This edition of The Stepback offers a weekly deep dive into a major technology topic. To learn more about self-driving cars, regulations, and traffic policies, check out Andrew J. Hawkins. Subscribers receive The Stepback in their inboxes at 8AM ET. Sign up for The Stepback here.

How it began

Nevada became the initial state to enact legislation permitting autonomous vehicles on public roadways in June 2011, well ahead of any actual deployments. This occurred three years prior to Tesla introducing Autopilot, five years before Waymo emerged from the Google self-driving initiative, and seven years before the launch of the first commercial robotaxi operations in Arizona. The move stemmed largely from industry influence, as Google identified Nevada as an ideal location for testing early models and encouraged lawmakers to approve the necessary rules. The bill even featured an exemption allowing drivers to bypass texting restrictions when the automated features were active.

At the time, numerous states and cities embraced self-driving technology enthusiastically, hoping to project an image of innovation and progress. Few anticipated that more than ten years later, they would revisit the drawing board to develop new controls over these vehicles.

While national agencies work to define safety benchmarks, efforts to set guidelines for autonomous vehicles have stalled in Congress for years. This inaction has prompted local officials to establish their own frameworks ensuring robot cars adhere to basic operational standards.

The outcome is a varied set of local rules for robotaxi firms, a scenario industry leaders had sought to prevent. As these services expand into additional areas, officials are identifying further unexpected effects, prompting additional regulations and increasing complexity.

How matters stand

Local governments typically cannot set manufacturing standards but possess significant control over roadway use. They have applied this power to introduce ordinances addressing robotaxi deployment. While no precise tally exists of all such measures enacted since services became common, cities and states have exercised their authority to impose structure amid the expansion.

Minneapolis is reviewing rules that would mandate human supervisors in autonomous vehicles, effectively prohibiting fully driverless runs. The San Diego City Council approved a measure to prevent Waymo access to the airport and grant agencies direct oversight during crises. Austin firefighters have raised issues with the Tesla Cybercab design lacking a steering wheel or pedals, citing potential problems for responders needing to relocate disabled units. They seek requirements for dedicated towing procedures and direct communication links with human operators in urgent cases.

Resistance is not limited to urban or Democratic-led areas, as the trend crosses party lines. While some Democrat-controlled cities like New York, Chicago, and Washington, DC, have yet to authorize driverless operations, certain Republican-led states including Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Iowa are now exploring tighter controls.

Even in innovation-focused California, legislators are examining options to regulate robotaxis more closely. Proposed bills would empower cities to cap fleet sizes, limit service hours, or impose local permit restrictions. New emergency procedures would require companies to provide physical override tools or remote shutdown options to police and fire departments.

Some areas are leveraging zoning and land-use authority against robotaxi facilities. Culver City considered temporary halts on permits for fleet buildings, and Santa Monica applied noise and traffic rules to limit round-the-clock charging sites. Robotaxis appear subject to typical local objections as well.

Looking ahead

With growing local scrutiny, AV firms are exploring international markets to offset potential U.S. hurdles. Waymo intends to launch in London, Tokyo, and Munich. Uber is preparing services for Manchester, Madrid, and Dubai. Should domestic conditions grow more restrictive, operators may seek more receptive environments abroad.

Nevertheless, the U.S. market offers the strongest path to profitability despite rising development expenses. Rather than contesting local rules directly, firms such as Waymo, Zoox, and Aurora are focusing on states with preemption laws that block city-level bans. Industry groups like the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association are advocating for broader federal preemption to establish consistent standards.

Congress might eventually approve broad safety measures, yet any federal law is unlikely to remove local powers over policing, zoning, or emergency responses. States will continue to influence outcomes, sometimes aligning with or opposing city actions. Airport authorities are also developing their own guidelines. AV companies should prepare for ongoing regulatory variation.

Additional notes

Even with a national framework such as the proposed SELF DRIVE Act, cities and states would retain control over local roadways. This means municipalities will likely remain the primary decision-makers on robotaxi access for the near term.
Texas operates with relatively few restrictions on self-driving cars compared to other states, yet California maintains the highest benchmark. Obtaining a deployment permit from the California Public Utilities Commission is regarded as a key indicator of safety compliance.

How it began

How matters stand

Looking ahead

Additional notes

Further reading