In California and most other states, taxis are regulated by cities. San Francisco permits drivers and vehicles, takes fingerprints, drug-tests drivers and issues a written exam, among other requirements. Every taxicab in the city is associated with a medallion, though different drivers may drive the same taxi. Until 2010, taxi medallions were free, awarded by seniority. In 2010, the city began charging $250,000 per medallion. More than 700 people paid.
Taxicabs can spontaneously pick up passengers on the street or at taxi stands.
It makes sense for local officials to regulate an industry like taxicabs because rules can be tailored for the circumstances of a particular city, said Bruce Schaller, a consultant on transportation policy issues tapped to help San Francisco analyze the state of its taxi industry in 2017.
Larger passenger vehicles, such as vans and buses, pass through many cities and are therefore subjected to state regulations. With the rise of black cars or limousines, regulators made the distinction that limo services and buses were prearranged trips, while taxis could be hailed on the street.
When Uber and Lyft came along, significant debate ensued as to whether city or state should regulate them.
Indeed, the state’s California Public Utilities Commission and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency sent Uber, then called UberCab, separate cease-and-desist letters one day apart in 2010, each claiming the company was in violation of their respective laws.
Both agencies declined to make staff available for an interview.
In 2013, the commission adopted rules governing ride-hailing services, saying that, because they operate “only on a prearranged basis,” they fell under state jurisdiction. That didn’t sit well with local officials, who wanted to continue oversight of potential congestion in city centers, transportation equity and driver background checks in the ride-hailing realm.
“For all of those reasons, we wanted to regulate Uber and Lyft, and the [California Public Utilities Commission] superseded us,” Peskin said.
Now, robotaxis are being categorized the same way, and for that reason, they are regulated by the state.
Unlike with taxicabs, the size of a robotaxi fleet cannot be regulated by San Francisco’s issuance of medallions to control congestion. Compliance with the city’s programs that provide transportation to people with disabilities and the elderly using tools like the Essential Trip Card that subsidizes rides is not required of robotaxis. And city officials have sought — but not received — data that would help them understand the flow and impact of robotaxis on the streets of San Francisco.
Cruise did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Waymo declined to comment on the issuing of medallions and participation in city programs.
Separately, San Francisco police cannot issue tickets for moving violations by robotaxis.
“We have numerous documented instances of AVs committing moving violations — illegal turns, stopping in the middle of the street, blowing through a red light, sitting in a crosswalk,” said Peskin. “All of these, under the current outdated vehicle code, would result in the ticket being issued to the driver of the car. We do not have the legal authority to issue a ticket to the car or to the company that owns the car.”
California’s vehicle code permits that “a person convicted of an infraction” for a violation of the code can be punished by a fine.
A Waymo spokesperson, Julia Ilina, said that moving violation “concerns are overstated, and there is robust regulation of AVs in this area.”
