TechCrunch Mobility: How do you issue a ticket to a robotaxi?

Welcome back to TechCrunch Mobility — your central hub for news and insights on the future of transportation. To get this in your inbox, sign up here for free — just click TechCrunch Mobility! We’re going to do a bit of a deep dive today, which may make this newsletter look a little different than normal. There is a reason! This newsletter is not region-specific, but sometimes there are policies at the state level that have widespread implications for tech companies and startups alike. Which brings me to California and the new autonomous vehicle testing and deployment rules issued this week by the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles.

There are two new sets of rules — collectively 100 pages long — that cover requirements for the testing and deployment of AVs.

I spent the past few days speaking to engineers and policy folks working at AV companies and discovered that they have strong opinions and few want to speak publicly about it. But thanks to the public commentary period on these regulations, we have some insight into what the industry supported and what it did not.

The regulations include new, more robust requirements for data collection and sharing, training, and operations.

Here are a few items that stuck out and what insiders told me. How do you ticket a robotaxi? Under these new rules, law enforcement can cite AV companies for traffic violations committed by their vehicles.

The rule, called “Notice of Autonomous Vehicle Noncompliance,” requires the manufacturer (meaning the robotaxi company) to report the violation to the DMV within 72 hours of receiving it from law enforcement.

I’ve heard a number of interpretations of this rule and how it will be implemented, but it appears there is not a monetary fine attached to these violations.

Instead, these violations are another piece of data that the DMV can use to identify problems and take action if needed.

Insiders told me that the data is actionable and more important than a monetary fine. My question: Why not both?

The good news for industry: The DMV will now allow heavy-duty vehicles equipped with autonomous vehicle tech to test and eventually deploy on public roads.

Self-driving truck companies are happy with this outcome.

Daniel Goff, VP of external affairs at Kodiak, told me the company is already working on the required documentation to apply for a permit.

The burden for the industry: The word that came up in every conversation I had with someone in the AV industry was “burdensome.

” And it was always used in reaction to the new data collection and sharing regulations.

Goodbye, disengagement reports; hello, malfunctions: Others were happy to see annual disengagement reporting disappear.

Disengagement reports, which detailed instances when human drivers had to take over control due to technology failures or safety concerns, have been controversial because companies use varying standards.

This has made it impossible to compare the results or rate the proficiency of autonomous vehicle technology. That entire section has been removed and replaced with a requirement to report “dynamic driving task performance relevant system failure. ” This may seem like semantics — trading one jargony phrase for another.

Insiders tell me that while it is not a perfect metric, it is clearer than its predecessor.

That doesn’t mean it is beloved either.

There is a lot more in these documents, including a requirement to provide annual updates to first responder interaction plans, access to manual vehicle override systems, two-way communication links with 30-second response times, and updated training requirements to ensure safe and timely interactions with first responders.

My question for you, reader, is whether these rules go too far or if they are appropriate and provide the kind of reporting and data collection needed to keep these companies accountable?