Robotaxis: Lawmakers Make Perfect the Enemy of the Good
As automated vehicles improve urban mobility and safety, California Democrats work with unions to slow this promising development.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — If you’re getting from Point A to Point B on public streets — whether by car, bus, trolley, subway, bicycle, or foot — there’s a non-zero chance of having a collision. The only way around it is to stay at home on your couch, and even that poses safety risks given the ill health effects of a sedentary lifestyle. The public policy goal should be to make mobility as convenient and safe as possible — not to shut down choices based on hysteria from the occasional mishap.
One of the most promising transportation developments comes, not surprisingly, from the private sector. Even as California cities shutter bus routes and subway lines amid their endless budget shortfalls, tech companies have created new and improved ways for us to get around. Although it takes a ride or two to get accustomed to it, driverless taxis have been expanding their footprint in the Bay Area and Southern California. Unfortunately, even the most safety-conscious new ideas are only one idiotic law away from destruction.
State Sen. David Cortese, D-San Jose, has introduced Senate Bill 1246, which is a union-backed effort to put the brakes on autonomous vehicles. A statement from an SEIU chapter quotes a member of the California Gig Workers Union: “We want to encourage technology, we want to make our lives easier, we want all that stuff, but we don’t want it at the expense of our community’s safety.” Yet critics see the bill as a transparent job-protection effort given that supporters fail to acknowledge the vast safety potential that comes from wider use of robotaxis.
The legislation imposes three main rules, per the Senate analysis. First, it “requires remote assistants, remote drivers, or local incident technicians … be located within the United States.” Second, it “requires the ratio of remote assistants or remote drivers to autonomous passenger service vehicles be one to three or higher at all times.” And, third, it requires “remote drivers or remote assistants are able to immediately respond to all calls … and that local incident technicians are able to respond and be present on the scene within 10 minutes of an accident.”
The apparent reason for this “safety” legislation is found in the headlines. Last month, San Francisco officials questioned Waymo officials about citywide power outages in December that left some automated vehicles immobilized — in some cases blocking intersections, buses, and emergency vehicles. First responders had to manually move a number of the vehicles.
That’s a legitimate governmental traffic concern, of course, but the company announced immediate changes that include a system allowing the company to communicate directly with the vehicles and thereby bypass remote assistance. That’s a quick and reasonable fix. (For comparison, can you imagine how long it would take — and the expense to taxpayers — for a public transit system to respond to a similar traffic congestion issue?)
Reports about the San Francisco hearing gave the game away. Per ABC 7 Eyewitness News, “Outside, union workers and rideshare drivers rallied against Waymo, raising concerns about job losses and public safety [emphasis added].” Is this about addressing a technological malfunction — or halting a technology that threatens to take away drivers’ jobs? I have a pretty good guess.
Another San Francisco story captured national attention last year. A driverless Waymo killed a beloved Mission District cat named Kit Kat, thus sparking protests against the technology. I don’t begrudge neighbors for being upset, but as I noted in my Orange County Register column: “I found research (thank you, AI robots) that cars kill or injure 5.4 million cats a year in the United States, with 5,399,999 coming at the hands of human drivers.… [B]uses and trains — some of Waymo critics’ preferred transportation option — have probably squashed their share of critters.”
I love cats, but people are even more important. And the research is crystal clear: Robots are much better drivers than human beings. There are at least 25 traffic deaths in San Francisco each year, all related to non-robot drivers. Nationwide, fatality rates have fallen — but more than 36,000 people were killed in traffic accidents last year. If autonomous vehicles reduce even a percentage of traffic-related deaths and injuries, everyone is better off — and that’s not to mention the value of having an easy way to get around a city.
Research from a major reinsurance company in 2024, Swiss Re, examined actual claims and reported that “the Waymo Driver demonstrated better safety performance when compared to human-driven vehicles, with an 88% reduction in property damage claims and 92% reduction in bodily injury claims. In real numbers, across 25.3 million miles, the Waymo Driver was involved in just nine property damage claims and two bodily injury claims.”
Now consider that data against Cortese’s hyperbole, per his statement: “The question isn’t whether this technology will move forward — it’s whether we are going to demand it be safe, transparent, and accountable before more people get hurt.” Yet his bill won’t improve safety. It will only slow the development of a rapidly advancing and remarkably safe technology. Expanding a human presence obviously defeats the advantages of autonomous vehicles.
As one industry official noted in a recent San Francisco Chronicle article, the companies have built the systems around California’s existing regulations and now lawmakers are changing the ground rules. Per the article, state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, made an important point regarding the bill’s 10-minute response time: “I wish I could get around San Francisco in 10 minutes.” As a frequent visitor there, I can guarantee there are times one can’t get around the block that quickly. Adding unachievable requirements is just legislative mischief.
Nevertheless, the bill has passed out of the Senate Transportation and Judiciary committees. There’s no way to avoid all transportation mishaps, but it’s foolhardy to hobble a technology that can vastly reduce deaths and injuries. Or maybe it’s just the California Legislature putting the demands of organized labor above the wellbeing of everybody else.