Minneapolis Divided Over Driverless Cars

Rear of Minneapolis police car with Minnesota license plate — Photo: Jeff Bukowski / Shutterstock

A Minneapolis council member’s claim that self-driving cars are killing pets ignited a citywide fight over whether robots or people should control our streets.

Story Snapshot

The City Council narrowly passed a rule to require a paid human in every driverless rideshare car.
Mayor Jacob Frey vetoed the measure, calling it a “backdoor ban” that “doesn’t make sense”.
Council Member Jason Chavez said autonomous vehicles have killed cats, drawing sharp pushback online.
Waymo argued the rule is a de facto ban on its robotaxis in Minneapolis.

What Minneapolis Voted To Do

The Minneapolis City Council passed an ordinance that would force any driverless rideshare to have a licensed, paid human safety monitor in the driver’s seat at all times. Supporters framed the plan as a basic guardrail to protect riders, pedestrians, and pets, and to set job standards for the people hired as monitors. The vote was 7–6, reflecting a split council. The rule would cover companies running commercial autonomous vehicles, including robotaxis tested on city streets.

Under the ordinance, companies would also need a city license to operate. The human monitor would need a valid driver’s license and direct access to steering, braking, and acceleration if the system failed. Backers say this keeps accountability on the road and creates a clear line of responsibility if something goes wrong. Critics counter that putting a person in every “driverless” car defeats the core benefit of automation and raises costs without clear safety gains.

Why The Mayor Hit The Brakes

Mayor Jacob Frey vetoed the council’s action after it passed. He said requiring a driver in a driverless car “doesn’t make sense” and warned the policy would act as a “backdoor ban” on new transportation options. Frey argued Minneapolis should welcome innovation while writing smart rules that target real risks. His office has pushed for a focus on licensing and the city’s right of way, not rules that effectively block the technology from operating at scale.

Waymo, the company piloting robotaxis, echoed that view. The company called the ordinance a “de facto ban” on autonomous vehicles because it forces a permanent human presence in every ride. Company leaders say their systems are designed to operate without a driver and that requiring a human makes the model uneconomic. They argue that clear safety reporting and route rules can protect the public without ending the main benefit of automation.

The Cat Claim That Sparked Backlash

During debate, Council Member Jason Chavez said cats have been killed by autonomous vehicles and linked those deaths to his support for the ordinance. The remark spread fast online and drew mockery, with critics calling it alarmist. The claim tapped a raw nerve for many residents who worry tech is tested on their streets without enough proof of safety. Chavez has promoted the measure to set local guardrails on autonomous vehicles and protect workers and families.

Public discussion often blurs two fights: safety versus jobs. Supporters cite near-miss stories, emergency response gaps, and risks to pets and pedestrians. Opponents stress that anecdotes are not the same as data and argue broad bans hide a labor dispute over rideshare work. Policy research shows cities across the country are wrestling with who sets the rules, how data gets shared, and whether local licensing can shape behavior without blocking progress.

What This Fight Says About Power And Trust

This clash reflects a bigger national pattern: local leaders try to slow or shape rollouts while big firms push scale and uniform rules. Residents on both the right and left see a system where decisions are made above their heads and risks land on their blocks. They resent feeling like test subjects. They also worry that rules are written first for corporate balance sheets or political talking points, not for safety, jobs, or neighborhood life.

Minneapolis just voted to ban driverless rideshare inside city limits 😳

🔴 The "Workers Drive Minneapolis" ordinance passed 7-6, requiring a human safety supervisor in every autonomous rideshare vehicle in the city 🚕
⁰🟢 Mayor Frey is expected to veto, since it preempts state… https://t.co/b8OuIsJm3z

— Robotaxi Radar (@RobotaxiRadar) October 1, 2026

Clear, public facts can lower the heat. Minneapolis can demand incident data, emergency contact protocols, and performance reports before granting any license. Companies can publish safety metrics in plain language and set up a hotline that reaches a person in seconds. The city can also pilot limited zones and hours, with defined goals and an off-ramp if problems spike. Those steps would target the real issues and show who is in charge when a ride goes wrong.

What Happens Next

The mayor’s veto sends the ordinance back to the council. A narrow vote makes an override unlikely unless members flip. If the veto stands, expect a new bill that leans on licensing, data sharing, and emergency response rules rather than a human-in-every-car mandate. If trust grows through transparent pilots, the city could expand access. If not, pressure will rise for tighter local control or even a pause on driverless rides in busy areas.