| State | Status | State Law |
|---|---|---|
| Arkansas | 🟩 | (1) AR H 1754 (2017); (2) AR H 1561 (2019); (3) AR H 1562 (2021); (4) AR H 1822 (2019) |
| Explanation of State Law | Failed Legislation | Testing |
| "(1) allows for CAV truck platooning systems; (2) establishes CAV pilot program supervised by State Highway Commission; (3) sets out licensing and liability requirements for operation of ""on-demand driverless capable vehicle[s]"" ; (4) requires CAVs to safely traverse railroad crossings unless exempted by AR Department of Transportation" | None | - |
| Testing Requirements | Oversight Department | Infrastructure Developments |
| - | Department of Transportation | - |
| Crashes/Safety Incidents | Liability/Insurance Requirements | |
| - | - |
Arizona
| State | Status | State Law |
|---|---|---|
| Arizona | 🟨 | (1) Executive Order (2015-09); (2) Executive Order (2018-04); (3) AZ H 2813 (2021) |
| Explanation of State Law | Failed Legislation | Testing |
| (1) established pilot CAV programs on certain university campuses, delegated to AZ Department of Transportation for additional rule making, established a Self Driving Vehicle Oversight Committee; (2) defines a number of CAV related terms, requires CAV testing/operation to comply with AZ Sec 28 and sets out specific steps required for CAV testing; (3) amended AZ law sets out requirements for fully autonomous CAV to follow when in an accident | (1) AZ H 2007 (2021); (2) AZ G 2083 (2021); (3) AZ H 2476 (2021); (4) AZ H 2684 (2019); (5) AZ S 1135 (2017); (6) AZ H 2434 (2017); (7) AZ H 2340 (2020); (8) AZ H 2060 (2020) | Passenger vehicles, commercial motor vehicles, personal delivery vehicles, neighborhood electric vehicle. Scottsdale Arizona and Nuro testing in Houston on road testing and closed environment testing. Institute for Automated Mobility is working with the University of Arizona, working closely with: GM is testing Cruz for about a year or so and then moved to San Francisco; Intel is doing some testing but they are looking more at the software. They have had OEMs who are testing and some startup tech companies. All have safety operators in the vehicles. There has been some platooning; Peleton has been working. Lyft and Waymo are going to do something. Waymo has been giving test rides to neighbor. (source: ARS Sec 28) |
| Testing Requirements | Oversight Department | Infrastructure Developments |
| - | - | - |
| Crashes/Safety Incidents | Liability/Insurance Requirements | |
| - | - |
Alaska
| State | Status | State Law |
|---|---|---|
| Alaska | 🟥 | None. |
| Explanation of State Law | Failed Legislation | Testing |
| N/A | N/A | None. |
| Testing Requirements | Oversight Department | Infrastructure Developments |
| None. | None. | Central Region headquartered in Anchorage upgraded signal controllers and installed fiber with new construction projects. All of the traffic signals in the Central Regions corridors are networked. Central Region SPaT data are streamed to private companies for use in cell phone and in-vehicle apps |
| Crashes/Safety Incidents | Liability/Insurance Requirements | |
| None. | Central Region requires SPaT data receiving companies to carry liability insurance naming DOT as an additional insured and to carry Workers Comp if they have employees in Alaska. In Central Region, the state DOT name cannot be used as either an endorser or approver of the apps. DOT does not review the apps for safety nor do not assure the security, continuity, reliability, or suitability-for-intended-use of the data. Central Region has the right to terminate at any time for any reason. |
Alabama
| State | Status | State Law |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 🟨 | (1) AL SB 125 (2018); (2) SJR 81 (2019); (3) AL S 47 (2019). |
| Explanation of State Law | Failed Legislation | Testing |
| (1) exempts truck platoons from a law that prohibits motor vehicles from tailgating other vehicles; (2) established Joint Legislative Committee to study self driving vehicles; (3) allows commercial CAV to operate without a human driver if certain conditions are met. | (1) AL S 154 (2021) (2) AL H 160 (2019) (3) AL H 337 (2018) (4) AL S 379 (2017) (5) AL S 229 (2020) | None. |
| Testing Requirements | Oversight Department | Infrastructure Developments |
| None | None | None |
| Crashes/Safety Incidents | Liability/Insurance Requirements | |
| Vehicle has to remain on scene; operator/person in charge has to contact law enforcement. Must comply with AL Code 32-10. (source: AL Code 32-10) | Automated commercial vehicles must be covered by up to $2M in insurance. (source: AL Code Sec 39-9B-3(5)) |
Louisiana
| State | Status | State Law |
|---|---|---|
| Louisiana | 🟩 | (1) HB 455 (2019) (2) HB 308 (2018) |
| Explanation of State Law | Failed Legislation | Testing |
| (1) Defines autonomous vehicles, controlling authority, reporting requirements, accident guidelines (2) Defines platooning and operating procedures for platooning | - | Walmart (source) |
| Testing Requirements | Oversight Department | Infrastructure Developments |
| """The report recommends that state legislation, for now, allow autonomous vehicles to be operated for testing purposes only."" Services will initially begin with a safety driver" (source) | HB 455 Establishes task force oversight; none detailed | - |
| Crashes/Safety Incidents | Liability/Insurance Requirements | |
| - | - |
Pennsylvania
| State | Status | State Law |
|---|---|---|
| Pennsylvania | 🟨 | (1) 2019 PA H 1078 (2019); (2) 2017 PA S 427 (2017); (3) 2017 PA S 1096 (2018); (4) 2017 PA H 1637 (2017); (5) 2017 PA H 1958 (2018); (6) 2017 PA H 2300 (2018); (7) 2017 PA S 427 (2017); |
| Explanation of State Law | Failed Legislation | Testing |
| - | None | Pennsylvania AV Testing Guidance (source) |
| Testing Requirements | Oversight Department | Infrastructure Developments |
| “Currently during Highly Automated Vehicle (HAV) testing, a licensed driver is required to be seated in the driver’s seat with the ability to intervene in situations where the Automated Driving System (ADS) experiences a system interruption or other problem rendering the ADS unable to safely perform the dynamic driving task and the vehicle is unable to come to a minimal risk condition on its own.” | - | - |
| Crashes/Safety Incidents | Liability/Insurance Requirements | |
| - | - |
Nevada
| State | Status | State Law |
|---|---|---|
| Arizona | 🟩 | (1) NV S 288 (2021) (2) NV A 412 (2021) (3) NV A 69 (2017) (4) NV AB 511 (2011) (5) NV SB 140 (2011) (6) NV SB 313 (2013) |
| Explanation of State Law | Failed Legislation | Testing |
| NV A 69: Use of AVs, definitions, crash reporting, fines for AV violations. Permits use by taxi companies and motor carries in certain circumstances NV A 412: revises fully AV provisions NV AB 511: authorizes AV operation and a driver's license endorsement for AV operators NV SB 140: permits cell phone use in AVs, legally deems AV operators as not operating the vehicle NV SB 313: requriements for AV operation; insurance, etc. Liability waiver for OEMs whose vehicles are retrofitted as AVs | - | 1. Nuro 2. Motional 3. Tesla 4. Hyundai/Aurora 5. Otto (source 1, 2, 3, 4.) |
| Testing Requirements | Oversight Department | Infrastructure Developments |
| Unless excepted, a human operator must be positioned to immediately take over operation, and be capable of immediately taking control in event of failure or emergency. Must submit certification for operations/testing. $5,000,000 insurance req. label affixed, easily disengage, can alert driver to take control in failure mode, meets all fed reqs. 10k miles before public road (source 1, 2) | NV DMV | "Tesla Megacharger https://electrek.co/2021/10/12/tesla-deploying-first-megacharger-charge-tesla-semi-electric-truck/" |
| Crashes/Safety Incidents | Liability/Insurance Requirements | |
| - | - |
Idaho
| State | Status | State Law |
|---|---|---|
| Idaho | 🟥 | (1) Executive Order 2018-01 (2018) |
| Explanation of State Law | Failed Legislation | Testing |
| Creation of a committee to research autonomous vehicles and present a report to the governor | None | None (source) |
| Testing Requirements | Oversight Department | Infrastructure Developments |
| None | Idaho DOT | None |
| Crashes/Safety Incidents | Liability/Insurance Requirements | |
| - | - |
Georgia
| State | Contact | Legislation &/or Executive Order |
|---|---|---|
| Georgia | Dispatched letters Josh Waller 404 631 1007 jwaller@dot.ga.gov | HB 472 (2017) – Specifies that the law prohibiting following too closely does not to 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. 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. Georgia legislation is based on the bill used in Michigan; there was pushback saying the proposed law was overly oriented towards manufacturers; there was a successful move to make the law “technology neutral” Georgia is making use of “light touch” regulation to attract industry |
| Testing (Autos) | Testing (Other) | Testing and Deployment requirements |
| There has been some limited deployment but because Georgia law does not require state permission to test or deploy, operations could be taking place without the State knowing. Georgia DOT has worked with the City of Atlanta on a connected corridor Currently, companies which might test are in the initial phases; they have expressed concerns concerned about safety and being technology issue | Platooning has yet to start, industry is looking for similar statutes with other states; the aim is to allow multi-state travel without encountering vastly different regulations form state to state. Georgia legislation allows testing and deployment without formal state permission. There are no Transportation Network Companies operating in Georgia at this time | There is no formal requirement to notify state agencies about testing or deployment however most interested in parties coordinate with the Department of Transportation and the State Police |
| Local Government Pre-emption | Self-Certification | Oversight Department |
| There is no state preemption of local government regulation at this time; the City of Atlanta may be doing something with testing or deployment | N/A | There is a strategic deployment of certain upgrades in key corridors however they are early in the process. There is also investment being made in V2X; these investments will be significant. Georgia is looking at public private partnerships for laying fiber which will have dual purpose (state and private sector use) |
| Oversight Department | Liability | Data/ Privacy |
| Department of Transportation | Same requirements as for other drivers | See Semi Annual Data Collection Form https://www.penndot.gov/ProjectAndPrograms/ResearchandTesting/Autonomous%20_Vehicles/Documents/PennDOT%20HAV%20Semi-Annual%20Data%20Collection%20Form.pdf |
| Social Justice | Other Contacts | Misc. |
| There have not been expressions of interest by the disabled community or others | Mr. Waller is willing to provide follow up information if needed | N/A |
Hello world!
Welcome to University of Washington Sites. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!