Are robotaxis the future? Or instead, the past?
Are robotaxis the future? Or instead, the past?
Cars, being fast moving and heavy, are quite dangerous. They should be well regulated for safety. But it turns out regulations can be bought and paid for by lobbying money…
David Zipper reports in Fast Company on how the automobile industry managed to prevent this dire needed technology from being required. Identical speed assist systems are already required in Europe on new cars, even ones manufactured in the US. The automobile companies already have to provide this!
Governor Newsom rejects technology that would have greatly improved automobile safety. He completely took the Republican side.
SF Chronicle reports that Newsom puts the interest of big corporate donors above safety. He vetoed bills that would have required human operators on large trucks. He also vetoed simple yet effective reporting requirements so that the public would actually be able to know how safe autonomous are (what are they hiding??). And to make things even worse, he signed a bill that exempts robotaxi companies from receiving tickets when their vehicles do something dangerous.
SF Examiner reports that the California state Legislature has once again approved requiring vehicles over 10,000 to have a human operator on board. It is now up to Gov Newsom to sign the legislation. But given his love of lobbyists he will most likely veto it for the second time.
Mission Local reports on how robotaxis will not be ticketed for breaking the law after all, perpetuating a two tiered system for safety.
The San Francisco County Transportation Authority provides a final report for their Treasure Island autonomous shuttle test. While safe because the shuttle ran so slowly, the autonomous shuttle technology was found to be unreliable . The existing human driven 25-Treasure Island bus provides much more useful service and should be enhanced.
Unfortunately SB 915, legislation to allow local regulations for AVs, was pulled by the author due to other legislatures gutting it. The press release by Senator Cortese is provided here so that readers can understand what happened.
The SF Chronicle reports on how the CPUC has upheld its March decision to allow Waymo expansion to San Mateo County and Los Angeles. This was done even though local officials were very much against the expansion.
SF Examiner reports that the CPUC approved the previously agreed to $112,500 fine for Cruise for withholding information. This paltry fine will of course not affect the behavior of Cruise since it is currently burning a billion dollars a year.
While Waymo has long claimed to the public and to the CPUC that they use only clean energy, it turns out their vehicles are actually embarrassingly dirty. And the worst part is that Waymo is trying to hide information from the public that would clearly show that they are not using renewable energy for their surprisingly inefficient vehicles.
StreetBlogs reports that autonomous vehicles are not doing very well, and many people are skeptical of them. Now advocates are demanding regulations for safety.
Detailed article in TechCrunch on upcoming legislation winding its way through the California legislature. Includes details on why the changes are needed, and why the AV companies are fighting them.
Two California bills for better regulating autonomous vehicles are advancing in the state legislature. One is to provide the ability to cite AVs for traffic infractions. The second is to allow local oversight over AVs.
Article from The Verge on how NYC will be allowing robotaxis, but only with human drivers. Importantly, to get a permit operators will need to first report "disengagements" from service in another city. This is critical information that the robotaxi operators have so far refused to hand over.
Three additional California bills to regulate AVs have been sent to committee and need your support. This post contains simple instructions on how to send letters of support and provides templates, making it really easy for you to help.
