BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1298
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 16, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 1298 (Padilla) - As Amended: August 7, 2012
Policy Committee:
TransportationVote:13-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill conditionally authorizes the operation of autonomous
vehicles-those equipped with technology capable of driving the
vehicles without the active physical control of or monitoring by
a human operator-on public roads. Specifically, this bill:
1)Defines manufacturer of autonomous technology and further
specifies that a person may modify a conventional vehicle with
autonomous technology to make the vehicle an autonomous
vehicle.
2)Codifies. (a) the intent of the Legislature that current law
governing third-party vehicle conversion controls issues of
liability arising from the operation of a vehicle modified by
a third-party with autonomous technology; (b) that it is not
the intent of the Legislature to relieve an original equipment
manufacturer (OEM) from liability under existing law where the
OEM has participated in or facilitated the adaption of the
vehicle; and (c) that is not the intent of the Legislature
that enactment of relevant provisions of this bill make the
conversion of a vehicle a reasonably foreseeable occurrence to
the original manufacturer of the vehicle.
3)Authorizes an autonomous vehicle to operate on public roads
if:
a) The vehicle is operated by employees, contractors or
others designated by the vehicle manufacturer for testing
purposes, the driver is seated in the driver's seat and
capable of taking control of the vehicle, and the driver
has obtained insurance, as specified by regulations to be
adopted by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), as
SB 1298
Page 2
required by this bill, in the amount of $5 million, or
b) The manufacturer provides various technical, safety and
operational information on the vehicle, including that the
vehicle allows the operator to take control of the vehicle
in multiple manners and without limitation; and
certification that the manufacturer has tested the
autonomous technology on public roads and has complied with
any testing standards established by DMV.
4)Requires DMV, by January 1, 2014, to adopt regulations, via
public hearing and consistent with certain requirements,
concerning the submission and approval of an application to
operate an autonomous vehicle, and authorizes DMV, in
consultation with the California Highway Patrol (CHP), to
adopt additional regulations regarding the safe operation of
autonomous vehicles on public roads, including regulations
concerning the number of vehicles deployed.
5)Requires an autonomous technology manufacturer to provide
written disclosure to the purchaser of a vehicle equipped with
such technology that describes information collected by the
technology.
6)States that federal National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration standards trump the requirements of this bill
when the two conflict.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)One-time costs of an unknown amount, but likely in excess of
$150,000 in 2012-13 to DMV to adopt regulations via a public
process (special fund).
2)One-time cost of an unknown amount, but likely in the tens of
thousands of dollars in 2012-13, to the CHP to consult with
DMV on regulatory development.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author intends this bill to encourage the
development, testing and operation of autonomous vehicles on
the state's public roads while creating rules to ensure the
testing and operation of such vehicles are conducted safely.
2)Background. Neither federal regulation nor California law
SB 1298
Page 3
explicitly address the operation of autonomous vehicles on
public roadways. In the past, such an omission in law was not
an issue because driverless cars did not exist.
There are several efforts underway to make driverless cars a
reality. Perhaps the most well-known is the Google Driverless
Car project, in which Google has operated prototype driverless
cars on California public roads.
To date, no one has made a driverless car commercially
available. Nonetheless, some are concerned driverless
technology is outpacing statutory requirements or that a
regulatory response will quash driverless car development.
Nevada and Florida recently enacted legislation to allow
autonomous vehicle operation. Hawaii, Oklahoma and Arizona
are considering such legislation.
3)Support. This bill is supported by Google, the Motor and
Equipment Manufacturers Association and others who support the
continued development of autonomous vehicles and regulations
that ensure their safe operation.
4)Opposition. As heard in the Assembly Transportation
Committee, this bill was opposed by the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers, Consumer Alert, and Global Automakers, who
express concern that autonomous technology added to the
vehicles designed for human operation may be drawn into
liability litigation upon an accident caused by the failure of
the autonomous technology or its installation and that
autonomous technology may collect large amounts of consumer
data. It is not clear that the amendments taken in
Transportation Committee have removed this opposition.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081