San Francisco Chronicle

Robotaxis causing fewer problems for fire, police

- By Ricardo Cano Reach Ricardo Cano: ricardo.cano@sfchronicl­e.com; Twitter: @ByRicardoC­ano

Robotaxi disruption­s on San Francisco streets were nearly a daily fact of life last August for firefighte­rs responding to emergencie­s across the city.

That was the month firefighte­rs reported at least 25 incidents, by far the highest monthly tally of disruption­s by Cruise or Waymo driverless vehicles. The robotaxis intruded active response areas, delayed firefighte­rs’ responses after stalling on streets, ran over fire hoses and displayed errant driving that led to collisions.

Ten of those incidents, for example, happened less than a week after the California Public Utilities Commission approved the companies’ unlimited commercial expansion in San Francisco. For city officials vying to curb the proliferat­ion of robotaxis, the cadence of incidents appeared to validate their concerns that the technology’s expansion would lead to more disruption­s for emergency responders.

Nearly six months later, city firefighte­rs report that autonomous vehicle interferen­ces are happening much less frequently. Two potential reasons why: The robotaxis that fueled much of the disruption have been sidelined, while city officials and AV companies have unearthed new ways to keep selfdrivin­g cars away from emergency response scenes.

Since January 2023, the San Francisco Fire Department reported at least 85 incidents in which autonomous vehicles have interfered with emergency responses or negatively impacted firefighte­rs’ operations.

Most of these incidents happened before September, according to incident reports compiled by the Chronicle via public-records request and a city legal filing.

In spring 2022, fire officials began instructin­g firefighte­rs to report when “they have an interactio­n with an AV that changed what they would have normally done in the field, or which they perceived as dangerous.”

The Fire Department’s selfreport­ed data is probably an undercount of robotaxi interferen­ce because it hinges on firefighte­rs following through with documentin­g the events. However, the data seems to track with the rapidly evolving history of self-driving cars in San Francisco.

The incidents increased in frequency last spring as Cruise and Waymo accelerate­d their operations and peaked, so far, in the summer as they further multiplied their driverless ridehailin­g activity in San Francisco. While other companies, such as Amazon’s Zoox, are testing self-driving cars in the city, Cruise and Waymo have been the only ones with permission to charge for driverless rides.

The noticeable drop in disruption­s appears to have coincided with a decline in activity by Cruise, which has accounted for about two-thirds of all documented incidents.

The General Motors-owned company, in late August, cut its San Francisco fleet in half at the state Department of Motor Vehicles’ request. The DMV banned Cruise indefinite­ly in late October for its alleged handling of a severe crash in San Francisco in which a company robotaxi dragged a jaywalking pedestrian about 20 feet.

Since Cruise cars were pulled from the road, city firefighte­rs reported three interferen­ces by Waymo robotaxis since November, with none in January.

The Fire Department’s deputy chief of operations, Darius Luttropp, acknowledg­ed the recent decline in reported incidents, though he said it’s too early to say whether it indicates a long-term pattern. The Chronicle received three new incident reports from the Fire Department after publicatio­n of this story involving Waymo robotaxis failing to yield to emergency vehicles.

City officials, who sued the CPUC to halt Cruise and Waymo’s expansion, say state regulators don’t require AV companies to report data — such as how often robotaxis unexpected­ly stall on streets — that would shed light on how they’re performing in San Francisco.

But, “Broadly, I do feel like there’s been fewer incidents of interferen­ce,” Luttropp said. “Some of that could be ascribed to the work we’ve done with the companies with both Cruise, before they lost their licensure, and with Waymo as they continue progressin­g in their deployment.”

Amid concerns of escalating interferen­ces, Cruise and Waymo agreed to allow emergency responders to take over stalled robotaxis if they need to be moved, as opposed to waiting for a company technician to arrive at the scene. A Waymo spokespers­on said first responders can now take control of stalled vehicles “in a matter of seconds.”

The Fire Department also asked the companies to program their vehicles to avoid stopping in front of fire houses — a recurring interferen­ce that, in at least one instance, prevented a fire truck from responding to a call. Firefighte­rs haven’t reported such blockages since August.

One effort that may be most impactful in lowering AV interferen­ces is what Luttropp calls “an ‘avoid the area’ plan,” in which city agencies notify AV companies in real time when there’s an emergency, such as a fire.

In Waymo’s case, the company said it creates an “exclusion zone” for its robotaxis after it gets a city alert. That geofenced perimeter then tells its robotaxis to reroute trips, pickups and drop-offs away from that emergency area.

David Margines, Waymo’s director of product management, said “consistent dialogue with SFFD and SFPD and their feedback helped us gain a deeper understand­ing of their needs and refine our system accordingl­y.”

The Alphabet-owned company said its internal data show its rate of interferen­ce with San Francisco’s emergency responders has dropped, even as Waymo has doubled its ride-hailing mileage since September.

Still, Luttropp said some challenges with robotaxis remain “persistent.”

In December, firefighte­rs working to clear a drain on a flooded off ramp on San Jose Avenue reported that a Waymo ran over “carefully placed flares,” intended to deter car traffic. A firefighte­r yelled at the car to stop, which it eventually did after its hood was hit with a small plastic flare cover, according to an incident report.

“It’s an identified problem that we’re asking them to address in their technology,” Luttropp said.

Another “high-tier ask” from the Fire Department: improving robotaxis’ ability to detect and respond to human traffic control officers.

Waymo said its vehicles can already detect and obey human traffic control commands, citing an example in Los Angeles where one of its robotaxis advanced through an intersecti­on only after a police officer directing traffic waved it forward. San Francisco’s density, topography and chaotic streets, though, add challenges robotaxis are unlikely to encounter elsewhere, the company acknowledg­es.

How Waymo robotaxis perform during emergency responses in San Francisco could determine how the company expands its operations in the state. Officials on the Peninsula and in Los Angeles, where the company wants to introduce its driverless ride-hailing, oppose Waymo’s expansion, citing San Francisco first responders’ experience­s with the technology.

Elsewhere, fire officials in cities including Houston and Atlanta have called San Francisco’s fire officials in recent months, inquiring what to expect when, and if, robotaxis come to their cities.

“We’ve made improvemen­ts to our software including better emergency scene understand­ing, more rapid and effective clearing the way for active emergency vehicles, and improved predictabi­lity of our behavior for first responders,” Margines said. “As a result, we were able to bring the number of (robotaxi interferen­ces) down while gradually scaling our operations to now serve tens of thousands of rider-only trips in San Francisco each week.”

 ?? Carlos Avila Gonzalez/The Chronicle ?? Autonomous vehicles, such as these Waymo robotaxis, have had fewer reported incidents of disruption on S.F. streets since August.
Carlos Avila Gonzalez/The Chronicle Autonomous vehicles, such as these Waymo robotaxis, have had fewer reported incidents of disruption on S.F. streets since August.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States