When the car is driving, but no one pays? California changes the rules for robotaxis

When in San Bruno a robotaxi from Alphabet subsidiary Waymo attracted attention for an unauthorized turning maneuver, the stop ended up in a legal gray area. The police were able to stop the vehicle – but could not issue a ticket. There was no one to cite. A driver was not at the wheel.

Driverless vehicles can now also receive traffic tickets in California; a change to the regulations makes it possible.| Photo: Waymo / AI
Driverless vehicles can now also receive traffic tickets in California; a change to the regulations makes it possible.| Photo: Waymo / AI

The California transportation authority has re-evaluated this arrangement. The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has unveiled a rule framework that binds autonomous vehicles more closely to existing regulatory structures. In the future, violations can be officially reported and penalties imposed on the operators. The responsibility thus clearly shifts from the “system” back to the vehicle owner.

California poses the question of who is responsible

The new regulation responds to a series of incidents in the San Francisco area where robotaxis impeded first responders or disregarded traffic rules. For police and fire departments, this was not only an operational problem but also a legal one. Who is liable when no one is driving? California answers this question pragmatically: the company pays.

At the same time, the agency tightens the requirements for ongoing operation. Manufacturers must respond to requests from the police or fire department within 30 seconds. First responders can define digital geofences that autonomous vehicles must avoid or vacate within two minutes. This is supplemented by expanded documentation requirements. System failures, emergency braking events, or stranded vehicles must be recorded in detail going forward.

The limits of the autonomous mode

The authorities' scope for intervention grows significantly. The DMV can selectively limit fleets—for example with regard to speed, operating area, or size. Autonomous driving remains allowed, but is more tightly regulated. It is an approach that allows technological development without letting it get out of control.

In parallel, California opens a second, previously closed area: heavy-duty freight transport. Autonomous commercial vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of more than 4.5 metric tons can be approved in the future. Until now they were effectively excluded. Manufacturers may now apply for permits for autonomous trucks, but must demonstrate extensive test mileage – up to 500,000 miles with and without a safety driver. Medium-sized buses will also be allowed, for example for use in local transit or on campus grounds.

The test requirements show how seriously the authorities take scaling. For passenger cars, 50,000 miles with and without a driver are required before commercial operation is possible. Only then does the actual market deployment begin.

Driverless, but not without punishment

In international comparisons, the difference remains pronounced. In Germany, autonomous driving is legally more narrowly defined. Fully autonomous systems may only be deployed in defined operating areas, for example on predetermined routes or in pilot projects. The responsibility remains more technically and organizationally embedded, not primarily with the operator.

California takes a different path. The state creates clear responsibilities, while at the same time expanding the areas of operation and accepting that control and innovation must develop in parallel. The penalty for the driverless car is, in this context, less a symbol than a systemic decision: Even without a driver, mobility does not end in a legal vacuum.

Content automatically translated.
Logobanner Liste (Views)