Insurance Industry Critical of Vehicles and Legal Landscape

A patchwork of state laws and voluntary federal guidelines is attempting to cover the testing and eventual deployment of autonomous vehicles in the U.S. It is a decidedly pro-technology approach that lacks adequate safeguards to protect other road users. 

From Status Report: Reality Check (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Aug. 2018).

The report from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) examines both partially automated vehicles, such ones equipped with Tesla Autopilot, and the vehicle involved in the Uber crash in Arizona, as well as the federal and state-level legal landscape governing - or neglecting to govern - AV testing and deployment.

If you are looking for a good source to quickly educate someone about the regulatory and legal provisions applicable to AVs, this report's final few pages provides an excellent source.

AV passport at state borders?

While there are states that have laid out the welcome mat - nary a question asked - for AVs, others have requirements in place for documentation, permits, and coordination with state agencies, particularly law enforcement. Right now, fully AVs are not crossing borders. They are not coming with a pile of papers for safe crossing of state borders or an AV equivalent of a passport.

The report concisely describes the many state laws that have been passed in the past few years, pointing out that 11 states allow for full AV deployment without requiring the equivalent of a driving test or a pile of documents that establish that a particular vehicle is capable of safe operation.

Federal vacuum creates state laboratories of democracy

The report does not come right out and expressly state that the federal government, specifically the National Highway Safety Transportation Administration (NHTSA), has abdicated its responsibility over vehicle safety of partially or fully AVs, because IIHS is too diplomatic to be so blunt, but it basically finds that NHTSA has taken a very hands-off approach.

The report adequately summarizes the safety-regulation issues thwarting the easy passage of legislation in the Senate and the players who are opposing the lenient, incredibly pro-business bill that is pending there. Just a few Senators currently stand between passage of the bill and reconciling a similar version that passed eons ago in the House of Representatives.

Plain speaking

IIHS is being blunt in expressing its opinion that crash data be shared so that the insurance industry can analyze the data to determine the relative safety of the vehicles involved.

To that end, IIHS strongly advises NHTSA to create and maintain a nationwide public database of vehicles with automated driving systems and those exempt from safety standards that is indexed and searchable by vehicle identification number (VIN). Currently, VINs aren’t required to encode information about optional crash avoidance and automation features. ... As it weighs which regulations to amend, NHTSA also should consider new ones to ensure that automated driving is safe for all road users. Recording vehicle data is one area that needs to be addressed. 

I would think that the insurance industry, and IIHS in particular, would be a powerful voice due to its long experience, its profit motive, and its familiarity to political leaders, regulatory agencies, and the public. After all, every safe ride is at least a nickel in an insurance company's pocket. Okay, I have absolutely no data to substantiate that statement. For all I know, it could be $.0001.