At a packed Minneapolis City Council meeting on Thursday, Councilmember Jason Chavez introduced an ordinance that would require a licensed human operator in every autonomous vehicle operating on city streets. Chavez argued the measure is needed to protect pets, saying he has seen video footage of cats being struck by Waymo driverless cars.
Councilmember’s rationale
“I will say cats have been killed by these autonomous vehicles,” Chavez told fellow council members. “I have a cat, I don’t want my cat getting killed because of these autonomous vehicles. To all cat lovers, know that these Waymo vehicles have killed cats and that’s unfair.” He added that a video shown during the meeting was “hard to watch” because it showed “literally cats being murdered by these vehicles.”
Ordinance details and vote
The proposed ordinance would mandate a human driver and a special operating license for all autonomous vehicles, effectively limiting the deployment of driverless taxi services. The measure passed narrowly on the council floor, but its future remains uncertain as Mayor Jacob Frey announced his intention to veto the proposal.
Mayor’s response
Mayor Frey said the ordinance “doesn’t make sense” and reiterated the city’s commitment to embracing innovative technology, including autonomous transportation. While acknowledging safety concerns, he warned that a “backdoor ban” on driverless cars would hinder progress and could raise fares for residents who rely on affordable transit options.
Public reaction
Social media users quickly mocked Chavez’s remarks, accusing him of exaggerating the issue and diverting attention from more pressing city challenges. Townhall columnist Dustin Grage posted, “The Minneapolis City Council wants to require a human in driverless vehicles because cats are being ‘murdered’ by them,” and added a note about Chavez’s $110,000 salary. Conservative commentator Gunther Eagleman wrote, “Minneapolis has found its real crisis, and it’s robot cars ‘murdering’ cats,” and suggested the city should focus on crime and fraud instead.
Other commenters highlighted broader concerns about housing affordability and rising taxes, questioning whether a $110,000 council salary should be spent on a pet‑safety ordinance. Fox News Digital columnist David Marcus echoed the sentiment, asking, “Why is a city council member making $110,000 when families and seniors are getting priced out of their homes?”
Industry perspective
Supporters of autonomous technology argue that requiring a human driver would effectively ban Waymo’s driverless taxi service, limiting transportation options and increasing costs for riders. Critics of the ordinance note that Waymo’s vehicles are equipped with rooftop sensors and have a safety record that rivals traditional taxis.
Journalist Zaid Jilani shared a personal anecdote, noting that his experience in a self‑driving Tesla included a stop for cats crossing the road, and that Waymo’s technology is “a lot more advanced.” Dealer Teamwork CEO Sean Stapleton dismissed the claim, stating, “My FSD Tesla avoids animals on the road. He is full of it.”
Next steps
With the mayor’s veto looming, the council may need to revisit the language of the ordinance or consider alternative safety measures, such as enhanced sensor requirements or public awareness campaigns about pet safety around autonomous vehicles. The debate underscores the tension between embracing cutting‑edge transportation solutions and addressing community concerns about safety and quality of life.
Original reporting: Fox News (HLL/CB) — read the source article.
