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.

Lots of AV Reports, But Little on Accessibility

Automated vehicle (AV) development is not just about the technology that would allow for driver-free operation. AVs are partly advancing under the assumption that they will be electronic - EVs - and connected - CVs or CAVs. On the other hand, most of the legal studies and policy development is mode neutral and either gives lip service to, or ignores, people with disabilities. Accessibility embedded in the interfaces and the vehicles - whether for the benefit of people with disabilities, people with strollers, or people with luggage and grocery carts - is left out of the equation.

Considering that the touting of AVs highlights how wonderful they would be for current transportation-challenged populations, little ink or anything else has been spilled, so to speak, to guarantee that this promise will be fulfilled.

What do we mean by accessibility?

I will defer to the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) about their standard for accessibility in the context of AVs, taken from the CCD Task Force Autonomous Vehicle Principles.

AVs have the potential to drastically improve access for people with disabilities, including members of the blind and low vision, Deaf and hard of hearing, intellectual, developmental and cognitive disability communities, people with physical disabilities, including wheelchair users, and people with neurological conditions including epilepsy and seizure disorders. However, the promise and safety of AVs will only be realized if the vehicles and the surrounding infrastructure are fully accessible, and the safety elements consider the needs of people with disabilities. 

The CCD recommendations that particularly pertain to people with disabilities include:

• Accessibility of human-machine interfaces,
• AVs with lifts, ramps, and wheelchair securements,
• No requirement of an operator on board who is licensed,
• AV transit and pedestrian infrastructure that complies with the "Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility requirements must be strictly adhered to in order for cities and states to work towards meeting goals of zero traffic deaths and serious injuries,"
• An ADA or expansion that mandates "full accessibility for all types of common and public use AVs,"
• "[L]egislation requiring that, as a matter of civil rights, all new technology incorporate the needs of people with disabilities at the earliest possible point, and 
• "Congress should require that people with disabilities are part of the design and testing of new technologies in order to ensure the accessibility and usability of the technology." 

There is more, but you get the picture. Unfortunately, little or no mention of this sizable sector of the population and their needs is mentioned in reports about AVs. These reports, whatever they examine, are focused elsewhere.

Statements without supporting details

Two recent reports mention or refer vaguely to people with disabilities, but offer nothing more. These are the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) Policy Statement on Autonomous and Semiautonomous Vehicles (Approved Sept. 30, 2018) and the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Forum on Preparing for Automated Vehicles and Shared Mobility (Sept. 2018). The HFES policy statement says: "Fully autonomous vehicles should accomodate people with disabilities." The document, while brief at five pages, mostly looks at safety; accessibility is not one of its main concerns. The TRB forum speaks globally about research needs that go from data to safety to business models for AV deployment, but it never uses the word accessibility. It mentions a research need addressing equity and another addressing "[h]ow best to serve those with special needs."

The Idaho 2018 Report to the Governor (Nov. 2018) from the Autonomous and Connected Vehicle Testing and Deployment Committee, like the Wisconsin Report of theGovernor’s Steering CommitteeonAutonomous and Connected VehicleTesting and Deployment, never uses any version of the word accessibility. The Wisconsin report does mention "underserved populations" and both address all users of the roadway, specifically including bicyclists and pedestrians. The Washington State Transportation Commission Autonomous Vehicle Work Group, like its counterparts in other states, is looking at AV developments from such a mode-neutral perspective that there is no weighing or consideration of how to steer AVs to serve everyone better and how to include people with disabilities in the next iteration of our transportation system.

State and other AV-related task forces typically examine insurance, licensing, registration, definitions, liability, and responsibility for maintenance. Maybe they consider policing and roadway management.

A whole different approach comes from the Scottish Law Commission, which produced a comprehensive paper - Automated Vehicles: A joint preliminary consultation paper (Nov. 8, 2018). It discusses both fully and partially AVs in terms of operations, reaching minimal risk condition, and liability. It explores different ways transportation is and could be delivered, including Mobility as a Service (MaaS). BUT, in terms of accessibility and providing an equitable transportation system to people with disabilities, nothing in the report goes beyond bare statements. We are talking lip service.

And the private sector?

The private sector is not rushing to provide accessibility - with the exception of Local Motors and others that aim to provide transit shuttle vehicles. And that would be current ADA accessibility that is not self-enforcing (as many lawsuits to enforce it demonstrate). But for taxi-like ridehailing service, no one is jumping up with any promises. Take Uber; in its report, A Principle Approach to Safety (Nov. 2, 2018), the only words related to transportation-challenged populations were these.

More equitable than existing transportation options 

Shared, automated mobility can work to extend the reach of public transit and bridge the first/last mile gap in areas typically underserved by transit systems, and for certain populations like people with disabilities, youth, and seniors. 

Aspirational, yes, but, as my mother used to say, that and (now) $2.75 will get you on the subway. $3 if you buy a single ride ticket. Referring, of course, to NYC, my mother's sole frame of reference.

Anxiety, of course, because lip service is not enough

My worry, and certainly the fear of the disability community (and some in the older adult community), is that lack of a mandate and/or concerted effort to embed accessibility now - during development of AVs and infrastructure (virtual and real) to support them - will put us in the same situation we were in, and in some respects continue to inhabit, which is attempting to retrofit a very inaccessible transportation system for people who are not the norm. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was a good first step almost 30 years ago, but, in any place without fabulous transit and even there (think elevators to subways in New York City and San Fransisco), people with disabilities continue to be second-class transportation citizens.

With the current House, Senate, and Administration, no one is pushing for ADA 2.0. If anything, there is fear of accessibility retrenchment. At three weeks into a government shutdown, one begins to wonder whether the dream of bipartisan action on infrastructure and transportation can even happen. Any progress is happening in large cities, such as Boston and New York, which are taking to heart transit accessibility concerns and commitments. (Sorry for the lack of links here.)

From the Navy Yard - possible home run hit right before the shutdown

The USDOT building in Washington, DC, is barely a walk away from the DC major league baseball stadium. That US agency building, which spans two large city blocks, was, hours before the government closed up, the site of a hopeful development that AVs will serve everyone. I imagine a government employee, in the dark, hovering over his or her computer in a rush to click "upload" before the shutdown announcement to step away from the building and all government-funded devices.

The Notice of Funding Opportunity - or NOFO, in acronym land - issued from the US Department of Transportation just a few hours before the government shutdown, expresses a commitment to transportation-challenged populations in general and to people with disabilities and older adults in particular. One of the prime goals of the USDOT project - entitled Automated Driving System (ADS) Demonstration Grants - is to "fund projects that test applications with the greatest potential to service transportation-challenged populations, including older adults and individuals with disabilities.” Additionally, "Each demonstration must include input/output user interfaces on the ADS [automated driving system] and related applications that are accessible and allow users with varied abilities to input a new destination or communicate route information and to access information generated by the ADS.”

The deadline for proposed demonstration projects is Mar. 21, 2019 - assuming that the federal government is back to work by then.

Demos, Pilots, Airports, and Street Sweepers

Autonomous Vehicle Trip to Big 10 and Beyond the Midwest 

Wisconsin - AV shuttle to operate on the University of Wisconsin campus in Madison next week on Apr. 24 and 25. Wisconsin is one of 10 autonomous vehicles testing grounds. And by "Wisconsin" I mean the big 10 school. There is lots of AV and connected vehicle technology development and testing happening there.

Michigan - The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor will have an AV shuttle in operation by the end of April. It will be free for students, faculty, and staff to ride on a 3/4 mile route on North Campus. Finally, because this AV shuttle pilot has been in the works forever, or at least since October 2017.

Minnesota - Minneapolis is about to host its second AV demo. The first was a pilot that took place before and during the Super Bowl festivities early this year. The second will be a weekend AV shuttle open to the public on the Midtown Greenway. Not set in stone, but it looks like the shuttle will operate on Apr. 27-29. The public will be permitted to ride that Sunday, Apr. 29.

Further south and then west ...

Texas - Officials in Houston are considering AV buses. The city hosts an AV testing ground. From a press report, the idea is that a first step would be a three-month AV shuttle pilot "on the campus of Texas Southern University."

Washington - Bellevue officials are in talks with companies to do the usual downtown AV shuttle pilot thing and to "test self-driving van pools to bring commuters into the city." (The city is Seattle, just for all of you native New Yorkers who know where "the city" is.) Turns out, the Seattle-area transit agency has a long-standing large vanpool program, so the program's administrative structure is already in place. Various, well-funded, players are reportedly ready to join in this sandbox. There does seem to be acknowledgement that fully AV vanpools are quite different than a slow speed AV shuttle that operates on a fixed route.

Over in Asia

Japan - 15-passenger AV buses - really shuttle size - in operation at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, which is still being cleaned up after the 2011 tsunami and earthquake caused a complete breakdown at the plant. By the way, the disaster was found to have been foreseeable because the plant operator "had failed to meet basic safety requirements such as risk assessment, preparing for containing collateral damage, and developing evacuation plans." That kind of disaster shows why we need safety advocates.

China - An AV container truck at a Chinese port is in operation. The truck is "expected to help port terminals and logistics companies to improve efficiency and save labour cost by more than 50%.
Compared to the traditional self-driving vehicles, the Westwell vehicle can quickly adapt to the port environment, make decisions and alternate controls."

China - The country has also instituted nationwide regulations  for AVs. According to FastCompany:

1. All cars must first be tested in non-public zones.
2. Road tests can only be on designated streets.
3. A qualified driver must always be in the driver’s seat, ready to take over control.

China - Shanghai has already begun trying out automated street cleaner vehicles. They will work quietly and neatly in the middle of the night to keep the streets swept and tidy.

One airport and then beyond

France - Charles DeGaulle Airport outside of Paris is the site of an AV pilot, but the plan is to expand to other airports operated by Groupe ADP, which operates 34 international airports. Don't head to Paris just for this. The AV shuttle, which will last until this July, will only be "offering free rides to passengers with limited mobility."

NOT A random AV tidbit

University of Florida - a graduate student is working on technology that will assist people with visual disabilities to navigate the use of AVs. For a person who is visually impaired, being a few feet away or half a block away from one's destination or vehicle location can be a complete barrier to travel.

Active State Transportation Departments

Florida: Downtown Gainesville will be starting fare-free AV shuttle service in April 2018. The AV shuttle will operate as part of the transit system and it is scheduled to provide servicefor three years. The AV shuttle is a result of a  partnership with the University of Florida and state’s Department of Traffic. (Yes, it's called a Department of Traffic, not transportation, mobility or any other positive term.)

The Sunshine State's latest announced AV shuttle will have a great name: Gainesville Autonomous Transit Shuttle  or GAToRS. I didn't say original; I said great.

Minnesota: EasyMile AV shuttle ttests are beginning on snowy roads and in anticipation of the big Super Bowl rollout for the general public. The tests are being performed at the Minnesota Department of Transportation's MnROAD cold-weather pavement testing facility in Monticello, MN.

Wisconsin: In the Racine County portion of a highway project in the Milwaukee area, a technology firm is advising the state and its partners to include AV lanes. "The state Department of Transportation is now working to include the request in its planning, but doing so doesn’t come without costs." At least $134 million, which would be for "[s]pending for local road improvements, including dedicated all-weather autonomous vehicle lanes." Plus there is the cost of altering the project designs. That's in the tens of millions.