3 New AV State Laws - 3 Approaches

While we wait for Congress to act on automated vehicles (AVs), and AVs are probably not high on the list right now, three new state laws have recently passed and become law. These are from Florida, Iowa. and Oklahoma. Louisiana has legislation pending that is likely to pass.

Short memory and low expectations

Perhaps we are sufficiently far in time from two realities that state legislatures are again moving quickly on AVs.

1. Mar. 18, 2018 - the date of the Uber not-really-an-AV crash in Arizona; and
2. Congress failed to pass a national AV law in the last session.

At the moment, states perceive themselves to be in the driver's seat in pushing AVs forward. The  new laws uniformly assert state supremacy, preempting local regulation or restrictions on AV operations.

One trend is a change in legislative definitions is that the term "automated driving systems" has become common and has generally replaced the term "autonomous vehicles." It has also become commonplace to require that AVs be able, among other things, to achieve a "minimal risk condition." The Florida, Iowa. and Oklahoma laws include these.

Florida

Florida HB 311

Whole hog - "human operator is not required to operate a fully autonomous vehicle; authorizing a fully autonomous vehicle to operate in this state regardless of whether a human operator is physically present in the vehicle"
No human need be present when AV is in operation
Allows teleoperation of AV

Allowing operation of an AV with video or television entertainment
Allowing operation of an AV with wireless devices in use

Definitions edited from earlier AV law
Preempts local governments from in any way regulating AV ridehailing (with some exception for airport authorities)

A provision that governs partial automation technology looks like fodder for litigation:

If the autonomous vehicle is not fully autonomous, the vehicle must: (a) have a system to safely alert a licensed human operator physically present in the vehicle if an automated driving system failure is detected while the automated driving system is engaged. When an alert is given, the system must: require the licensed human operator to take control of the autonomous vehicle or must achieve a minimal risk condition. 

Vague language allowing the Florida Turnpike Enterprise to "fund, construct, and operate facilities" that "advance" AV transportation for the purpose of reducing congestion AND improving safety. Note to Florida Turnpike Enterprise: The safest modes to integrate into your AV infrastructure are walking, biking, and transit.

Addresses long-range MPO transportation plans and mandates that "Each M.P.O. is encouraged to consider strategies that integrate transportation and land use planning to provide for sustainable development and reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

Oklahoma

Oklahoma SB 365

1. Preempts municipalities
2. Defines terms
3. Creates new section of vehicle law

Nothing in the Oklahoma law specifically discusses AV operation on public roads.

Iowa

Iowa SF 302

Allows for AVs to operate on public roads, but a human driver must be present in the vehicle. In fact, in the Iowa framework, it is still the human driver who is responsible, meaning the party who is potentially liable. Nothing about the possible liability of software providers or of hardware or vehicle manufacturers.

Local governments are preempted from regulating or taxing AVs, AV operations, or the business of AV ridehailing.

The Iowa law provides for AV ridehailing, but it does not explicitly permit an AV to operate without a human driver present. This leads one to believe that the law means that a human driver must be present when a ridehailing passenger is picked up or when a delivery is made with an AV.

Louisiana legislation pending

Louisiana HB 455 - This legislation is pending in the Louisiana Senate. It only concerns AV commercial motor vehicles and probably is geared toward attracting the trucking industry testing going on down South. [Update on July 9, 2019: The Louisiana bill passed and has become law.

Defines AV terms
Autonomous commercial motor vehicles - meaning trucks and buses - may operate in Louisiana
"Prior to commencing the operation of an autonomous commercial motor vehicle without a conventional driver present in the cab, a person or entity shall submit a written statement to the Department of Transportation and Development certifying that the vehicle meets the requirements of this Section."
Allows for teleoperation of automated commercial vehicle, but a human remote operator is considered the operator during such periods of operation.
If an AV commercial vehicle is equipped with teleoperation capability, it may operate on public roads without a human present, but only if "if a remote driver is operating the vehicle."

I'm confused, is the intention that the vehicle be automated or only partially automated. Is this really a commercial vehicle teleoperation bill? Is this a platooning bill, though that term or a description of such activity is left unmentioned?

AV State Laws Passed From 2018 to Present

I was wondering recently what has been the trajectory in terms of state laws passed in the post-2016-17 heyday of perfectly safe AVs will soon be here! The killing - yes, killing - of Elaine Herzberg on Mar. 18, 2018, with a combination of unsafe pedestrian infrastructure and Uber's hubris was a major dump of cold water on a free pass for lenient AV legislation. Ms Herzberg did not die in vain; state legislatures slowed down considerably.

This slowdown did not mean inaction. In the last year, two types of state laws have become popular: those mandating AV studies and those allowing for truck platooning. Please note that the source for most the provisions discussed below is the set of links from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) webpage that houses a list of enacted state laws dealing with autonomous vehicles, and some independent research.

I have no idea how much trucking trade associations and companies are paying for lobbying at the federal level, but they have quietly infiltrated state legislatures and, without fanfare, accomplished the passage of platooning bills in many states.

There are a few exceptions in terms of topics among the 2018 and 2019 statutes, which are explained below.

Another reason for a slowdown and look around among state legislators is the anticipation that the US Congress will act and that it needs to act. There is limited authority to among states to regulate vehicles anyway. What I find most interesting in the passage of recent state laws is the diversity among the "Let's study this" laws as to what is actually being pondered and examined.

Study and report

Maine requires state government agency participation related to aging and people with disabilities,  and participation of a non-profit transit provider.

New York requires that its second annual AV report, in 2019, be from the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.

Oregon's task force is mandated to include representatives from transit, the taxi industry, and transportation unions, as well as the usual AV, cybersecurity, and insurance industry representation, among others. The study topics go beyond those routinely mentioned in such legislation, with land use, transit, and infrastructure design among the specified long-term topics.

Pennsylvania requires transit participation and either pedestrian or biking participation on its advisory committee.

Washington State has created a work group that is tasked with reporting annually and which is set to expire in 2023. The work group is made up solely of state officials and legislators. The net that the work group is required to cast is broad in that it includes examination of AV social impacts, among other topics, and the task force is legislatively mandated to engage stakeholders and the public.

Washington, District of Columbia (DC) has an impossible legislative search system, so I did a Google search for the name of the legislation. The legislative text (link gives you a Word document) authorizes an expansive AV study, but it does not restrict or discuss who specifically (or their designees) will serve on any committee to research and consider AV laws, regulations, and possible impacts. The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) is required to produce a study that will be made publicly available by July 1, 2019. The DDOT study must consider many of the usual AV study topics, as well as public space and public health, safety of pedestrians and bicyclists, various transportation modes - "including mass transit, shared-use vehicles, and public and private vehicles-for-hire" - and the "impact on the District's disability community."


Platooning

Alabama allows for truck platooning, offers a definition, and authorizes its state Department of Transportation to regulate. Alabama does not appear on the studies list because it passed a "thou shalt study and prepare a report" law in 2016.

Indiana platooning law is not limited to trucks.

Kentucky requires that a proposed plan be submitted to the state Department of Vehicle Regulation, which must approve before platooning is permitted; notification is required to be made to the state police.

Louisiana platooning is not permitted on two-lane roads.

Mississippi does not allow platooning on two-lane roads. Platooning must be also expressly approved by both the state department of transportation and the department of public safety after a "plan for approval of general platoon operations" is submitted.

Oregon does not use the term "platooning," instead calling it "connected automated braking system" and this term conceivably applies to any type of vehicle, not merely commercial vehicles or trucks, that is equipped with the appropriate technology.

Pennsylvania allows for platooning with military, bus, or motor carrier vehicles. Platooning vehicles must bear a visual mark. Platoons are limited to a maximum of three vehicles and each must have a driver on board. There's more, which means that platooning takes a considerable amount of lead time.

Utah has passed a platooning law. It is not limited to any particular type of vehicle. This is in addition to Utah's general AV law discussed below.

Wisconsin passed a simple platooning law. It is not limited to specific classes of vehicles.


Other

California statute allows law enforcement officers to remove an AV from a road if the vehicle does not possess a permit to operate as an AV on public roads within the state.

Another California law allows the City of San Francisco to impose a fee for every AV ridehailing or shared ride provided for a fare.

Nebraska general AV law: Requires that an AV be able to achieve on its own a minimal risk condition, but does not require proof or testing of such capability. Also explicitly allows for ridehailing, other shared-use AV commercial passenger transportation, and public transit. Preempts local regulation or taxes related to AVs.

New York specifies the coordination with the state police required prior to AV testing demonstrations in the Empire State. This is an update to a pretty restrictive AV statute passed in 2017. The 2018 law requires that a "law enforcement interaction plan shall be included as part of the demonstration and test application that includes information for law enforcement and first responders regarding how to interact with such a vehicle in emergency and traffic enforcement situations." The law also calls for a report to be written; see above for details about that.

Pennsylvania allows for automated work zone vehicles as part of its Turnpike Commission's road projects.

Utah's legislature just passed an AV law, awaiting the governor's signature, that:

• Governs and allows for AV ridehailing 
• AV registration requirement
• Fully allows, for level 3 automation, whether with driver on board or a remote driver 
• No license required for AV systems
• Preemption of local government regulation of AVs 
• Low speed vehicles have different rules. Defined as four passengers, including the driver or fallback operation, or less. BUT that human driver is permitted to be a remote operator. These vehicles have a maximum speed permitted of 25 mph.

It should be noted that Utah was an early state that studied AVs. Perhaps the state is a bellwether for others that are or have studied AVs and will then consider AV legislation.

Louisiana Bill

Louisiana seems poised to vote on a bill allowing driverless vehicle testing. HB 233 would amend the motor vehicle and driver licensing laws. A "driver" is still required, but the definition is amended, for purposes of automated vehicles, to mean a person who is able to take over control of the vehicle. 

Where is the driver?

No summoning the car from elsewhere? Maybe. The definition of "operator" of a motor vehicles contemplates that a person on board is not required.

For purposes of an autonomous vehicle, "operator" shall also mean the person who is seated in the driver's seat, or if there is no person in the driver's seat, the person who causes the autonomous technology to engage.

"Driver" is similarly, though somewhat ambiguously, defined.

"Driver" means every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle, including an autonomous vehicle.

Presumably, that person could be in control in some form of an air-traffic control-like office.

Testing only - for now

Driverless travel will only be permitted on Louisiana's roads for testing purposes. For fun, but probably way less safety, let a 16 year old drive you around the Bayou state.