Cruise, the robotaxi company that appears to have taken the tech mantra “move fast, break things” a bit too literally, is having a dire run of late.
The company voluntarily grounded all of its self-driving cars, worldwide, last month. That came on the heels of the state stepping in and doing that for them here in California, following an early October incident in which a Cruise autonomous vehicle did not detect that it had stopped on top of a pedestrian who’d been struck by a hit-and-run driver. It subsequently attempted to pull over, and dragged her 20 feet.
Cruise, which is losing some $263 million every month, wanted to move things faster, and now it must move them slower. It wanted to vastly expand its driverless fleet in San Francisco, and now it cannot. It even wanted to sublimate itself into the city’s DNA by slapping a gaudy Cruise patch on every San Francisco Giant’s left shoulder. Let the record show that the home team was 61-49 on Aug. 3 when those patches were sewed on — and finished the year on an 18-34 slide. All of this happened, more or less.
But Cruise is not the only robotaxi outfit in San Francisco. In this city, big money-backed tech disruptors tend to come in bunches. And rival companies tend to assume the Betty and Veronica roles of “good” outfit and “bad” outfit. Think Lyft and Uber, or Spin and Bird. Now, we have Waymo and Cruise.
Having talked to a number of San Francisco public safety officials, they’re not thrilled with Waymo — but it’s hard to overstate the disdain they express for Cruise. The company’s people have not ingratiated themselves with the officials leading and overseeing the city they’ve chosen to blanket. And neither have its vehicles; of the 90-odd incidents in which autonomous vehicles interfered in emergency scenes, thus far compiled by the fire department, we are told some two-thirds involve Cruise vehicles. That tracks: Of the 55 initial recorded incidents Mission Local published in August, 34 involved Cruise vehicles, 18 involved Waymos and three aren’t clear.
With Cruise stuck in the penalty box, you’d figure Waymo would be on a power play. But the city appears to be taking steps to ensure that’s not the case.
Board President Aaron Peskin is planning to ramp up the sorts of actions he’s earlier referred to as “legislative guerilla warfare” — and a promised shot across Waymo’s bow. An early salvo appears to have been unleashed in September, when Waymo’s attempt to land at San Francisco International Airport skidded off the runway.
One of comedian Bobcat Goldthwait’s best old jokes notes that animals are our friends — but they won’t pick you up at the airport.
Most people won’t either, which explains why private transit to and from SFO is such a potential gold mine. When app-based ride-hail companies like Uber won the right to pick up and drop off San Francisco airport passengers it was a big, big deal. If and when autonomous vehicles can do the same — as they already can with Waymo in Phoenix, Arizona — that, too, would be huge.
Via public records requests, Mission Local obtained months of back-and-forths between SFO officials and Waymo employees hoping to get the ball rolling on preliminary steps to get autonomous vehicles into the airport.
In California, driverless cars are regulated by both the state Public Utilities Commission and Department of Motor Vehicles, and it will require a number of steps on the statewide level to even get things to the point where SFO can give Waymo, Cruise, et al. the ability to do what Waymo is already doing in Phoenix. But, in the end, SFO is operated by the city — and this will loom large.
While SFO officials noted within the email exchanges that they were not yet on-board with the “phases” and timelines proposed by Waymo, they were okay with the company “mapping” the airport. This would entail a Waymo vehicle, operated by a human being, scanning the airport’s roadways in advance of driverless vehicles rolling through autonomously in the future.
On Aug. 23, Abubakar Azam, the airport’s director of landside operations, wrote a short, upbeat note to Waymo officials:
“We want to inform you that we are indeed moving forward with the mapping aspect and are actively working on establishing permit terms. … Annie will reach out to you to schedule a meeting to review the terms of the permit as soon as the permit is finalized.”
And yet, not quite one month later on Sept. 21, Azam wrote Waymo back with a very different message:
“We have decided to postpone the mapping permit until Waymo has completed mapping for at least the cities surrounding SFO and secured autonomous operations approval from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for San Mateo county.”
One of these things is not like the other. What changed in a month’s time?
“What changed between the August and September e-mails,” writes airport spokesman Doug Yakel, “was an assessment of the broader autonomous vehicle landscape, which led to our desire to see Waymo complete further development in communities around the airport before we entertain a digital mapping exercise.”
Well, that sounds plausible. Also, did Peskin inform airport officials he was planning to introduce legislation conditioning Waymo’s access to SFO upon increased transparency and other city demands?
Yeah, that happened, too.
While City Attorney David Chiu is leading this city’s legal campaign to pare back autonomous vehicle access to San Francisco, it’s Peskin who has shouldered the legislative charge.
And he’s long made no secret of the cards in his hand. Back in December 2022, all 10 of his colleagues signed onto Peskin’s resolution explicitly spelling out how, even though Cruise and Waymo are regulated by the state, this city could make their progress through San Francisco feel like driving with the parking brake on.
The board president recently introduced legislation to eliminate a loophole in his earlier ordinance requiring the board to explicitly weigh in on fleet charging stations.
And, he says, the next front will be SFO.
“Their entire M.O. is, ‘The state regulates us; we don’t have to work with you, we don’t have to partner with you,’” Peskin says. “My response is: There are things we do control. Including where you charge your cars. And the airport.”
“What I intend to do,” he continues, “is condition their deployment and use of the airport property on their meeting a number of conditions around meeting this city’s minimum standards for public safety and transit.”
Peskin said he’s still working out specific terms with the City Attorney and Municipal Transportation Agency — but would push for more information sharing, a cap on autonomous vehicles in the city or at least congested portions of the city and support for state-level rule-changes which would allow for things such as driverless vehicles to be cited or ticketed.
“I want to make it very clear,” he said, “that Waymo cannot refuse to be a good partner and have access to our lucrative airport — unless they work with us.”
So, the city’s gauntlet has been thrown down. And it remains to be seen how reasonable everyone is willing to be. Unlike private industry, the city doesn’t tend to move too fast. But breaking things? That, it can do.
About SFO being a cash-cow: Heathrow slaps on a 5 pound surcharge for Uber drop-offs. SFO, if it isn’t already, should be doing this for ride-shares and robotaxis with the money going to keeping that SFO BART line open.
I don’t like the idea of jobs going away but trying to block AVs from existing because of all the Uber and Lyft jobs that will go away (and eventually other transportation) is just not realistic. That’s not how it works. You can’t stop the advancement of technology just to “save jobs.” We’re going to have to approach this some other way. AVs will be on the roads eventually. They are becoming almost normal here in Phoenix – heck, I took one to the airport for a late night flight. Felt safer than having a tired human drive.
We have not blocked factory robots, advanced telephone systems (no switchboard operators), email (post office), desktop publishing, mobile phones (think about all the library workers, 411 operators), self checkout, ATMs, travel agents, and so on.
Again, I don’t like the jobs vanishing but using that argument is just blowing off steam. We’re going to have to figure out how to deal with the realty. I really don’t know how we’re going to do it.
i’m not sure it’s about blocking the technology so much as having a say in how the technology and used and implemented. the luddites didn’t think all technology was bad, they just saw that certain technology was going to ruin their lives, so they fought back, and this is what the city and it’s residents needs to do.
I have always wondered why tech buses are not piloted by autonomous driving tech. I mean, why not do this as a PR effort as well as gathering important data and feedback if it is safe enough for the public, it is safe enough for their staff…
Haha, sounds nice, but it’s those of us walking on the street who are at risk, not the passengers.
For a city already bleeding jobs and residents, the level of arrogance Peskin and others display is pretty remarkable. The board of supervisors may get their kingdom where nothing ever changes, but that kingdom is shrinking more by the day.
To misquote Churchill: “San Francisco is the worst city to live in, except for all the others.”
Nice to hear of road blocks being thrown up against the AV companies, but I don’t like that Peskin et al still leave the door open for their deployment in the future.
They simply need to be banned because of inherent problems with not having a driver and their adding to congestion. And why are disability-related orgs. championing them? A driver can assist a disabled person, if needed, to exit the car, inform them of a hazard, help them with packages, etc. Doesn’t anybody think of the practical considerations?
If you have experienced/observed poor/illegal AV behavior then please file the complaint at: https://www.sfmta.com/about-us/contact-us/regulated-emerging-mobility-comments There’s a lot more going on than just the publicized run-ins in public safety situations.
I don’t see any positives to driverless cars. People keep trying to claim they’ll “help climate change” but that doesn’t make any sense. And if they truly cared about people with disabilities they’d make public transportation better. There are no positives to giving over all of our autonomy to tech companies. Except to those tech companies.
Wait a second. The wording “into the airport” is different from “to and from the airport.” In case you haven’t noticed, Driverless cars do not travel on the freeways unless someone is behind the wheel. Waymo/Cruise hasn’t even started trying to get to 55MPH driverless. Not going to happen. Maybe they want to drive people two and from the long-term parking lots? Who knows but no in heck these cars will be taking people down 101 to SFO anytime soon.
They say the AI revolution could eliminate half a billion jobs worldwide.
If only Aaron Peskin would put such energy into solving any of the city’s other issues.
You mean he can only address one issue at a time?
I remain surprised that driverless cars in what used to be a labor-friendly town have not been opposed simply because they eliminate jobs.
By this virtue, should we eliminate cars, so the horse groomer jobs are protected? Or ATMs, so bank tellers are protected?
The job protection angle doesn’t hold much water. And if we’re being honest, working as a driver is not great job (outside of Formula 1). There is enormous demand for workers in the skilled trades, and if AVs mean some drivers become welders, everyone is better off.
“labor-friendly”. Depends on the political clout. Union, delivering a voting bloc? That gets the lick. A smattering of drivers and activists protesting in front of Uber HQ? Not so much.
Emphasis on “used to be.” Labor may still be strong in terms of ability to organize against the boss, but tech money displaced a lot of the surrounding pro-labor culture.
Libertarian tech bro disrupters hate labor, and the professional-managerial class long ago stopped caring about working people (other than their own underpaid nannies, of course). Over the last several generations, most people who would consider themselves “left” in the traditional sense (i.e. consideration for the rights and material conditions of labor vs oppression by the ruling classes) have either joined the ruling classes (mainly in an auxiliary role) or are adrift in the feel-good fog of identity politics. Practically speaking, there is no left, left.
“Tech” will continue to lay waste to blue collar jobs wherever and whenever it can. Not that “tech” necessarily (or even likely) does that work better or more efficiently, but that is one of the battlefields of the eternal class war waged on workers by those who own or have access to capital.
Curiously, AI will be coming for many of the jobs of the professional-managerial class that couldn’t care less about blue collar workers. Again, not that “tech” necessarily (or even likely) does that work better or more efficiently, but that is another of the battlefields of the eternal class war waged on workers by those who own or have access to capital. Will soon-to-be-unemployed stylesheet coders discover class consciousness? Not likely, because there won’t be any links in their social media feeds to reinforce their feels, but who knows how waves of unemployed white-collar (or more aptly, Northface vest-attired) workers will respond?
Speaking as a person who was a driver for years and is now a professional office worker… I don’t think you could convince me that my job should be protected. It’s just too dumb and depressing and functional.
There’s a lot to be said for class warfare. Taxing the rich, especially gains and inheritance, makes obvious sense. But propping up jobs only makes sense when you feel like your job means something.
Obviously artists are going to feel that way. Doctors too. But accountants? Lawyers? Middle managers? Analalysts? Tax agents? Not sure they’ll ever feel the same way as you do about being “workers” in the good sense. They aren’t proud.