&P 500's information-technology sector XX:SP500.45 has popped over 41% since early April, while the communication-services sector XX:SP500.50 is up nearly 28%, compared with the 24% gain for the broader index over the same period, according to FactSet data. The strength in technology stocks has prompted many to question if the rally is being driven by a wide swath of stocks or just a powerful few. But the answer isn't straightforward — and it depends on which measure of market breadth investors are looking at. The New York Stock Exchange's daily advance-decline (A/D) line — one of the most widely followed stock-market breadth indicators measuring the difference between the number of advancing and declining stocks — rose to an all-time high on Thursday, when the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq Composite COMP briefly tested their record highs for the first time in at least four months. Tom Essaye, founder and president of Sevens Report Research, said that the new highs in the NYSE A/D line showed that the recent advance toward record territory is 'broad-based,' and it should be considered 'both historically healthy and likely sustainable.' Strong returns in cyclical sectors since the April lows also suggest the record-setting rally isn't entirely confined to megacap technology stocks. The S&P 500's industrials sector XX:SP500.20 has risen nearly 27% since April 8, while the financials XX:SP500.40 and materials XX:SP500.15 sectors are also up nearly 19% in the same period, according to FactSet data. See: This outlook shows why investors should maintain exposure to the 'Magnificent Seven' However, although the NYSE A/D line shows positive breadth in the stock rally, the reading on the percentage of the S&P 500's stocks trading above their 200-day moving averages offers reason for concern. Only about 50% of the S&P 500's stocks on Thursday traded above their 200-day moving averages (DMA) — well below the early-May highs, according to data compiled by Sevens Report Research. Typically, a healthy market sees between 65% to 80% of the S&P 500's stocks trading above their 200-DMA. The 200-day moving average is usually considered a key indicator for determining the overall long-term trends of a security. 'The divergence between the bullish NYSE A/D line reading and recently heavy action in the percentage of S&P 500 stocks trading above their 200-DMA is a source of concern that the rally off the April lows has been due to a combination of real strength in some corners of the market, but simply counter-trend, bear-market rallies in others,' Essaye said in a Friday client note. 'For the bulls, the best-case scenario is for the percentage of the S&P 500's stocks trading above their 200-DMAs to rise beyond the May highs of 55%,' he added. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 Equal Weight Index XX:SP500EW — which gives equal value to all of the stocks that are included in the S&P 500, regardless of the size of the company — has risen 18.7% since April 8. That compares with the 24% advance for the market-cap-weighted S&P 500 index in the same period, according to FactSet data. See: What drove stock market's record-breaking week? Don't overlook growing rate-cut expectations. 'We do need to see continuation in the rally across some other sectors, besides just tech or communications,' Ben Fulton, chief executive officer of WEBs Investments Inc., told MarketWatch in a phone interview on Friday. But he added that Federal Reserve interest-rate cuts would still be 'necessary for any of the lagging stock sectors that are dependent on debts and financing' to keep pace with technology stocks. To be sure, investors have been growing more confident in the outlook for the U.S. economy ever since President Donald Trump softened his stance on sweeping tariffs and struck trade deals with some of the U.S.'s major trading partners, including China and the U.K. Meanwhile, the likelihood of at least three quarter-point rate cuts from the Fed by year-end, signs that recent tariffs have not significantly impacted inflation, and easing tensions between Israel and Iran also lifted market sentiment. U.S. stocks finished higher on Friday, with the three major stock indexes booking strong weekly gains. The S&P 500 rose 3.4% for the week, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA was up 3.8% and the Nasdaq Composite surged 4.3%, according to FactSet data. See: Trump's latest trade threat looms over Wall Street as investors celebrate stock market's return to record territory My brother stole $100K from my mom to buy bitcoin. Do I convince her to sue him? Trump's latest trade threat looms over Wall Street as investors celebrate stock market's return to record territory My cousin died before claiming his late father's $2 million estate. Will I be next in line for this inheritance? We're living in 'end times' when you can't retire on $1 million Coinbase's stock is up over 40% this month as Wall Street projects amazing profit growth Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
How to Assess the Damage of the Iran Strikes
In August 1941, the British government received a very unwelcome piece of analysis from an economist named David Miles Bensusan-Butt. A careful analysis of photographs suggested that the Royal Air Force's Bomber Command was having trouble hitting targets in Germany and France; in fact, only one in three pilots that claimed to have attacked the targets seemed to have dropped its bombs within five miles of them. The Butt report is a landmark in the history of 'bomb damage assessment,' or, as we now call it, 'battle damage assessment.' This recondite term has come back into public usage because of the dispute over the effectiveness of the June 22 American bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities. President Donald Trump said that American bombs had 'obliterated' the Iranian nuclear program. A leaked preliminary assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency on June 24 said that the damage was minimal. Whom to believe? Have the advocates of bombing again overpromised and underdelivered? Some history is in order here, informed by a bit of personal experience. From 1991 to 1993 I ran the U.S. Air Force's study of the first Gulf War. In doing so I learned that BDA rests on three considerations: the munition used, including its accuracy; the aircraft delivering it; and the type of damage or effect created. Of these, precision is the most important. World War II saw the first use of guided bombs in combat. In September 1943, the Germans used radio-controlled glide bombs to sink the Italian battleship Roma as it sailed off to surrender to the Allies. Americans developed similar systems with some successes, though none so dramatic. In the years after the war, precision-guided weapons slowly came to predominate in modern arsenals. The United States used no fewer than 24,000 laser-guided bombs during the Vietnam War, and some 17,000 of them during the 1991 Gulf War. These weapons have improved considerably, and in the 35 years since, 'routine precision,' as some have called it, has enormously improved the ability of airplanes to hit hard, buried targets. Specially designed ordnance has also seen tremendous advances. In World War II, the British developed the six-ton Tallboy bomb to use against special targets, including the concrete submarine pens of occupied France in which German U-boats hid. The Tallboys cracked some of the concrete but did not destroy any, in part because these were 'dumb bombs' lacking precision guidance, and in part because the art of hardening warheads was in its infancy. In the first Gulf War, the United States hastily developed a deep-penetrating, bunker-busting bomb, the GBU-28, which weighed 5,000 pounds, but only two were used, to uncertain effect. In the years since, however, the U.S. and Israeli air forces, among others, have acquired hardened warheads for 2,000-pound bombs such as the BLU-109 that can hit deeply buried targets—which is why, for example, the Israelis were able to kill a lot of Hezbollah's leadership in its supposedly secure bunkers. The aircraft that deliver bombs can affect the explosives' accuracy. Bombs that home in on the reflection of a laser, for example, could become 'stupid' if a cloud passes between plane and the target, or if the laser otherwise loses its lock on the target. Bombs relying on GPS coordinates can in theory be jammed. Airplanes being shot at are usually less effective bomb droppers than those that are not, because evasive maneuvers can prevent accurate delivery. The really complicated question is that of effects. Vietnam-era guided bombs, for example, could and did drop bridges in North Vietnam. In many cases, however, Vietnamese engineers countered by building 'underwater bridges' that allowed trucks to drive across a river while axle-deep in water. The effect was inconvenience, not interdiction. Conversely, in the first Gulf War, the U.S. and its allies spent a month pounding Iraqi forces dug in along the Kuwait border, chiefly with dumb bombs delivered by 'smart aircraft' such as the F-16. In theory, the accuracy of the bombing computer on the airplane would allow it to deliver unguided ordnance with accuracy comparable to that of a laser-guided bomb. In practice, ground fire and delivery from high altitudes often caused pilots to miss. When teams began looking at Iraqi tanks in the area overrun by U.S. forces, they found that many of the tanks were, in fact, undamaged. But that was only half of the story. Iraqi tank crews were so sufficiently terrified of American air power that they stayed some distance away from their tanks, and tanks immobilized and unmaintained for a month, or bounced around by near-misses, do not work terribly well. The functional and indirect effects of the bombing, in other words, were much greater than the disappointing physical effects. Many of the critiques of bombing neglect the importance of this phenomenon. The pounding of German cities and industry during World War II, for example, did not bring war production to a halt until the last months, but the indirect and functional effects were enormous. The diversion of German resources into air-defense and revenge weapons, and the destruction of the Luftwaffe's fighter force over the Third Reich, played a very great role in paving the way to Allied victory. At a microlevel, BDA can be perplexing. In 1991, for example, a bomb hole in an Iraqi hardened-aircraft shelter told analysts only so much. Did the bomb go through the multiple layers of concrete and rock fill, or did it 'J-hook'back upward and possibly fail to explode? Was there something in the shelter when it hit, and what damage did it do? Did the Iraqis perhaps move airplanes into penetrated shelters on the theory that lightning would not strike twice? All hard (though not entirely impossible) to judge without being on the ground. To the present moment: BDA takes a long time, so the leaked DIA memo of June 24 was based on preliminary and incomplete data. The study I headed was still working on BDA a year after the war ended. Results may be quicker now, but all kinds of information need to be integrated—imagery analysis, intercepted communications, measurement and signature intelligence (e.g., subsidence of earth above a collapsed structure), and of course human intelligence, among others. Any expert (and any journalist who bothered to consult one) would know that two days was a radically inadequate time frame in which to form a considered judgment. The DIA report was, from a practical point of view, worthless. An educated guess, however, would suggest that in fact the U.S. military's judgment that the Iranian nuclear problem had suffered severe damage was correct. The American bombing was the culmination of a 12-day campaign launched by the Israelis, which hit many nuclear facilities and assassinated at least 14 nuclear scientists. The real issue is not the single American strike so much as the cumulative effect against the entire nuclear ecosystem, including machining, testing, and design facilities. The platforms delivering the munitions in the American attack had ideal conditions in which to operate—there was no Iranian air force to come up and attack the B-2s that they may not even have detected, nor was there ground fire to speak of. The planes were the most sophisticated platforms of the most sophisticated air force in the world. The bombs themselves, particularly the 14 GBU-57s, were gigantic—at 15 tons more than double the size of Tallboys—with exquisite guidance and hardened penetrating warheads. The targets were all fully understood from more than a decade of close scrutiny by Israeli and American intelligence, and probably that of other Western countries as well. In the absence of full information, cumulative expert judgment also deserves some consideration—and external experts such as David Albright, the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, have concluded that the damage was indeed massive and lasting. Israeli analysts, in and out of government, appear to agree. They are more likely to know, and more likely to be cautious in declaring success about what is, after all, an existential threat to their country. For that matter, the Iranian foreign minister concedes that 'serious damage' was done. One has to set aside the sycophantic braggadocio of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who seems to believe that one unopposed bombing raid is a military achievement on par with D-Day, or the exuberant use of the word obliteration by the president. A cooler, admittedly provisional judgment is that with all their faults, however, the president and his secretary of defense are likely a lot closer to the mark about what happened when the bombs fell than many of their hasty, and not always well-informed, critics. *Photo-illustration by Jonelle Afurong / The Atlantic. Source: Alberto Pizzoli / Sygma / Getty; MIKE NELSON / AFP / Getty; Greg Mathieson / Mai / Getty; Space Frontiers / Archive Photos / Hulton Archive / Getty; U.S. Department of Defense


Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Tesla Supercharger Surge: GM And Ford EVs Begin To Roll In
Close-up of a Tesla Supercharger with red logo, near Camino Tassajara in Danville, California, May ... More 18, 2025. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images) What a difference a reliable charging network makes. Earlier this month when I arrived at a massive Tesla Supercharger location (76 chargers) at Tejon Outlets in Southern California just off Interstate 5, the only other cars charging were a Honda Prologue EV and Ford Mustang Mach-E. So, for a moment, there wasn't a single Tesla. Only the Prologue, Mach-E, and a GMC Sierra Denali EV (which I was driving) and a vast, empty sea of available charging spots. Teslas began showing up soon thereafter but it was odd to see only non-Tesla EVs using the chargers. And refreshing to see so many available stalls. And it gets even better. Less than a mile away, across Interstate 5, there was another Tesla Supercharger location with 24 chargers. And in nearby Lebec – about 20 minutes from the outlets on Interstate 5 – there was a spanking-new Supercharger location with 38 new super-fast v4 Superchargers. Not to mention the multiple Supercharger locations in Santa Clarita, Calif (further south on Interstate 5) and the three locations near my home in northwest Los Angeles. Charging a Cadillac Escalade IQ at a Tesla Supercharger in Simi Valley, Calif. A massive Tesla Supercharger location at Tejon Outlets near Bakersfield, Calif. Available Tesla ... More Superchargers as far as the eye can see. Competition isn't even close A night-and-day difference from competing networks such as Electrify America, which I've used extensively over the years. By comparison, there is no nearby Electrify America charging location in the long stretch of Interstate 5 between Santa Clarita, Calif and Bakersfield, Calif. versus the 130+ Tesla Superchargers in that same stretch of highway. And even if you find one, the charging experience is very different: a handful of chargers (often no more than 8), lines, and long waits. Not to mention the hit-or-miss vagaries of Electrify America chargers: one day everything works, the next day multiple chargers are down. Waiting, waiting, waiting… I've been waiting for Electrify America to locate a charger near my home. But that's never happened. Despite the very high density of EVs in the northwest Los Angeles area where I live, there are no Electrify America charging stations. Not one. The closest location is in Van Nuys, Calif with 3 fast chargers (level 3) and one slow level 2 charger. So, that's a total of 3 Electrify America fast chargers in a vast area in northwest Los Angeles covering high-density EV hotspots such as Chatsworth, Porter Ranch, Granada Hills, and Simi Valley (Ventura County). Yes, there are three Electrify America locations in Santa Clarita, Calif but that's further north bordering the high desert. GM, Ford, others need Tesla Not everyone charges at home. At least 50 percent (and often more) of the Tesla superchargers near my home are usually being used. And lack of public charging is often cited by prospective EV buyers as a reason they hesitate to purchase an EV. GM and Ford are now offering NACS (Tesla) adapters for their EVs (see my video below) but they will soon offer NACS ports built in. That can't happen soon enough.