Sirens for Software: California Cops Begin Ticketing Driverless Cars, Caught on Camera Running Red Lights

The light flips red. Cross traffic surges forward. And a white, sensor-studded Jaguar I‑PACE rolls calmly through the intersection anyway, its roof spinning with lidar, its windshield empty. Seconds later, blue-and-red lights flash. A California Highway Patrol cruiser pulls in behind it. The moment—captured on a bystander’s phone and posted to X within minutes—lands with a thud across Silicon Valley: a police officer ticketing a driverless car.

For years, autonomous vehicle companies promised a future where software would obey traffic laws more reliably than humans. Now California cops are writing citations to that software, on camera, and the consequences ripple far beyond a single red light.

The footage that changed the conversation

The videos are messy, human, and impossible to spin. In one widely circulated clip from San Francisco’s SoMa district, an officer walks up to a Waymo vehicle stopped at the curb after rolling through a red light. He peers inside, pauses, then laughs—before crouching to slide a citation under the windshield wiper. Another clip from Santa Monica shows a Cruise vehicle hesitating mid-intersection, blocking traffic, then proceeding against a red after an awkward pause. Horns blare. Phones record. The internet judges.

These aren’t isolated moments. According to public records obtained by The San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco police issued more than 50 traffic citations to autonomous vehicles between 2022 and 2024, most commonly for obstructing traffic, failing to yield to emergency vehicles, and rolling through red lights. The California Highway Patrol confirmed to Reuters in late 2024 that it had begun treating driverless vehicles “no differently than human-driven vehicles” for moving violations.

That shift matters. Until recently, many officers quietly avoided ticketing AVs, unsure who—or what—was legally responsible. The cameras changed that. Once enforcement became visible, pressure mounted to act.

How the law actually works when there’s no driver

California anticipated this moment earlier than most. In 2012, the state passed Senate Bill 1298, directing the Department of Motor Vehicles to create a regulatory framework for autonomous vehicles. By 2018, DMV regulations explicitly allowed fully driverless testing and deployment, provided companies met reporting, insurance, and safety requirements.

What the rules didn’t do was exempt software from traffic law.

Under California Vehicle Code §38750, an autonomous vehicle “shall comply with all applicable traffic laws.” When no human driver sits behind the wheel, the law designates the “autonomous technology manufacturer” as the operator for legal purposes. Translation: the ticket goes to the company.

That’s why citations issued to Waymo or Cruise don’t carry points or license suspensions. They carry fines, paperwork, and—more damaging—regulatory scrutiny. Each violation becomes a data point the DMV and the California Public Utilities Commission can use when deciding whether a company keeps its permits.

After Cruise’s October 2023 incident in which one of its vehicles dragged a pedestrian about 20 feet following a collision, the DMV suspended Cruise’s driverless permit statewide. Enforcement actions, even for something as mundane as a red-light violation, now land in a far more hostile regulatory environment.

Red lights, edge cases, and brittle code

Autonomous vehicles don’t “decide” to run red lights in the way humans do. They fail in edge cases—situations that fall between the neat categories their software expects.

Engineers familiar with AV perception systems describe a recurring problem: temporary signals. Portable traffic lights at construction sites, police officers directing traffic by hand, or signals partially occluded by trucks can confuse vision systems trained on standardized infrastructure. In a 2023 safety report to the DMV, Waymo acknowledged that its vehicles had struggled with “non-standard traffic control devices,” though it said software updates reduced incidents over time.

The data tells a mixed story. Waymo reported more than 7 million fully driverless miles in California by the end of 2024, with no fatal crashes and an injury rate lower than human drivers per mile, according to its own analysis referencing NHTSA benchmarks. Yet the same reports list dozens of low-speed collisions and traffic violations, many involving unexpected road conditions.

For police officers on the street, nuance matters less than outcomes. A car that blocks an intersection or rolls through a red light creates immediate risk, regardless of intent.

Why enforcement escalated in 2025

Three forces converged.

First, scale. By early 2025, Waymo alone operated hundreds of driverless vehicles across San Francisco, Los Angeles, and parts of Silicon Valley. Cruise, despite its suspension, began limited supervised testing again. Volume exposes flaws. A rare error at scale becomes a daily nuisance.

Second, public backlash. San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors held multiple hearings in 2023 and 2024 where residents complained about AVs stopping in fire lanes, interfering with emergency responses, and clogging narrow streets. The San Francisco Fire Department reported at least 66 incidents in 2022 where autonomous vehicles impeded emergency operations. Enforcement became a way to show responsiveness.

Third, clarity. Law enforcement agencies received formal guidance from the DMV and the CHP confirming they could—and should—cite autonomous vehicles for moving violations. Once the ambiguity lifted, the tickets followed.

What a ticket actually costs an AV company

The fine itself is trivial. A red-light violation in California typically costs around $490 after fees. For a company spending hundreds of millions annually, that’s pocket change.

The real cost hides elsewhere:

• Regulatory leverage: Repeated violations feed directly into DMV safety assessments. Enough of them can trigger audits, restrictions, or suspensions.
• Data disclosure: Each citation often prompts regulators to request detailed logs, sensor data, and incident analyses. That data becomes part of the public record.
• Municipal politics: Cities negotiating AV access use enforcement records as bargaining chips, demanding geofencing, speed caps, or operating-hour limits.
• Insurance premiums: Autonomous vehicle insurance remains bespoke. Insurers track citations closely, and premiums adjust accordingly.

Executives know this. Several AV engineers, speaking off the record, describe internal pressure to tune behavior conservatively after high-profile enforcement—sometimes to the point of excessive caution that frustrates other road users.

The human driver isn’t off the hook

The footage also raises an uncomfortable question for regular drivers: what happens when a human interacts with a law-abiding but confused machine?

California law still places responsibility on human drivers to avoid collisions, even when another vehicle behaves unpredictably. If an autonomous car stops suddenly at a green light and you rear-end it, you’re likely at fault. Dashcam evidence becomes critical.

This is where practical preparation matters. Traffic attorneys in Los Angeles report an uptick in cases involving AVs where video footage determined liability. A high-resolution, wide-angle dashcam like the Garmin Dash Cam Live LTE or the Nextbase 622GW can capture signal states, vehicle behavior, and timestamps—evidence that holds up in court. For rideshare drivers operating in AV-heavy zones, that investment pays for itself quickly.

Pedestrians and cyclists face a different calculus. Autonomous vehicles tend to yield aggressively, which some riders exploit, darting into intersections with the assumption the car will stop. Police warn that this behavior remains illegal and dangerous. A robot’s caution doesn’t rewrite the right-of-way.

Cameras, citations, and the transparency problem

One reason these incidents resonate lies in visibility. Autonomous vehicles already record everything—multiple cameras, lidar, radar, GPS. Yet the public usually sees only grainy phone footage, not the rich sensor data that could explain what went wrong.

Companies cite trade secrets and privacy concerns when resisting full disclosure. Regulators increasingly push back. In 2024, the California Public Utilities Commission began requiring more detailed public incident reporting for driverless services, including narrative descriptions of traffic violations.

That trend will accelerate. Expect calls for standardized, anonymized release of AV incident footage, similar to police body-camera policies. Transparency builds trust. Without it, every viral clip becomes a Rorschach test.

Enforcement as a forcing function for better software

Ticketing driverless cars isn’t about punishment. It’s about feedback loops.

Human drivers adjust behavior when tickets hurt their wallets and licenses. Software adjusts when violations threaten deployment. The difference lies in speed. A code change can ripple across an entire fleet overnight. After a cluster of citations for blocking intersections in 2023, Waymo updated its intersection-clearing logic within weeks, according to its DMV filings.

That responsiveness represents the strongest argument for strict enforcement. Leniency teaches nothing. Clear rules, consistently applied, force improvement.

What this means for the future of autonomy

Autonomous vehicles remain statistically safer than average human drivers in many scenarios. NHTSA data shows human error contributes to 94% of serious crashes. Software doesn’t text, drink, or fall asleep.

But autonomy fails differently. It fails publicly, predictably, and sometimes absurdly. A human running a red light looks reckless. A robot doing the same looks broken.

California’s decision to ticket driverless cars acknowledges a simple truth: safety culture emerges from accountability. Treating AVs as special undermines trust. Treating them as vehicles restores it.

Actionable takeaways for readers on the road

• Document everything. Install a reliable dashcam with GPS and time stamping, especially if you drive in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Phoenix, or Austin—cities with active AV fleets.
• Know the right-of-way. Don’t assume an autonomous vehicle will always yield correctly. Defensive driving still applies.
• Report incidents. California’s DMV maintains an online portal for reporting autonomous vehicle safety concerns. Patterns matter.
• Watch the permits. Before using a driverless ride service, check its current permit status with the DMV or CPUC. Suspensions happen fast.

The sight of a police officer ticketing an empty car feels like a punchline. It isn’t. It’s a preview. Software now shares the road—and the blame. The red lights apply to everyone.