|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Earlier in the month, Waymo surprised San Mateo officials with the expansion of its robotaxis from San Francisco into the Peninsula, where driverless vehicles now offer lifts for passengers in Daly City, Broadmoor and Colma.
For some legislators this is cause for concern, as local jurisdictions have no say in when or how robotaxis operate in their cities. But efforts to impose local rules on autonomous vehicles face steep opposition at the state level, with industry leaders saying it would curtail technological innovation.
“Unless cities pass rudimentary ordinances that designate where robotaxis can go or not go, companies will be able to do whatever they want,” said state Sen. Dave Cortese, D-San Jose, who tried to pass legislation regulating autonomous vehicles earlier this year.
Currently, driverless vehicles need a permit from the DMV to operate and if carrying passengers, approval from the California Public Utilities Commission. But there are no local regulations in place.
In January, Cortese introduced legislation, SB 915, to allow larger cities and counties to pass ordinances to regulate commercial driverless vehicles. Under SB 915, local jurisdictions could limit the number of robotaxis on the road, and could also set maximum fares and introduce fines for moving violations and traffic obstructions.
The bill would have applied to cities with a population of more than 250,000 and neighboring municipalities.
Several counties, including Santa Clara County and San Mateo County, passed resolutions supporting the legislation. It also was backed by labor unions.
But SB 915 generated strong opposition from the autonomous vehicle industry, as well as local chambers of commerce, including Mountain View, Palo Alto and San Mateo.
In June, Cortese pulled SB 915 from consideration, after it had already passed in the state Senate. According to Cortese, the bill was gutted by the Assembly Transportation Committee, which proposed amendments that would have stripped out all the parts about local regulations.
But the local regulations were the point of the entire bill, Cortese said.
The committee was particularly concerned that the legislation would make it possible to ban robotaxis entirely from cities. This was never the intention of the bill, Cortese said, noting that the language was modeled on how regular taxis are regulated by local jurisdictions.
Cities have ordinances in place to help control traffic and congestion in sensitive areas like schools and airports. “What we’re doing with robotaxis right now is so far afield from what is happening everywhere else,” he said.
It’s an issue of public safety too, Cortese said, citing examples of robotaxis in San Francisco obstructing first responders and running over a pedestrian.
Autonomous vehicle companies, like Waymo, have touted their safety records, claiming that their vehicles are involved in fewer collisions than human-driven vehicles.
The companies also have said that SB 915 would create “a patchwork of regulations” making it difficult for driverless vehicles to get to their destinations if each city has a different set of rules when crossing over into their jurisdictions.
But Cortese claims this notion of patchwork regulations has been flipped on its head by the autonomous vehicle industry. “It’s already patchwork,” he said, noting that driverless vehicles are operating in just a few jurisdictions right now with little accountability.
The big concern is that once more driverless vehicles are on the road, it will create a lot of chaos for cities in the absence of local regulations. There is a need for the orderly growth of robotaxis as well as other driverless vehicles like delivery trucks, Cortese said.
Cortese plans to reintroduce legislation similar to SB 915 next year. “Just because there’s no driver, doesn’t mean the vehicles should be able to go anywhere they want,” he said.
