By Tes Welborn, HANC Board

The California Public Utilities Commission [CPUC] hearings August 7 and 10 were to decide whether or not robotaxis can now start charging, 24/7, for passenger rides throughout the city, with unlimited numbers of robotaxis in operation. The CPUC has the power to decide these questions, as the California Department of Motor Vehicles [DMV] has already permitted autonomous vehicles (AVs) to operate on city streets. And there are already 41 AV companies licensed to operate in California, though only Cruise and Waymo currently operate in San Francisco.

What are the issues?

• How many AVs to allow on San Francisco streets [and streets in our state]?
• Are AVs ready for mass deployment?
• What is the safety record of AVs?
• What do the San Francisco Fire Department and Police Department say about AVs?
• Are there industry standards for AVs and emergency services' communication needs?
• Are there industry standards about how to measure safety etc.?
• What is the impact on taxi drivers, and Uber/Lyft drivers, and Uber/Lyft investors?
• What is the impact on public transit of AVs?
• What is the climate impact of AVs?

The CPUC has taken the authority to regulate AVs throughout the state, making cities unable to control their usage, numbers, nor address local and safety issues. There are signs that this Commission is another one captured by the interests it is supposed to regulate.

Per Sue Vaughn, “the CPUC is the agency that appeared to collude with Uber and Lyft to obscure data on collisions. It is the agency that had as its head the disgraced Michael Peevy, who was president of the commission during the deadly 2010 PG&E explosion in San Bruno. It is the agency that recently adopted new net-metering rates that has slowed down the rooftop solar industry—to the benefit of California’s three major utilities. And one of its current commissioners, John Reynolds, was previously the Managing Counsel for Cruise LLC! The CPUC appears to be a captured regulatory agency...”

At the hearings, a number of organizations and individuals spoke for and against giving Waymo and Cruise unlimited operations in San Francisco. Those in favor spoke of convenience, pro-tech, safety record, etc. Those against included the SFFD and SFPD, and the Los Angeles Department of Transportation's For-Hire Transportation Administrator, who reported similar experiences and concerns. SFFD reported on 55 incidents this year where AVs interfered with emergency services, such as an AV driving, then parking, between a fire truck and the fire. SFFD said that seconds count in emergencies. SFFD says AV is not ready for prime time.

The AV company reps responded that AVs are safe, passengers have been safe, and the emergency services should be trained in how to deal with AV vehicles. While half or more of SFFD and SFPD staff have been trained to deal with one company's AVs, SFFD said it is the companies' responsibility to make their vehicles avoid interfering with emergency services, not SFFD's. The specter of some 40-60 different companies, all expecting SFFD and SFPD to be trained, all with different protocols, and all using different language to describe events such as “unexpected stoppage” is staggering.

People speaking in public comment against approving mass expansion of AVs spoke of how public transit is the best option for climate resiliency, while appreciating the role of tech in independent living, were concerned re lack of common standards and terms, concern re AVs picking up people in traffic lanes, not at curb, potential software bugs, and the many examples of problems with AVs here in San Francisco.

AV companies opposed sharing data, on rider privacy grounds, but the Los Angeles For-Hire Transportation Manager said they've used an MBS system on scooters that they believe will work with AVs. No one asked the AV companies how they use rider data, or if they sell it.

It was also useful to hear that the SFFD is one of the busiest in the nation, particularly Engine 3 and Truck 3 in the Tenderloin, in part because they also handle other emergencies besides fires, medical, rescue, and more.

Regarding issuing citations to AVs, apparently code requires a driver to be present to receive a citation, so for moving violations, SFPD's hands are tied until the code is changed. Parking citations can be given currently. Bizarre.

LA has used Geo-fencing for planned and unplanned events. It's not clear to me if SF does, or how fast and how effective.

Some AV advocates said that opponents require from AVs performance that drivers do not currently do, and that AVs are safer. For example, drivers double-park. But safety performance is hard to assess, since all AV incidents, like hitting a dog, or property damage, are not recorded, and each company uses a different standard to report safety.

Tech has long said that it is best to move fast and break things. That may be good for investors, but is it best for San Francisco? Think of the many tech changes SF tolerated or encouraged, and the unforeseen negative impacts. LA Manager said “we don't want tech to just happen to our communities.”

As you have likely read or heard by now, the CPUC voted on August 10 to allow Cruise and Waymo to operate and charge passengers throughout San Francisco and at all hours of the day and night. The following night, 10 Cruise driverless cars stopped working in the middle of Grant Avenue in North Beach, blocking other cars. The driverless cars lost wireless connectivity, and could not be rerouted remotely. Since then, there have also been incidents in which a driverless car collided with an emergency vehicle and another in which a driverless car collided with another car.  San Francisco has filed motions with the CPUC to stay its robotaxi decisions pending a rehearing.  DMV has ordered Cruise to reduce the number of vehicles operating in San Francisco City officials may seek further regulation of autonomous vehicles.  Stay tuned.