On one hand I think this is great because it will help research in that domain move forward (no pun intended), but I can't help but think of the very strong lobbying from Google that had to have been necessary for it.
"The California bill, which passed in a 37-0 vote"
A 37-0 vote for something that is far from being productized or even clearly defined (what defines "self-driving car" vs. other assistive technologies?) and has very serious and legitimate safety and legal (e.g. who's responsible of accidents?) concerns, is at the least surprising.
As a Google employee unaware of any of our lobbying in this matter, I would suggest you ask yourself these questions:
1. Why would Google lobby to produce a unanimous vote, which is not necessary to pass such a law?
2. If Google did so, what would the marginal cost of each superfluously lobbied vote be? Consider that the 37th voter on the fence can ask for a whole lot in such a scenario.
3. Is the marginal cost of lobbying to convince each and every of the 37 voters worth whatever benefit you derived in the first question?
"The California bill, which passed in a 37-0 vote"
A 37-0 vote for something that is far from being productized or even clearly defined (what defines "self-driving car" vs. other assistive technologies?) and has very serious and legitimate safety and legal (e.g. who's responsible of accidents?) concerns, is at the least surprising.