California Public Utilities Commission to Interview Waymo and Cruise Regarding Their Issues with San Francisco

**Title: Addressing Concerns and Challenges of Self-Driving Robotaxis’ Interactions with Emergency Responders in San Francisco**

**Subheading: The California Public Utilities Commission Hearing on Self-Driving Robotaxis**

**Subheading: Questions Raised by San Francisco Officials and the City’s Position**

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), responsible for regulating self-driving robotaxi services in San Francisco and soon in Los Angeles, has summoned Cruise and Waymo for a hearing on July 31st. The purpose of the hearing is to address concerns raised by San Francisco officials regarding the companies’ interactions with emergency responders. The city has expressed particular interest in understanding the number of unexpected stops by the vehicles and the reasons behind them. In addition, they will focus on how autonomous vehicles (AVs) communicate and coordinate with emergency crews, the role of remote operators in these situations, and the impact of such stops on first responders. San Francisco officials are also keen on exploring how AVs identify emergencies and how city first responders are trained to deal with these vehicles. Notably, the CPUC’s line of questioning reveals sympathy towards the city’s position, despite a recent critical letter from the CPUC regarding the SF complaint. As a result of this hearing, the city hopes to obtain the data it has been seeking from Cruise and Waymo with regards to the unexpected stops and the overall impact on emergency responders.

**Subheading: Concerns About Remote Driving in Emergency Situations**

Most self-driving robotaxi operators, including Waymo and Cruise, have been cautious about utilizing remote driving, wherein a human driver remotely controls the vehicle. While certain companies specialize in remote driving, AV companies have generally refrained from adopting this approach due to concerns about data network reliability and an aversion to relying on remote driving as a solution. However, the question arises as to whether the companies should reconsider this stance in emergency situations. If remote driving proves to be safe and there is a reliable data network connection, it could potentially enable AVs to respond to emergencies as quickly as a human driver would. Nevertheless, there may still be scenarios where remote driving is deemed unsafe, necessitating the involvement of remote advice or rescue drivers. Overall, the solution lies in finding a balance between ensuring safety and considering the feasibility of remote driving in emergency situations.

**Subheading: Training First Responders and Public Perception**

AV companies might have miscalculated the ease with which first responders could be trained to interact with their vehicles. The companies may have overlooked a key principle known as the “first law of robocars,” which states that the world should not be expected to change to accommodate AVs. Instead, AVs must adapt to the existing road environment. During pilot projects, it cannot be assumed that all first responders will possess knowledge of how to handle AVs. Therefore, it is crucial to develop options that do not rely on emergency responders having prior familiarity with AV technology. While AV companies have been primarily focused on safety and avoiding accidents, they must concurrently emphasize good road citizenship and efficient interactions with fire and police departments. By striking a balance between these priorities, regulators can ensure the progression and deployment of AV technologies while ensuring safety and well-functioning roads.

**Subheading: Future Prospects for Waymo and Cruise**

The CPUC’s inquiries during the hearing also present an opportunity for Waymo and Cruise to outline their plans for mitigating current challenges and minimizing them in the future. Recognizing the nature of pilot projects, the CPUC expects these pilot programs to identify and address issues that arise. Shutting down the programs due to emerging problems would negate the purpose of conducting these pilots, unless the problems pose a severe threat or irreparable harm. To satisfy the CPUC’s expectations, Waymo and Cruise will need to demonstrate how they intend to resolve the issues brought up by the CPUC and quickly implement effective solutions. The companies’ commitment to safety has been evident as they have prioritized accident prevention. However, now they must release data on their efforts to ensure good road citizenship and their interactions with emergency responders. It is plausible that the delay in releasing this data stems from concerns that prioritizing safety may lower their road citizenship scores. Achieving a harmonious balance between safety and road citizenship is crucial for regulators to facilitate the rapid improvement and deployment of AV technologies while ensuring public safety and efficient road networks.

**Conclusion**

The upcoming hearing scheduled by the California Public Utilities Commission provides an opportunity for Cruise and Waymo to address concerns raised by San Francisco officials regarding their autonomous vehicles’ interactions with emergency responders. By answering key questions about unexpected stops, remote operator involvement, training for city first responders, and recognizing emergencies, the companies can demonstrate their commitment to addressing challenges and improving public safety. Balancing safety, good road citizenship, and responsive interaction with emergency responders will be crucial for regulators to foster the successful deployment of self-driving robotaxi services.