San Francisco has long been among America’s most visionary cities. From the computer mouse and interactive computing to the first widely popular commercial web browser in Netscape, the city has always had one eye on the future. It’s no surprise then that San Francisco was an early adopter of autonomous vehicles (AVs) on its streets. That’s not to say there hasn’t been resistance and that special interests haven’t been working overtime to stop “robotaxis”, but those forces are losing.
A common complaint about AVs centers on their impact on the labor market. Opponents insist this technology will be a “job killer,” putting rideshare drivers out of work and destroying their livelihoods. This fear has fueled proposals in Minneapolis, New Jersey, Boston, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere to impose stringent rules on the technology, thus threatening its future. Sometimes that looks like mandating a higher insurance premium for driverless cars. Other times, it means requiring a human driver to sit in the car at all times, or mandating that a certain percentage of trips be completed by human drivers.
These proposals deserve more scrutiny, and evidence is fast emerging that robotaxis leave neither drivers nor consumers worse off.
New data from Gridwise Analytics offers evidence for greater optimism. In San Francisco, data show a marketplace in which every party appears to benefit from AVs. Between Q2 2024 and the second quarter of 2026, Gridwise found that the median prices consumers paid for trips remained flat, while the rest of the country saw a net increase in prices. Drivers were doing fewer trips per hour, yet their quarterly earnings continued to grow. While numerous factors are driving these changes, the data challenge the narrative that AVs and human drivers cannot possibly coexist.
As always, competition creates pressure for companies to improve their offerings. Whenever a new rival enters the market, existing players have stronger incentives to compete for customers, either by adjusting their fees or offering better pay for drivers. Even if they never ride in a robotaxi, consumers still broadly benefit. The simple availability of alternatives forces the whole market to respond.
Protecting workers is a laudable goal, and many of the proposals popping up in American city councils stem from genuine compassion. Working people deserve a chance to adapt, develop new skills, and find work in an ever-changing economy.
However, seeking to help people does not mean that the government should wield its power to prevent the economy from evolving. This wouldn’t be the first time a government tried to curtail technology. In 1865, British lawmakers panicked over the early automobile and passed the Locomotives Act, requiring a man to walk in front of every car waving a red flag in the name of safety. No surprise, this regulatory effort didn’t save the horse-drawn buggy, but it did cripple British automotive innovation while the rest of the world raced ahead.
Imagine if Amazon were forced to complete a certain percentage of its sales through brick-and-mortar stores to preserve retail jobs. Consumers would call such a mandate absurd. Amazon’s success is tied in part to its relentless drive to innovate and improve consumer outcomes. Had regulators incorporated such mandates in the name of protecting incumbent retailers, Amazon might not have been pushed to modernize its supply chain processes, develop a prolific national logistics network, or pioneer competitive marketplace pricing, thereby saving consumers money and exposing them to more products. The mandate essentially freezes innovation, protecting legacy businesses and allowing them to get lazy.
San Francisco deserves credit for being an early mover. The data and experiences from the city can serve as a real-world opportunity to understand how AVs interact with existing transportation services and infrastructure, and to learn from the challenges the city faced so that future rollouts can occur more smoothly. Precaution can not be used to justify indefinite delays of technologies that can have such significant promise.
That lesson matters as California prepares for a new governor. Should Xavier Becerra take the governor’s mansion, his framework for emerging technology, one which favors heavy-handed oversight and prioritizes current labor models over future productivity, mustn’t become an excuse to undo the state’s technological lead.
Becerra’s vision, which mandates labor intervention and human review before automation can be deployed, threatens to penalize the very industries keeping California’s economy afloat. By propping up precautionary rules in an effort to appease unions and legacy business models, Becerra’s focus risks chasing innovation out of the Golden State entirely, pushing out money, talent, and tax revenue to friendlier, low-friction hubs in states such as Texas and Florida.
The benefits of AVs extend well beyond the economics. AVs will expand access to transportation for people who cannot drive, restore independence to older adults and people with disabilities, and help reduce the thousands of traffic fatalities California experiences each year. San Francisco took a bold first step by embracing this technology early. Rather than seeking ways to walk back that progress, California leaders should build on it.
James Czerniawski is the Head of Emerging Technology Policy at the Consumer Choice Center. His work has been featured in the New York Post, Newsmax, Newsweek, The Daily Wire, and more. Follow him on X @JamesCz19.