Page 1
C.A. Declines to Uproot Decision Allowing Driverless Taxis
Opinion Says Regulatory Body Acted Within Authority in Greenlighting Autonomous-Fared Cars Within San Francisco, Saying Safety Incidents Cited by Petitioners Were Minor, Few in Number
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
Div. One of the First District Court of Appeal yesterday denied writ relief to the City and County of San Francisco in its challenge to a decision by the Public Utilities Commission to issue a permit to Waymo LLC for the operation of driverless autonomous vehicles for hire in the city, saying the agency acted within the confines of its authority in greenlighting the service.
The petitioners cite traffic incidents involving autonomous vehicles (“AVs”) and assert that the commission ignored public safety in issuing the permit and in denying their request for a rehearing on the matter.
In an opinion authored by Justice Kathleen Banke, and joined in by Presiding Justice James M. Humes and Justice Monique Langhorne Wilson, the court rejected the petitioners’ claim that the commission’s finding that Waymo driverless AVs had a “good safety record” was not supported by the record.
Banke noted that the commission is a constitutional body—which “is not an administrative agency of the state but is a constitutionally created entity in its own right”—with broad powers, adding that that the scope of the court’s review is “limited” to determining whether the body acted in excess of its powers or abused its discretion by making findings that were unsupported by substantial evidence.
She wrote:
“The crux of Petitioners’ challenge to the instant permitting decision is that the Commission failed to follow the law and/or abused its discretion by assertedly disregarding significant public safety issues. However, the record discloses….that few of the incidents that Petitioners brought to the attention of the Commission involved Waymo driverless AVs, each was minor, and none involved injuries. Thus, contrary to Petitioners’ claim, this is not a record from which a court could conclude no reasonable commissioner could have voted to approve issuance of a phase I driverless AV deployment permit to Waymo….[T]here is simply no basis…to conclude the Commission acted outside the confines of its authority or abused its discretion in issuing the phase I driverless deployment permit.”
After issuance of a “phase 1” permit, additional data would be collected, with “phase II” following, if warranted, no more than three years later.
Waymo’s Permit
Waymo submitted a filing in December 2022 seeking a phase I driverless AV deployment permit. Its passenger safety plan includes cameras inside the vehicle and an interactive display from which the passenger can call rider support, pull over, and lock the doors.
The San Francisco transit authorities filed a protest to the filing, citing driverless AVs obstructing travel lanes during pick-ups and drop-offs but acknowledging that the “large majority of the unplanned travel lane AV stops reported through December 2022 involved Cruise AVs rather than Waymo AVs.” The authorities urged that only limited deployment be allowed, outside peak traffic hours and locations, with incremental increases.
In August 2023, the commission issued final resolution authorizing the issuance of a Phase I driverless AV deployment permit to Waymo for operation at all hours and approved locations.
Findings of Fact
As to the safety findings, Banke noted that the commission’s findings of facts may only be uprooted if a reasonable person could not reach the same conclusion and remarked:
“[T]he Commission relied on data…showing that Waymo driverless AVs had not been involved in any collisions resulting in injuries in California….The incidents Petitioners cite to refute this statement involved four Waymo drivered AVs and…only two of those incidents resulted in minor injuries to the Waymo drivers. Thus, Petitioners have not carried their burden of demonstrating the Commission’s conclusion as to Waymo’s driverless AVs was unsupported by the record.”
She continued:
“Nor did any other information presented by San Francisco entities during the Commission proceedings compel the Commission to reach a different conclusion….[T]he San Francisco entities referenced 18 incidents of driverless AV interference with fire personnel between April 2022 and May 2023. Four involved Waymo driverless AVs. These four involved an AV (1) entering an area marked by caution tape where a downed tree was being cleared; (2) stopping on a one-way road, which required a fire vehicle to back up and use another street; (3) blocking a street due to a sleeping passenger, which required fire personnel response; and (4) blocking a fire vehicle from backing into a fire station. None resulted in injury.”
Under these circumstances, the jurist reasoned that “given the small number of incidents involving driverless Waymo AVs, the relatively minor nature of the incidents, and that none resulted in injury…the Commission’s statement that Waymo driverless AVs had a ‘good safety record’ was sufficiently supported by the record.”
The case is City and County of San Francisco v. Public Utilities Commission (Waymo), 2025 S.O.S. 115.
A permit issued to Cruise LLC for operation in San Francisco was revoked following a series of traffic disruptions involving its vehicles, one of which involved a pedestrian getting pinned under one of its cars and being dragged for about 20 feet near Union Square in October of last year.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company