Cities want to put the boot on robotaxis

This is The Stepback, a weekly newsletter breaking down one essential story from the tech world. For more on autonomous vehicles, policy, and road rules, follow Andrew J. Hawkins. The Stepback arrives in our subscribers’ inboxes at 8AM ET. Opt in for The Stepback here.

The first state to pass a law legalizing self-driving cars operating on public roads was Nevada in June 2011 — long before such vehicles were operating on public roads. This was three years before the introduction of Tesla’s Autopilot, five years before Waymo spun out of the Google self-driving car project, and seven years before the first commercial robotaxi service got underway (in Arizona, not Nevada). Nevada was ahead of the curve primarily due to lobbying: Google saw Nevada as prime testing ground for its prototypes, so it urged lawmakers to pass the law that allowed it to do so. The legislation even included a provision exempting drivers from text-messaging bans while the automated system was engaged.

Back then, many states and cities welcomed self-driving cars with open arms, eager to be seen as future-forward and pro-innovation. They had no inkling that over a decade later, they would be back at the drafting table crafting legislation to rein in these same self-driving cars.

While federal regulators scramble to establish safety standards, legislation that would establish rules for autonomous vehicles remains stalled in Congress — and has been for years. Washington’s paralysis has left local lawmakers to create their own playbooks to ensure robot cars at least follow some rules of the road.

The result is a patchwork of rules and regulations for robotaxi operators to follow — an outcome that many industry leaders were desperate to avoid. And as robotaxis continue to spread to new cities, local officials are discovering more unintended consequences of their new robot residents, leading to even more rules and an ever-growing patchwork of complexity for operators.

Municipalities generally lack authority over vehicle manufacturing standards, but they hold broad authority over street operations. As such, they’ve been using that authority to pass their own laws governing the rollout of robotaxis. There’s not an exact count of the number of local regulations and ordinances that have been passed since robotaxis have gone mainstream. But in the absence of any federal rules, cities and states have been flexing their authority in an effort to bring order to some of the chaos.

Minneapolis is considering an ordinance to require human monitors inside autonomous vehicles, which would effectively ban driverless operations. The San Diego City Council passed a resolution seeking to block Waymo from the airport and give local agencies direct control over AVs in emergencies. And Austin firefighters have expressed concern over the Tesla Cybercab’s lack of steering wheel or pedals, which they argue could lead to issues if first responders need to move a stalled vehicle. They want to require AV developers to establish dedicated, rapid-response towing protocols and direct human operator communications for emergency situations.

It’s not just cities or blue states taking a harder line, either — the pushback is blurring traditional political lines. It used to be the case that Republicans were seen as more welcoming of autonomous vehicles, while Democrats were seen as more skeptical. This has certainly borne out in a handful of Democrat-led cities — New York City, Chicago, Washington, DC — that still haven’t legalized driverless cars. But now even some red states are considering tightening the leash, including Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Iowa.

Even in tech-friendly California, state lawmakers are mulling ways to bring robotaxis to heel. Several bills have been introduced to give cities direct authority to limit AV fleet sizes, restrict operating hours, or enact local permit bans within municipal limits. Additionally, emergency protocols were drafted to require AV companies to give local police and fire departments physical override access or emergency remote shut-off mechanisms.

Some municipalities are flexing their land-use and zoning powers to crack down on robot cars. Culver City explored emergency moratoriums on building permits for AV fleet facilities, while Santa Monica used local noise and traffic ordinances to restrict 24-hour charging hubs. It would seem that even robotaxis aren’t immune to NIMBY complaints.

As the local debate over autonomous vehicles intensifies, AV developers are increasingly looking overseas as a potential hedge to more obstacles in cropping up in the US. Waymo is planning to expand its service in London, Tokyo, and Munich. Uber is teeing up vehicles for Manchester, Madrid, and Dubai. If the US is getting too complex and over-regulated, perhaps they can find friendlier reception elsewhere.

Still, the US presents the industry’s best chances of turning a profit, especially as costs for developers continue to grow. Rather than fighting strict local regulations head-on, companies like Waymo, Zoox, and Aurora are prioritizing states with explicit legislative preemption that prevents individual cities from banning the technology. And at the national level, industry trade groups like the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association are aggressively pushing for more preemption powers in an attempt to create more unified standards.

Congress may eventually get around to passing high-level safety legislation, but it’s highly unlikely that any bill passed at the federal level would seek to strip cities of their core police, zoning, and emergency response powers. States will also have a say, and sometimes that may complement or conflict with their own cities. Even airport authorities are getting in on the action, proposing their own slate of rules for robotaxis. AV companies would be well advised to get used to the patchwork — it’s not going anywhere.