California bill would require human safety operators in autonomous delivery vehicles during deployment

Assemblymember Aghiar Curry introduced AB 33 to the Senate Transportation Committee, asking lawmakers to require a qualified human safety operator in autonomous vehicles (AVs) used for commercial delivery during deployment and testing.

Curry told the committee the measure is intended to protect public safety while allowing AV technology to be tested and deployed with legislative oversight. “This bill allows AV technology to move forward, but it requires a qualified human safety operator in AVs used for commercial deliveries,” Curry said. She cited incidents in San Francisco in which driverless AVs blocked traffic, interfered with emergency response, and one case in which a pedestrian was dragged under a vehicle in which footage was not initially shared with authorities.

The bill’s supporters included labor unions and safety advocates who described the measure as a “guardrail” to protect workers and communities while companies test delivery AVs. Tammy Friedrich, president of the Truck Safety Coalition, said human operators provide an extra safety layer and criticized AV manufacturers’ transparency. “At this point in time, human safety operators are not optional and allowing these commercial delivery vehicles to operate without them is needlessly reckless,” Friedrich said.

Matt Bridal, representing the Teamsters, said the latest draft of AB 33 was narrowed after industry feedback and is not limited by vehicle weight thresholds used in prior bills. Bridal cited concerns about “phantom braking” and referenced a study saying thousands of millions of miles of driving were needed to demonstrate parity with human drivers. “We think this bill is narrowly tailored to allow AV deployment and testing for deliveries as long as the human safety operator is on board,” Bridal said.

Industry witnesses and AV advocates opposed the bill. Brett Fabri, head of law enforcement policy and roadway safety at Kodiak Robotics and a former California Highway Patrol assistant chief, said California already has a strict regulatory framework and that adding a state requirement would make California unique among states. “Autonomous vehicles don't drive distracted, they don't speed, they are not impaired, and they do not get fatigued,” Fabri said, arguing the technology can reduce crash risk from human error.

Kurt Augustine of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation said the bill’s coverage of light-duty delivery vehicles (cars and vans) is inconsistent with existing regulation for passenger-carrying AVs and would ban some California-designed products because those vehicles lack space for an in-vehicle human operator.

Other opposition came from company and trade representatives for Waymo, Tesla, Aurora, Neuro and other AV developers; those witnesses argued the DMV, CHP and existing state rulemaking are the appropriate venues for safety requirements and that California already imposes strict permitting and testing requirements.

Curry and supporters said the bill does not ban AV deployment but requires an in-vehicle certified safety operator during delivery deployments and creates a path to phase that requirement out after the executive branch and experts review real-world data and make recommendations to the Legislature. “This bill does not ban AVs. It makes them safer and it gives us the data to do it right,” Curry said.

Votes at a glance (committee action recorded in this hearing): AB 33 — motion to pass to the Committee on Judiciary (moved by Senator Archuleta); committee discussion and roll call occurred and the bill was advanced to the next committee. Other measures taken up later in the hearing were moved to subsequent committees for further consideration (see list below). For those bills, committee members announced the next referral; those items will return in later committee calendars or on the floor for further action.

Why this matters: AB 33 addresses a rapidly changing technology and a high‑visibility public safety debate. Proponents say a human safety operator will protect residents and workers while regulators and the Legislature collect data; industry witnesses say the requirement would restrict development and deployment in California and duplicate existing regulatory processes.

What the committee did next: After testimony and questions from committee members, Senator Archuleta moved the measure and the committee recorded a roll call; the motion carried and the bill was ordered to the Committee on Judiciary for further consideration.

Ending: Committee members asked the author and stakeholders to continue technical discussions on how to handle small delivery vehicles that are designed without space for a human operator and on the scope of the “commercial” definition. Curry said she was open to follow-up conversations and asked proponents and opponents to work through operational details before the bill reaches subsequent committees.

Votes at a glance (other items from the same hearing, committee referrals only): AB 334 (toll interoperability) — moved to Judiciary (privacy concerns raised by EFF); AB 1014 (speed limits on state highways in areas with vulnerable road users) — moved to Appropriations; AB 1223 (Sacramento Transportation Authority governance/funding flexibility) — moved to Revenue & Taxation; SB 761 (Monterey-Salinas transit sales tax ballot authority) — moved to Revenue & Taxation; AB 770 (Los Angeles Convention Center sign district exemption) — moved to Rules (opposition cited potential federal funding risk); AB 902 (wildlife crossings requirement for new lanes/highways in connectivity areas) — moved to Natural Resources & Water; AB 1299 (local authority to reduce/waive parking fines for people experiencing homelessness or hardship) — moved to Appropriations. (Those items were taken up during the same hearing and referred to the committee listed; further roll call tallies are recorded in the official committee minutes.)