California Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Human Drivers for Self-Driving Trucks

Labor leaders and truck drivers express disappointment as Gov. Newsom rejects legislation that could have saved hundreds of thousands of jobs

author image
Tom 'TJ' Jackson

News Reporter

Posted on Sep 24th, 2023

California Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Human Drivers for Self-Driving Trucks

Labor leaders and truck drivers express disappointment as Gov. Newsom rejects legislation that could have saved hundreds of thousands of jobs

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has vetoed a bill that would have required human drivers on board self-driving trucks, a decision that has sparked controversy and concern among labor unions and truck drivers. The veto comes in the face of estimates that removing drivers would cost a quarter million jobs in the state.

The legislation, which was vetoed on Friday night, aimed to ban self-driving trucks weighing more than 10,000 pounds from operating on public roads without a human driver on board. This would have included a range of vehicles, from UPS delivery vans to massive big rigs.

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, head of the California Labor Federation, strongly criticized the governor’s decision, labeling it as shocking. She argued that driverless trucks pose significant safety risks and estimated that a quarter million jobs would be lost in the state if drivers were replaced by automation.

“We will not sit by as bureaucrats side with tech companies, trading our safety and jobs for increased corporate profits. We will continue to fight to make sure that robots do not replace human drivers and that technology is not used to destroy good jobs,” Fletcher said in a statement late Friday.

Governor Newsom justified his decision by stating that additional regulation of autonomous trucks was unnecessary since existing laws are already sufficient. He referred to a 2012 legislation that allows the state Department of Motor Vehicles to collaborate with relevant agencies to determine the regulations necessary for the safe operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads.

Opponents of the bill argued that self-driving cars, which are already on the roads, have not caused many serious accidents compared to human-driven vehicles. They also emphasized that self-driving trucks would greatly enhance the efficiency of transporting products for businesses.

However, union leaders and truck drivers contended that the bill would have addressed concerns about safety and job loss to automation in the future. The legislation had received widespread support in the Legislature, with only a few lawmakers voting against it. It is part of an ongoing debate surrounding the potential risks of self-driving vehicles and the impact on the workforce as companies increasingly adopt automation technologies.

Interestingly, Gov. Newsom, who typically enjoys strong support from labor, faced pressure from within his administration not to sign the bill. The Office of Business and Economic Development, part of his administration, warned that signing the bill would prompt companies developing self-driving technologies to relocate out of state.

The veto comes at a time of escalating debate over the future of autonomous vehicles. Last month, two robotaxi companies received approval to operate in San Francisco at all hours. Meanwhile, in Sacramento, hundreds of truck drivers, union leaders, and supporters of the bill rallied at the state Capitol, demanding its enactment. California is home to approximately 200,000 commercial truck drivers, according to Teamsters officials.

The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and is not intended as advice, recommendation, or endorsement of any particular course of action or viewpoint. Readers should consult with a professional or specialist in the relevant field before making any decisions based on the content of this article. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information presented, Rio Rundown and its authors, editors, and publishers accept no responsibility or liability for any errors, omissions, or consequences arising from the use of the information contained herein.

Share on

Tags

Subscribe to see what we're thinking

Subscribe to get access to premium content or contact us if you have any questions.

Subscribe Now