California Gets Into the Weeds, and Other States Continue Down Other Paths

Waymo has applied to the state of California for a permit to test completely autonomous vehicles (AV) - as in no human operator in the vehicle - on the state's public roads. So far, Waymo has no peers in applying for this top tier California AV operation permit. A post from Teslarati also reports that a second, unnamed, company applied, but that the application was incomplete. That makes one company out of 52 that already have obtained permission to test AVs with a driver. Consumer Watchdog is pressing the state to make the application process open to the public. This group has been the primary national voice for slowing down state and national permission to test and operate AVs and for restrictions.

California's new regulatory regime provides for testing and deployment of full-scale AV fleet operations of taxipods or shuttles zipping around its cities and suburbs or replacing rural vanpools. California is asking quite a bit of manufacturers that wish to test without human drivers, leveraging its geography as home base to Silicon Valley and a robust AV industry. I am not certain that a state or country without such a strong AV presence would be able to attract applicants for a permit otherwise.

Starts at level 3

Stays the same: For level 3 and above, California is allowing companies to continue AV testing with a driver, just continuing the regulatory regime of the past few years. Unlike many states, California requires:

A manufacturer conducting testing of autonomous vehicles on public roads shall maintain a training program for its autonomous vehicle test drivers and shall provide the department with a course outline and description of the autonomous vehicle test driver training program. 

This training will include"practical experience in recovering from hazardous driving scenarios." Not a job for me.

Completely human driverless testing: New Section 227.38 conceives of the empty AV and the AV with only passengers on public roads, but only for testing of a level 4 or 5 AV. Lots more information is required of the AV manufacturer for this higher-level permit. Among other requirements, the state will want to know where and when this testing is happening.

Remote operation capability required: Section 227.38 only permits AV operation without a human driver ready to take over IF there is a human somewhere who is tasked to remotely take over operation of the vehicle in case of emergency or failure.

A two -way communication link is required and the remote human must "continuously monitor" the vehicle. The applicant must provide a "description of how the manufacturer will monitor the communication link" of each of its AVs. Other requirements include, but are not limited to, a law enforcement interaction plan. I am uncertain whether this human, resembling the security guard who stares at security camera monitors for hours at a time, will be able to avoid distraction, boredom, and drowsiness.

Navya AV shuttle on Apr. 25 at University of Wisconsin-Madison campus.

There is quite a bit of information that must be included in a mandatory law enforcement plan so that law enforcement will be able to detect an AV, will be able to communicate with its remote operator, and will have the capability to safely remove such a vehicle from a roadway.

Oh, and the remote operators must be trained.

Not all about safety: First, presume no privacy in the information about your whereabouts, what you are doing in the vehicle, and what, if anything, you say. That's my advice. California is acting as if we are interested in the details. "The manufacturer shall disclose to any passenger in the vehicle that is not an employee, contractor, or designee of the manufacturer what personal information, if any, that may be collected about the passenger and how it will be used."

We'll all be clicking on I Agree to long privacy notices.

California continues to require collision and disengagement reports for all AVs.

The big kahuna - deployment: California has developed a separate application for the top tier of deployment of AVs. Remember that this includes level 3 vehicles that have backup drivers as well as AVs that can operate without a human operator on board.

California is requiring that AVs have event data recorders, which it calls an "autonomous technology data recorder," that are required to collect and store "autonomous technology sensor data for all vehicle functions that are controlled by the autonomous technology at least 30 seconds before a collision with another vehicle, person, or other object while the vehicle is operating in autonomous mode. The data captured and stored by the autonomous technology data recorder, in a read only format, must be capable of being accessed and retrieved by a commercially available tool."

Self-aware AVs only: 

Enthusiasm vs. prudence - prudence gets passing on the right in Uber/Tesla crash aftermath

Connecticut is on its way to implementing a law passed in 2018 that will only address a preliminary phase of AV testing and pilots. Towns and cities may apply to be testing areas, but only four will be selected. "Participating municipalities will have to enter into agreements with autonomous vehicle testers." Click here to view the requirements for city-corporate AV agreements and the application form for municipalities.

One report says that Stamford will be first to apply. No other cities or towns have been mentioned. My suggestion: AV shuttle for a New Haven pizza tour. Slices included.

There's a reason why New Hampshire is the Granite State. State legislators are reportedly resisting lobbying efforts to weaken its bill. These legislators are not quite ready for testing and full-scale deployment on any road at any time and with no conditions.

It is the conditions that are giving AV proponents cause for concern. "Test vehicles would have to be accompanied by escort vehicles, and the license could be revoked for violating the rules of the road." Other conditions include a larger bond than is usually required ($10 million instead of $5 million); notification to localities of where and when testing will occur; and law enforcement freedom to pull over an AV for vehicle code infractions.

Oh, and the bill, HB 314, requires:

Certification that, prior to testing on public roads, the autonomous vehicle has been tested under controlled conditions that simulate, as closely as practicable, the real world conditions that the autonomous vehicle will be subject to during testing.

No surprise that AV industry advocates are pushing for legislation that is more favorable for companies.

Nebraska puts out welcome mat

Nebraska just passed a very permissive law. Instead of passing its original bill, which provided for an AV pilot in Lincoln with four shuttle vehicles, the new law allows fully AVs to operate on public roads without a human driver present in the vehicle. The one unique aspect of Nebraska'a law is a concern about AV operations vis a vis railroad crossings.

The automated driving system feature, while engaged, shall be designed to operate within its operational design domain in compliance with the Nebraska Rules of the Road, including, but not limited to, safely negotiating railroad crossings, unless an exemption has been granted by the department. The department shall consult with the railroad companies operating in this state when considering an exemption that affects vehicle operations at railroad crossings.

Crashes must be reported. The law preempts local governments from imposing any requirements or restrictions. Nebraska seems to be giving a hell yes! green light to on-demand AV fleet operations, whether they be for ridehailing, transit, or any kind of microtransit.

More, but ...

There is more from Pennsylvania and Indiana, but this post is already way too long. Those will wait, though, like Lucy and Ethel on the speeded up chocolate factory assembly line, I don't have enough pockets or tabs to fit everything.