Cities around The country has long called for greater control over how autonomous vehicles are deployed on its streets. In California, you may finally get your wish.
A handful of AV-related bills, which advanced this month on their long journey through the state legislature, could impose more restrictions on companies like Cruise, Motional, Waymo and Zoox.
a ticket, SB 915, stands out because it could give cities more power to set their own rules around robotaxis, such as hours of operation and appropriate pick-up and drop-off locations. The bill, which passed the Senate Transportation Committee this week, is one of several laws that have been introduced in California this year dedicated to putting protective barriers on this pioneering technology.
There is a lot at stake for almost everyone.
California, which is fifth largest economy Globally, it must thread the regulatory needle to protect its residents without losing the kind of next-generation companies that have helped turn the state into a hub of tech talent. Waymo and Cruise, both based in California, risk creating more red tape that could hinder expansion, a key factor in achieving profitability. City officials and the people they represent are fighting to have a say in how all of this plays out.
Stricter rules could influence other states to adopt similar measures, a path that developed with California's rules on vehicle emissions standards. It could also have the opposite effect.
“To go city by city and make your case when there are like 500 cities in California, all applying slightly different standards, it's really hard to understand why companies would subject themselves to that, especially when there are a lot of states on the other end that also have big ones. population centers,” Jeff Farrah, executive director of the advocacy group Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association (AVIA), told TechCrunch. “And they say, 'Hey, we want you to come.' We believe that AVs can solve many problems.'”
It's still early for a handful of AV bills, all of which must go through a lengthy legislative process and could be vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom. Here's an explanation of the bills, where they are in the process, and what they could mean for businesses and the public.
SB 915: Give local governments more power over autonomous vehicles
Author/co-author: State Senator Dave Cortese (D) | Assembly Member Freddie Rodríguez (D)
Sponsors: California Teamsters and the League of California Cities.
Cortese filed SB 915 on April 17. The bill was approved by the Senate Transportation Committee on April 23. It will go to the Appropriations Committee and, if approved, will go to the full Senate.
What is SB 915?
“The bill allows governments to influence the operations of autonomous vehicle, or AV, services in their communities,” Senator Cortese, whose District 15 includes much of Silicon Valley, said last week when introducing the bill. law. “Currently AV operations are approved or denied at the state level by the (Department of Motor Vehicles) or the (Public Utilities Commission). Although they conduct procedures to gather public input, there is no guarantee that the state will consider local concerns.”
Under SB 915, when a state agency like the DMV or CPUC approves autonomous vehicle operations, local governments could pass ordinances to regulate the vehicles within their jurisdictions.
For example, cities would have the power to regulate hours of operation or how many vehicles could be on the road at any given time. Cities could create their own separate permitting and penalty processes for autonomous vehicles that violate local traffic laws. They could also form coalitions with other local governments to collaboratively regulate services.
It's important to consider: The bill's language stipulates that if a local government fails to create ordinances (because many local departments are understaffed and overworked), the default guidelines will fall to what the state has approved.
SB 915 would also require all commercial AV passenger service companies to comply with handicap access laws, provide an override system for emergency responders, and train emergency responders on how to manually override vehicles.
A patchwork of regulations
Those against SB 915, including the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association (AVIA) lobbying group, several Chambers of Commerce, and other technology and business industry groups, expressed concern that creating such a patchwork of Local regulations would make compliance difficult for companies and restrict innovation. .
“Cities are very limited in terms of the types of things they can be involved in, like speed limits and local law enforcement,” Farrah said. “And that's why, in the case of human-driven vehicles, cities haven't played a very important role in terms of regulation. And that's something that we think should be applied in the world of autonomous vehicles. “It doesn't seem fair to me that autonomous vehicles are chosen for this type of actions.”
In a phone interview with TechCrunch, Cortese disputed the argument:
This is the culture and system we have now for vehicles in this state in terms of vehicle regulation, so I feel like if this were on my Apple home screen, we'd just drag AVs into the current scheme. The CPUC will continue to regulate your rates. The DMV handles general permitting and registration. And then local governments will do the most delicate thing they do and tell them where to drop off and pick up people at the airport, tell them where there are safe routes to schools and if there are certain boarding areas that are not OK for AV.
There is already precedent for this type of regulation.
Cities and towns already have the ability to set their own regulations on many transportation-related issues, such as the operation of for-hire vehicles, a category to which robotaxis certainly belong, according to the California Vehicle Code. Cities can also regulate traffic at construction sites, move parked vehicles into fire lanes and set maximum speed limits.
“And (local governments) meet every week,” Cortese said. “This is the part about the resilience of the industry that I haven't fully understood yet. As a business person, I would rather have the agility of local government to deal with these practical issues than the state of California, this huge bureaucratic, bicameral system that only comes out once a year.”
Cortese said he understands industry concerns that giving more power to localities would threaten the ability of autonomous vehicles to operate there. However, he noted that the bill does not give cities the right to ban driverless vehicles.
“On a fundamental basis, what we are trying to communicate to elected officials (who are appointed by the people) is that we should not outsource decisions about how ai technology, including autonomous vehicles, is deployed to the same corporations that They are “Creating that technology because those people are going to achieve the benefits,” Peter Finn, vice president of the Western Region of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, told TechCrunch in a phone interview. “If we put all the decision-making in the hands of corporations, they will try to maximize shareholder value.”
For Finn, AVIA recently published its Principles of TRUST, an industry standard for how audiovisual companies should safely expand their operations in U.S. communities, including recommendations on transparency, community engagement, cybersecurity and privacy standards, and more. The principles act as guidelines for companies and as a statement for governments that the audiovisual industry is perfectly capable of regulating itself, thank you very much.
The rest of California's autonomous vehicle portfolio
AB 2286 is a revival of AB 316, the bill that would require life safety operators to be in the driver's seat of autonomous heavy-duty vehicles. In November 2023, Governor Newsom vetoed the bill despite overwhelming support, which is why Assemblymembers Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D), Laura Friedman (D), and Ash Kalra (D) reintroduced it in February .
The revived bill passed the Senate Transportation Committee on April 15 and has been referred back to the Communications and Transportation Committee.
The Transportation Committee voted April 22 in favor of progress AB 1777, which would modify the current vehicle code as it relates to autonomous vehicles. The bill, which Assemblyman Phil Ting (D) introduced in January, requires the manufacturer to certify that the AV can respond to and comply with defined geofencing protocols. It also requires the manufacturer to clearly display a functional telephone number on the AV that is monitored at all times to allow communication between businesses and law enforcement, emergency services and traffic control officers.
AB 1777, like SB 915, also opens the door to fining AV manufacturers if a vehicle operating without a human driver commits a violation.
Farrah told TechCrunch that the audiovisual industry never assumed that autonomous commercial vehicles would be exempt from fines for traffic violations. He noted that most other states with AV regulation, excluding California, assume the vehicle manufacturer is the driver, and therefore responsible, when there is no human driver present.
AB 1777 would also require AV manufacturers to compile and submit quarterly reports to the DMV summarizing the activity of their vehicles. If manufacturers fail to do this, the bill authorizes the DMV to suspend or completely revoke a test permit, or impose measures that limit where vehicles can operate, at what speed, under what weather conditions, and more.
The latest bill to make its way through the California legislature is AB 3061which would require autonomous vehicle manufacturers to provide more robust reporting to the DMV by July 31, 2025. Today, autonomous vehicle companies are required to report crashes to the DMV and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, but this bill would require them to report traffic violations and disconnections. as well as any incident of discrimination or access barrier for a passenger with a disability.
Manufacturers would have to submit detailed reports at the time of any incident, as well as periodic reports including vehicle kilometres, unplanned stops and wheelchair accessible services.
AB 3061 would also require the DMV, as well as other agencies such as the CPUC and the California Department of Highway Patrol, to create and publish periodic AV incident forms and reports that would be available to the public. If businesses fail to comply with reporting provisions, the DMV would have the authority to impose fines or suspend or revoke permits. Members of the public who have direct evidence of an incident will also have the opportunity to submit audiovisual incident reports.
