California sets first AV responder rules

When a robotaxi stalls across an intersection or rolls to a stop near an active fire scene, the first people on the ground are rarely the company that built it. Under a new California law, that gap gets harder for operators to ignore: companies will have to put local support within reach of emergency responders, and they can be fined if an autonomous vehicle blocks police or firefighters for more than 30 minutes.

Newsom signs liability framework

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 1246, a measure that sets new rules for autonomous vehicles designed to improve safety and emergency response when AVs become disabled or interfere with first responders. The law also creates ways to hold AV companies accountable when they don’t.

The bill’s requirements arrive after a string of high-profile incidents in California in which robotaxis broke down and disrupted traffic, drove into crime scenes, or impeded first responders. The bulk of those incidents involved Waymo, which has about 4,000 autonomous vehicles in its commercial fleet across the country, roughly 1,200 of them in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The law does not take effect immediately. It goes into force in July 2028, and the California Department of Motor Vehicles, which regulates autonomous vehicles in the state, will set guidelines on certain aspects of the new law, including required response times.

Remote drivers must be in US

One of the more specific provisions addresses the human side of an automated fleet. Under the law, AV developers can only employ remote drivers who are based in the United States, and those drivers must hold a U.S. driver’s license.

The requirement is meant to address concerns around how companies use remote operations when autonomous vehicles run into trouble. The term “remote operations” has been interpreted very broadly, and there is still little known about the methods AV companies use. The “remote drivers” term in the law is far more specific: it refers to a human who directly operates or drives the vehicle from afar.

Tesla is the only company that has publicly stated that it has remote operators who can take direct control of its robotaxis. Other companies, including Waymo, have said they use forms of remote assistance, in which the self-driving system remains in control and a human employee can provide guidance or send software commands if needed. Waymo has a global network of remote assistance staff, including in the Philippines, and operates command centers in Arizona and Michigan. Zoox’s remote operations teams are based in the United States, according to the company.

Local technicians and failure notices

The law also reaches into the messy middle of an incident, when a vehicle is stuck and local officials are trying to sort out who is responsible for clearing it. AV companies will have to notify cities, towns, and other local jurisdictions about the location and status of vehicles during system-wide failures.

Operators will also have to provide “local incident technicians” who can assist with AV accidents and obstructions. The companies can be fined if an AV blocks first responders during an emergency for more than 30 minutes — a threshold that puts a clear number on how long a company has before an obstruction becomes a penalty rather than a problem it is still actively working.

The push for local, on-the-ground support is a direct answer to a pattern that has played out in California. A TechCrunch investigation earlier this year identified a number of incidents in which Waymo relied on first responders to manually drive its vehicles when they encountered problems.

Federal pressure built beforehand

State lawmakers were not acting in a vacuum. The incidents prompted both state and federal lawmakers to call for stricter rules governing robotaxis, particularly how they behave around first responders. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration sent a letter to AV developers demanding that they come up with “solutions” to the problem.

The new California law attempts to address those concerns, at least within the state. Where the federal letter sought answers from developers, the California measure puts deadlines, staffing requirements, and financial penalties into statute for operators doing business there.

What the law requires

The obligations fall into a handful of concrete categories that AV developers will have to build into their operations before July 2028:

• Remote drivers must be based in the United States and hold a U.S. driver’s license.
• Companies must notify local jurisdictions about the location and status of vehicles during system-wide failures.
• Operators must provide local incident technicians who can assist with AV accidents and obstructions.
• Companies can be fined if an AV blocks first responders during an emergency for more than 30 minutes.
• The DMV will set guidelines on certain aspects of the law, including required response times.

The scope of the fleet affected is not trivial. Waymo alone has about 4,000 autonomous vehicles in its commercial fleet across the country, with about 1,200 in the San Francisco Bay Area. The requirements are designed to scale with the operations of companies like Tesla, Waymo, and Zoox.

Cortese: ‘clear accountability’

The bill’s author framed the measure as a boundary around how far innovation can go when public safety is at stake.

“California has embraced autonomous vehicles, but we cannot embrace innovation at the expense of public safety. When an autonomous vehicle crashes, breaks down, blocks a roadway in an emergency, or gets in the way of law enforcement or first responders, there must be clear accountability,” said state Senator Dave Cortese, who introduced the bill.

— State Senator Dave Cortese, who introduced the bill

Waymo signals compliance

Companies including Waymo and Zoox have said they will comply with the new rules.

In an emailed company statement, a Waymo spokesperson pointed to changes made during the legislative process.

“We are grateful for the amendments made to the bill, which ensure autonomous vehicle operators can still feasibly serve Californians,” a Waymo spokesperson said in an emailed company statement. “Waymo is committed to making roads safer in California and continually improving our service.”

— A Waymo spokesperson, in an emailed company statement

Guidelines still to be written

Even with the signing, several pieces of the law remain to be filled in. The California Department of Motor Vehicles will set guidelines on certain aspects of the new law, including required response times — a detail that will shape how quickly companies must react when a vehicle is disabled or in the way.

Because the law does not take effect until July 2028, AV developers have a window to adjust remote operations and local support staffing. The DMV’s rulemaking will determine how those obligations are measured and enforced.

What it means for operators

The law changes the cost of being slow. A robotaxi that ends up obstructing an emergency response for more than 30 minutes can now trigger a fine, and companies will need people on the ground who can move or manage a vehicle when its software cannot. For operators, that means investing in local incident technicians and in remote-driving staff who meet the U.S. residency and licensing requirements — roles that do not scale the same way as a software update.

For cities and first responders, the notification and technician requirements offer a clearer point of contact during system-wide failures, when a fleet’s location and status have historically been difficult to pin down. The law does not resolve every ambiguity around remote operations, and the DMV’s forthcoming guidelines — particularly the required response times — will determine how much of the framework is felt in practice.

For the AV industry more broadly, California’s move is the most concrete attempt yet to write response standards into law rather than leave them to company policy. Whether it becomes a template for other states will depend on how the rules work once they take effect in July 2028.