The San Diego City Council Monday unanimously demanded more control over the rollout of autonomous vehicles in the city, citing concern for local employment and the lack of local input. While Waymo — operated by Google’s parent company Alphabet — vehicles have been using San Diego as a test ing ground for months, the California Public Utilities Commission only gave the company permission to begin passenger service last month. Council members Sean Elo-Rivera and Marni von Wilpert said no one in San Diego government had any say on whether that model of business could operate on city streets, much less without strict regulation. The largely symbolic resolution passed 8-0 Monday urges the state Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom to slow down and offer cities more say in the matter. “I’m not asking San Diego to get off the road to innovation, I am simply asking that San Diego gets a say in where that road is going,” von Wilpert said. She and Elo-Rivera held a news conference before Monday’s afternoon council meeting asking the statehouse to allow the city to “restore local control over autonomous vehicle passenger service,” as well as support protections for workers whose livelihoods may be impacted by AI and autonomous vehicle technology. “More than anything, this is about giving San Diegans a say about Waymo operating here, automated vehicles operating here, and fighting for our workers,” Elo-Rivera said. “Because San Diegans work incredibly hard, and this will absolutely impact the ability of San Diegans to pay their bills.” The expansion of autonomous vehicles — from such companies as Waymo, Amazon with Zoox and Tesla with Cybercabs — has been a heavily debated one, but also one bolstered by corporate money. Several videos of Waymo vehicles seemingly “glitching” on San Diego streets and holding up traffic were called cherry-picked examples by supporters of the technology. “Waymo is proud to provide San Diego with another transportation option that is safe, reliable, and secure,” a statement from a Waymo representative read. “This ill-conceived attempt to restrict San Diegans’ transportation choices will hurt those whose needs are not met by the status quo. We’re proud that Waymo vehicles are serving San Diegans, and we’ll continue our partnership with local officials to offer a new transportation option that helps make the region’s roads safer and more connected.” Several dozen people spoke during the public comment portion of the council meeting, many supporting the resolution, but a nearly equal number opposed. Those in favor included rideshare drivers worried about their employment and those who believed Waymo had gone above the city to the CPUC for approval instead of working with local authorities. “Thousands of San Diegans earn their living as taxi, rideshare, and delivery drivers,” a statement from the council members read. “As autonomous vehicle and AI technologies continue to expand, city leaders and workers will call for an approach to innovation that includes the voices of impacted workers and communities and ensures technological advancement does not come at their expense.” People opposing the resolution included some with vision impairment and disabilities who praised the simplicity and reliability of the service and those who believe driverless Waymo vehicles provide more safety due to lack of distraction and for the vulnerable due to the lack of human factor. “As someone who is blind, I usually get very anxious when using rideshare because of the unpredictability,” said Julia Cardenas, president of the National Federation of the Blind, San Diego Chapter in a statement from Waymo. “I never know if I’ll get a driver who will turn away my dog, which is stressful and frustrating. Being able to experience Waymo and having the freedom to get into a car without a driver and knowing my dog can ride without any issues is a truly great feeling.” The resolution also supports House of Representatives Bill 10033, the AV Emergency Response Coordination Act, which would establish federal emergency coordination requirements for AV manufacturers and operators. Additionally, it calls on AV operators to “comply with local noise and nuisance laws, reduce unnecessary empty-vehicle circulation, limit loading zones to active passenger and business loading, protect residents’ data privacy, and avoid locating charging hubs and fleet facilities near sensitive locations such as homes, schools, healthcare institutions, and public safety facilities,” the council members’ statement read. In July, the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Administrator Jonathan Morrison called on autonomous vehicle makers to solve a pattern of issues of blocking emergency vehicles or driving through active crime scenes. “The agency has documented multiple instances in which AVs drove directly into active emergency scenes, blocked the paths of ambulances and firefighters, or failed to recognize and respond to basic safety conditions like flashing lights, flares, smoke, fire, and traffic cones,” Morrison wrote. “Every second matters when law enforcement officers, firefighters, or paramedics are answering a call because lives are on the line. That is why human drivers who impede these operations are subject to fines and even jail time.” The accountability of self-driving vehicles would theoretically go upwards to the company. Von Wilpert pointed out that as it stands, emergency responders must figure out which 1-800 number to call for an obstructing vehicle and wait around two minutes for a human representative of the company to remotely move the vehicle — costing precious minutes. Elo-Rivera agreed, saying more local input was needed. “Right now, the decision belongs exclusively to corporations and unelected regulators based in Sacramento or San Francisco,” he said. ...read more read less