BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 1298 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 1298 (Padilla) As Amended August 20, 2012 Majority vote SENATE VOTE :37-0 TRANSPORTATION 13-0 APPROPRIATIONS 12-0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Bonnie Lowenthal, |Ayes:|Gatto, Blumenfield, | | |Achadjian, Blumenfield, | |Bradford, | | |Bonilla, Buchanan, Eng, | |Charles Calderon, Campos, | | |Furutani, Galgiani, | |Davis, Fuentes, Hall, | | |Logue, Miller, Norby, | |Hill, Cedillo, Mitchell, | | |Portantino, Solorio | |Solorio | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY : Establishes conditions for the operation of autonomous vehicles upon public roadways. Specifically, this bill : 1)Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding new technologies that permit motor vehicles to operate without the active control and continuous monitoring of a human operator and the need to encourage the current and future development, testing, and operation of autonomous vehicles on the state's public roads. 2)Defines "autonomous technology" as a technology that has the capability to drive a vehicle without the active physical control or continuous monitoring by a human operator. 3)Defines an "autonomous vehicle" as any vehicle equipped with autonomous technology that has been integrated into that vehicle. 4)Specifies that an autonomous vehicle does not include a vehicle that is equipped with one or more collision avoidance systems, including, but not limited to, electronic blind spot assistance, automated emergency braking systems, park assist, adaptive cruise control, lane keep assist, lane departure warning, traffic jam and queuing assist, or other similar systems that enhance safety or provide driver assistance, but are not capable, collectively or singularly, of driving the SB 1298 Page 2 vehicle without the active control or monitoring of a human operator. 5)Defines an "operator" of an autonomous vehicle as the person who is seated in the driver's seat, or if there is no person in the driver's seat, causes the autonomous technology to engage. 6)Defines a "manufacturer" of autonomous technology as the person who originally manufactures a vehicle and equips autonomous technology on the originally completed vehicle or, in the case of a vehicle not originally equipped with autonomous technology by the vehicle manufacturer, the person that modifies the vehicle by installing autonomous technology to convert it to an autonomous vehicle after the vehicle was originally manufactured. 7)Allows an autonomous vehicle to be operated on public roads by a driver who possesses the proper license for the vehicle being operated if it is being operated on roads in this state solely by employees, contractors, or other persons designated by the manufacturer of the autonomous technology for testing purposes. Under this scenario, the driver must be seated in the driver's seat, monitoring the safe operation of the autonomous vehicle, and shall be capable of taking over immediate manual control of the autonomous vehicle in the event of an autonomous technology failure or other emergency. Prior to the start of testing in this state, the person performing the testing must obtain an instrument of insurance, surety bond, or proof of self-insurance, as specified in Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) regulations, in the amount of $5 million dollars. 8)Allows, alternatively, such vehicles to be operated on public roads if the manufacturer of the autonomous technology provides all of the following: a) The autonomous vehicle has a mechanism to engage and disengage the autonomous technology that is easily accessible to the operator; b) The autonomous vehicle has a visual indicator inside the cabin to indicate when the autonomous technology is engaged; SB 1298 Page 3 c) The autonomous vehicle has a system to safely alert the operator if an autonomous technology failure is detected while the autonomous technology is engaged, and when an alert is given, the system does either of the following: i) Require the operator to take control of the autonomous vehicle; or, ii) Allow the autonomous vehicle to come to a complete stop if the operator does not or is unable to take control of the autonomous vehicle. d) The autonomous vehicle allows the operator to take control in multiple manners, including, without limitation, through the use of the brake, the accelerator pedal, or the steering wheel, and alerts the operator that the autonomous technology has been disengaged; e) The autonomous vehicle's autonomous technology meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for the vehicle's model year and all other applicable safety standards and performance requirements set forth in state and federal law and the regulations promulgated pursuant to those laws; f) The autonomous technology does not make inoperative any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for the vehicle's model year and all other applicable safety standards and performance requirements set forth in state and federal law and the regulations promulgated pursuant to those laws; g) The autonomous vehicle has a separate mechanism, in addition to and separate from any other mechanism required by law, to capture and store the autonomous technology sensor data for at least thirty seconds before a collision occurs between the autonomous vehicle and another vehicle, object, or natural person while the vehicle is operating in autonomous mode. The autonomous technology sensor data must be captured and stored in a read-only format by the mechanism so that the data is retained until extracted from the mechanism by an external device capable of downloading and storing the data. Such data must be preserved for three years after the date of the collision. SB 1298 Page 4 9)Prohibits an autonomous vehicle from being operated on public roads, other than by manufacturers' representatives for testing purposes, unless the manufacturer first submits an application to DMV that contains, at a minimum, a certification by the manufacturer that the autonomous technology meets all of the required capabilities described above; that the manufacturer has tested the autonomous technology on public roads and complies with any DMV testing standards; and that the manufacturer will maintain a surety bond, or proof of self-insurance, in an amount of $5 million per DMV regulations. 10)Requires DMV, prior to January 1, 2014, to adopt regulations setting forth requirements for the submission and approval of an application to operate an autonomous vehicle and to hold public hearings on the adoption of any regulation applicable to the operation of an autonomous vehicle without the presence of a driver inside the vehicle. 11)Requires the regulations to include any testing standards, in addition to those established by, developed by the Department of the California Highway Patrol (CHP), the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, or any other entity chosen by the DMV that has expertise in automotive technology, automotive safety, and autonomous system design, that DMV approves and concludes are necessary to ensure the safe operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads. 12)Allows DMV to establish additional requirements by the adoption of regulations, which it determines, in consultation with the CHP, are necessary to ensure the safe operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads, including regulations regarding the number of deployments of autonomous vehicles on public roads. 13)Requires DMV to approve an application submitted by a manufacturer upon verification that the manufacturer has submitted test results demonstrating that the autonomous vehicles are safe to operate on public roads. 14)Specifies, if the application seeks approval for autonomous vehicles capable of operating without the presence of a driver inside the vehicle, that the department may impose additional SB 1298 Page 5 requirements it deems necessary to ensure the safe operation of those vehicles, and may require the presence of a driver in the driver's seat of the vehicle if it determines, based on its review of the testing conducted by the manufacturer, that such a requirement is necessary to ensure the safe operation of those vehicles on public roads. 15)Requires DMV to notify the Legislature of the receipt of an application from a manufacturer seeking approval to operate an autonomous vehicle capable of operating without the presence of a driver inside the vehicle and approval of the application. Approval of the application shall be effective no sooner than 180 days after the date the application is submitted. 16)Allows DMV to establish additional requirements by rule which it determines, in consultation with the CHP, are necessary to ensure the safe operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads. 17)Provides that this bill does not limit or expand the existing authority to operate autonomous vehicles on public roads, until 120 days after DMV adopts those regulations. 18)Provides that federal regulations promulgated by the National Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will supersede this bill's provisions when found to be in conflict with them. 19)Requires the manufacturer of autonomous technology installed on a vehicle to provide a written disclosure to the purchaser of an autonomous vehicle that describes what information is collected by the autonomous technology equipped on the vehicle. 20)Allows DMV to promulgate regulations to assess a fee upon manufacturers that submit applications to operate autonomous vehicles on public roads in an amount necessary to recover all the costs it reasonably incurs. EXISTING LAW : 1)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 SB 1298 Page 6 upon stationary rails or tracks." 2)Provides numerous rules governing the operation of vehicles on the state's public and private roads but does not, however, require that a person drive the vehicle. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, 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 and a 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 : 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) reports that motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among people five 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. Additionally, 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 in California. Car accidents also result in a significant economic cost. 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 a vehicle more safely than a human being. And, as supporters point out, driverless vehicles hold the promise of tremendous mobility opportunities for individuals whose physical conditions render them unable to drive themselves. This bill is intended to enable California to join several other states in seeking safe testing and operational standards for autonomous vehicles. Last year, the State of Nevada enacted a similar bill into law. (The Nevada DMV recently issued to SB 1298 Page 7 Google the first license in that state to test autonomous vehicles.) In addition, Florida recently passed legislation and Hawaii, Oklahoma, and Arizona are all currently considering legislation regarding autonomous vehicles. 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. 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. Clearly, technology in this area is advancing dramatically and it is logical and desirable that California, home to many of the world's technology giants, should be in the vanguard of the development of autonomous vehicles. But the move to driverless automotive transportation cannot be embarked upon without careful consideration. The current version of this bill represents a sincere attempt by the author and supporters to meet a variety of concerns and to balance numerous overlapping interests. There are, however, a number of issues that remain controversial. First, automobile makers fear that when this technology is added on to the vehicles they have designed for use by human operators, they may be drawn into liability litigation upon an accident caused by the failure of that after-market equipment or of its installation rather than due to any inherent safety problem with the vehicle itself. Although the author asserts that existing tort law and case law absolve them of any liability in such instances, the automakers understandably desire explicit language in the bill to make this clear. SB 1298 Page 8 Secondly, although this bill requires disclosure to autonomous technology purchases of the data-collection capabilities of the equipment, privacy advocates are troubled by the ability of this technology to collect without restriction large amounts of data and instead believe that data collection should be limited to only that data that is necessary for the operation of the vehicle and that such data not be retained any longer than is necessary for the operation of the vehicle - unless the vehicle owner provides informed opt-in consent for such collection. Finally, some observers wonder if this bill is premature in providing a mechanism that potentially allows driverless operation, rather than waiting to pursue such statutory authorization at such time as extensive on-road experience indicates it is timely to do so. Analysis Prepared by : Howard Posner / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0005042