Police generally cannot issue tickets to Waymos in Colorado – here’s why

Colorado law enforcement has a problem that sounds like it was written by a committee trying to invent the most 2026 traffic headache possible: What happens when a driverless car breaks a traffic law, but there is no driver to ticket?

In Colorado, the current answer is basically: not much, at least when it comes to moving violations.

If a Waymo or another fully autonomous vehicle runs a red light, blocks traffic, drives where it should not or otherwise behaves like a confused tourist with a software update pending, police generally cannot issue a traditional moving violation ticket to the vehicle itself. That is because Colorado’s traffic citation system is built around a very old-fashioned concept: a human being behind the wheel.

Colorado’s current autonomous vehicle rules trace back to Senate Bill 17-213, which was passed in 2017. That law helped open the door for automated driving systems on Colorado roads, provided the vehicles can comply with state and federal laws.

But the traffic enforcement side did not exactly get the same futuristic glow-up.

Under current Colorado law, moving violations are issued to drivers. A ticket needs to be served to a person. Police officers cite human beings for speeding, careless driving, failing to yield and other moving violations. They do not issue those citations to a steering wheel, a sensor package or whatever mysterious computer brain is politely deciding whether to turn left.

So if there is no human driver behind the wheel, there is no obvious person for an officer to hand the ticket to.

That means Colorado law enforcement cannot issue a standard moving violation to a driverless Waymo vehicle simply because there is no driver in the car to receive it. The automated system may be “driving,” but it is not a legal person standing there awkwardly while an officer asks for license and registration.

Here is where it gets slightly less ridiculous.

Parking violations are tied to the vehicle, not necessarily the driver. That means if a driverless vehicle is parked illegally, overstays a meter, blocks a driveway or otherwise commits the noble civic offense of being in the wrong spot, it can still receive a parking ticket.

That is because parking enforcement already works differently. Cities commonly issue parking citations based on the vehicle’s license plate or registration. They do not need to identify who physically parked the car.

So yes, Colorado can ticket a Waymo for parking violations.

But if the same vehicle commits a moving violation while nobody is inside? That is where the law gets all deer-in-the-headlights.

Police are not completely helpless if an autonomous vehicle breaks down, blocks traffic or creates a safety issue.

If a Waymo or another unmanned vehicle becomes disabled, obstructs a roadway or creates a hazard, law enforcement and the Colorado State Patrol can respond like they would with any other problem vehicle. They can direct traffic, secure the area and have the vehicle towed if needed.

Waymo also provides law enforcement with 24/7 contact access for support. In theory, officers can contact the company to resolve issues involving one of its vehicles. That might mean getting remote assistance, having the vehicle moved or coordinating a tow.

So no, police do not just have to stand there whispering “please reboot” into the windshield.

But when it comes to issuing a moving violation, that is a separate legal issue. The tools exist to deal with the hazard. The tools do not really exist to punish the driving behavior through a normal traffic ticket.

This issue became more visible after reports that a driverless Waymo drove through an active farmers market in Denver as vendors were setting up.

According to local reporting from outlets including 9News and Westword, law enforcement had no clear way to ticket the vehicle for the incident. Officers could deal with the immediate safety concern, but Colorado law does not currently provide a clean mechanism for citing the autonomous vehicle or directly penalizing the company through a traffic ticket process.

And that, understandably, raised some eyebrows.

Because if a human driver had gone wandering into a farmers market area where they were not supposed to be, there would likely be consequences. When the “driver” is software, the system suddenly starts shrugging like it misplaced the rulebook.

Other states are further along in creating enforcement frameworks for autonomous vehicles.

California, for example, has a regulatory structure that allows state regulators to issue notices of noncompliance and escalate penalties against autonomous vehicle companies when their vehicles violate rules or create safety concerns. That does not mean California has everything perfectly figured out — please, it is still California traffic — but it does have more tools for holding companies accountable.

Colorado does not currently have that kind of framework.

The state allows autonomous vehicles under certain conditions, but it has not yet built a detailed enforcement system for what happens when those vehicles break traffic laws without a human driver involved.

That legal gap is now the center of the conversation.

Colorado lawmakers are expected to consider legislation or regulatory changes to address the problem. The goal would be to create a system that allows the state to hold autonomous vehicle companies accountable when their vehicles commit traffic infractions.

That could mean citations or penalties issued directly to the company that owns or operates the vehicle. It could also mean new reporting requirements, mandatory response protocols, administrative fines or a system similar to California’s noncompliance notices.

The details will matter.

Lawmakers will need to decide who is responsible when an autonomous vehicle breaks the law: the owner, the operator, the manufacturer, the software developer, the fleet company or some combination of the above. Because “the robot did it” is not exactly a satisfying legal theory, even if it is becoming weirdly common.