1. An Update on Automated Vehicle Legislation and Regulation Marc Scribner Research Fellow Competitive Enterprise Institute marc.scribner@cei.org

2. What Is Road Vehicle Automation?  Intervening advanced driver assistance systems: automated technology has been phased-in during recent years, including adaptive cruise control, lane keeping assistance, self-parking (NHTSA Level 1/2 Automation)  Broadly, automated vehicles are motor vehicles capable of “computer direction of a vehicle’s steering, braking, and accelerating without real-time human input” 1  In this context, “self-driving vehicle” refers to a highly or fully automated vehicle, one which can direct the core driving functions (NHTSA Level 3/4 Automation) 1. Bryant Walker Smith, “Automated Vehicles are Probably Legal in the United States,” 1 Tex. A&M L. Rev. 411 (2014).

3. NHTSA Levels of Automation Automation LevelDefinition Level 0 – No-Automation Traditional manually driven vehicles, including those with automated warning systems or automated secondary controls (e.g., headlights, turn signals). Level 1 – Function-specific Automation One or more independent automated primary control functions (steering, braking, throttling). These include adaptive cruise control, electronic stability control, and dynamic brake support in emergencies. Level 2 – Combined Function Automation Two or more automated primary control functions designed to work in unison to relieve the driver of control over these functions. Driver must be able to retake manual control of the vehicle with no warning. Level 3 – Limited Self-Driving Automation Driver can cede full control of the vehicle in some situations. Must have ability to retake manual control following warning and transition period. Level 4 – Full Self-Driving Automation Vehicle control functions fully automated for an entire trip. Driver has no expectation (or ability) to retake manual control at any point.

4. Potential Benefits of Road Vehicle Automation  Reduced accidents (human error is a factor in approximately 93% of crashes)  Reduced congestion (suboptimal merging maneuvers are the largest drivers of recurring road congestion—maximized w/ platooning)  Improved air quality (reduced congestion, moving right along the speed-emissions U-curve)  Improved individual mobility (auto access for the disabled, elderly, and youth)  Reduced parking infrastructure needs  New innovative transportation services

5. State Automated Vehicle Legislation

6. Some Recent State Legislative Developments  Georgia House study committee report opposes AV-specific laws and regs at this point (January 2015)  Connecticut House introduces AV testing bill (January 2015) FAILED  Hawaii House introduces AV operations bill (January 2015) PENDING  Georgia Senate introduces AV tech-spec bill (February 2015) PENDING  Washington bill introduced to exempt AVs from road rules on Lewis-McChord (February 2015) PENDING  Idaho Senate passes AV testing bill (March 2015) FAILED  Tennessee law prohibits local interference w/ AVs (April 2015) ENACTED  Automakers, Google oppose Texas Senate AV bill (April 2015) FAILED  California Senate amends safe following distance requirements for platooning (May 2015) ENACTED  *Arizona EO creates Self-Driving Vehicle Oversight Committee within gov’s office (August 2015)

7. State Automated Vehicle Regulations  Only Nevada has comprehensive rules in place  D.C. rulemaking has stalled, as statute is now viewed as overly burdensome  California testing rules in place; operations and licensing rules due 11 months ago  ULC Study Committee on State Regulation of Driverless Cars delays any further work by 1 year (June 15, 2015)

8. A Cautionary Tale from California  California statute passed in 2012  Manufacturer testing regulations promulgated September 2014  Design-specific  Google forced to reengineer steering wheel and pedals into AV prototype  Draft operations and licensing rules were due August 2014  Final O&L rules were due December 2014  California DMV struggling with flawed statutory language  Still no draft O&L rules

9. Developer Opposition to State Legislation?  Developers are intensely lobbying regulators in California and D.C. after enacted AV statutes appear to restrict technology  In April, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Google reportedly push back on Texas AV bill  Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers: “We don’t feel that legislation in this area in Texas right now is necessary. The concern is by putting pen to paper you actually could prematurely limit some of those types of developments.”

10. Georgia as the Model?  January 2015, Georgia House AV Study Committee Report:  “we hold firm in the belief that at this time any new regulations, definitions, or changes to our system would shock the market and cause delay in this exciting technology”  “To best promote the development of this technology in Georgia, we must continue on our path to provide a pro-business climate with low taxes and minimal regulation”  Upshot: Focus on broad economic growth policies to promote AV development, not new laws and regulations

11. ALEC Resolution on Autonomous Vehicle Legislation and Regulation  Adopted January 2014  Urges legislative and regulatory caution  “NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that [insert state here] opposes the enactment of laws or promulgation of regulations that would restrict autonomous vehicle innovation.”  Broadly supports the Georgia House AV Study Committee approach  But states should look at fixing problematic statutes and regulations  Example: Safe following distance requirements likely restrict AV platooning

12. CEI Work on Road Vehicle Automation

13. An Update on Automated Vehicle Legislation and Regulation Marc Scribner Research Fellow Competitive Enterprise Institute marc.scribner@cei.org