Federal lawmaker steps in after San Francisco’s Waymo fiascos 47%

By Brandon Pho60%

7/28/2026, 3:03:55 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Framing Effect, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 23.5% saturation with 165 hits. Analysis detected 1,060 faulty-reasoning hits from 701 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.2% and a BS Rank of 47% (14,613 of 27,293 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 53.50% of the article peer group.

A U.S. congressperson is stepping in to regulate robotaxis after a string of San Francisco traffic fiascos in which Waymos have stalled, lost battery and required physical tows, most infamously during the widely-documented Fourth of July car-pocalypse. 
Mayor Daniel Lurie joined Rep. 
Kevin Mullin on the steps of Fire Station 4 in Mission Bay on Tuesday as Mullin proposed new federal standards that would, on paper, keep robotaxis like Waymo from blocking emergency first responders, driving through active crime scenes, or backing up intersections. 
Lurie welcomed Waymo onto car-free Market Street in 2025, and San Francisco International Airport gave approval for the company to take passengers to and from the airport. 
Despite his high profile, and his previous support for what he called “safe, reliable, and modern transportation options,” the mayor has little authority to regulate the standards for autonomous vehicles operating statewide. 
That power rests with the California Public Utilities Commission and Department of Motor Vehicles, who have not publicly responded to Lurie’s calls for tighter regulation nor Mullin’s legislation after being contacted by Mission Local. 
But with today’s announcement, it’s clear that federal lawmakers aren’t waiting for those agencies to act. 
If approved, Mullin’s "AV Emergency Response Coordination Act" would establish “uniform safety standards” nationally, requiring robotaxis to share the road with police officers, firefighters and paramedics. 
Mullin and other officials cited a list of traffic incidents in cities such as Austin, where a Waymo vehicle blocked authorities trying to respond to a mass shooting. 
The bill, according to Mullin, would establish a 24/7 hotline for public officials to communicate directly with autonomous vehicle companies. 
It would also, he said, create a process for local public officials to issue requests for robotaxis to avoid certain areas during emergencies using geofencing. 
The bill would apply to all autonomous vehicle companies. 
“Waymo wants to fix these problems, and I would welcome their support of this bill,” said Mullin at the news conference. 
“They don’t want the negative headlines. 
They don’t want the reality of the incidents we’re seeing in the city.” 
Tiffany Moore, head of federal policy and government affairs at Waymo, said the company generally supports efforts to standardize how autonomous vehicles adapt to first responders. 
In a statement provided to Mission Local, she did not say whether the company specifically supports Mullin’s bill. 
“Establishing minimum guidelines would provide the entire industry and public safety community with a consistent framework, ensuring emergency responders have the resources and certainty they need whenever they encounter an autonomous vehicle on the road,” Moore said. 
For better or worse, San Francisco has been a testing lab for the robotaxi revolution, for longer than any other city. 
“We have learned more than any other city about how they operate in a dense, complex, urban environment,” said Lurie. 
“We have seen their enormous potential. 
We have also learned where stronger coordination and clearer standards are needed.” 
Waymo notably soured the fanfare of San Francisco's semiquincentennial July 4 celebration at the Golden Gate Bridge, which city officials had banked on as symbolizing a comeback from the “doom loop” narratives dogging the city’s image. 
Instead there was gridlock. 
Waymos contributed to the fiasco by running out of battery and requiring tow trucks that were, in turn, blocked by stalled robotaxis. 
After the fiasco, Lurie sent a frustrated letter to state regulators demanding tougher standards for autonomous vehicles. 
“California’s challenge now is not just whether autonomous vehicles can operate safely under normal conditions, but also whether they can perform reliably during extraordinary ones,” Lurie wrote in the July 16 letter.   
He also cited problems last December, when Waymo was forced to halt service after a near-citywide power outage created a PR nightmare for the company. 
Traffic lights across the city were down, confusing the driverless cars and trapping long lines of drivers behind them. 
Earlier this month, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also put Waymo and other companies on formal notice, calling nationwide incidents “unacceptable.” 
“And that’s an administration that’s taken a pretty hands off approach to regulation. 
They even are acknowledging that this is a real problem,” Mullin said. 
“All of these crises are calling for federal action.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.3%Brandon Pho: 3.6%Mission Local: 2.0%Confirmation Bias1.3%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 1.7%Mission Local: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.4%Brandon Pho: 3.3%Mission Local: 2.2%Availability Heuristic15.4%This article: 1.3%Brandon Pho: 1.1%Mission Local: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic1.3%This article: 3.0%Brandon Pho: 0.7%Mission Local: 0.3%Hindsight Bias3.0%This article: 2.9%Brandon Pho: 1.1%Mission Local: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias2.9%This article: 16.1%Brandon Pho: 7.2%Mission Local: 3.6%Framing Effect16.1%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 0.2%Mission Local: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.6%Brandon Pho: 0.6%Mission Local: 0.5%Status Quo Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 0.1%Mission Local: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.1%Brandon Pho: 2.0%Mission Local: 1.9%Optimism Bias6.1%This article: 1.7%Brandon Pho: 1.7%Mission Local: 0.9%Pessimism Bias1.7%This article: 23.5%Brandon Pho: 7.2%Mission Local: 4.5%Negativity Bias23.5%This article: 3.0%Brandon Pho: 1.5%Mission Local: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias3.0%This article: 0.9%Brandon Pho: 1.8%Mission Local: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.9%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 1.5%Mission Local: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 0.3%Mission Local: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 1.8%Mission Local: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 0.3%Mission Local: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.6%Brandon Pho: 1.5%Mission Local: 0.8%Recency Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 0.7%Mission Local: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 1.6%Mission Local: 1.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 0.1%Mission Local: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.4%Brandon Pho: 3.5%Mission Local: 2.4%Appeal to Authority17.4%This article: 9.1%Brandon Pho: 1.2%Mission Local: 1.1%False Dilemma9.1%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 1.3%Mission Local: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.0%Brandon Pho: 4.7%Mission Local: 3.5%Hasty Generalization7.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.3%Brandon Pho: 0.8%Mission Local: 0.7%Bandwagon1.3%This article: 1.9%Brandon Pho: 2.4%Mission Local: 2.7%Appeal to Emotion1.9%This article: 5.3%Brandon Pho: 1.2%Mission Local: 0.4%Begging the Question5.3%This article: 11.8%Brandon Pho: 3.1%Mission Local: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.8%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 0.2%Mission Local: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.3%Brandon Pho: 0.6%Mission Local: 0.7%Burden of Proof1.3%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 0.7%Mission Local: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.0%Brandon Pho: 2.1%Mission Local: 2.4%Anecdotal4.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 0.3%Mission Local: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 1.7%Mission Local: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 0.1%Mission Local: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 0.0%Mission Local: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 0.6%Mission Local: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 1.0%Mission Local: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 1.1%Mission Local: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 4.9%Brandon Pho: 5.0%Mission Local: 2.1%Biased Writer Voice4.9%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 0.2%Mission Local: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 0.3%Mission Local: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 0.4%Mission Local: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandon Pho: 0.6%Mission Local: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

701 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers42%attributed speech407writer words
Selected voice

Daniel Lurie

100%flagged-word coverage
70 attributed words24% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.4 ptsWriter: 8.4%Daniel Lurie: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.