Deep Dive into Colorado AV Law

The preamble to the Colorado law, Senate bill 17-213, gets straight to the heart of the disadvantages of human driving - too many roadway deaths and two million crashes a year across the US - as well as the expected advantages of autonomous vehicles (AV) - cost-efficient transportation, increased independence for youth, older adults, and people with disabilities, and Colorado's position as a tech leading state. I don't know if the last one is true, but that kind of statement is pretty standard either as an introduction to legislation or spoken out loud by politicians.

Totally driverless

The Colorado law specifically does not govern partially-autonomous vehicles, SAE levels 1-3, and states that these vehicles are already lawful to operate in the state. The law only addresses completely autonomous vehicles.

Colorado bans local governments within its borders, such as cities, towns, and counties, from regulating autonomous transportation at all, but the language is interesting. The pre-emption is for provisions that "set[] standards for an automated driving system that are different from the standards set for a human driver." The goal is to permit transportation unimpeded by jurisdictional lines. (That's a big weakness of transit and many taxi laws.) There's also an awareness demonstrated that we still live in a human-driver world, something I sometimes forget as I daily read about autonomous vehicles.

Warning: Because the Colorado statute is in all caps, as though the legislature feels it must scream out that a bill has passed, there will be a quote in all-caps-scream-mode coming up.

Of course

AVs must comply with state and federal laws.

Annual state department of transportation (CDOT) report to the legislature about AV testing.

Liability for crashes or other incidents will be determined according to state and federal law or common law. Doesn't this go without mention? In law school, I learned the basic lesson that unless a law states or strongly implies a change, current rules remain unaltered.

Government 101 - Proper design necessary to achieve interagency coordination

IF AN AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEM IS NOT CAPABLE OF COMPLYING WITH EVERY STATE AND FEDERAL LAW THAT APPLIES TO THE FUNCTION THE SYSTEM IS OPERATING, A PERSON SHALL NOT TEST THE SYSTEM UNLESS APPROVED BY THE COLORADO STATE PATROL AND THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A PROCESS OVERSEEN BY THE COLORADO STATE PATROL AND THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. 

1. Requiring coordination, but not creating an incentive or enforcement to ensure it will be implemented does not always work when more than one government agency is involved. Perhaps Coloradans are more willing to collaborate than others.

2. It is merely a traffic infraction to violate this dual-agency-approval requirement, according to the next subsection of the law.

Now on to the next state. Actually, with the package of bills before Congress, these state laws and bills are likely just fun pieces for pondering

13 Draft Bills - Some Details and Links

This list of draft bills reflects my own priorities and arbitrary order. FYI: No bill numbers are available yet. I will either add that to this post when numbers are assigned or move on as the legislation changes. One ordinary task that these draft bills would perform would be to introduce into law a uniform definition of highly automated vehicles.

Snarky comments are sometimes provided parenthetically. Oh, and NHTSA = National Highway Safety Transportation Administration.

1. What a surprise, another federal advisory council

Disability Mobility Advisory Council - This council would consist of 15 to 50 members who will perform routine advisory council stuff: "information gathering activities, develop technical advice, and present recommendations." And who exactly will be invited to the party? People with disabilities themselves, directors of centers for independent living, researchers about disabilities, small businesses with experience hiring people with disabilities, the business community that is testing and developing automated vehicles (expansive language not limited to highly automated vehicles), automobile dealers (who have never provided accessible vehicles), and "academia with expertise in mobility access for the disabled community."

Not mentioned:

• Transportation providers with experience in transporting people with disabilities. 
• Representatives of the various disability communities, such as people with visual and auditory challenges, and people with developmental disabilities.
• Federally-funded transportation technical assistance centers that are already paid to have knowledge about transportation for people with disabilities.

2. Another one

Advisory Council for Improving Mobility Access for Underserved Populations and Senior Citizens - Honestly, I am not sure why the first two advisory councils are not combined. There is lots of overlap and such committees would have the authority to meet jointly.

This advisory council would consist of 15 to 50 members that will do the same thing as the above advisory council relating to people with disabilities, except to focus on underserved populations and senior citizens. Who are these people who will allowed to participate on this advisory council? Actual older people and people living or working in places underserved by public transportation - pretty much everywhere outside of NY, SF, Chicago, and a few other transit-rich islands, directors of centers for independent living (who also show up on the above advisory council), the business community that is testing and developing automated vehicles (expansive language not limited to highly automated vehicles), automobile dealers (who have never provided and underserved populations" (again, why not merge these advisory councils?).

Since we are in repeat mode, I'll reiterate my points. Not mentioned:

• Transportation providers with experience in transporting senior citizens and underserved populations. 
• Representatives of the various range of senior citizens and underserved populations.
• Federally-funded transportation technical assistance centers that are already paid to have knowledge about transportation for senior citizens and underserved populations.

3. Oh boy, a third advisory council. It's like DC Christmas in June.

Automated Driving System Cybersecurity Advisory Council - Yes, this advisory council will do the same tasks as the previous two councils listed, this time "regarding cybersecurity for the testing, deployment, and updating of automated driving systems with respect to supply chain risk management, interactions with Information Sharing and Analysis Centers and Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations, and a framework for identifying and implementing recalls of motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts."

Interesting that this advisory council will report not to a federal agency, but to the "Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representative and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate." Someone actually gives credence to this advisory council because its recommendations will not get lost in the administrative ether.

Included on the list of members are those with academic expertise in the topic, car manufacturers, automobile dealers selling automated driving systems, organizations in the cybersecurity field, engineers involved in this field, and "at least one representative from the National Institute of Standards and Technology" (a federal agency), as well as representatives from NHTSA, the insurance and, the auto repair industries.

4. Getting to the meat

NHTSA would be given more authority in the Let NHTSA Enforce Automated Vehicle Driving Regulations Act or the LEAD’R Act - "The purpose of this Act is to ensure the ability to test and deploy automated driving systems in the United States and expressly preempt any related State laws to prevent the testing or deployment of this technology."

Some nice federal preemption there. Forget states as the laboratories of innovation in this field of regulation. This is broad preemption that mirrors the current governance structure for auto safeyy.

HIGHLY AUTOMATED VEHICLES.—No State or political subdivision of a State may adopt, maintain, enforce, impose, or continue in effect any law, rule, regulation, duty, requirement, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to the design, construction, mechanical systems, software systems, or communications systems of highly automated vehicles or automated driving system equipment unless such law, rule, regulation, duty, requirement, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law is identical to a standard prescribed under this chapter. [Emphasis added.]

There are limited exceptions for "registration, licensing, [liability], driving education and training, insurance, or traffic law or regulation," which have traditionally been the purview of state government.

5. Good to be flexible

The Practical Automated Vehicle Exemptions Act or the PAVE Act would stretch the current NHTSA exemption from motor vehicle safety standards for 2500 vehicles per manufacturer to 100,000 for each calendar year. Car companies have been interested in this new number for a while.

6. Someone must do this acronym naming thing for a living

Is there an elf who lives in a closet in a House office building who comes up with cute acronyms? Here's another one: Renewing Opportunities for Automated Vehicle Development Act or the ROAD Act. This bill would extend the maximum exemption period from three to five years.

7. Winner in the brilliant acronym category and real attention to people with disabilities

Expanding Exemptions to Enable More Public Trust Act or the EXEMPT Act - This bill would add two exemptions to the NHTSA toolbox, (1) for "promot[ing] the public adoption and acceptance or facilitat[ing] meaningful commercial deployment"of a feature or system that makes vehicles safer (or reasonably believed to be safer) than non-exempt vehicles, and (2) an amazing inclusion provision regarding people with disabilities. The second added exemption:

would promote transportation access to individuals with disabilities (as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) and would provide an over-all safety level at least equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt vehicles. [Emphasis added.]

Don't get too excited because the word "promote" is vague and undefined. The fact that the disability community is mentioned however, with the implicit acknowledgment that they are currently second-class transportation citizens, is meaningful in itself.

8. Not just car companies anymore.

Maximizing Opportunities for Research and the Enhancement of Automated Vehicles Act or the MORE Act - This bill imagines a world beyond car companies by adding to the testing and evaluation exemption list of the certification standard in 49 USC Section 30112 (b) (10) highly automated vehicle (HAV) manufacturers and HAV equipment.This bill also adopts the SAE standards for automation levels included in the September 2016 Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice Report (J3016). An HAV is partly defined as not a commercial motor vehicle. Those are regulated separately.

9. Telling states what's up

Increasing Information and Notification to Foster Openness Regarding Highly Automated Vehicle Matters to States Act or the INFORM Act - This draft bill would require notification to states of exemptions from motor vehicle safety and bumper standards for HAV.

10. Kumbaya and another advisory committee

Sharing Automated Vehicle Records with Everyone for Safety Act or the SHARES Act - NHTSA would be instructed to form an advisory committee to deal with information that government needs without compromising trade secrets. The committee would:

develop a framework that allows manufacturers of highly automated vehicles to share relevant, situational information related to any testing event on public streets resulting in damage to the test vehicle or any occupant thereof and validation of such vehicles in a manner that does not risk public disclosure of such information or disclosure of confidential business information. 

Those whose membership on the advisory committee is mandated are SAE International, insurance companies, auto dealers selling automated systems (as opposed to HAVs), manufacturers of HAVs and automated equipment, and auto repair industry representatives (too bad the Car Talk guys are gone).

11. Oh no you don't Act

Highly Automated Vehicle Pre-Market Approval Reduces Opportunities for More People to Travel Safely Act or the HAV PROMPT Act - The Secretary of Transportation is barred from creating a pre-sale approval process for HAVs. The legislative language is short, sweet, and complete. Not a change, really; this bill would merely add HAVs to regular auto law - not that there are not problems with laws that have tolerated 30,000 deaths per year for decades while the automobile companies have continued to make tons of money.

12. Shush, adding a FOIA exemption

Guarding Automakers Against Unfair Advantages Reported in Public Documents Act or the GUARD Act- Yes, it's understandable that automakers and tech companies would want a Freedom of Information Act exemption. This exemption bars release of particular information from "manufacturer or equipment manufacturer of highly automated vehicles, with respect to the design or testing of such vehicles." The classes of information listed in the bill shall be treated as confidential business information. These categories include data and reports about testing, events, crashes, cybersecurity, human interfaces, "testing and validation of the fallback of an automated driving system," and "event detection response capabilities."

This means that some ordinary person or curious journalist cannot access this information through formal government channels. The ban is pretty complete.

13. Please pick a leader. Forced co-equal government coordination is problematic.

Managing Government Efforts to Minimize Autonomous Vehicle Obstruction Act or the MEMO Act - This draft bill acknowledges that two federal agencies have overlapping interests in the cybersecurity and privacy aspects of HAVs: the US Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This bill would require that within approximately six months of passage that NHTSA, an agency within DOT, and the FCC would "shall enter into a memorandum of understanding on the regulation and oversight of highly automated vehicles with respect to privacy and cybersecurity." Interesting to see what happens with this.

Tune in on Tuesday

The House hearing on the package of draft bills will take place on Tuesday, June 27. So sad that I will be away, but thank goodness for live streaming and archiving. The interests represented by witnesses scheduled are automotive, consumer, and the business side of technology. No one will be representing transit or anyone who is transportation-vulnerable in our current transportation system.

Transit AV Shuttles and Curious Jurisdictions

An ambitious autonomous shuttle pilot program is starting up at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. The 15-passenger shuttles are manufactured by Navya and a caretaker will be on board, in case anyone is too freaked out that there's no driver. Okay, that's not the official reason for the human present. The vehicle model is the Arma and it is fast for a pilot shuttle, going up to 35 mph.

The pilot starts with two vehicles and service every 10 minutes on campus, but plans are already being discussed for more. Needless to say, the vehicles are fully electric. MCity, an autonomous vehicle testing facility in Ann Arbor, is part of the partnership making the pilot happen.

Service will begin in the Fall of 2017.

Another cute transit shuttle

First Transit has announced that it will be a partner in the GoMentum autonomous vehicle shuttle pilot that Contra Costa Transit Authority will be conducting at Bishop Ranch, a huge office park in suburban California. EasyMile is supplying the autonomous shuttle vehicles. "First Transit is responsible for providing staffing, maintenance and operational support for the two SAV shuttles during the testing and deployment phases of the program."

Commercial break

Ford showing off its autonomous car at the MCity testing ground in Ann Arbor, Mich. Aren't those uncongested streets cute? And what sweet, undistracted, few pedestrians.

Info-gathering mode for the gun shy

Not every US state and jurisdiction is ready for autonomous vehicles, self-driving tiny houses, and transit to be anywhere and everywhere on its roads. Some would prefer to sit back, have research performed, and read a report before getting feet wet. Portland, Ore., and the small state of Rhode Island fall into this category. Both recently issued RFIs - or requests for information.

Portland is high tech, granola, and transit, bike and artisnal friendly. Its RFI, issued on June 9, seeks "data to assist the City in understanding the availability and diversity of suppliers in the marketplace, as well as approaches and solutions to AV testing, piloting and deployment." (To view the RFI, click on link to file attachment number in the middle of the page.) This specifically includes business models, electric vehicles, maintenance, and communications.

In its open way, Portland invites all players to submit information. "We are open to receiving individual applications from companies that have a single piece of the AV puzzle, or group applications that bring together multiple entities." Listed are traditional car manufacturers, transportation network companies - a/k/a TNCs, such as Uber and Lyft, tech companies, consultants, and community stakeholders, among a few others.

Among the topics Portland seeks input about include, but not limited to, first and last mile for transit, commuter transportation, etc., drone or mobile delivery, campus/private land transportation, connected vehicle and infrastructure technology, data collection, and freight transportation.

The deadline for submissions is Aug. 11, 2017. Though a pilot program might come later, the city emphasizes that a pilot program description is not what it is currently seeking.

The Ocean State

Seems like a weird nickname for Rhode Island because it can apply to so many states. Rhode Island's RFI has a deadline of July 12., mid-day. The state is seeking information about autonomous vehicles and not proposals for pilots or programs. RI is seeking information about autonomous surface transportation in all of its forms, from ordinary cars to  inter-suburban mobility to ride sharing (or ride hailing, I suppose) to intercity rail. The state also wants ideas about public-private partnerships and utilizing the state's well-known academic institutions, including Brown University and RISDI (Rhode Island School of Design), both within walking distance in Providence.

Mentioned in the RI RFI are requests about planning, employment, laws and regulation, operations in various weather conditions, and law enforcement as well as particular cities, corridors, and connectivity to specific campuses.

Self-driving entertainment

... and finally, a video of a potato enabled to travel autonomously shows what happens when a smart, tech-savvy person has too much time on his or her hands. Cute, odd, and entertaining one-minute-plus video. Plus proof that one can be a plant and travel at the same time.

Teaser: We have draft federal legislation!!! Next Tuesday will be a hearing on Capitol Hill, though I will be on a different coast at the time. Maybe I can catch the live stream. The subcommittee hosting the hearing will be the Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The draft legislation is available and I will be examining it ASAP.

AV Transit Shown Off in Nevada as Law Passes

Nevada's push for an autonomous vehicle law has succeeded, but part of the public relations effort associated with the legislation was the week-long operation of a shuttle in Las Vegas. Add media coverage and delighted passengers to produce a sweet picture of a rosy and uncomplicated future. Image is as important as reality.

The Nevada bill that became law on June 16 is quite broad and allows for the operation of autonomous vehicles. →No human is required to be present in an AV or ready to operate or test the vehicle.

The law provides for:

• Platooning, if in compliance with state law,
• Operation and testing of autonomous vehicles,
• Pre-emption of local laws, taxes, and fees,
• Partially and completely AV, and
• Lack of liability for post-purchase third-party conversion to AV.

Unusual is:

• Ten-business-day window for reporting crashes,
• Explicit adoption of SAE International terminology regarding levels of automation,
• Tax on AV rides from a company operating as a transportation network company (TNC), otherwise known as ride hailing,

at the rate of 3 percent of the total fare charged for transportation services, which must include, without limitation, all fees, surcharges, technology fees, convenience charges for the use of a credit or debit card and any other amount that is part of the fare. The Department shall charge and collect from each autonomous vehicle network company the excise tax imposed by this subsection.

New acronym warning

The law coins a new term here - "autonomous vehicle network company" (AVTC). The meaning is obvious, but the definition articulated is "an entity that, for compensation, connects a passenger to a fully autonomous vehicle which can provide transportation services to the passenger." The law provides for an application process for AVTCs.

Pretty much a taxi/TNC/AV law

The AVTC section of the law provides:

• Prospective passengers of AVTCs will be entitled to a fare estimate before embarking on a trip.
• At least an annual inspection of AVTC vehicles.
• Receipts for passengers and what they must contain. 
• Explicit exemption from the meaning of AVTC are human services transportation, motor carrier transportation, and carpool matching services. But later on the law allows for AV human services transportation, taxi, and motor carrier transportation. 
• Production and retention of trip records, vehicle inspection records, annual reports to the state, and on and on, blah, blah, blah.
• Ban on release of personally identifiable information about passengers - without consent or unless disclosure relates to "protect[ing] or defend[ing] the terms of use of the services or to investigate violations of those terms of use." Nice use of legalese.
• Submission of crash reports.
• Localities are permitted to regulate AVTC business licenses and permit, certification, and/or fee to operate at an airport.

There's more, but suffice it to say that this law is basically a set of AVTC regulations that some parties wanted to ensure were set pretty much in stone instead of being left to the predilection of whichever administrator is in charge.

Congress: Magical Time for Autonomous Vehicles

The Republicans are in general agreement and the Democrats I've seen appear to be on board for major changes to vehicular regulation in the US - for autonomous vehicles. NHTSA will be the big winner and states will lose much of their authority via federal preemption. The US Constitution permits Congress to use its enumerated powers, in this case the Commerce Clause, to bar states from interfering by passing laws or issuing regulations that interfere with federal law.

The time is near at hand and legislation may move quickly with so much bipartisan agreement on this issue, which is relatively under the radar. With the Russia investigation, healthcare, taxes, and infrastructure sparking controversy both among Republicans and with Democrats, it will be magical to see the House and the Senate come together on regulation of autonomous vehicles.

Note that I am not writing about anything with only Democratic support.

Not just cars and adorable shuttles

We have yet to see the big 16-bill package reported on by Reuters and in the Eno Center for Transportation blog post. Legislation submitted thus far in the US House of Representatives offers absolutely nothing but a glimpse into politics that shows how at least one interested party has found a sympathetic congressperson. H.R. 2120 , the Buses United for Safety, Regulatory Reform, and Enhanced Growth for the 21st Century Act, has a provision (Section 12) that requires the Secretary of Transportation to:

include and consult with the motorcoach and school bus industries through its representatives, including motorcoach and school bus manufacturers, companies operating mo­tor­coaches and school buses, and motorcoach and school bus industry associations, in all phases of development of vehicle policy and proposed regulations.

This is a nice directive, but it has no teeth. Conversations will take place, some of which will be taken seriously, but the Department of Transportation and its relevant divisions, particularly NHTSA, which issues standards that regulate bus safety, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration will not be compelled to listen.

Innovation Act 

Senate bill 1225, the Vehicle Innovation Act of 2017, comes with a nice title and authorizes  - but does not appropriate - funding for energy-related research related to energy, specifically to "(A) improve the fuel efficiency and emissions of all vehicles produced in the United States and (B) reduce vehicle reliance on petroleum-based fuels." Yes, those italicized words are actually included in legislation that could become law in the US - with a highly conservative Congress.

I will not bore you with too many details, just ones that pop out of this multi-page, multi-agency-related bill. I do love reading through the details because that's where the gold of what's happening can be located.

Through the Department of Energy (DOE), for fiscal years 2018-2022, over $300 million each year is authorized for research. This means that in separate legislation, Congress may - but does not have to - appropriate - meaning spend - UP TO the amount authorized. The research portions of the bill mention batteries, efficiency, waste heat recovery, aerodynamics, natural gas, and more. (I like the batteries part because one offspring is in grad school in that field.)

It's a long list, and toward the end comes vehicle to vehicle technology (V2V) and "other research areas as determined by the Secretary." Talk about leeway.

DOE vs. DOT

Remember, all of the above goes through DOE. It's quite interesting that the industry consultation requirement, which specifically refers to manufacturers of vehicles, only refers to DOE and not to the Department of Transportation (DOT). This list of players who should be consulted "to the maximum extent practicable" specifically mentions transit and transit, among other heavy vehicle-related industries, gets its own section of the bill in terms of research that mimics what is mentioned above.

Parallel universe bills on cybersecurity

Two pieces of legislation with similar, but somewhat conflicting visions have been submitted. The Security and Privacy in Your (SPY) Car Act, S. 680, introduced in the Senate thus far has only Democratic support, so it will not go far. It's a suggestion, an opening gambit, a way of staying in the game, in my opinion. It goes into detail about setting privacy standards, preventing hacking, and data storage and access. It addresses the roles of both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration's (NHTSA) roles.

In the House of Representatives, a Republican from South Carolina has introduced a somewhat different SPY Act, with one Democrat so-sponsoring. This bill, HR 701, officially called the Security and Privacy in Your Car Study Act of 2017, or the SPY Car Study Act, directs NHTSA to study cybersecurity standards for vehicles "in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Secretary of Defense, the Automotive Information Sharing and Analysis Center, SAE International, manufacturers of motor vehicles, manufacturers of original motor vehicle equipment, and relevant academic institutions."

You can tell whose lobbyists have been successful and which entities are perceived as established and trusted players. Again, that word "consultation" is broad enough to drive a truck through and it does not mandate equal consultation or coordination.

What will the study do? It will lead to a - wait for it - report. This is DC, a place that loves nerdy reports as much as action.

Plan to repeal

A House bill, HR 1623, would repeal the Advanced technology vehicles manufacturing incentive program, a loan fund program enshrined in 42 USC 17013.

Interesting tidbit on preemption vis a vis autonomous vehicles

This brief from the University of Washington School of Law's Technology Law and Policy Clinic, Autonomous Vehicles Team,  offers a view of preemption in terms of NHTSA regulation and tort liability in state courts during the Bush W's and Obama's years.

Washington State Executive Order

1. An executive order is NOT a law. The next governor can cancel it at whim. The legislature, by passing a law, can change it.

2. An executive order, as we saw at the federal level with both President Obama and President Bush before him - with the authority to use broad administrative powers - can be a force for funding and direction. But see #3.

3. Every state is different. The governance structure - who has the power and authority - varies greatly from state to state, from legislature to legislature. In some states, the governor is the power center; in others it is three top legislators who stay forever and do not need to listen to anyone else.

Washington State does more than grow apples and technology
... it wants autonomous vehicles

I claim total ignorance of the power structure of Washington State politics, but with so much technology business, the Seattle area cannot be happy that Silicon Valley in California is synonymous with the current tech boom. The governor is lagging behind, but paying attention. Who knows what he tried to get going before deciding on an AV executive order.
[Photo from HUD.]

Lots of Whereas points before the meat (or vegan meat)

Likely following state tradition that an executive order must establish that a bona fide problem exists before one should be issued, the Washington State executive order begins with a list of "Whereas ... " there's a problem and opportunities here.

[Photo by from AJAD MOHAMAD (OWN WORK) [CC BY-SA 4.0] from livability.com.]

Problems identified include:

• Lots of auto "accidents" - not PC; the correct term is crashes, 
• The state wants to be in the technological lead - it's already behind in that race for this industry.

Low and behold, the executive order has found the solutions of (a) safety and (b) economic development in autonomous vehicles.

The nitty gritty

So how is the magical solution of autonomous vehicles going to happen in the land of apples and Microsoft? A study group - ta da! Actually, it's being called a "work group."

Not kidding. Obvious that no one on the governor's team is from the world of marketing.

But wait ...

The one promising point in the executive order is permission for pilot programs that allow for autonomous vehicles to be tested on Washington States roads. The vehicles must have on board equipment that can be operated by a human and an actual human physically present UNLESS (among other predictable details):

• The vehicle is "capable of bringing the vehicle to a safe condition in the event of a system failure," 
• Developers of the vehicles self-certify to DOL (Department of Licensing) that they are compliant with the above requirements.

No requirement of a data recorder, no requirement of coordination with local jurisdictions, and no extraneous requirements.

I make fun, but this executive order is pretty middle of the road in terms of state policies and laws.

[Photo: US Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx (R) and Google Chairman Eric Schmidt (L) ride in a Google self-driving car at the Google headquarters on February 2, 2015 (Photo: Getty) via inews Essential Daily Briefing]

Crushing news for the cuteness factor

Say it ain't so. Did Waymo not learn the Toyota Prius v. Honda whatever lesson that conspicuous upgrades or do-gooding or technology quickly becomes a desired wow factor? Nope. Waymo is ditching the cute, pod-like driverless vehicles that Google developed and tested. Ah, I remember fondly the artistic designs put on the vehicles and the sweet factor.

Sorry, there's no charm in the look of an average car. A little sad here that the fireflies, as Google named the two-seater podcars, are disappearing. According to the inews Essential Daily Briefing:

Firefly will make a trip to the Arizona Science Centre in Arizona during August, before making its final journey back to Texas in October to commemorate the second anniversary of the first autonomous drive. They are also available to view in the Computer History Museum in California, and in London’s Design Museum.

Better yet - not - Waymo is counting on a minivan, which is inaccessible for people with disabilities and has zero charm, to catapult it to greatness with families who lug gear.

Bluegrass Tennessee Passes AV and CV Laws - Deep Dive

If this were my inbox or a pile on my desk, I would be groaning out loud and with great suffering. I hate stuff piling up, but I let it happen this time with the seeming constant flow of legislation, particularly from US states that believe that a new law will place them in the lead of economic prosperity that autonomous vehicles will surely bring.

NOT.

You are too late; the lead on this has already been taken. Now it is better to be either a state that puts out a welcome mat for autonomous vehicles on all roads, in all situations, and with little bureaucracy, or to take a wait-and-see attitude while other states suffer from the inevitable growing pains that a disruptive on-the-streets technology will bring.

Tennessee's new autonomous vehicle law, TN S. 151,  the Safe Automated Vehicles (SAVE) Act, has a few unusual provisions, but then that is what is interesting about the state laws being passed. They all differ in some way, just like current motor vehicle laws vary regarding conventional vehicles.

The statute covers the whole range of self-driving possibilities, from partially driverless to complete "automated driving systems" (ADS), which is the term employed by the statute. Read to the bottom for info about Tennessee's new platooning law.

Bluegrass State Likes Big Auto Companies

A big limitation is the restriction to any but auto manufacturers.

A motor vehicle manufacturer may commence a SAVE project on the streets and highways of this state after it provides notification to the department of its self-certification of the requirements set out in § 55-54-104. Only motor vehicle manufacturers are eligible to participate in a SAVE project, and each motor vehicle manufacturer is responsible for the safe operation of its participating fleet. [Emphasis added.]

A manufacturer is defined in this statute as a "person" (meaning a corporation) that:

(A) Has manufactured and distributed motor vehicles in the United States that are certified to comply with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards; and 

(B) Submitted appropriate manufacturer identification information to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as provided in 49 CFR part 566;

The limitation means that tech companies that want to test AV software, sensors, etc., will have to partner with a manufacturer - or go to a more friendly state. This subsection basically says goodbye to a startup that wants to test on its own.

Siri says put on the seatbelt or we won't go. Nah, she's not mom material

The Tennessee law includes a provision that anticipates unaccompanied children riding in autonomous vehicles. The responsibility for the child will lie not with the company that manufactures or controls the vehicle at the time, but, quite logically, with the parent, guardian, or other adult who is personally responsible for the minor. As someone who grew up on the buses and trains in New York City, I am fine with this, but that kind of situation will be a big change in most American communities.

The law goes into quite a bit of detail about the child situation, specifically addressing liability if a child fails to put on a seatbelt (in my house, the kids would scream if anyone neglected to click that seatbelt). Actually, the law excuses the seatbelt neglect as far as operators of autonomous vehicles are concerned.

Usual provisions

• Pilot projects require notification that includes geographic information about pilot and testing areas, and crash notification and data reporting technology.
• Automatic or prompt notification to law enforcement in the case of a crash. "Prompt" is left undefined, but, presumably, regulations will clarify that. 
• Consistent with general tort law, the Tennessee statute deems the manufacturer liable "for incidents where the ADS is at fault." Really, that goes without saying and does not create strict liability or a presumption of liability.
• And another significant, but usual, provision is a ban that preempts counties, cities, and other political subdivisions from having their own laws or policies that are more lenient or rigid than the state law. Big no to local control. 
• The ADS is considered the operator for a fully autonomous vehicle.

Being picky

Though the statute uses the word "crash," the law also refers to "accidents," a term which many now oppose because the design of high-speed and other dangerous roads predictably results in road violence, injury, and death.

Convoy

Tennessee has passed a connected vehicle law TN S. 676 that allows for multi-vehicle platooning IF there is "notification to the department of transportation and the department of safety. The notification provided pursuant to this subsection (a) must include a plan for general platoon operations." AND the platooning plan is not rejected by either of these state departments within 30 days of plan notification. (Emphasis added.)