Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 5: Developing the Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan 14 Legal and Regulatory Needs Assessment 4.1 Overview The legal and regulatory audit included an extensive stakeholder engagement process to clarify the laws, regulations, and areas of law and regulation that will need to be considered in the short-, mid-, and long-term relating to the anticipated progression of connected vehicle (CV) and driving automation system-equipped vehicle incorporation into the mainstream vehicle fleet. Stakeholders were consulted to obtain a wide range of perspectives on the following topics: ⢠Areas of focus that need to be addressed in todayâs vehicle codes and regulations in the short- , mid-, and long-term ⢠Anticipated needs and prioritization for the harmonization of vehicle codes and regulations across states, regions, countries, and the globe ⢠Implications if the harmonization of vehicle codes and regulations is not achieved ⢠Any perceived barriers or enablers related to vehicle codes and regulations ⢠Other issues (e.g., implications of federal guidance) identified by stakeholders 4.2 Methods Stakeholders were engaged through a variety of means, including webinar and in-person discussions, presentations at professional conferences, via targeted questionnaires, and at numerous points throughout this task. Resource stakeholders spanned the traditional automotive providers (in the passenger car, light- duty truck, and commercial trucking domains) and those that are technology-based or new to the market. The emergence of technology companies, as well as the partnerships between technology companies and traditional auto manufacturers, requires that laws and regulations be viewed through many different lenses. These industry leaders are making significant investments based on compelling business opportunities for both CVs and driving automation system-equipped vehicles, making them a powerful market force in the U.S. today. In addition, the audit engaged driver advocacy and education groups, insurance interests, and associated trade associations and others working on complementary efforts. Jurisdictional stakeholders included state DMVs and DOTs, law enforcement administrators and staff, and other state-level entities. Representatives from relevant departments within the jurisdictions were contacted and invited to provide state-level input regarding issues such as driver training, testing, and licensing; vehicle registration and titling; insurance-related code provisions; vehicle inspection; sanctioning; and other traffic-related violations. Discussions were held via AAMVA and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) forums with jurisdictions from across the country. To complement the State Legal and Regulatory Audit, targeted outreach efforts to
NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 5: Developing the Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan 15 state DMV, DOT, and law enforcement personnel in California, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Virginia were conducted. To provide additional insight into international harmonization and reciprocity issues, representatives from the Province of Ontario and the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators were also contacted. These jurisdictional stakeholders were selected as they were thought to have the potential to provide the most insight into the types of legal and regulatory modifications that may be necessary with the deployment of CVs and driving automation system-equipped vehicles. These states include early CV/driving automation system- equipped vehicle adopters or pioneers, as well as states that are currently contemplating CV/driving automation system-equipped vehicle laws and regulations or that have a related study group. 4.3 Key Findings The key findings included the following legal and regulatory takeaways: Legal Audit. Very few states have undertaken a detailed legal audit; however, states recognized the importance of an audit. Human Driver References in Law. Some jurisdictions have begun to think about âthe humanâ references in laws and see these references as immaterial during the testing phase but as requiring critical changes for the deployment of SAE J3016 level 4-5 ADS-equipped vehicles. Jurisdictions recognized that the most fundamental change needed in law and regulations begins with clear definitions. Key Areas of Consideration for Deployment. Results were similar across ADS-equipped passenger vehicles, platooning for commercial vehicles, and A-MaaS. Driverâs licensing was a slightly higher priority for platooning CMV fleets than A-MaaS. Insurance and data sharing was also a key consideration. Federal Guidance. Stakeholder responses indicated a belief that federal-level guidance should be formalized and that not doing so is a barrier to harmonization of laws across the U.S. Note that the stakeholder outreach was conducted prior to NHTSAâs release of A Vision for Safety 2.0. Uniformity and Reciprocity. Respondents indicated support for the federal government taking the lead to ensure uniformity and reciprocity in both CV and ADS-equipped vehicle deployment; however, the importance of AAMVA, the AASHTO, and/or the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators in this process was also noted. A common theme was that all relevant stakeholders should be involved. Model Legislation. Participants viewed model legislation as a solid foundation for state laws and cross-jurisdictional reciprocity. In the absence of model legislation, state policy makers are considering best practices. From a DOT perspective, uniform regulations are key, especially for infrastructure improvements.
