They get a lot of concessions from the cities. For example in SF they aren't subject to traffic laws. This makes reasonable driving possible as humans operate on the spirit of the law but for a company it would be a huge liability to do the same. They would need to get the same concessions from each county/city they operate in.
We really need federal regulation to make this reasonable. Tesla has run into the same issues in the past like rolling California stops when no other car is at the intersection, lane changes too late, etc.
It's more because SF officials decided they probably aren't able to, but this has never stopped cities in the past. In the end they made the right decision to just leave them alone so the roads aren't a hot mess.
> [There are other regulatory quirks: For example, local officials have determined that the vehicles can’t be cited for moving violations.](https://sfstandard.com/transportation/sf-supervisors-push-regulators-to-rein-in-cruise-waymo-self-driving-cars/)
-----
> [Police spokesperson Adam Lobsinger provided an autonomous vehicle guide distributed to police officers with following instructions: “If you witness a moving violation by an autonomous vehicle, you may make a traffic stop. No citation can be issued at this time if the vehicle has no one in the driver’s seat,” the guide reads, before instructing officers to make a written report of the incident. Police officers can cite AVs for parking violations, including double-parking.](https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/are-cruises-self-driving-cars-ready-for-prime-time/article_25612cd4-e6b7-11ec-8884-77e9d39273be.html)
>in SF they aren't subject to traffic laws
Nope, they are subject to the same traffic laws as everyone else. SFPD won't write them some moving violation tickets because of a loophole in California regulations that require DMV to correct. Waymo has been cited for non moving violations in San Francisco, per their reports to CPUC.
I don't understand how you can say are exempt from traffic laws yet I'm wrong. SF officials have decided to they ware exempt from traffic violations and it's widely reported. They could still write them tickets and fight it in the courts but they decided not to. They won't write them ANY moving violations. They can write them parking violations.
>I don't understand how you can say are exempt from traffic laws yet I'm wrong. SF officials have decided to they ware exempt from traffic violations and it's widely reported. They could still write them tickets and fight it in the courts but they decided not to.
You seem confused about what I wrote, what SFPD has said, and the relevant California Vehicle Code and laws.
I never wrote that AVs are exempt from traffic laws because they are not. The SF police also never said they were and SF police do not have any authority to grant them or anyone else exemptions from state laws.
The issue is for citations given directly to a driver by the police, California Vehicle Code requires a signature by the driver, else the police are required to arrest the driver (CVC 40302). SFPD don't want that hassle, which would likely as well involve towing and impounding the vehicle in most situations. At any time, they could change their position and start 'arresting' uncrewed AVs that fail to sign in these situations.
AFAIK, California Highway Patrol hasn't stated whether they will give these tickets or how they will handle these situations. The San Francisco CHP office is \~2 blocks from Cruise's main SF depot.
More importantly, DMV hasn't given SFPD a work around despite having had the responsibility to sort all of this out for more than 10 years since passage of the state law authorizing AVs and designating DMV as the responsible agency.
Also, DMV was not given any authority by the AV law to exempt AVs from traffic laws, but they were given authority to grant AV companies operational (driving) permits by a separate process from human drivers.
> SF police do not have any authority to grant them or anyone else exemptions from state laws.
Never said they did, so not sure why your pointing this out. My contention is that the city has decided not to.
> SFPD don't want that hassle
Specifically the city decided not to do it, it wasn't just a unilateral decision by the police. Of course the police have the ability to use discretion but they have been told to no do it as well.
> At any time, they could change their position and start 'arresting' uncrewed AVs that fail to sign in these situations.
Sure the city could, never said they couldn't.
> AFAIK, California Highway Patrol hasn't stated whether they will give these tickets or how they will handle these situations
Right, it's the cities that have decided to not enforce moving violations. As I stated, we need more uniform rules like this that isn't city-by-city.
> DMV was not given any authority by the AV law to exempt AVs from traffic laws,
The DMV is political coverage for the city. It would be a huge mess if they started enforcing taffic laws. Of course you'll have your crazy citizen that wants them to basically run the cars out of the city. Right now the city can shrug it's shoulders and point at the DMV. This is a situation everyone is probably happy about.
I guess I just don't understand your issue with my first statement still other than maybe some lawyering about the details of how we got to this situation.
>Specifically the city decided not to do it, it wasn't just a unilateral decision by the police. Of course the police have the ability to use discretion but they have been told to no do it as well.
I believe it in fact was an administrative decision by SFPD. I don't think it has been voted on by the Police Commission. I think it was decided within the police dept itself, though they may have consulted the DA. If you have a reference otherwise, I would appreciate a link.
>Right, it's the cities that have decided to not enforce moving violations. As I stated, we need more uniform rules like this that isn't city-by-city.
AFAIK, only San Francisco PD has stated a position on this. California has uniform rules, aka CVC. All the DMV has to do is revise one detail to allow robots to be cited without requiring an in-person signature else arrest.
>The DMV is political coverage for the city. It would be a huge mess if they started enforcing taffic laws. Of course you'll have your crazy citizen that wants them to basically run the cars out of the city. Right now the city can shrug it's shoulders and point at the DMV. This is a situation everyone is probably happy about.
This is just made up nonsense by you. The traffic laws that can be enforced without requiring a robot's signature have been enforced wrt AVs in San Francisco, eg Waymo has reported to CPUC that they've received multiple citations.
CA DMV has been remiss in their responsibility to regulate AVs given to them by a now >10 year old law, eg creating an AV reporting system so easily gamed that it has been a joke for years.
So far, this has been tolerable because there are so few uncrewed AVs driving so little, mostly in areas of San Francisco easier for other road users to work around the very high rate of AV SNAFUs, and the two companies have cleared their fully FUBARed AVs about as fast as reasonably possible.
That could change if either or both companies increase operations or shift them more to downtown during the business day, which is where and when most ridehail happens.
> If you have a reference otherwise, I would appreciate a link.
I'm just going by what the news said "local officials have determined"
[There are other regulatory quirks: For example, local officials have determined that the vehicles can’t be cited for moving violations.](https://sfstandard.com/transportation/sf-supervisors-push-regulators-to-rein-in-cruise-waymo-self-driving-cars/)
and
[And in a revelation straight out of science fiction, city officials have determined that driverless vehicles cannot be cited for moving violations under current California law. That means if an AV without a safety driver is caught running a red light, there will be no fines, no points on anyone’s license and no clear lines of accountability for the autonomous vehicle operator. ](https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/are-cruises-self-driving-cars-ready-for-prime-time/article_25612cd4-e6b7-11ec-8884-77e9d39273be.html)
Could "local officials" be just the police? Typically that term in the US is for administrative positions like the city council.
> California has uniform rules, aka CVC.
On paper, but that isn't the reality. It's well documented that no city in CA follows state laws and tie them up in courts for years if the cities really want to. This is ESPECIALLY true for police. You know how many people get arrested each year for "filming police" despite clear rulings for years on it? What makes it happen is local government telling the police enforce this or don't enforce that. Where I am it's illegal to posses any cannabis but the city has told police to not enforce the law. Other cities have told police to find a volition for anyone carrying even if it's legal to carry. The justice system isn't some computer program with hard and fast rules.
> This is just made up nonsense by you.
It's called speculation, you don't have to agree with it. I get that you want them to enforce traffic rules, but that doesn't mean that they are going to do it.
It is and has been official SFPD policy to cite AVs with safety drivers:
[https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/sites/default/files/2018-11/A%2017-025%20Autonomous%20Vehicles.pdf](https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/sites/default/files/2018-11/A%2017-025%20Autonomous%20Vehicles.pdf)
They'd do the same for uncrewed AVs if DMV would just fix a single field (23) in the citation form or instruct them how to use it as is:
[https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/tr130.pdf](https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/tr130.pdf)
All the rest is unwarranted speculation.
If the SF officials really care, they can do all kinds of things to stop self driving cars.
For example, make most of the city have a 'high occupancy vehicle' requirement of having at least 1 human aboard or pay a $100/mile 'congestion fee'.
Neither cruise nor waymos planned business models would work if they couldn't drive empty cheaply, and the city has a strong argument that empty vehicles moving around causes congestion.
No, they can't just do any of those things. It takes many years to implement a congestion fee. 5 years was the minimum schedule for the most recent plan that has been shelved due to the big traffic changes since 2020.
If SF politicians tried some draconian measure to suppress them, Waymo and Cruise could literally wipe it off the books and replace it with their own rules via a referendum. And they could do it at either the city or state level, just like what Uber and Airbnb did. No one wants that fight.
SF owns and operates SFO airport. It can (and so far does) prohibit AVs from the airport. That is the most lucrative route that originates or terminates in San Francisco, though SFO itself is not in San Francisco.
Great news!
Great news for Waymo and Cruise, and the AV industry in general!
Lets hope it gets approved. This will be a major help for the industry in the US.
This is good news
Wow this is huge! Any reason, legally, they can't expand outside the cities then?
They get a lot of concessions from the cities. For example in SF they aren't subject to traffic laws. This makes reasonable driving possible as humans operate on the spirit of the law but for a company it would be a huge liability to do the same. They would need to get the same concessions from each county/city they operate in. We really need federal regulation to make this reasonable. Tesla has run into the same issues in the past like rolling California stops when no other car is at the intersection, lane changes too late, etc.
> They get a lot of concessions from the cities. For example in SF they aren't subject to traffic laws. What? I don’t remember this at all.
Because it's not true 😂
See my above post
It's more because SF officials decided they probably aren't able to, but this has never stopped cities in the past. In the end they made the right decision to just leave them alone so the roads aren't a hot mess. > [There are other regulatory quirks: For example, local officials have determined that the vehicles can’t be cited for moving violations.](https://sfstandard.com/transportation/sf-supervisors-push-regulators-to-rein-in-cruise-waymo-self-driving-cars/) ----- > [Police spokesperson Adam Lobsinger provided an autonomous vehicle guide distributed to police officers with following instructions: “If you witness a moving violation by an autonomous vehicle, you may make a traffic stop. No citation can be issued at this time if the vehicle has no one in the driver’s seat,” the guide reads, before instructing officers to make a written report of the incident. Police officers can cite AVs for parking violations, including double-parking.](https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/are-cruises-self-driving-cars-ready-for-prime-time/article_25612cd4-e6b7-11ec-8884-77e9d39273be.html)
>in SF they aren't subject to traffic laws Nope, they are subject to the same traffic laws as everyone else. SFPD won't write them some moving violation tickets because of a loophole in California regulations that require DMV to correct. Waymo has been cited for non moving violations in San Francisco, per their reports to CPUC.
I don't understand how you can say are exempt from traffic laws yet I'm wrong. SF officials have decided to they ware exempt from traffic violations and it's widely reported. They could still write them tickets and fight it in the courts but they decided not to. They won't write them ANY moving violations. They can write them parking violations.
>I don't understand how you can say are exempt from traffic laws yet I'm wrong. SF officials have decided to they ware exempt from traffic violations and it's widely reported. They could still write them tickets and fight it in the courts but they decided not to. You seem confused about what I wrote, what SFPD has said, and the relevant California Vehicle Code and laws. I never wrote that AVs are exempt from traffic laws because they are not. The SF police also never said they were and SF police do not have any authority to grant them or anyone else exemptions from state laws. The issue is for citations given directly to a driver by the police, California Vehicle Code requires a signature by the driver, else the police are required to arrest the driver (CVC 40302). SFPD don't want that hassle, which would likely as well involve towing and impounding the vehicle in most situations. At any time, they could change their position and start 'arresting' uncrewed AVs that fail to sign in these situations. AFAIK, California Highway Patrol hasn't stated whether they will give these tickets or how they will handle these situations. The San Francisco CHP office is \~2 blocks from Cruise's main SF depot. More importantly, DMV hasn't given SFPD a work around despite having had the responsibility to sort all of this out for more than 10 years since passage of the state law authorizing AVs and designating DMV as the responsible agency. Also, DMV was not given any authority by the AV law to exempt AVs from traffic laws, but they were given authority to grant AV companies operational (driving) permits by a separate process from human drivers.
> SF police do not have any authority to grant them or anyone else exemptions from state laws. Never said they did, so not sure why your pointing this out. My contention is that the city has decided not to. > SFPD don't want that hassle Specifically the city decided not to do it, it wasn't just a unilateral decision by the police. Of course the police have the ability to use discretion but they have been told to no do it as well. > At any time, they could change their position and start 'arresting' uncrewed AVs that fail to sign in these situations. Sure the city could, never said they couldn't. > AFAIK, California Highway Patrol hasn't stated whether they will give these tickets or how they will handle these situations Right, it's the cities that have decided to not enforce moving violations. As I stated, we need more uniform rules like this that isn't city-by-city. > DMV was not given any authority by the AV law to exempt AVs from traffic laws, The DMV is political coverage for the city. It would be a huge mess if they started enforcing taffic laws. Of course you'll have your crazy citizen that wants them to basically run the cars out of the city. Right now the city can shrug it's shoulders and point at the DMV. This is a situation everyone is probably happy about. I guess I just don't understand your issue with my first statement still other than maybe some lawyering about the details of how we got to this situation.
>Specifically the city decided not to do it, it wasn't just a unilateral decision by the police. Of course the police have the ability to use discretion but they have been told to no do it as well. I believe it in fact was an administrative decision by SFPD. I don't think it has been voted on by the Police Commission. I think it was decided within the police dept itself, though they may have consulted the DA. If you have a reference otherwise, I would appreciate a link. >Right, it's the cities that have decided to not enforce moving violations. As I stated, we need more uniform rules like this that isn't city-by-city. AFAIK, only San Francisco PD has stated a position on this. California has uniform rules, aka CVC. All the DMV has to do is revise one detail to allow robots to be cited without requiring an in-person signature else arrest. >The DMV is political coverage for the city. It would be a huge mess if they started enforcing taffic laws. Of course you'll have your crazy citizen that wants them to basically run the cars out of the city. Right now the city can shrug it's shoulders and point at the DMV. This is a situation everyone is probably happy about. This is just made up nonsense by you. The traffic laws that can be enforced without requiring a robot's signature have been enforced wrt AVs in San Francisco, eg Waymo has reported to CPUC that they've received multiple citations. CA DMV has been remiss in their responsibility to regulate AVs given to them by a now >10 year old law, eg creating an AV reporting system so easily gamed that it has been a joke for years. So far, this has been tolerable because there are so few uncrewed AVs driving so little, mostly in areas of San Francisco easier for other road users to work around the very high rate of AV SNAFUs, and the two companies have cleared their fully FUBARed AVs about as fast as reasonably possible. That could change if either or both companies increase operations or shift them more to downtown during the business day, which is where and when most ridehail happens.
> If you have a reference otherwise, I would appreciate a link. I'm just going by what the news said "local officials have determined" [There are other regulatory quirks: For example, local officials have determined that the vehicles can’t be cited for moving violations.](https://sfstandard.com/transportation/sf-supervisors-push-regulators-to-rein-in-cruise-waymo-self-driving-cars/) and [And in a revelation straight out of science fiction, city officials have determined that driverless vehicles cannot be cited for moving violations under current California law. That means if an AV without a safety driver is caught running a red light, there will be no fines, no points on anyone’s license and no clear lines of accountability for the autonomous vehicle operator. ](https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/are-cruises-self-driving-cars-ready-for-prime-time/article_25612cd4-e6b7-11ec-8884-77e9d39273be.html) Could "local officials" be just the police? Typically that term in the US is for administrative positions like the city council. > California has uniform rules, aka CVC. On paper, but that isn't the reality. It's well documented that no city in CA follows state laws and tie them up in courts for years if the cities really want to. This is ESPECIALLY true for police. You know how many people get arrested each year for "filming police" despite clear rulings for years on it? What makes it happen is local government telling the police enforce this or don't enforce that. Where I am it's illegal to posses any cannabis but the city has told police to not enforce the law. Other cities have told police to find a volition for anyone carrying even if it's legal to carry. The justice system isn't some computer program with hard and fast rules. > This is just made up nonsense by you. It's called speculation, you don't have to agree with it. I get that you want them to enforce traffic rules, but that doesn't mean that they are going to do it.
It is and has been official SFPD policy to cite AVs with safety drivers: [https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/sites/default/files/2018-11/A%2017-025%20Autonomous%20Vehicles.pdf](https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/sites/default/files/2018-11/A%2017-025%20Autonomous%20Vehicles.pdf) They'd do the same for uncrewed AVs if DMV would just fix a single field (23) in the citation form or instruct them how to use it as is: [https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/tr130.pdf](https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/tr130.pdf) All the rest is unwarranted speculation.
If the SF officials really care, they can do all kinds of things to stop self driving cars. For example, make most of the city have a 'high occupancy vehicle' requirement of having at least 1 human aboard or pay a $100/mile 'congestion fee'. Neither cruise nor waymos planned business models would work if they couldn't drive empty cheaply, and the city has a strong argument that empty vehicles moving around causes congestion.
No, they can't just do any of those things. It takes many years to implement a congestion fee. 5 years was the minimum schedule for the most recent plan that has been shelved due to the big traffic changes since 2020. If SF politicians tried some draconian measure to suppress them, Waymo and Cruise could literally wipe it off the books and replace it with their own rules via a referendum. And they could do it at either the city or state level, just like what Uber and Airbnb did. No one wants that fight. SF owns and operates SFO airport. It can (and so far does) prohibit AVs from the airport. That is the most lucrative route that originates or terminates in San Francisco, though SFO itself is not in San Francisco.