CCC Applauds Mayor Frey’s Veto of Anti-Autonomous Vehicle Regulation

• The city council passed an ordinance mandating a “human monitor” in the front seat of driverless cars.
• They claim the ordinance focuses on safety and protecting the jobs of rideshare drivers. 
• The Mayor was correct to veto this overreaching ordinance by the city council, as it would ultimately have left both the city and consumers worse off.

WASHINGTON, DC —OCT 6, 2026— Last week, Minneapolis’ City Council narrowly passed an ordinance requiring “human monitors” in driverless cars. The city’s mayor, Jacob Frey, vetoed that ordinance. The Consumer Choice Center issued the following statement in response.

“We applaud Mayor Frey for his decision to veto this overreaching and unnecessary ordinance by the city council,” saidJames Czerniawski, Head of Emerging Technology Policy at the Consumer Choice Center, an international consumer group that has advocated for increased access to autonomous vehicles for consumers around the country. 

“Autonomous vehicles can provide numerous benefits to a city like Minneapolis that they should be excited about. Autonomous vehicles can increase access to reliable transportation options for consumers, improve road safety due to their lower accident rates, and even create jobs in the area. Had the mayor let this ordinance go into effect, both the city and consumers would have been left worse off,” Czerniawski added.

The Consumer Choice Center has published a new paper, An Autonomous Vehicle Future, If We Allow It, which calls on states to embrace the innovation of autonomous vehicles and expand transportation options available to consumers. 

KEY REPORT TAKEAWAYS 

1. AVs dramatically outperform human drivers in terms of safety.
Waymo data shows 94% fewer serious-injury-or-worse crashes, 82% fewer injury-causing crashes, 93% fewer pedestrian crashes with injuries, and 84% fewer crashes involving cyclists and motorcyclists. Roughly 40,000 Americans die on U.S. roads each year: a toll equal to U.S. losses in the Vietnam War every 18 months.

2. Consumer fears over AVs are not strong.
Trust in AVs is catching up fast. Support for AVs in San Francisco rose from 44% to 67% over two years of exposure, and 89% of people who’ve actually ridden in a Waymo say they’d ride again.

3. The opposition is rent-seeking, not seeking safety.
Trial lawyers have pushed insurance mandates of $5–10 million for AV operators, 5 to 10 times the $1 million standard for rideshare, despite AVs being demonstrably safer. Annual U.S. auto insurance payouts run $180–220 billion — a pool that shrinks as AVs cut accident rates.

4. Regulatory fragmentation is the biggest structural threat to deployment.
Federal rules (NHTSA, FMCSA, FTA, FHWA, FCC, NTIA), inconsistent state laws (Texas and Arizona are permissive; New Jersey, Minnesota, and D.C. are restrictive), and municipal overreach (Boston’s near-ban proposal) create hard borders that AVs can’t cross. The fix is uniform statewide rules, with vehicle design left solely to NHTSA.