New uniform state law for AVs - Any takers?

Will a critical mass of states adopt the new draft uniform law for Autonomous vehicles (AVs)? This law was drafted, after thoughtful drafts and discussion, by the Highly Automated Vehicles Committee of the Uniform Law Commission (hereinafter the HAV Committee).

Here's my earlier summary of the significance of uniform state laws:

The states have and could again adopt uniform legal codes relating to driverless vehicles and technology. Such laws exist for commercial paper, evidence, probate, among others. There is even a Uniform Law Commission that promotes such laws. The full name of the Commission being the National Conference of Commissioners on State Uniform Laws. 

Beware: An identically-worded statute in all 50 states and the District of Columbia does not necessarily mean that the judges in those states will interpret those laws in identical ways. Click here for more legal discussion of uniform laws.

Uniform state laws avoid a Congress divided in unusual ways on this issue. Remember that even a substantial difference of interpretation in the state courts does NOT go to the US Supreme Court for resolution; the differences of opinion simply remain unresolved.

Who is liable and responsible?

"The draft uniform law continues to answer the question “who drives an automated vehicle?” with “the automated driving provider.” The provider of the automation is legally responsible for the operation of the AV.

An automated driving provider is liable for a failure to comply with [this state’s rules of the road] during the automated operation of an associated automated vehicle as a human driver or operator would be if the vehicle were not under automated operation.

Here is the heart of the Commission's reasoning:

Similar to how drivers are licensed and subject to obligations under state vehicle codes, the automated driving provider would register and be subject to many of these same obligations. More fundamentally, the automated driving provider would be the legal entity that vouches for automated operation—and that thereby makes an explicit promise to the state and its public. ... But regardless of ownership, the continued safety of automated operation is likely to require the ongoing involvement of a technically competent entity that facilitates data transfers, software updates, and technical support. [Emphasis added.]

I believe the public and smart eyes in the professional safety community will like this. The "automated driving provider" (ADP) is the centerpiece of the uniform legislation and the HAV Committee adopts a California-like approach in requiring that ADPs submit documentation before putting vehicles on the road.

Who can be an ADP?

First, this is not a franchise or any-guy-on-the-street situation. The ADP must "participate in a substantial manner in the development of an automated driving system" - a term to be defined in individual state courts. And "submit to the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration a safety self-assessment or equivalent report for the automated driving system. " There's more, but these seemed to both give a good idea of what is required and the thinking of the HAV Committee.

Very user comprehensible legal text

This law is short, sweet and not completely simple, though it is simple in the following respects.

Minimum safe driving distance laws and regulations.

There is no need for a licensed driver or a person to be in the vehicle when it is operating.

Same liability provisions as for conventional, human-operated vehicles.

Feel free to use smartphones, tablets, laptops or whatever. "A restriction under [this state’s vehicle code] on the use of an in-vehicle electronic device, other than a device used to evade law enforcement, does not apply during the automated operation of an automated vehicle."

AV can be left without a person when it's in operation.

Laws covering unattended children, incapacitated people, and pets still apply.

I am not a motor vehicle law expert, but this seems to continue whatever currently applies: "An automated vehicle may not be operated on a [road open to the public] if the vehicle is not properly maintained, not insured in accordance with applicable law, not compliant with a registration requirement, or otherwise not fit to be operated."

Time will tell on power balance

So, the question remains: Will states adopt this uniform legislation and thereby create, without Congress, a consistent legal framework across the country for registration, liability, and operation of AVs? The federal government would retain its current role with NHTSA, FHWA, and FTA.