***From Business Insider's Tom Carter:*** Tesla is jostling with Waymo and Uber to shape California's robotaxi rules as it races to hit Elon Musk's ambitious year-end target. In comments filed with a California regulator and published on Monday, Tesla pushed back against a proposal backed by Waymo that could require Musk's company to disclose more data about its ride-hailing service. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is drafting new rules governing robotaxi passenger services and has invited companies — including Tesla, Uber, and Waymo — to comment. All three companies are racing to deploy autonomous vehicles in California, but are taking very different approaches. Tesla launched a ride-hailing service in San Francisco in July, following the introduction of a driverless taxi service in Austin a month earlier. The EV giant lacks the necessary permits to offer fully driverless rides in California, however, so its Bay Area vehicles have safety drivers who monitor Tesla's assisted driving system, called Full Self-Driving. Tesla also has human safety drivers sitting in the passenger seat for its Austin service. Waymo, by contrast, offers fully driverless ride-hailing in San Francisco and Los Angeles, while Uber is planning to launch a robotaxi service with autonomous vehicle companies Nuro and Lucid in the city next year. In its filing, Tesla disputed Waymo's suggestion that operators who offer ride-hailing services with advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) — which can handle some actions autonomously but require human supervision — should be required to submit quarterly reports detailing the number of miles traveled, passenger trip time, and information about collisions and other incidents. Under current regulations, Tesla's ride-hailing service in California does not have to report this information, while robotaxi operators like Waymo do. Tesla argued that vehicles equipped with driver-assist technology, such as its Full Self-Driving system, are "wholly distinct" from autonomous vehicles because they require human supervision, and that requiring additional reporting would overwhelm the regulator with data and confuse consumers. Separately, Tesla hit back at comments filed by Uber with the regulator in October. The ride-hailer argued that the regulator should ensure that ADAS-equipped vehicles are not marketed as fully autonomous and avoid "misleading" phrases such as "self-driving" or "robotaxis." In a follow-up filing published on Monday, Uber said that the regulator should not extend its autonomous vehicle rules to vehicles with driver-assist systems, arguing it would conflate different technologies and cause confusion. An Uber spokesperson told Business Insider that the company's original comments emphasized that California's Department of Motor Vehicles should be responsible for determining what is and isn't an autonomous vehicle. Tesla, Waymo, and the CPUC did not respond to a request for comment. [Read more about Tesla's battle with Uber and Waymo here. ](https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-waymo-uber-california-robotaxi-rules-2025-11?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=insider-realtesla-sub-comment)
Erhm. Tesla got 7 cars on the street and they need people on the driver‘s seat and now they refuse to disclose data about how their cars are doing…. We sure this is even a „battle“?
On my drive to work today I saw two Waymo’s safely driving down the street with passengers and no one in the driver seat. Tesla isn’t in a battle, Tesla wishes it was in a battle. Waymo is light years ahead of Tesla.
Ironically, Tesla does not have a horse in this race.
Here’s my input; no damn taxis without a driver in the seat.
Anyone who withholds data in a security-related development should be shut down immediately. The other road users, customers and insurance companies should be able to assess very precisely what they are dealing with!
Who writes the laws has very little to do with who's the most competent.
Stop, nothing Elon says anymore matters. Market sentiment has changed. TESLA IS COOKED/ DONE /FINISHED
The fact that requiring Tesla to report this data would mean they would be “overwhelmed with data” tells you just how many incidents Tesla are having.
Not sure what you want to say?
Who ever writes this is competent at performing fellatio on Elon Musk
They do, Waymo is actively trying to get California to make companies with self driving cars with safety monitors to report accidents, miles driven, etc. This applies to Tesla, who is arguing it will "confuse consumers" so it shouldn't happen.
I was really bullish on self driving cars until I realized the solution is so obviously real people with driver assists. Help drivers pay attention and point out things they may miss, while the driver provides common sense.
>Tesla argued that vehicles equipped with driver-assist technology, such as its Full Self-Driving system, are "wholly distinct" from autonomous vehicles because they require human supervision It's ridiculous how Tesla twists things around every time, depending on whether they're trying to boost their stock price or talking to the authorities. Tesla is completely untrustworthy, as has already been shown in investigations into several accidents, when they actively withheld data that could have helped clarify the circumstances. For that reason alone, I would require Tesla to report on everything.
They're saying that Tesla is indeed involved in the "battle" over this new regulation because they have been given a seat at the table. It doesn't matter that they are unable to battle on the roads with autonomy.
Ah understood, thx
FYI: Tesla has yet to deploy an autonomous vehicle anywhere. Tesla is not “in a battle”. They are not yet participating.
While all put the working man out of a living
Wait so is Tesla now claiming that they will always have a person in the driver seat of their "full self-driving" taxis?
I mean… they’re probably correct that it would confuse some potential customers into thinking their vehicles are autonomous.
And safe
Correction: Tesla is fighting to conceal information about their car crashes. Waymo is happy to reveal their incidence data - Tesla is not.
The headlines recently are so fucking funny. “Tesla stock pops today on news of….” While it’s up .6% like it hasn’t done hundreds of dollar in a few days. Shits not popping off anymore and people will most likely start to notice. Just wait for the head scratching with the “2 dollars isn’t my normal “pop” “
“Tesla argued that vehicles equipped with driver-assist technology, such as its Full Self-Driving system, are "wholly distinct" from autonomous vehicles because they require human supervision, and that requiring additional reporting would overwhelm the regulator with data and confuse consumers. Separately, Tesla hit back at comments filed by Uber with the regulator in October. The ride-hailer argued that the regulator should ensure that ADAS-equipped vehicles are not marketed as fully autonomous and avoid "misleading" phrases such as "self-driving" or "robotaxis."” Those two paragraphs back to back is hilarious
Hw3 was suppose to be game changer and promised to deliver full self driving! Lmao
They don't have to be in the race, they just need their investors to think they are. CA blocking them out would make it much more difficult for Tesla to sell that story
That's also Ubers argument but the confusion all comes from Tesla continuously lying and misleading
Eventually the person in the driver seat will be an Optimus robot powered by AI(actually an Indian) running in their Bangalore “datacenter”
They need people asleep* in the drivers seat
How many years have Tesla been promising self driving and not coming close?
Elmo looking for attention again
Why are rules not based off of independent research and science? Why are corporations who wants to profit making the rules?
Waymo is killing everyone else. A friend of mine is in charge of the electrical at all new facilities. He is working on projects for expansion in 3 major cities right now.
The battle isn't overweather who wins on the street. The battle is over who gets to write the regulations about what they can legally do on the street.
Bit of an aside but I really think this is probably the strongest case to be made against the company for engaging in a prolonged period of outright fraud. There's too many disconnects from what Musk promises shareholders are events and on conference calls versus what they actively argue in later regulatory filings or active court cases.
Didn’t Elon say fu to California and bail out? Now he wants to be treated like a sane person? 😜
Case in point: SpaceX got the contract for the lunar lander. And just coincidentally the person at NASA who selected them for the contract got a real nice job at SpaceX shortly thereafter. Starship orbits when?
Yep. Literally an interim administrator who was only there for a few months circumvented the process to give them the contract and then immediately got a job at SpaceX after. Literal fraud that the courts didn't overturn.
How ANYONE would do business with Musk is beyond me. Buying his products?! F that
yes we know, any vents and light in his smoke & mirrors are dangerous.
It’s okay, Tesla normally gets away with this in their cars by disengaging autopilot or FSD just before impact. So, YOU were driving. A little harder to find blame in the robotaxi
Sounds like you’re a fan of FSD supervised.
No it's the opposite of what I said lol and much worse
You'd think they'd have to have an actual product in that arena to be taken seriously in any discussions ...
Login is required to comment.
Login with Google