How Autonomous Vehicles should share the road

June 11, 2026

You may have seen the camera and sensor-equipped Waymo cars moving around DC in the last couple of years. So far, they’ve all had human drivers. But a bill in front of the DC Council right now would set up permits for vehicles like this to operate autonomously as part of a commercial service. (If you want to really get into the weeds, DDOT also issued a separate rulemaking on AVs in 2024, but it has not been finalized yet)

On one hand, here at WABA we think that our streets need fewer single-occupancy cars, let alone zero-occupancy cars (robotaxis driving empty between rides).

On the other hand, there’s some evidence that AVs drive more safely than human drivers. And cars that can’t be distracted by their phones, that are programmed not to speed, run red lights, park in the bike lane, or block crosswalks seem like an improvement over current human behavior behind the wheel. AVs also offer other forms of safety. Rideshare has a sexual assault problem, and AVs are a way for vulnerable riders to avoid that risk. And for riders with disabilities that preclude driving, they offer independence and privacy.

We don’t see autonomous cars as inevitable, but they do seem likely, and we think policymakers and regulators should undertake a rigorous and holistic analysis of how this technology will affect the region. Here’s what we think will underpins a successful regulatory structure:

AVs must improve the transportation system for everyone, and regulators need to ensure that AV profitability is tied to advancing the public interest.

Robotaxis are deployed by for-profit companies using public space. AVs need to demonstrably achieve the following things in order to operate on regional streets:

Improve safety. That means reducing crashes and following traffic laws (including the ones human drivers don’t follow).
Reduce emissions. Tailpipe emissions contribute to a wide range of climate and public health crises. Any additions to the transportation system must reduce them.
Reduce car ownership. Boosters of ride-hailing apps in the 2010s predicted that those services would reduce car ownership and prompt major changes in how cities use curb space. This did not happen, and data generally shows that ride hail apps increased the number of cars on the road. We can’t afford to make the same mistake with AVs.
Have a neutral or positive impact on transit ridership. Experts agree that ride hailing trips are more likely to replace transit trips rather than personal vehicle trips. AV regulations and pricing structures should promote AV use for last-mile solutions, rather than replacing trips by public transit.
Access to for-hire AVs must be equitable. Availability and pricing must be accessible to underserved communities and people with disabilities.
Strict liability. Manufacturers and/or fleet operators must be fully liable for the programming and street impact of their vehicles. Anytime an AV hurts someone, companies should be required to suspend service until they provide verifiable changes to their code that prevents the issue from happening again.
Uniform operations. Operating parameters must be uniform, or at least coordinated, particularly when trips cross multiple jurisdictions.
Transparency about operations. People have to take drivers’ tests, and computers should too. Regulations should include mandatory transparency about decision-making algorithms—independent, external verification that the code in these vehicles prioritizes safety for vulnerable road users and adheres to traffic and parking regulations, over speed and rider convenience, 100% of the time—with mandated performance and compliance reporting and appropriate enforcement tools.
Transparency about impact. Regulations should require public mandatory reporting about trips, VMT, safety issues, emissions, and impact on transit ridership.

Without these requirements, AVs just exacerbate the safety and climate challenges of our current car-dependent transportation system, while putting gig-workers like ride-hailing and delivery drivers out of work.

If you want to get even further into the technological weeds, we agree with the League of American Bicyclists on the tech specifications for how AVs should interact with the environment.

Want to talk more? We’re co-hosting a public forum on autonomous vehicles on June 23rd alongside other transportation safety groups. Stay tuned for the event registration details.

Disclosure: Waymo, an AV company, is a WABA sponsor. Sponsors do not have a say in our advocacy positions.

More about Complete Streets

Complete Streets are streets designed to accommodate all users, and that prioritize historically underinvested modes of transportation like transit, walking, and biking. An incomplete street might lack adequate sidewalks, low-stress bike infrastructure, or safe and comfortable access to transit.

Effective Complete Streets policies change the way a jurisdiction plans and builds transportation infrastructure—sidewalks, low stress bike infrastructure, and transit should be included in any new or rebuilt street by default, rather than as an add-on when there's space or demand.

While most regional jurisdictions have a Complete Streets policy of some sort, they lack teeth and permit transportation departments to continue to build streets that put cars first and squeeze other modes into the margins.

More about Advocacy

WABA fights for a region where biking, walking and transit are the best ways to get around.

We educate policymakers and organize grassroots advocates for to speak up for safer places to bike and walk; and for laws and policies that protect people who are walking and biking, reduce dangerous driving, and facilitate changes to the built environment.