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.

State-by-State Conversation by Report

State-level automated vehicle (AV) task forces and their reports vary a great deal, with some examining scenarios of a wholesale transition of the roadway space or the transportation system, while others appear to presume a static, mostly auto-based transportation system, similar to what we have now in most of the US.

Most of these reports, such as Wisconsin's, serve as AV primers for state legislators, government agencies, and others who work on transportation-related issues within a given state. They explain basic AV concepts, levels of automation, and how AVs differ from connected vehicles. Some explain well the traditional federal-state division of responsibilities over regulation and oversight of vehicle manufacturing, driver licensing, insurance, and infrastructure design. The Utah report does a nice job of describing the federal-state division of responsibilities, as well as which federal concerns are monitored by which federal agencies.

Progressive, inclusive, and geographically correct

These reports reflect the culture of each state, especially in terms of the scope of topics explored. Minnesota's report is a good example. This report emphasized equity and accessibility concerns, even describing the inclusiveness of the meetings that the Governor's advisory council in charge of the report conducted to discuss AV issues with people around the state.

The fear of an inequitable lack of balance between urban and rural areas was evident throughout the Minnesota report and, reflecting the concern with public perception, public engagement was a major priority for the advisory council.

Each meeting included remote participation. In addition to the public meetings, individuals could participate online, by survey, or share their feedback directly with the CAV-X office. To ensure transparency for the process, MnDOT placed all materials on its public website, including dates and times for each meeting. MnDOT conducted additional outreach activities for those unable to attend meetings, including individual meetings and calls, public events, presentations at various conferences and events, and a demonstration at the Minnesota State Fair. MnDOT also participated in intergovernmental consultation with tribal governments through the Advocacy Council on Tribal Transportation, the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, and individual meetings with tribal executives. The final recommendations considered input from all of these outreach efforts.

Unlike most such bodies, the Minnesota advisory council did not include any AV companies or car manufacturers. Instead the advisory council included staff from government, non-profit organizations, labor, the insurance industry, and the energy sector.

Transportation modes besides cars and trucks? What are those?

On the other end of the spectrum is the report from Idaho, which mostly ignores the possibility of shifting transportation modal choices, and explores the usual concerns of cybersecurity, privacy, licensing and insurance. This might be due to the fact that members of the Autonomous and Connected Vehicle Testing and Deployment Committee - that's a mouthful - were auto dealers, representatives of various vehicle associations, and lots of law enforcement staff. Transit was not represented.

Indeed, though none of the recommendations mention transit, walking, or biking, a subcommittee that included transit, biking, and walking advocates managed to include some interesting text in the report - just not in the executive summary or in the recommendations.

The predictable routes, limited number of vehicles, fixed infrastructure in the public right-of-way, and public oversight place public transit in a unique position to pilot AV/CV technology. By piloting AV/CV for transit, the public could become more familiar and comfortable with the technology. Enabling and deploying AV/CV technology for public transit would also provide operational benefits to transit agencies by providing more consistent operations at potentially lower costs.

...      ...      ...

In the future, most vehicles using Idaho’s transportation infrastructure may not be individually owned, as they are today. The Mobility as a Service (MaaS) model predicts that most vehicles would be owned by corporations or collectives, and dispatched to users on demand. This model already exists with services like UBER and Lyft that currently use human drivers. These services have pilot projects testing the use of AVs. 

AV technology is accelerating faster in urban areas than rural areas. If state policies fail to address the needs of rural and local jurisdictions, the state could develop a disconnected network for AV/CV operations. 

Garden State: Not exactly innovative

Photo from Hyundai. https://www.motor1.com/news/300142/hyundai-elevate-concept-revealed/

The New Jersey joint resolution to establish a task force requires the task force to evaluate existing state and federal law, consider whether to pass AV legislation, whether to allow AVs to operate on public roads, whether to enact AV safety standards. Also looking at the other usual topics of licensing, registration, and liability. This is a completely typical state AV task force. It basically allows a state to appear to be doing something while hedging for time, and it also allows various transportation players in a state to come together, learn, and have an AV-focused conversation that will result in a public report.

*[In New Jersey, a joint resolution is defined as "a formal action adopted by both Houses (of the legislature) and approved by the Governor. A joint resolution has the effect of a law and is often used instead of a bill when the purpose is of a temporary nature, or to establish a commission or express an opinion."] As of Feb. 20, 2019, the Governor has not yet approved of this joint resolution.

While across the pond, if it's required for a 16 year old ...

Meanwhile, Britain surges ahead in a much more organized fashion than we are seeing from the US federal government. The UK automotive minister and - love this title - future of mobility minister have announced that passing a stringent test, using the term "rigorous safety assessment," is required before an AV is permitted to be tested on UK roads.

The UK also has an AV report out of its Law Commission (jointly with the Scottish Law Commission) that provides a much more complete assessment of the legal issues surrounding AV laws and regulations. First, it examines the legal rules in other countries; second, it makes a distinction between partially automated vehicles (such as the Tesla autopilot system) and highly automated vehicles; third, it looks at local versus national control and whether new government agencies should be created or not. The report also raises the issue, in tort liability terms, of what a reasonable AV manufacturer or software updating company would do in terms of an obligation to update sensors, cameras, software, and other technology.

Some US Cities Imagining Driverless Future

I'm wishing there was not so much driverless news. It keeps me from other obsessions, like baking bread and watching tiny house shows and videos. Oh and reading. Really, with people visiting soon, I have a ton of bread to bake. Thinking rye, spelt, and whole wheat. And that's before I start another round of cinnamon raisin challahs.

After a few days with transportation geeks, I am dividing the world into the two types of transportation professionals below. Okay, I mean shared use and transit professionals, not any kind of transportation professional.

1. Those who think driverless is coming soon and will be a revolution in transportation.

2. Those who are concentrating on the transportation world as it is and don't believe driverless will be coming for another 10 to 20 years. Basically, they are attempting to be nice by not saying outright that they really think driverless is irrelevant.

Adding places to category #1

Yes, there are the usual suspects of states that want driverless production and testing in their states. But I'm talking about places that are reimagining use of the roadway and what driverless will mean for life in their cities and states.

New York, New York, it's a hell of a town

The Manhattan borough president recently convened a panel to discuss this topic. FYI - The City of New York is divided into five boroughs. Manhattan and Brooklyn are two of them. The panel addressed the different possible scenarios that might unfold with driverless vehicles.

[Side note: Lyrics: New York, New York, it's a hell of a town; the Bronx is up and the Battery's down; the people ride in a hole in the ground ... I tried to find the lyrics online, but all I discovered were videos with the Frank Sinatra, Gene Kelly movie version and what I have below, which is from the current Broadway show that went on site to locales in the city. They show Bethesda Fountain, different parts of Central Park, Nathans in Coney Island, and lots more.]

Chicago is my kind of town - NOT a driverless town

To be fair to the Second City, despite its inferior pizza and its frigid cold winters, the place is good about being in the forefront. Not on driverless, at least not one local politician. A particular alderman wants to ban driverless vehicles and fine any that show up in the Windy City. This puts the local pol against the state government, which wants to encourage driverless investment in the state. [Video is of the Chicago song, with Sinatra singing.]

According to the article about Chicago, Los Angeles is taking a different route and planning for a largely driverless reality in 2035.

No song for Utah

It may be there are songs about Utah, I just don't know them. I could have done Oklahoma.

But Utah has a driverless transit bus at a university. That's Utah State University and the driverless bus has intriguing wireless charging capabilities. I do not know if and when the bus will be tested with actual passengers on a real route. 

Still, I think Chicago might want to reconsider.

Utah Takes Contemplative Approach

Utah has a driverless bill being considered by its state legislature. Does it allow for driverless operations on the state's roads? No. Does it allow for testing of driverless vehicles within the state? Kind of.

An autonomous vehicle is defined as partially to completely driverless. The definition states:

[A] motor vehicle equipped with technology that allows the motor vehicle to perform one or more driving functions through vehicle automation, without the direct control of the driver. (Emphasis added.)

The bill would require that a study be performed to explore:

1. Best practices for regulating partially and completely autonomous vehicles, including the regimes of other states.
2. Evaluation of safety features and standards for driverless vehicle operation in the Utah terrain and weather.
3. Federal standards.

Happy New Year

The study is due before Dec.31, 2016. 

Almost as an afterthought, the legislation allows for testing, but does not supply any details about conditions under which it may occur. The only proviso is that the testing shall be contracted to be performed under the auspices of three state agencies: the Department of Public Safety, the Division of Motor Vehicles (within the Department of Transportation), and the Department of Technology Services. 

The term "facilitate and encourage" is used in regard to testing, but no specifics are supplied.

Each agency of the state with regulatory authority impacting autonomous vehicle technology testing shall facilitate and encourage the responsible testing and operation of autonomous vehicle technology within the state.

A legislative compromise, perhaps?

Was there a debate about which agency should be granted authority? Maybe, as no department is tasked with the lead role. The bill does reflect the Utah culture (in my limited regulatory and project knowledge of transportation there) of taking the best practices of other places and adapting them to the communal ethos of the state.