Despite indications that driverless vehicles could reduce fatalities, legislators in D.C. blocked their introduction, influenced by their allies in the labor movement.
The D.C. Council declined to approve a measure permitting autonomous vehicles (A.V.s) to operate within the district.
In a Thursday session of the Council’s Committee on Transportation and the Environment, the Autonomous Vehicle Deployment Authorization Amendment Act of 2026 was voted down, 3–3. The bill’s sponsor, Councilmember Charles Allen, along with Council Chair Phil Mendelson and Christina Henderson, supported the proposal. Those opposing the bill included Mayor-elect Janeese Lewis George and Councilmembers Zachary Parker and Elissa Silverman.
Had it passed, the legislation would have established the first formal route for firms to run driverless taxis and delivery services in the district, potentially reducing thousands of traffic-related injuries. Waymo, a company specializing in autonomous driving technology, tracked more than 271 million miles without a human driver. Its findings indicated autonomous vehicles were involved in 95 percent fewer crashes resulting in serious injuries or fatalities, 93 percent fewer pedestrian injury crashes, and 86 percent fewer cyclist injury crashes compared with human drivers over comparable distances. In July, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released research with similar conclusions—Waymo’s driverless cars were involved in 68 percent fewer police-reported crashes and 81 percent fewer injury crashes per mile than conventional drivers.
As Allen noted during the hearing, “A.V.s do not operate while impaired, distracted, or fatigued. They can be programmed to obey traffic laws that are too often ignored with deadly consequences.”
Although there was broad acknowledgment that autonomous vehicles could enhance road safety, the bill collapsed mainly due to worries about how automation might affect workers already employed in the transportation sector. “I support bringing autonomous vehicles to the district,” commented Parker, who voted against the measure. “My concerns center on how current jobs would be impacted, and whether the new jobs or other advantages in this bill would truly assist the people who would lose out.”
Lawmakers had already conceded to fears about job displacement. The original proposal entailed a costly regulatory regime, including a three-year permit priced at about $6 million, $5 million in liability insurance, and a tax of 15 cents for every mile driven, partly to fund retraining programs for rideshare drivers. Before the vote, the plan underwent a significant rewrite to appease critics, including granting collective bargaining rights to Uber and Lyft drivers, extending union rights to autonomous-vehicle maintenance workers, and capping the number of driverless vehicles at 200 per operator and 800 citywide. Even with these changes, the measures failed to win over enough lawmakers.
Parker warned that autonomous vehicles could come into competition with unionized transit services. “The bill also allows A.V.s with a capacity of up to 10 passengers,” he stated, “and I’ve heard from our labor allies that this could wipe out their union-driven transit operations.”
Suggesting that banning automated vehicles simply because they might challenge organized labor is misguided. It may also be inaccurate. A study published in Transportation Research Record found that public transit remained competitive with autonomous ride-hailing options where robust transit choices existed. The researchers concluded that fears of a mass shift from public transit to driverless services could be overstated, at least in the near term.
“My reference framework for these challenges is infrastructure, where it’s common for people living near new projects to resist them, even though those who stand to gain may not yet recognize it,” commented Lucas Pombo, a research fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation, in an interview with Reason. “Those who will benefit often don’t know it at the outset.”
Technological progress has repeatedly disrupted existing industries. Opting to impede it would be misguided, especially when the potential price of avoidance is measured in human lives.
