Last updated: December 20, 2019
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) has a comprehensive database that shows real-time information about which of the 50 states and Washington DC have enacted legislation and/or executive orders related to autonomous vehicles. The full database can be reviewed here. Some quick facts include:
- 6 states have issued only executive orders
- 30 states, including DC, have only enacted legislation
- 5 states have both issued executive orders and enacted legislation
- 15 states have not issued executive orders or enacted legislation
- 36 states, including DC, have either enacted legislation or issued executive orders
- In 2011, Nevada became the first state to authorize the operation of autonomous vehicles
As of December 20, 2019, you can find complete information from each state in the table below. Table credit to NCSL.
|Alabama||SB 125 (2018)||Defines a truck platoon as “A group of individual commercial trucks traveling in a unified manner at electronically coordinated speeds at following distances that are closer than would be reasonable and prudent without the electronic coordination.” The bill also exempts the trailing trucks in a truck platoon from the state’s following too closely provisions if the truck platoon is engaged in electronic brake coordination and any other requirement imposed by the Department of Transportation by rule.|
|Alabama||SJR 81 (2016)||Established the Joint Legislative Committee to study self-driving vehicles.|
|Alabama||SB 47 (2019)||Defines automated driving systems, automated commercial motor vehicles and commercial motor vehicles equipped with a teleoperation system. Authorizes such commercial autonomous vehicles to operate in the state without a driver that is physically present when meeting certain criteria. These criteria include compliance with federal and state safety laws and standards, and registration, certification and minimal risk or safe state requirements. The automated commercial vehicles must be registered and titled and are required to have minimum vehicle liability coverage of $2,000,000. The owner of an automated commercial vehicle, or the lessee if the vehicle is leased or rented, is considered the operator of the vehicle for the purpose of assessing compliance with applicable traffic or motor vehicle laws, including the rules of the road. The act allocates responsibility regarding compliance with applicable traffic or motor vehicles laws and rules to the owner or lessee of an automated vehicle and the remote driver of a commercial motor vehicle equipped with a teleoperation system.
The act allows commercial motor vehicle equipped with a teleoperation system to operate without a conventional driver physically present in the vehicle if a remote driver is operating the vehicle; however the remote driver is deemed liable for any violation of the rules of the road or the Alabama Criminal Code. The remote driver shall hold the proper class of license required for a conventional driver to operate the vehicle. When an accident occurs involving a commercial motor vehicle equipped with a teleoperation system, the vehicle must remain at the scene of the accident and the owner or remote driver promptly contacts appropriate law enforcement entities and communicates the required information. In case of an accident involving a remote driver, the act subjects the driver to Alabama law, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the driver was physically present. The driver is presumed to have given consent to any tests necessary to determine his alcohol concentration or the presence of other drugs.
In addition, this act provides that the Department of Transportation will have sole and exclusive jurisdiction over automated driving systems, autonomous vehicles, and teleoperations systems. It prohibits a state agency or subdivision of the state to impose additional requirements, including taxes or performance standards, on autonomous vehicles.
|Arkansas||HB 1754 (2017)||Regulates the testing of vehicles with autonomous technology, relates to vehicles equipped with driver-assistive truck platooning systems.|
|Arkansas||HB 1561 (2019)||Defines autonomous vehicles and fully autonomous vehicles. Authorizes the operation of autonomous vehicles and fully autonomous vehicles on the streets and highways of the state under an autonomous vehicle pilot program approved by the State Highway Commission; an autonomous vehicle pilot program is automatically approved sixty days after the date the autonomous vehicle pilot program is submitted to the commission for approval. It authorizes a person, for the purposes of the pilot program, to operate three simultaneously that don’t have certain standard equipment such as seat belts or a steering wheel, amongst others. The act also sets certain requirements for the autonomous vehicles pilot program and grants authority to the commission to adopt rules necessary to its implementation.|
|Arkansas||HB 1822 (2019)||Amends HB 1561 (see above) to acknowledge that autonomous vehicles and fully autonomous vehicles can comply with all applicable traffic and motor vehicle safety laws, as they pertain to safely negotiating railroad crossings. The Arkansas Department of Transportation is given authority to establish exemptions to this rule after consulting with railroad companies.|
|California||SB 1298 (2012)||Requires the Department of the California Highway Patrol to adopt safety standards and performance requirements to ensure the safe operation and testing of autonomous vehicles, as defined, on the public roads in this state. Permits autonomous vehicles to be operated or tested on the public roads in this state pending the adoption of safety standards and performance requirements that would be adopted under this bill.|
|California||AB 1592 (2016)||Authorizes the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to conduct a pilot project for the testing of autonomous vehicles that are not equipped with a steering wheel, a brake pedal, an accelerator, or an operator inside the vehicle, if the testing is conducted only at specified locations and the autonomous vehicle operates at specified speeds.|
|California||AB 669 (2017)||Extends the sunset date of the law allowing the testing of vehicle platooning with less than 100 feet between each vehicle from January 2018 to January 2020. Prohibits someone from participating in the testing unless they hold a valid driver’s license for the class of vehicle.|
|California||AB 1444 (2017)||Authorizes the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority to conduct a shared autonomous vehicle demonstration project for the testing of autonomous vehicles that do not have a driver seat in the driver’s seat and are not equipped with a steering wheel, a brake pedal, or an accelerator.|
|California||SB 145 (2017)||Repeals a requirement that the Department of Motor Vehicles notifies the Legislature of receipt of an application seeking approval to operate an autonomous vehicle capable of operating without the presence of a driver inside the vehicle on public roads. Repeals the requirement that the approval of such an application is not effective any sooner than a specified number of days after the date of the application.|
|California||SB 1 (2017)||This bill encourages the California Department of Transportation and cities and counties to, when possible, cost-effective and feasible, use funds under the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program to use advanced technologies and communications systems in transportation infrastructure that recognize and accommodate advanced automotive technologies that may include, but are not necessarily limited to, charging or fueling opportunities for zero-emission vehicles, and provision of infrastructure-to-vehicle communications for transitional or fully autonomous vehicle systems.|
|California||AB 87 (2018)||Authorizes law enforcement or a public employee who is engaged in directing traffic or enforcing parking laws and regulations, to remove a vehicle that uses autonomous technology without a valid permit that is required to operate the vehicle on public roads. The bill authorizes the release of the vehicle after the registered owner of, or person in control of, the autonomous vehicle furnishes the storing law enforcement agency with proof of current registration and a valid driver’s license, and either a valid permit that is required to operate the autonomous vehicle using autonomous technology on public roads or a declaration or sworn statement to the Department of Motor Vehicles that states that the autonomous vehicle will not be operated using autonomous technology, as specified.|
|Authorizes the City of San Francisco to, if approved by voters, levy a tax on trips taken in autonomous vehicles that originate within the City and County of San Francisco provided by a transportation network company, i.e. TNC. Such taxes may be up to 3.25 percent of the fare for each trip. The bill includes some limiting and optional conditions to such fees, including A discounted fee shall be charged to any shared trip (i.e. greater than one passenger) not to exceed 1.5 percent of the total fare; the city may charge a lower rate for trips taken in zero-emission vehicles; revenues collected from such a fee would be required to fund transportation operations or infrastructure and the authority is sunset in 2045.|
|Colorado||SB 213 (2017)||Defines an automated driving system, dynamic driving task and human operator. Allows a person to use an automated driving system to drive or control a function of a motor vehicle if the system is capable of complying with every state and federal law that applies to the function that the system is operating. Requires approval for vehicle testing if the vehicle cannot comply with every relevant state and federal law. Requires the department of transportation to submit a report on the testing of automated driving systems.|
|Colorado||SB 239 (2019)||Requires the state department of transportation to convene a stakeholder group to examine the impacts of new and emerging technologies and transportation business models and make recommendations. The stakeholder group must include a representative from autonomous vehicles manufacturers and autonomous vehicles technology companies.|
|Connecticut||SB 260 (2017)||Defines terms including “fully autonomous vehicle,” “automated driving system,” and “operator.” Requires the development of a pilot program for up to four municipalities for the testing of fully autonomous vehicles on public roads in those municipalities. Specifies the requirements for testing, including having an operator seated in the driver’s seat and providing proof of insurance of at least $5 million. Establishes a task force to study fully autonomous vehicles. The study must include an evaluation of NHTSA’s standards regarding state responsibility for regulating AVs, an evaluation of laws, legislation and regulations in other states, recommendations on how Connecticut should legislate and regulate AVs, and an evaluation of the pilot program.|
|Connecticut||SB 924 (2019)||Amends Connecticut SB 260 (2017 – see above). Eliminates the requirement under the existing AV pilot program that operators be seated in an AV’s driver’s seat while testing the vehicle. Instead, it specifies that the operator must be physically inside the AV in order to cause the automated driving system to engage. The bill also makes slight changes to the reporting requirements and scheduling for the task force.|
|Florida||HB 1207 (2012)||Defines “autonomous vehicle” and “autonomous technology.” Declares legislative intent to encourage the safe development, testing and operation of motor vehicles with autonomous technology on public roads of the state and finds that the state does not prohibit or specifically regulate the testing or operation of autonomous technology in motor vehicles on public roads. Authorizes a person who possesses a valid driver’s license to operate an autonomous vehicle, specifying that the person who causes the vehicle’s autonomous technology to engage is the operator. Authorizes the operation of autonomous vehicles by certain persons for testing purposes under certain conditions and requires an instrument of insurance, surety bond or self-insurance prior to the testing of a vehicle. Directs the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to prepare a report recommending additional legislative or regulatory action that may be required for the safe testing and operation of vehicles equipped with autonomous technology, to be submitted no later than Feb. 12, 2014.|
|Florida||HB 599 (2012)||The relevant portions of this bill are identical to the substitute version of HB 1207.|
|Florida||HB 7027 (2016)||Permits operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads by individuals with a valid driver license. This bill eliminates the requirement that the vehicle operation is being done for testing purposes and removes a number of provisions related to vehicle operation for testing purposes. Eliminates the requirement that a driver is present in the vehicle. Requires autonomous vehicles meet applicable federal safety standards and regulations.|
|Florida||HB 7061 (2016)||Defines autonomous technology and driver-assistive truck platooning technology. Requires a study on the use and safe operation of driver-assistive truck platooning technology and allows for a pilot project upon conclusion of the study.|
|Florida||HB 311 (2019)||Amends existing Florida law to incorporate SAE terminology adopted by NHTSA and replace the term “autonomous vehicle” with “automated driving system.” Removes the requirement that a person possesses a valid driver license to operate a fully autonomous vehicle and provides that the automated driving system, rather than a person, is deemed the operator of an autonomous vehicle when operating with the automated driving system engaged. Autonomous or fully autonomous vehicles equipped with a teleoperation system may operate without a human operator in the vehicle when the teleoperation system is engaged and certain requirements are met.
Defines “On-Demand Autonomous Vehicle Network” as a passenger transportation network that uses a software application or other digital means to connect passengers to fully autonomous vehicles, exclusively or in addition to other vehicles, for transportation, including for-hire transportation and transportation for compensation. Allows an on-demand autonomous vehicle network to operate pursuant to state laws with the same insurance requirements applicable to a transportation network company.
Establishes insurance requirements for fully autonomous vehicles for personal use. The bill prohibits local governments from imposing a tax, fee, or other requirement on automated driving systems or autonomous vehicles, and clarifies that this prohibition does not exempt autonomous vehicles from a tax or fee applied to non-autonomous vehicles. The bill authorizes airports and seaports to charge autonomous vehicles providing passenger transportation services reasonable pickup fees.
Authorizes the Florida Turnpike Enterprise to enter into one or more agreements (including with private entities) to fund, construct, and operate facilities for the advancement of autonomous and connected innovative transportation technologies for the purposes of improving safety and decreasing congestion.
|Florida||SB 2500 (2019)||Appropriated $2.5 million for the Tampa Bay Regional Transit Authority, with $1 million dedicated to the study and development of innovative options for transit, which include, but are not limited to, study of smart city innovations and autonomous vehicle services.|
|Florida||SB 7068 (2019)||Creates the Multi-use Corridors of Regional Economic Significance Program within the department of transportation. The objective of the program is to advance the construction of regional corridors that are intended to accommodate multiple modes of transportation and multiple types of infrastructure. The intended benefits of the program include, but are not limited to, addressing issues such as: Autonomous, connected, shared, and electric vehicle technology.|
|Georgia||HB 472 (2017)||Specifies that the law prohibiting following too closely does not apply to the non-leading vehicle in a coordinated platoon. Defines coordinated platoon as a group of motor vehicles traveling in the same lane utilizing vehicle-to-vehicle communication technology to automatically coordinate the movement of the vehicles.|
|Georgia||SB 219 (2017)||Defines automated driving system, dynamic driving task, fully autonomous vehicle, minimal risk condition and operational design domain. Exempts a person operating an automated motor vehicle with the automated driving system engaged from the requirement to hold a driver’s license. Specifies conditions that must be met for a vehicle to operate without a human driver present in the vehicle, including insurance and registration requirements.|
|Hawaii||HCR 220 (2019)||Requests the Attorney General to convene an autonomous vehicle legal preparation task force to prepare Hawaii for the legal and regulatory implications of transitioning to autonomous vehicles.|
|Illinois||HB 791 (2017)||Preempts local authorities from enacting or enforcing ordinances that prohibit the use of vehicles equipped with Automated Driving Systems. Defines “automated driving system-equipped vehicle.”|
|Indiana||HB 1290 (2018)||Defines “Vehicle platoon” to mean a group of motor vehicles that are traveling in a unified manner under electronic coordination at speeds and following distances that are faster and closer than would be reasonable and prudent without electronic coordination. The bill clarifies vehicle platooning is exempt from the following too close provisions of three hundred feet. The bill also lays out an approval system for vehicle platooning in the state, including requiring the person or organization to file a plan for general vehicle platoon operations with the transportation commissioner.|
|Iowa||SF 302 (2019)||Defines key terms, including “Automated driving system.” A driverless-capable vehicle may operate on the public highways of this state without a conventional human driver physically present in the vehicle if the vehicle meets all of the following conditions: a. The vehicle is capable of achieving a minimal risk condition if a malfunction of the automated driving system occurs that renders the system unable to perform the entire dynamic driving task within the system’s intended operational design domain if any. b. While in driverless operation, the vehicle is capable of operating in compliance with the applicable traffic and motor vehicle safety laws and regulations of this state that govern the performance of the dynamic driving task, unless an exemption has been granted to the vehicle by the department. c. The vehicle has been certified by the vehicle’s manufacturer to be in compliance with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards, except to the extent an exemption has been granted for the vehicle under applicable federal law or by the national highway traffic safety administration.
In the event of an accident in which a system-equipped vehicle is involved, the vehicle shall remain at the scene of the accident and the vehicle’s owner or a person on behalf of the vehicle’s owner shall promptly report the accident to law enforcement authorities. If a system-equipped vehicle fails to remain at the scene of an accident or the operation of the vehicle fails to otherwise comply, the vehicle’s failure shall be imputed to the vehicle’s owner, and the vehicle’s owner may be charged and convicted of a violation.
Defines an “on-demand driverless-capable vehicle network,” and authorizes such a network’s operation to facilitate the transportation of persons or goods, including transportation for hire as defined in section and public transportation.
|Kentucky||SB 116 (2018)|
|Louisiana||HB 1143 (2016)||Defines “autonomous technology” for purposes of the Highway Regulatory Act.|
|Louisiana||HB 308 (2018)||Defines “Platoon” or “platooning” to mean a group of individual motor vehicles, including any truck, truck-tractor, trailer, semitrailer, or any combination of these vehicles, utilizing vehicle-to-vehicle communication technology to travel in a unified manner at close following distances. A platoon may be operated if the platoon operator submits an operational plan. The plan must be approved by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, office of state police, and the Department of Transportation and Development and the same agencies may promulgate rules to implement these provisions. The provisions of this bill do not apply to the operation of a non-lead motor vehicle in a platoon. The operation of a platoon is not authorized on a two-lane highway.|
|Louisiana||HB 455 (2019)||Defines “automated driving system” as the hardware and software that are collectively capable of performing the entire dynamic driving task on a sustained basis, regardless of whether it is limited to a specific operational design domain. Defines “autonomous commercial motor vehicle” as a motor vehicle used in commerce and equipped with an automated driving system, including those designed to function without a driver. “Commerce” is defined as transportation for the purpose of compensation, remuneration, employment, trade, or payment of anything of value and “commercial motor vehicle” as a motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles used in commerce to transport passengers or property if the motor vehicle has a gross combination weight rating of 26,001 or more pounds inclusive of a towed unit with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds.
Authorizes autonomous commercial motor vehicles to operate without a conventional driver physically present in the vehicle if the autonomous commercial motor vehicle meets all of the following criteria: (1) Is capable of operating in compliance with applicable federal law and the traffic and motor vehicle laws including but not limited to applicable laws concerning the capability to safely navigate and negotiate railroad crossings. (2) Is properly registered and titled. (3) Is certified in accordance with federal law as being in compliance with federal motor vehicle safety standards and bears the required certification label or labels. (4) Is capable of achieving a minimal risk condition if a failure occurs rendering the vehicle unable to perform the dynamic driving task-relevant to its intended operational design domain or if the vehicle exits its operational design domain. (5) Is covered by motor vehicle liability coverage in an amount not less than $2,000,000.
Provides that autonomous commercial motor vehicles and automated driving systems are governed exclusively by new law and the department of transportation and development is the sole agency with jurisdiction over autonomous commercial motor vehicles and automated driving systems. Requires a person or entity to submit a written statement to the department certifying that the vehicle meets the requirements of new law prior to commencing the operation of an autonomous commercial motor vehicle without a conventional driver present in the cab. For a commercial motor vehicle equipped with a teleoperation system without a conventional driver present in the cab, an owner, a remote driver, or the remote driver’s employer shall submit a written statement to the Department of Transportation and Development certifying that the vehicle meets the requirements.
Specifies that when a remote driver is operating a commercial motor vehicle equipped with a teleoperation system, the remote driver will be considered the operator of the vehicle for the purpose of assessing compliance with applicable traffic or motor vehicle laws, including the rules of the road. Requires that the remote driver hold the proper class of license required for a conventional driver to operate the vehicle.
Requires that an autonomous commercial motor vehicle or a commercial motor vehicle equipped with a teleoperation system remain at the scene of an accident and the operator or any person on behalf of the operator shall comply with the provisions of existing law relative to contacting the appropriate law enforcement agency and furnishing all relevant information if an accident occurs.
|Maine||HP 1204 (2018)||This bill created the Commission on Autonomous Vehicles to coordinate efforts among state agencies and knowledgeable stakeholders to inform the development of a process to allow an autonomous vehicle tester to demonstrate and deploy for testing purposes an automated driving system on a public way. The commission will consist of at least 11 members.
The commission shall A. Develop a recommendation for a process to evaluate and authorize an autonomous vehicle tester to demonstrate and deploy for testing purposes an automated driving system on a public way; B. Review existing state laws and, if necessary, recommend legislation for the purposes of governing autonomous vehicle testers and the testing, demonstration, deployment and operation of automated driving systems on public ways; C. Monitor state compliance with federal regulations as they relate to autonomous vehicles; D. Consult with public sector and private sector experts on autonomous vehicle technologies, as appropriate; and E. Invite the participation of knowledgeable stakeholders to provide written and oral comments on the commission’s assigned duties.
By January 15, 2020, the Commissioner of Transportation shall submit an initial written report on the progress of the commission and by January 15, 2022, the Commissioner of Transportation shall submit a final written report that includes findings and recommendations, including suggested legislation, for presentation to the joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over transportation matters.
Additionally, the Commissioner of Transportation shall adopt rules, in consultation with the Department of Public Safety and the Department of the Secretary of State, to establish a process to evaluate and authorize an autonomous vehicle tester to demonstrate and deploy for testing purposes an automated driving system on a public way. The Commissioner of Transportation may immediately prohibit an operator or autonomous vehicle tester from testing an automated driving system if the Commissioner of Transportation, in consultation with the Commissioner of Public Safety and the Secretary of State, determines that testing poses a risk to public safety or that the operator or autonomous vehicle tester fails to comply with the requirements as established by rule.
|Michigan||HB 5335 (2018)||Creates the Michigan Infrastructure Council within the Department of Treasury. The council may not propose or fund any government-owned broadband or telecommunications network to provide service
to residential or commercial premises, however, this prohibition does not apply to state expenditures for a transportation purpose, including connected vehicle communication technologies.
|Michigan||SB 995 (2016)||Allows for autonomous vehicles under certain conditions. Allows operation without a person in the autonomous vehicle. Specifies that the requirement that commercial vehicles maintain a minimum following distance of 500 feet does not apply to vehicles in a platoon.|
|Michigan||SB 996 (2016)||Allows for autonomous vehicles under certain conditions. Allows operation without a person in the autonomous vehicle.|
|Michigan||SB 997 (2016)||Defines automated driving system. Allows for the creation of mobility research centers where automated technology can be tested. Provides immunity for automated technology manufacturers when modifications are made without the manufacturer’s consent.|
|Michigan||SB 998 (2016)||Exempts mechanics and repair shops from liability on fixing automated vehicles.|
|Michigan||SB 169 (2013)||Defines “automated technology,” “automated vehicle,” “automated mode,” expressly permits testing of automated vehicles by certain parties under certain conditions, defines operator, addresses liability of the original manufacturer of a vehicle on which a third party has installed an automated system, directs state DOT with Secretary of State to submit report by Feb. 1, 2016.|
|Michigan||SB 663 (2013)||Limits liability of vehicle manufacturer or upfitter for damages in a product liability suit resulting from modifications made by a third party to an automated vehicle or automated vehicle technology under certain circumstances; relates to automated mode conversions.|
|Minnesota||HB 6 (2019)||Defines “platooning system” as a driver-assisted vehicle-to-vehicle technology that integrates electronic communications between and among multiple vehicles to synchronize speed, acceleration, and braking while leaving system monitoring and intervention in the control of each vehicle’s human operator. Defines “Vehicle platoon” as a group of commercial vehicles traveling in a unified manner through the use of a platooning system or systems. A vehicle platoon consists of a lead vehicle and following vehicles.
A person may apply to the commissioner for approval of a plan to use a platooning system on freeways and expressways. A platooning system may only be used if a plan has been approved by the commissioner of transportation, who must consult with the commissioner of public safety prior to approving the plan, regarding identifiable public safety concerns. A plan is valid for one year from the date of issuance, unless the plan is for a shorter period of time, in which case the plan is valid for the shorter time period. The plan must include but is not limited to the following information: (1) total length of the vehicle platoon; (2) the configuration of the vehicle platoon, including spacing between vehicles; (3) proposed route and section of freeway or expressway; (4) proposed time frames the vehicle platoon will be operating; (5) certification that each human driver in the vehicle platoon has a valid driver’s license for the type or class of vehicle being driven; (6) certification that the vehicle height, width, and weight limits are in conformity; and (7) vehicle identification information. The approved plan may include reasonable conditions and restrictions to ensure public safety, minimize congestion, or prevent undue damage to roads or structures. The commissioner must approve or deny a plan within 60 days and provide written notice to the applicant and to the commissioner of public safety if a plan is denied and list the reasons for the denial.
Vehicle platoons must meet the following requirements: (1) the platoon must not include more than three vehicles; (2) each vehicle in the vehicle platoon must have a platooning system installed; (3) while platooning, each vehicle must have the platooning system engaged; (4) each vehicle in the vehicle platoon must have a human driver present and in the driver seat who is monitoring performance of the vehicle at all times and who holds a valid driver’s license for the type or class of vehicle being driven; (5) each vehicle in the vehicle platoon must meet the vehicle height, width, and weight limits; (6) each vehicle in the platoon must be covered by minimum liability insurance; and (7) each vehicle in the platoon must have a paper or electronic copy of the approved plan in the vehicle.
Exempts the following vehicles in a vehicle platoon from the “following vehicle too closely” law in the state if the operator has an approved plan. A vehicle platoon must allow reasonable access for the movement of other motor vehicles to change lanes and enter or exit the roadway.
|Mississippi||HB 1343 (2018)||This bill defines “Platoon” to mean a group of individual motor vehicles traveling in a unified manner at electronically coordinated speeds at following distances that are closer than would be reasonable and prudent without such coordination. The bill also creates an exemption from the state’s following too closely traffic law for the operator of a nonlead vehicle in a platoon, if the platoon is operating on a limited-access divided highway with more than one lane in each direction and the platoon consists of no more than two motor vehicles.
A platoon may be operated in this state only after an operator files a plan for approval of general platoon operations with the Department of Transportation. If that department approves the submission, it shall forward the plan to the Department of Public Safety for approval. The plan shall be reviewed and either approved or disapproved by the Department of Transportation and the Department of Public Safety within thirty days after it is filed. If approved by both departments, the operator shall be allowed to operate the platoon five working days after plan approval. The Motor Carrier Division of the Department of Public Safety shall develop the acceptable standards required for each portion of the plan.
|Nebraska||LB 989 (2018)||This bill defines automated driving system and other relevant terms. The bill states that a driverless-capable vehicle may operate on public roads in the state without a conventional human driver physically present in the vehicle, as long as the vehicle meets the following conditions: (1) The vehicle is capable of achieving a minimal risk condition if a malfunction of the automated driving system occurs that renders the system unable to perform the entire dynamic driving task within its intended operational design domain, if any; and (2) While in driverless operation, the vehicle is capable of operating in compliance with the applicable traffic and motor vehicle safety laws and regulations of this state that govern the performance of the dynamic driving task, including, but not limited to, safely negotiating railroad crossings, unless an exemption has been granted by the department of motor vehicles (DMV). The DMV shall consult with the railroad companies operating in the state when considering an exemption that affects vehicle operations at railroad crossings.
Before an automated-driving-system-equipped vehicle may operate on the public roads, a person must submit proof of financial responsibility satisfactory to the DMV that the automated-driving system-equipped vehicle is covered by insurance or proof of self-insurance that satisfies the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act. Additionally, the bill clarifies that a person may operate an on-demand driverless-capable vehicle network. Such a network may provide transportation of persons or goods, including: (a) For-hire transportation, including transportation for multiple passengers who agree to share the ride in whole or in part; and (b) Public transportation. (2) An on-demand driverless-capable vehicle network may connect passengers to driverless-capable vehicles either (a) exclusively or (b) as part of a digital network that also connects passengers to human drivers who provide transportation services, consistent with applicable law, in vehicles that are not driverless-capable vehicles.
The Nebraska Rules of the Road shall not be construed as requiring a conventional human driver to operate a driverless-capable vehicle that is being operated by an automated driving system, and the automated driving system of such vehicle, when engaged, shall be deemed to fulfill any physical acts required of a conventional human driver to perform the dynamic driving task.
The bill also clarifies responsibilities In the event of a crash or collision: (1) The automated-driving-system-equipped vehicle shall remain on the scene of the crash or collision and the owner of the automated-driving-system-equipped vehicle, if capable, or a person on behalf of the automated-driving-system-equipped vehicle owner, shall report any crash or collision.
The DMV is the sole and exclusive state agency that may implement this act. (The state or any political subdivision shall not impose requirements, including performance standards, specific to the operation of automated driving-system-equipped vehicles, automated driving systems, or on-demand driverless-capable vehicle networks in addition to the requirements of this act. The state or any political subdivision thereof shall not impose a tax or other requirements on an automated-driving-system-equipped vehicle, an automated driving system, or an on-demand driverless-capable vehicle network, where such tax or other requirements relate specifically to the operation of automated-driving-system-equipped vehicles.
|Nevada||AB 511 (2011)||Authorizes operation of autonomous vehicles and a driver’s license endorsement for operators of autonomous vehicles. Defines “autonomous vehicle” and directs state Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to adopt rules for license endorsement and for operation, including insurance, safety standards and testing.|
|Nevada||SB 140 (2011)||Prohibits the use of cell phones or other handheld wireless communications devices while driving in certain circumstances, and makes it a crime to text or read data on a cellular phone while driving. Permits use of such devices for persons in a legally operating autonomous vehicle. These persons are deemed not to be operating a motor vehicle for the purposes of this law.|
|Nevada||SB 313 (2013)||Relates to autonomous vehicles. Requires an autonomous vehicle that is being tested on a highway to meet certain conditions relating to a human operator. Requires proof of insurance. Prohibits an autonomous vehicle from being registered in the state, or tested or operated on a highway within the state, unless it meets certain conditions. Provides that the manufacturer of a vehicle that has been converted to be an autonomous vehicle by a third party is immune from liability for certain injuries.|
|Nevada||AB 69 (2017)||Defines terms including “driver-assistive platooning technology,” “fully autonomous vehicle” and “automated driving system.” Allows the use of driver-assistive platooning technology on highways in the state. Preempts local regulation. Requires the reporting of any crashes to the department of motor vehicles within 10 days if the crash results in personal injury or property damage greater than $750. Allows a fine of up to $2,500 to be imposed for violations of laws and regulations relating to autonomous vehicles. Permits the operation of fully autonomous vehicles in the state without a human operator in the vehicle. Specifies that the original manufacturer is not liable for damages if a vehicle has been modified by an unauthorized third party. Allows the DMV to adopt certain regulations relating to autonomous vehicles. Defines “driver,” for purposes of an autonomous vehicle, to be the person who causes the automated driving system to engage. Specifies that the following distance requirement does not apply to a vehicle using platooning technology. Imposes an excise tax on the connection of a passenger to a fully autonomous vehicle for the purpose of providing transportation services. Specifies requirements for autonomous vehicle network companies, including a permitting requirement, prohibitions on discrimination, and addressing accessibility. Permits the use of autonomous vehicles by motor carriers and taxi companies if certain requirements are met.|
|New Hampshire||SB 216 (2019)||Directs the department of safety, division of motor vehicles, to establish a pilot program to test automated vehicle technologies on public roads within the state. Defines “automated driving system” (ADS) and other relevant terms. There is an annual fee of $500 from each testing entity participating in the automated vehicle testing pilot program. A testing entity may test ADS-equipped vehicles on public roadways of this state only if the testing entity has been approved for testing by the department after submitting the information required pursuant to this section. The ADS-equipped vehicle shall only be operated or monitored by trained employees, or other authorized persons as agents of the testing entity who have received instruction on the safe operation of vehicle systems. The ADS-equipped vehicle test driver must hold a valid driver’s license.
A testing entity in the automated vehicle testing pilot program may operate an ADS-equipped vehicle without a test driver or conventional human driver in the vehicle, if a notice with the following information is provided to the department: (1) An acknowledgment by the testing entity that the ADS-equipped vehicles in the automated vehicle testing pilot program are capable of achieving a minimal risk condition if a malfunction of the automated driving system occurs that renders that system unable to perform the entire dynamic driving task within its intended operational design domain. (2) A copy of the testing entity’s emergency response guide, including information on how to instruct law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical personnel on safe interaction with the vehicle in emergency and traffic enforcement situations. (b) The department shall distribute any emergency response guide received to all law enforcement, fire, and emergency response personnel with jurisdiction over the geographic area in the vicinity of the test entity’s stated testing area.
The department may suspend or refuse a testing entity’s ability to participate in the pilot program if it finds that: (1) The testing entity’s ADS-equipped vehicle had a significant or recurring failure to comply with the rules of the road of this state or any other state that presented an undue risk to public safety. (2) The testing company submitted a material misstatement on the materials submitted to the department. (b) If the department suspends or refuses to renew a testing entity’s ability to test, the department shall provide written notice to the testing entity within 48 hours, detailing the grounds that led to the department’s actions, as well as specific actions available to the testing entity to cure. VII. The department shall provide regular updates on the automated vehicle testing pilot program to the New Hampshire transportation council.
Establishes an autonomous vehicle advisory commission and details membership, including two members of the house of representatives and one member of the senate. The commission shall: I. Advise relevant state agencies and the legislature on autonomous vehicle administration. II. Develop a training curriculum for law enforcement and first responders. III. Review the National Transportation Safety Board reports on automated vehicle incidents and action recommendations. IV. Propose modifications to the automated vehicle testing and development pilot program. V. Maintain up-to-date information on automated vehicle technology, statutes, and regulations, and exchange information regarding unique challenges posed by roads in New Hampshire through interaction with the United States Department of Transportation and the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration. The commission shall report its findings and any recommendations for proposed legislation to the legislature, the governor and the New Hampshire transportation council by November 1 of each year.
|New Jersey||AJR 164 (2019)||Establishes the New Jersey Advanced Autonomous Vehicle Task Force.|
|New York||SB 2005 (2017)||Allows the commissioner of motor vehicles to approve autonomous vehicle tests and demonstrations. Requires supervision from the state police for testing. Specifies requirements for operation, including insurance of five million dollars. Defines autonomous vehicle technology and dynamic driving task. Requires a report on testing and demonstration.|
|New York||AB 9508 (2018)||This bill amends SB 2005 of 2017 (see above) to add additional language regarding autonomous vehicle demonstrations and tests. Such tests and demonstrations shall only take place under the direct supervision of the New York state police and in a form and manner prescribed by the superintendent of the New York state police. Additionally, 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.|
|North Carolina||HB 469 (2017)||Establishes regulations for the operation of fully autonomous motor vehicles on public highways of this state. Defines terms. Specifies that a driver’s license is not required for an AV operator. Requires an adult be in the vehicle if a person under 12 is in the vehicle. Preempts local regulation. Establishes the Fully Autonomous Vehicle Committee.|
|North Carolina||HB 716 (2017)||Modifies the follow-too-closely law to allow platooning.|
|North Dakota||HB 1065 (2015)||Provides for a study of autonomous vehicles. Includes research into the degree that automated motor vehicles could reduce traffic fatalities and crashes by reducing or eliminating driver error and the degree that automated motor vehicles could reduce congestion and improve fuel economy.|
|North Dakota||HB 1202 (2017)||Requires the department of transportation to study the use of vehicles equipped with automated driving systems on the highways in this state and the data or information stored or gathered by the use of those vehicles. Also requires that the study include a review of current laws dealing with licensing, registration, insurance, data ownership and use, and inspection and how they should apply to vehicles equipped with automated driving systems.|
|North Dakota||HB 1199 (2019)||Defines “platoon” to mean a group of motor vehicles using vehicle – to – vehicle communications to travel in a unified manner at close following distances on a multilane, limited-access, divided highway. Clarifies that the “following too closely” law does not apply to the operation of a non – lead vehicle in a platoon.
The department of transportation, in coordination with the state highway patrol superintendent, must develop an operational plan that provides guidelines for operating a platoon. The plan must include operational information that must be provided by a platoon technology provider or commercial motor vehicle operator. The department may restrict platooning operations in accordance with the guidelines or the operational information provided in the plan.
|North Dakota||HB 1418 (2019)||Defines key terms. An autonomous vehicle must be capable of operating in compliance with all applicable federal and state law, except to the extent exempted under applicable federal or state law, and may operate on the public highways of this state in full compliance with all vehicle registration, title, insurance, and all other applicable requirements under this title. An autonomous vehicle with automated driving systems engaged does not require a human driver to operate on the public highway if the autonomous vehicle is capable of achieving a minimal risk condition in case a system failure occurs which renders the automated driving system unable to perform the entire dynamic driving task relevant to the vehicle’s intended operational design domain. An individual using an autonomous vehicle is not driving or in actual physical control of the autonomous vehicle and, therefore, is exempt from licensing requirements if a. The automated driving system is completing the entire dynamic driving task; and b. The autonomous vehicle is capable of achieving a minimal risk condition if a system failure occurs that renders the automated driving system unable to perform the entire dynamic driving task relevant to the vehicle’s intended operational design domain.
Defines “On-demand autonomous vehicle network” to mean a transportation service network that uses a software application or other digital means to dispatch or otherwise enable the prearrangement of transportation with autonomous vehicles for purposes of transporting persons or goods, including for-hire transportation, transportation for compensation, and public transportation. Clarifies a person may operate an on-demand autonomous vehicle network. An on-demand autonomous vehicle network may provide transportation of persons or goods, including a. For-hire transportation; b. Public transportation; and c. Transportation for multiple passengers who agree to share the ride.
|Oklahoma||SB 189 (2019)||Defines “platoon” as being a “group of individual motor vehicles traveling in a unified manner at electronically coordinated speeds at following distances that are closer than would be reasonable and prudent without such coordination”. Exempts non-lead vehicles in a platoon of not more than two motor vehicles and operators of such non-lead vehicles from provisions related to certain mandatory distances that need to be observed by trucks and motor vehicles in general.|
|Oklahoma||SB 365 (2019)||Defines “driving automation system” and “dynamic driving task” and preempts local laws and asserts that only the State may enact laws or regulations regarding the use of motor vehicles equipped with driving automation systems in Oklahoma.|
|Oregon||HB 4059 (2018)||This bill exempts a person operating a vehicle that is part of a connected automated braking system from the traffic offense of following too closely. “Connected automated braking system” is defined as “a system that uses vehicle-to-vehicle communication to electronically coordinate the braking of a lead vehicle with the braking of one or more following vehicles.”|
|Oregon||HB 4063 (2018)||This bill establishes a Task Force on Autonomous Vehicles and clarifies that the state Department of Transportation is the lead agency responsible for the coordination of autonomous vehicle programs and policies. The Task Force will consist of 31 members, including two members from the Senate and two members from the House, with each chamber represented by one member of each party. Members of the legislature appointed to the task force are nonvoting members and may act in an advisory capacity only.
The task force shall develop recommendations for legislation to be introduced during the next odd-numbered year regular session of the Legislative Assembly regarding the deployment of autonomous vehicles on highways. The proposed legislation shall be consistent with federal law and guidelines and shall address the following issues: (A) Licensing and registration; (B) Law enforcement and accident reporting; (C) Cybersecurity; and (D) Insurance and liability.
The task force may study and consider the potential long-term effects of autonomous vehicle deployment to be addressed in future legislation, including the following: (a) Land use; (b) Road and infrastructure design; (c) Public transit; (d) Workforce changes; or (e) State responsibilities relating to cybersecurity and privacy.
The task force must submit a report with recommendations for legislation to the appropriate interim committee of the legislature related to transportation no later than September 15, 2018.
|Pennsylvania||SB 1267 (2016)||Allows the use of allocated funds, up to $40,000,000, for intelligent transportation system applications, such as autonomous and connected vehicle-related technology, in addition to other specified uses.|
|Pennsylvania||HB 1958 (2018)||This bill defines a “Platoon” as a group of motor vehicles, buses, military vehicles or motor carrier vehicles operated by a human traveling in a unified manner at electronically coordinated speeds at following distances that are closer than would be reasonable and prudent without such coordination. Clarifies this does not include a school bus or school vehicle. Defines a “Highly automated work zone vehicle” as a motor vehicle equipped either with an automated driving system or connected by wireless communication or other technology to another vehicle allowing for coordinated or controlled movement, used in an active work zone as implemented by PennDOT or the PA Turnpike Commission. Lastly, the bill establishes the Highly Automated Vehicle Advisory Committee within PennDOT, which must report annually on their activities and post on PennDOT’s website.|
|South Carolina||HB 3289 (2017)||Specifies that minimum following distance laws for vehicles traveling along a highway does not apply to the operator of any non-leading vehicle traveling in a platoon.|
|South Dakota||HB 1068 (2019)||Directs the Transportation Commission to promulgate rules to authorize the testing and operation of groups of individual motor vehicles traveling in a unified manner (Platooning) at electronically coordinated speeds and distance intervals that are closer than otherwise allowed under the following too closely laws in the state. The commission may include in the rules: (1) The procedures for the requesting and granting of authority for testing and operation; (2) A fee, not to exceed one hundred dollars, to cover the administrative costs of granting authority for testing and operation; (3) Reporting requirements; (4) Authorized routes; (5) Authorized times and periods of operation; (6) Authorized vehicle types; (7) Required vehicle markings; (8) Driver requirements; (9) Prohibited use related to weather, highway conditions, special events, traffic incidents, emergencies or other contingencies; and (10) Any speed, size, and operational restrictions the commission deems appropriate.|
|Tennessee||SB 598 (2015)||Relates to motor vehicles. Prohibits local governments from banning the use of motor vehicles equipped with autonomous technology.|
|Tennessee||SB 2333 (2016)||Allows a motor vehicle to be operated, or to be equipped with, an integrated electronic display visible to the operator while the motor vehicle’s autonomous technology is engaged.|
|Tennessee||SB 1561 (2016)||Redefines “autonomous technology” for purposes of preemption. Defines “driving mode” and “dynamic driving task.”|
|Tennessee||SB 676 (2017)||Permits the operation of a platoon on streets and highways in the state after the person provides notification to the department of transportation and the department of safety.|
|Tennessee||SB 151 (2017)||Creates the “Automated Vehicles Act.” Defines a number of terms. Modifies laws related to unattended motor vehicles, child passenger restraint systems, seat belts, and crash reporting in order to address ADS-operated vehicles. Specifies that ADS-operated vehicles are exempt from licensing requirements. Permits ADS-operated vehicles on streets and highways in the state without a driver in the vehicle if it meets certain conditions. Preempts local regulation of ADS-operated vehicles. Specifies that the ADS shall be considered a driver for liability purposes when it is fully engaged and operated properly. Makes it a class A misdemeanor to operate a motor vehicle on public roads in the states without a human driver in the driver’s seat without meeting the requirements of this Act. Specifies that this Act only applies to vehicles in high or full automation mode.|
|Texas||HB 1791 (2017)||Allows the use of a connected braking system in order to maintain the appropriate distance between vehicles. Specifies that “connected braking system” means a system by which the braking of one vehicle is electronically coordinated with the braking system of following a vehicle.|
|Texas||SB 2205 (2017)||Defines a number of terms, including “automated driving system,” “automated motor vehicle,” “entire dynamic driving task” and “human operator.” Preempts local regulation of automated motor vehicles and automated driving systems. Specifies that the owner of an automated driving system is the operator of the vehicle when the system is engaged and the system is considered licensed to operate the vehicle. Allows an automated motor vehicle to operate in the state regardless of whether a human operator is present in the vehicle, as long as certain requirements are met.|
|Utah||HB 373 (2015)||Authorizes the Department of Transportation to conduct a connected vehicle technology testing program.|
|Utah||HB 280 (2016)||Requires a study related to autonomous vehicles, including evaluating NHTSA and AAMVA standards and best practices, evaluating appropriate safety features and regulatory strategies and developing recommendations.|
|Utah||SB 56 (2018)||This bill amended HB 373 of 2015 (see above) to define a “connected platooning system” to mean a system that uses vehicle-to-vehicle communication to electronically coordinate the speed and braking of a lead vehicle with the speed and braking of one or more following vehicles.|
|Utah||SB 72 (2019)||Defines “connected vehicle” and allows the Department of Transportation, for roadway operation purposes, to obtain, collect, and utilize anonymized location data of a connected vehicle.|
|Utah||HB 101 (2019)||Defines key terms related to autonomous vehicles. Requires a vehicle equipped with an automated driving system (ADS) to be properly titled, registered, and insured. For registration purposes, the owner of an automated vehicle is considered a “resident” if the vehicle is physically present in the state for more than 30 consecutive calendar days. Declares that an autonomous vehicle or a vehicle operated by a remote driver cannot be considered unattended. Authorizes the Division of Consumer Protection within the Department of Commerce to revoke the registration of an autonomous vehicle under certain conditions.
Exempts platooning systems from prohibitions related to video displays that are visible to drivers.Allows the operation of a titled, registered and certified automated vehicle on state highways if certain requirements are fulfilled. The automated vehicles need to be able to be operated in compliance with all applicable traffic and safety laws. Motor vehicles equipped with a level three ADS, which are required by definition to have a fallback-ready user, must be able to achieve a minimal risk condition or make a request to intervene if a system failure occurs. Motor vehicles equipped with level four and five ADS only need to be able to achieve a minimal risk condition when a system failure occurs.
Exempts a vehicle with engaged ADS from licensure and grants responsibility to the ADS operator for purposes of assessing compliance with applicable compliance or motor vehicle laws.Provides protocol in case of an accident involving an autonomous vehicle. Requires the owner or a person on behalf of the owner to report the accident, and the vehicle to remain on the scene. If the owner is not on board, he must communicate certain information related to the vehicle, the ADS, and the insurance to the persons involved or a peace officer.Includes ADS in the definition of a transportation network driver under certain circumstances. Submits the operation of on-demand autonomous vehicle networks to state laws governing the operation of ground transportation for hire, with the exception of those laws that “reasonably apply only to a human driver”.
Preempts political subdivisions from regulating autonomous vehicles in addition to regulation provided in state statute.
|Virginia||HB 454 (2016)||Allows the viewing of a visual display while a vehicle is being operated autonomously.|
|Vermont||HB 494 (2017)||Requires the department of transportation to convene a meeting of stakeholders with expertise on a range of topics related to automated vehicles. The secretary of transportation must report to the House and Senate committees on transportation regarding the meetings and any recommendations related to automated vehicles, including proposed legislation.|
|Vermont||SB 149 (2019)||Adds a new chapter to codified law establishing an automated vehicle testing program and defines key terms. Grants authority to the Agency of Transportation to adopt rules to implement this new chapter.
Prohibits the testing of automated vehicles on public state or town highways until the Traffic Committee (the Committee) approves a permit application for automated vehicle testers that need to comply with certain criteria. For example, it is required that during a test an operator is seated in the driver’s seat of the automated vehicle monitoring the operation of the vehicle and capable of taking immediate control if necessary. It is also required that the automated vehicle being tested is clearly identifiable by the public.
Requires automated vehicle testers to submit an annual report to the Committee while tests are conducted. Testers are also required to register each automated vehicle with the Commissioner and submit some proof of insurance of at least $5,000,000. They must establish and enforce a zero-tolerance policy for drug and alcohol use by operators and conduct background checks for all operators. Operators and testers must comply with NHTSA’s standards relating to the testing of automated vehicles and report to the Agency of Transportation any motor vehicle crash within 72 hours. Automated vehicle testing permits may be invalidated for the trip by a law enforcement officer if there is a violation of any condition of the test permit or if the officer determines that the test would be unsafe. The Committee may also suspend or revoke a testing permit, after having provided an opportunity for a hearing. Imposes a penalty of not more than $1,000,000 for operating or testing an automated vehicle in violation of a suspension or revocation.
Sets the blood alcohol concentration limit to .02 for operating an automated vehicle during a test.
|Washington||HB 2970 (2018)||The Washington State Transportation Commission must convene an executive and legislative work group to develop policy recommendations to address the operation of autonomous vehicles on public roadways in the state. SB 6106 (2018) appropriated $150,000 for the work group.|
|Washington, D.C.||DC B 19-0931 (2012)||Defines “autonomous vehicle” as “a vehicle capable of navigating District roadways and interpreting traffic-control devices without a driver actively operating any of the vehicle’s control systems.” Requires a human driver “prepared to take control of the autonomous vehicle at any moment.” Restricts conversion to recent vehicles, and addresses the liability of the original manufacturer of a converted vehicle.|
|Washington, D.C.||DC B22-0901 (2018)||By July 1, 2019, the District Department of Transportation, in consultation, as needed, with the Office of the Chief Financial Officer or other District agencies or organizations such as DC Surface Transit, shall make publicly available a study that evaluates and makes recommendations regarding the effects of autonomous vehicles on the District, including: (1) The effect on the District’s economy, including economic development and employment; (2) The impact on the District government’s revenue, including motor vehicle excise taxes, motor vehicle registration fees, motor vehicle fuel taxes, residential parking permit fees, parking meter revenue, fines and fees relating to moving infractions or parking, standing, stopping, and pedestrian infractions, and commercial parking taxes; (3) The impact on the District’s infrastructure, traffic control systems, road use, congestion, curbside management, and public space; (4) The impact on the District’s environment and public health; (5) The impact on public safety in the District, including the safety of other road users such as pedestrians and bicyclists; (6) The impact on the District’s disability community; (7) The impact on the various transportation modes in the District, including mass transit, shared-use vehicles, and public and private vehicles-for-hire; and (8) The need for and use of autonomous vehicle data, including data from autonomous vehicle manufacturers and public and private vehicle-for-hire companies.|
|Wisconsin||SB 695 (2018)||This bill defines a “platoon” as a group of individual motor vehicles traveling in a unified manner at electronically coordinated speeds. This bill creates an exception for platoons to the traffic law requiring the operator of a motor truck with a gross weight of more than 10,000 pounds to maintain a distance of not less than 500 feet behind the vehicle immediately preceding.|