BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: SB 1298
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: padilla
VERSION: 4/9/12
Analysis by: Carrie Cornwell FISCAL: Yes
Hearing date: April 10, 2012
SUBJECT:
Autonomous vehicles
DESCRIPTION:
This bill explicitly permits autonomous vehicles to operate on
California's public roads without a driver present in the
vehicle if specified conditions are met.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law defines a vehicle as "a device by which any person
or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway,
excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used
exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks." Existing law
provides numerous rules governing the operation of vehicles on
the state's public and private roads. It does not, however,
require that a person drive a vehicle.
This bill :
1)Defines "autonomous vehicle" as a vehicle equipped with
technology that has the capability to drive the vehicle
without the active control or continuous monitoring by a human
operator.
2)Defines the "operator of an autonomous vehicle" as the person
who causes the autonomous technology to engage, regardless of
whether the person is physically present in the vehicle or
SB 1298 (PADILLA) Page 2
not.
3)Permits a licensed driver to operate an autonomous vehicle
(i.e., turn the self-drive function on) on the state's
highways and roads if either a) or b) are met.
a) To operate the vehicle for testing purposes, an
employee, contractor, or other person designated by the
manufacturer of the autonomous technology must operate the
vehicle from within the vehicle such that he or she has the
ability to monitor the vehicle's performance and intervene.
Prior to the start of testing, the entity performing the
testing must obtain insurance of at least $5 million. Any
entity performing road tests of autonomous vehicles must
have completed at least 10,000 miles of prior road testing
with the autonomous technology engaged.
b) To operate the vehicle in all other circumstances, the
manufacturer of the autonomous technology must certify
that:
i) The autonomous vehicle has a mechanism to
engage and disengage the autonomous technology, and it
is easily accessible by the operator;
ii) The autonomous vehicle has a visual indicator
"inside the cabin" that shows when the autonomous
technology is engaged;
iii) The autonomous vehicle has an alert system to
let the operator know if an autonomous technology
failure occurs. When that alert occurs, the system
must either require the operator to take control of
the vehicle, or if the operator cannot, then the
autonomous vehicle must take itself safely out of
SB 1298 (PADILLA) Page 3
traffic;
iv) If the autonomous technology requires a driver
in the vehicle, the technology allows the driver to
take control from the autonomous vehicle in multiple
manners, including engaging the brake, accelerator, or
steering wheel;
v) The autonomous technology meets all applicable
federal safety standards and performance requirements;
and
vi) The autonomous technology does not adversely
affect any federally mandated safety features on the
vehicle.
4)Permits the California Highway Patrol, in consultation with
the Department of Motor Vehicles, to recommend to the
Legislature additional requirements for the safe operation of
autonomous vehicles in California.
5)Provides that National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) regulations will supersede this bill when they are
found to be in conflict with the provisions of this bill.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose . The author notes that despite the many safety
improvements to the automobile since its invention, auto
accidents remain a leading cause of death. The Centers for
Disease Control (CDC) report that motor vehicle crashes are
the leading cause of death among people 5 through 34 years
old. In 2009, more than 2.3 million adult drivers and
passengers were treated in emergency rooms as the result of
being injured in motor vehicle crashes nationwide.
According to NHTSA, in 2010, a total of 32,885 people died in
the United States in car accidents. More than 2,700 of these
traffic fatalities were here in California. Car accidents
SB 1298 (PADILLA) Page 4
also result in a significant economic impact. A 2005 CDC
report found that the lifetime cost of crash-related deaths
and injuries among drivers and passengers was $70 billion.
The author points out that the vast majority of traffic
fatalities and injuries are due to human error, noting that a
2006 U.S. Department of Transportation study found that some
form of driver error occurred in nearly 80% of car accidents.
The author asserts that through the use of computers, sensors
and other systems, an autonomous vehicle is capable of
analyzing the driving environment more quickly and operating
the vehicle more safely than a human being.
He introduced this bill to enable California to join other
states in establishing safe testing and operation standards
for autonomous vehicles. Last year, the Governor of Nevada
signed a similar bill into law. In addition, Florida, Hawaii,
Oklahoma, and Arizona are all currently considering autonomous
vehicle legislation. The author and supporters note that as
a global technology leader, California is uniquely positioned
to be the leader in the deployment of autonomous technology
and the manufacture of autonomous vehicles. He states that
this technology will not only save lives, it will create jobs.
2.No driver in the car ? As noted above, existing California law
does not require a driver to operate a vehicle. Heretofore
this omission has not mattered, as cars that could drive
themselves were futuristic. Such vehicles now appear to be
just a few years away from being commercially available. The
supporters of this bill contend that the bill is necessary to
provide a structure and explicit authorization in law so that
those investing in the development of autonomous vehicles can
do so confident that the end product will be legally drivable
here. Still, the idea of a driverless car raises a number of
issues, including:
Autonomous vehicles will share the road with cars that
have human drivers, because of this and other unavoidable
circumstances, accidents will occur that involve the
autonomous vehicle. When an accident occurs, the operator
of the autonomous vehicle, which the bill defines to be the
person who engaged the autonomous function, could be a
great distance away from the vehicle, even in another
jurisdiction. What then would occur in terms of reporting
the accident? Dealing with the disabled vehicle?
Discerning fault? Exchanging insurance information?
SB 1298 (PADILLA) Page 5
What financial responsibility would an operator versus
an owner of an autonomous vehicle bear when such a vehicle
was in an accident?
If the vehicle commits a violation of state law, how is
law enforcement to cite the operator when that person is
not present in the vehicle? Could law enforcement even
legally cite the operator?
1.Federal regulations . The federal government has yet to
regulate autonomous vehicles in any fashion. NHTSA, the
entity responsible for developing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards, has yet to initiate a process to develop standards
for autonomous vehicle technology, and even once it does so,
it likely will take several years to finalize those standards.
It is not uncommon, however, for federal standards to lag
innovation in the auto industry and for manufacturers to add
safety improvements to vehicles prior to the development of
applicable standards. This bill states that NHTSA regulations
of autonomous vehicles will supersede the provisions of this
bill that "are found to be in conflict" with those standards.
It is unclear, however, who would make this finding. In any
case, federal law provides that federal motor vehicle
standards pre-empt state law. The committee may wish,
therefore, to consider either 1) deleting the language that
NHTSA regulations supersede the bill's provisions that are
found in conflict with those regulations, or 2) specifying who
will deem what provisions are in conflict.
2.Testing and certification . This bill provides two sets of
rules for the legal operation of autonomous vehicles on
California's public roads. One set is for the testing of the
technology and the other is for all other uses of autonomous
vehicles. In the second instance, a manufacturer of the
autonomous technology certifies that the technology meets
specified safety requirements but does not state to whom the
manufacturer makes this certification. The committee may wish
to amend the bill to specify to whom the manufacturer
certifies that an autonomous vehicle meets its requirements.
3.Liability issues . The bill requires any entity testing
autonomous vehicles on California's public roads to obtain "an
instrument of insurance, surety bond, or proof of
self-insurance" for $5 million. The bill provides no special
or additional financial responsibility for autonomous vehicles
SB 1298 (PADILLA) Page 6
that meet the bill's certification requirement (described in
#3b above). DMV enforces existing vehicle financial
responsibility laws as part of its vehicle registration
duties. What would be an appropriate level of financial
responsibility, how this provision would be enforced, and who
or what entities should be the potential beneficiaries of the
insurance or bond, are all issues outside the jurisdiction of
this committee. Should the committee pass this bill, the
committee may wish to refer this bill to the Rules Committee
for potential referral to another policy committee to consider
these financial responsibility and liability issues.
4.Barrier to entry . This bill requires any entity performing
road tests of autonomous vehicles to have completed at least
10,000 miles of prior road testing with the autonomous
technology engaged. Once this bill becomes law, however,
testing entities will no longer be able to drive autonomous
vehicle legally on California's roads in order to attain those
10,000 miles. Thus, while existing testing entities that have
achieved 10,000 miles will be able to meet the requirements of
the bill, testing entities entering the autonomous vehicles
market will not. New testing entities will face a barrier to
entry because there will be no legal way in California to
achieve the 10,000 miles.
5.Technical amendment . On page 4, delete lines 21- 28 and
insert: "The autonomous vehicle allows the operator, when
seated inside the vehicle, to take control in multiple
manners, including, without limitation, through the use of the
brake, the accelerator pedal, or the steering wheel, and it
alerts the operator that the autonomous technology has been
disengaged."
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday, April 4,
2012)
SUPPORT: Google
Technology Association of America
Engineering Contractors' Association
California Fence Contractors' Association
California Chapter of the American Fence
Association
Marin Builders Association
Flasher Barricade Association
SB 1298 (PADILLA) Page 7
OPPOSED: None received.