Source: https://aitech.law/publications/2018/q1/av-us/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 15:56:15+00:00

Document:
In the U.S., certain aspects of vehicle and driver regulation are traditionally subject to federal control (such as vehicle safety and recalls) while others are typically subject to state authority (such as vehicle registration, licensing, insurance, traffic regulations, and vehicle owner or operator responsibilities, liabilities, and insurance). In 2016, only seven U.S. states had passed legislation addressing AV testing and use, and the U.S. federal government had only started to review this amazing technology. Since then, the federal government has issued two major updates to its autonomous vehicle policy, two substantive autonomous vehicle bills have been proposed and debated in Congress, and 29 states and the District of Columbia have legislated1 and 10 states have taken action through an executive order2 in the autonomous vehicle field.
This section will address the federal developments in this space as well as provide a summary of the patchwork quilt of state law requirements.
In September 2017, the U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”) and the National Highway Transportation Safety Association (“NHTSA”) released “Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety” (“A Vision for Safety”) designed to “promote improvements in safety, mobility, and efficiency though [automated driving systems].” This policy updated and replaced the 2016 Federal Automated Vehicles Policy (the “2016 Policy”).
Although A Vision for Safety superseded the 2016 Policy, the goals of the two policies differ in certain ways. Where the 2016 Policy contained concrete regulatory steps, A Vision for Safety merely provided a voluntary set of flexible suggestions and considerations.
Discussed below, A Vision for Safety addressed two major areas. It included: (1) voluntary guidance related to testing and deployment of autonomous vehicle technology; and (2) assistance to state legislatures considering implementing regulations relating to automated driving systems.
In its 2016 Policy, the NHTSA advised that it would “request that manufacturers and other entities voluntarily provide reports regarding how [the NHTSA’s] guidance had been followed.” The NHTSA called these reports “safety assessment letters.” Each letter was to cover fifteen (15) substantive areas of guidance. The NHTSA stated that “this reporting process may be refined and made mandatory through future rulemaking.” The 2016 Policy also recommended the future implementation of enforcement tools to manage the development of autonomous vehicle technology, including pre-market approval authority and cease-and-desist authority.
One year later, A Vision for Safety pushed back against the 2016 Policy’s recommendation for mandatory self-reporting in favor of voluntary guidelines. This time, the NHTSA’s guidance asked only for safety self-assessments which are expressly voluntary: “This Guidance is entirely voluntary, with no compliance requirement or enforcement mechanism.” Instead of the previous 15 substantive areas of guidance, A Vision for Safety included only 12.3 In addition, the 2016 Policy’s suggestion of potential enforcement tools had been removed.
Consistent with the 2016 Policy, A Vision for Safety strongly encouraged states not to adopt legislation that would place barriers on autonomous vehicle systems. A Vision for Safety encouraged following best practices in creating legislation, including: providing a technology-neutral environment, providing licensing and registration procedures for autonomous systems; providing reporting and communication methods for public safety officials and reviewing traffic laws and existing regulations that may serve as barriers to the operation of autonomous systems (such as a requirement that a human operator have one hand on the steering wheel at all times).
The NHTSA also provided guidance for state highway safety officials, recommended new oversight activities on the state level (such as designating or creating an agency responsible for reviewing autonomous vehicle testing), recommended steps for applications to test on public roadways, granted permission for entities to test on public roadways, and included considerations for test drivers and operations, considerations for registration, titling and insurance, and considerations for public safety officials (including training for safety officials).
In September 2017, Senate Bill 1885 was introduced: the “American Vision for Safer Transportation through Advancement of Revolutionary Technologies Act.” Also known as the AV START Act, the bill was presented to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and in November, the Committee recommended amendments to the bill, and with those amendments, recommended the passage of the bill.
At the same time the AV START Act was making its way through the Senate, a similar bill, the “Safely Ensuring Lives Future Deployment and Research In Vehicle Evolution Act” or “SELF-DRIVE Act” (H.R. 3388), was making its way through the House of Representatives. The SELF DRIVE Act ultimately passed the House, and was received in the Senate, which referred it to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, where it currently is pending.
As discussed below, while both Acts are largely similar, they do differ in certain ways. Both Acts take a much stricter approach to federal government regulation than the NHTSA’s 2017 A Vision for Safety. Ultimately, it is likely that the bills will be harmonized into a version presented to the full Congress for approval at some point in the future.
The Senate’s AV START Act and the House’s SELF DRIVE Act have many similarities. For example, both pieces of proposed legislation encourage the DOT to update and change the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as quickly as possible, emphasize the preemptive effect of federal legislation in this area, establish technical groups to generate recommendations to the DOT regarding autonomous vehicle regulations, and increase the number of exemptions to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that the DOT may grant. Further, both the AV START Act and the SELF DRIVE Act would amend the U.S. Code to allow all manufacturers to test a vehicle that does not comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
In contrast to the NHTSA’s A Vision for Safety, both pieces of congressional legislation impose concrete regulatory burdens on autonomous vehicle and system manufacturers.
Described below, for example, both proposed bills would require autonomous vehicle and system manufacturers to: (i) submit some form of safety evaluation and assessment report to the DOT; and (ii) submit some form of cybersecurity plans to the DOT.
Both the AV START Act and the SELF DRIVE Act would require autonomous vehicle and system manufacturers to provide safety evaluation and assessment reports to the DOT. Of the two proposed bills, the Senate’s AV START Act contains more regulatory requirements.
Section 9 of the AV START Act would require “every manufacturer introducing a new highly autonomous vehicle or automated driving system into interstate commerce” to “provide a safety evaluation report” that “describes how the manufacturer is addressing the safety of such vehicle or system” relating to nine different substantive areas.4 These safety evaluation reports would be due to the Secretary of Transportation at three separate times for each vehicle: (1) upon testing of a highly autonomous vehicle or automated driving system; (2) not later than 90 days before selling, offering for sale, or otherwise commercializing a highly autonomous vehicle or automated driving system; and (3) annually until the vehicle or system is no longer being sold, offered for sale, or otherwise introduced into interstate commerce by the manufacturer.
In addition, both the AV START Act and the SELF DRIVE Act would require autonomous vehicle manufacturers to submit cybersecurity plans to the DOT, although the details of each Act’s cybersecurity plans differ slightly.
Section 14 of the AV START Act would require “each manufacturer of a highly automated vehicle or automated driving system” to “develop, maintain, and execute a written plan for identifying and reducing cybersecurity risks to the motor vehicle safety of such vehicles and systems” that addresses processes for 10 specific areas covering the identification, evaluation, and response to cybersecurity threats. Other than impose the requirement for such a cybersecurity plan, this Act does not specify a time or date by which the plan must be implemented.
Autonomous vehicle regulation in the U.S. has focused on consumer vehicles rather than commercial vehicles. For consumer vehicles, fully autonomous vehicle capability in is still largely in the testing phase, and widespread market disruption may not be felt for several years to come. In the commercial trucking industry, however, developments in autonomous vehicle technology are already starting to be felt on public roads. In late 2017, for example, Tesla, Inc. announced the production of a semi-autonomous semi-truck and Embark Trucks, Inc. built and began running autonomous semi trucks between Texas and California.
Not prepared to wait for a federal system to apply to the entire union, state governments have been actively enacting their own rules and regulations with respect to autonomous vehicles: passing laws, signing executive orders, promulgating regulations, and having autonomous vehicles tested both on private and public roads. In 2012, only six states had introduced autonomous vehicle legislation. In 2016, 20 states introduced autonomous vehicle legislation. In 2017, 33 states introduced autonomous vehicle legislation.
There is currently an open debate among state governments as to how accessible their states should be to autonomous vehicle testing, manufacturing, and deployment. As autonomous vehicle technology advances, states feel the need to allow autonomous vehicles greater access to their roadways to encourage in-state technological innovation and financial investment. California, for example, used to require a driver behind the wheel of a vehicle with autonomous vehicle technology in case of emergencies, impliedly requiring autonomous vehicle manufacturers to include a steering wheel and pedals in their designs. New York state, similarly, used to require a human driver to keep a hand on the wheel at all times. Wary of losing out on the significant investment and job creation this industry may provide, California and New York eliminated or suspended these requirements in 2018.
Although states want to encourage the development of the technology in their region, they also are concerned for overall safety. As a result, although states seek to attract the industry into their borders, they also set requirements meant to protect their citizenry. An example of this tension is the March 2018 accident involving Uber in Arizona, where a highly autonomous vehicle being tested by Uber hit and killed a pedestrian in Tempe, Arizona – the first time a pedestrian had been killed by a highly autonomous vehicle.
Nevada was the first state to authorize autonomous vehicles in 2011. Twenty-nine other states (and the District of Columbia) have since followed. In addition, governors in 10 other states have issued executive orders relating to autonomous vehicles. All of this activity represents more than half of the 50 states putting into place at least some local rule or regulation relating to AVs. Although states initially directed their legislative activity on either a study of the technology or the requirements for a permit to operate the vehicles, more recent laws focus on more advanced topics, such as “platooning” of these vehicles: permitting groups of vehicles to travel closely together, enabling more fuel efficiency.
Four states have been particularly active in this space and, as a result, have captured a great deal of the press coverage on how local governments are managing these unique vehicles: Arizona, California, Michigan, and New York.
The vehicle owner must submit “proof of financial responsibility” in an amount specified by the Arizona Department of Transportation.
“Automated driving system”: The hardware and software that are collectively capable of performing the entire dynamic driving task on a sustained basis, regardless of whether it is limited to a specific operational design domain.
Enhancing conspicuity via lighting, signaling and gesturing.
“Operational design domain”: a description of the specific operating domain(s) in which an automated driving system is designed to properly operate, including but not limited to roadway types, speed range, environmental conditions (weather, daytime/nighttime, etc.), and other domain constraints.
The order also requires that anyone testing or operating vehicles with an “automated driving system” must comply with all federal and state laws and “violations will lead to suspension and/or revocation of the permission to test or operate on public roads.” This obligation extends to vehicles at SAE Level 3 as well as Levels 4 and 5.
first registered radar and LIDAR observations of the pedestrian about six seconds before impact, when the vehicle was traveling at 43 mph. As the vehicle and pedestrian paths converged, the self-driving system software classified the pedestrian as an unknown object, as a vehicle, and then as a bicycle with varying expectations of future travel path. At 1.3 seconds before impact, the self-driving system determined that an emergency braking maneuver was needed to mitigate a collision . . . According to Uber, emergency braking maneuvers are not enabled while the vehicle is under computer control, to reduce the potential for erratic vehicle behavior. The vehicle operator is relied on to intervene and take action. The system is not designed to alert the operator.
The preliminary report also found that the pedestrian was dressed in dark clothing, she was pushing a bicycle that did not have side reflectors, and the bicycle’s front and rear reflectors could not be seen because they were perpendicular to the path of the oncoming vehicle. Signs facing toward the roadway warned pedestrians to use a crosswalk. The pedestrian’s post-accident toxicology test results were positive for both methamphetamine and marijuana.
California has passed five laws relating to autonomous vehicles, has promulgated regulations for testing and deployment of owned or leased autonomous vehicles, and has proposed regulations for autonomous vehicle passenger service with drivers and a pilot test program for driverless autonomous vehicle passenger service.
The manufacturer provides evidence of $5 million in insurance, surety bond or self-insurance to the Department of Motor Vehicles.
The second California law was passed in 2016 and related solely to a pilot project to test autonomous vehicles by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. The law will expire in October of 2018. The testing could be conducted only at a privately-owned business park and the vehicle could operate at speeds of less than 35 mph. The certification to be filed with the Department of Motor Vehicles required several items, including that the vehicle be equipped with a communication link between the vehicle and remote operator “to provide information on the vehicle’s location and status and to allow two-way communication between the remote operator and any passengers if the vehicle experiences any failures that would endanger the safety of the vehicle’s passengers or other road users while operating without a driver.” The Transportation Authority “or a private entity, or a combination of the two” also had to submit a copy of a “law enforcement interaction plan,” to instruct law enforcement on how to interact with the vehicle in emergency and traffic enforcement situations. With respect to privacy, the law required the operator of the autonomous vehicle technology to disclose to any participant “what personal information, if any, concerning the pilot project participant is collected by an autonomous vehicle.” The law also permitted the DMV to require the operator to collect and report certain data, including a report of any accident “originating from the operation” of the vehicle that on a public road that resulted in personal injury, property damage, or death, with the report filed within 10 days of the accident. The DMV could also require an annual report summarizing information on “unplanned technology disengagements” that occurred during testing on public roads.
In October of 2017, California enacted a law to permit the Department of Transportation and the California Highway Patrol to conduct testing of platooning technologies. This law expires on January 1, 2020.
The fourth California law was also enacted in October of 2017. Almost identical to the second California law, it permitted the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority to conduct testing in the city of Dublin, California. This law became inoperative on May 1, 2018.
The fifth California law was also enacted in October of 2017 and streamlined the first California law. This law repealed a requirement that the DMV notify the legislature of receipt of an application seeking approval to operate an autonomous vehicle, and repealed the requirement that the application could not be approved sooner than 180 days after submission. The law also required the DMV to provide a public notice of autonomous vehicle regulations and prohibited the DMV from approving an application until 30 days after public notice of the adopted regulations.
In addition, and perhaps most importantly, California DMV adopted regulations, which became effective in April of 2018. The regulations fall into two categories: testing autonomous vehicles and post-testing deployment of autonomous vehicles.
Information that the autonomous vehicle collects, generates, records, or stores in an electronic form that is not necessary for the safe operation of the vehicle, and that is linked or reasonably capable of being linked to the vehicle’s registered owner or lessee or passenger using the vehicle for transportation services.
have received a testing permit from the DMV.
The application fee is $3,600, which permits the manufacturer to have up to 10 autonomous vehicles and 20 drivers in the test. For an additional $50 fee, the manufacturer can add an additional 1-10 autonomous vehicles and 1-20 drivers. The DMV also charges a $70 fee for modifications to the application.
The permit has a term of two years. The manufacturer may apply for renewal 60 days prior to the permit’s expiration date, plus payment of a $3,600 renewal fee.
California does not permit certain vehicles to be tested or deployed as autonomous vehicles, including motorcycles and vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,001 or more pounds.
Contact information for the contact person of the manufacturer conducting the testing.
“A communications link between the vehicle and the remote operator that will allow two-way communications between the remote operator and any passenger if the vehicle experiences any failures that would endanger the safety of the vehicle’s passengers or other road users, or otherwise prevent the vehicle from functioning as intended, while operating without a driver.” This certification must include: (i) that the manufacturer will continuously monitor the status of the vehicle and the two-way communications link while the vehicle is in autonomous mode; (ii) a description of how the manufacturer will monitor the communications link; and (iii) an explanation of how all of the tested vehicles will be monitored.
“There is a process to display or communicate vehicle owner or operator information” if the vehicle is involved in a collision or there is another need to provide information to law enforcement.
Additional information the manufacturer deems necessary regarding hazardous conditions and public safety risks.
For manufacturers that have publicly disclosed an assessment demonstrating their approaches to achieving safety, the manufacturer must provide a copy to the DMV.
The manufacturer shall disclose to any passenger any “personal information” that may be collected about the passenger and how that information will be used.
A manufacturer must modify the permit application—at a $70 fee—prior to: changing a vehicle’s SAE operating level; changing the roadway types; increasing speed by more than 15 m.p.h.; or changing geographic areas.
The DMV may refuse a testing permit or a renewal for any violation of the regulations, or any violation of California’s autonomous vehicle law, or “for any act or omission of the manufacturer or one of its agents, employees, contractors, or designees which the department finds makes the conduct of autonomous vehicle testing on public roads by the manufacturer an unreasonable risk to the public.” The DMV may suspend or revoke a permit for those reasons and, for driverless autonomous vehicles, if the vehicle operates outside of the “operational design domain” specified in the permit application.
A deactivation of the autonomous mode when a failure of the autonomous technology is detected or when the safe operation of the vehicle requires that the autonomous vehicle test driver disengage the autonomous mode and take immediate manual control of the vehicle, or in the care of driverless vehicles, when the safety of the vehicle, the occupants of the vehicle, or the public requires that the autonomous technology be deactivated.
The total number of miles for each autonomous vehicle tested on public roads each month.
The regulation also states that no one may “drive, move or leave standing” an autonomous vehicle on a public road unless the DMV has been notified.
Note that, following the Arizona collision, Uber withdrew its renewal application for a testing permit in California.
If the vehicle lacks manual controls (steering wheel, brakes, etc.), it complies with federal standards.
The URL where law enforcement and emergency response agencies can access the education plan at no cost.
With respect to SAE Levels 4 and 5, and Level 3 where the driver does not or is unable to take manual control of the vehicle, the manufacturer must include a description of how the vehicle will “safely come to a complete stop” if there is an autonomous technology failure, including moving the vehicle from the traffic lanes, and activation of systems that will allow the autonomous vehicle to operate until it has reached a location where it can stop.
In addition to the law enforcement interaction plan described above, the manufacturer must also provide a summary of its testing, including the total number of test miles driven in autonomous mode, a description of its testing methods, and the number of collisions resulting in property damage in excess of $1,000, or bodily injury or death, and a description of each collision and actions taken to remediate the cause of each collision.
The regulation outlines the procedure for a manufacturer to request a hearing to appeal the suspension or revocation of its permit. Note that the regulation expressly provides that a request for a hearing will not stay an order of suspension or revocation.
With respect to privacy, the manufacturer must either (a) provide a written disclosure to the driver, or to the passengers for driverless autonomous vehicles, describing the personal information collected by the autonomous technology “that is not necessary for the safe operation of the vehicles and how it will be used,” or (b) anonymize information not necessary for the safe operation of the vehicle. For vehicles sold or leased to consumers, where the information is not anonymized, the manufacturer must obtain the written approval of the owner/lessee to collect personal information. The manufacturer cannot deny use of the vehicle if the owner/lessee declines to provide that approval.
No manufacturer or agent may advertise an autonomous vehicle for sale or lease unless the vehicle meets the California definition of “autonomous vehicle,” and it was manufactured by a manufacturer licensed by California, and the manufacturer holds a DMV permit. Using terms in advertisements that “will likely induce a reasonably prudent person to believe a vehicle is autonomous” will constitute an “advertisement” governed by this section.
The California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regulates taxis and limousines, but not rental cars or leased cars. On May 31, 2018, the PUC issued regulations for authorizing free test rides to the public using autonomous vehicles with or without a driver present in the vehicle. The PUC had proposed the regulations in April and issued them after receiving public comments.
“A means by which the passenger explicitly consents by electronic or written confirmation” to receive driverless service—and the consumer should be provided a photo of the vehicle during the consent process.
A description of how the manufacturer will limit use of the vehicle to one chartering party at a time (no ride-sharing).
A description of how the entity will ensure that the driverless vehicle will be chartered only by adults 18 years of age or older.
The PUC has stated that it anticipates issuing a proposed decision on permanently deploying autonomous vehicle passenger service in the first quarter of 2019.
the conversion or attempted conversion of the vehicle into an automated motor vehicle was done by another person.
the modification by another person of equipment that was installed by the manufacturer in an automated motor vehicle specifically for using the vehicle in automatic mode.
“Automated motor vehicle” means a motor vehicle on which an automated driving system has been installed, either by a manufacturer of automated driving systems or an upfitter that enables the motor vehicle to be operated without any control or monitoring by a human operator. Automated motor vehicle does not include a motor vehicle enabled with one or more active safety systems or operator assistance systems, including, but not limited to, a system to provide electronic blind spot assistance, crash avoidance, emergency braking, parking assistance, adaptive cruise control, lane-keeping assistance, lane departure warning, or traffic jam and queuing assistance, unless one or more of these technologies alone or in combination with other systems enable the vehicle on which any active safety systems or operator assistance systems are installed to operate without any control or monitoring by an operator.
Manufacturers and dealers may transport the vehicles and operate them on public streets for no more than 72 hours, provided the vehicles have dealer plates.
“A manufacturer of automated technology is immune from civil liability for damages that arise out of any modification made by another person to a motor vehicle or an automated motor vehicle, or to any automated technology.” The law defines “automated technology” as “technology installed on a motor vehicle that has the capability to assist, make decisions for, or replace an operator.” In other words, the law apparently intends to shield technology manufacturers from liability if the technology is hacked.
The 2016 laws contained only a few brief provisions that permit cities and towns to contract with owners/operators of private roads open to the general public. The contract would permit law enforcement to enforce the Michigan laws with the owner’s/operator’s consent on those private roads.
A data recording system that has the capacity to record the automated driving system’s status and other vehicle attributes including, but not limited to, speed, direction, and location during a specified time period before a crash as determined by the motor vehicle manufacturer.
in which it participates, during the time that an automated driving system is in control of a vehicle in the participating fleet, a motor vehicle manufacturer shall assume liability for each incident in which the automated driving system is at fault, subject to [the insurance code].
The person has manufactured automated motor vehicles in the United States that are certified to comply with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards.
The person has operated automated motor vehicles using a test driver and with an automated driving system engaged on public roads in the United States for at least 1,000,000 miles.
The person has obtained an instrument of insurance, surety bond, or proof of self-insurance in the amount of at least $10,000,000.00 and has provided evidence of that insurance, surety bond, or self-insurance to the department in the form and manner required by the department.
A manufacturer of automated driving technology, an automated driving system, or a motor vehicle is immune from liability that arises out of any modification made to a motor vehicle, an automated motor vehicle, an automated driving system, or automated driving technology by another person without the manufacturer’s consent.
Operational aspects, including, but not limited to, steering, braking, accelerating, and monitoring the vehicle and the roadway.
Tactical aspects, including but not limited to, responding to events, determining when to change lanes, turning, using signals, and other related actions.
New York enacted a law on autonomous vehicles in 2017 and amended that law in 2018. The 2017 law granted the New York State Commissioner of Motor Vehicles the power to approve demonstrations and tests of vehicles equipped with “autonomous vehicle technology.” The law defines “autonomous vehicle technology” as “the hardware and software that are collectively capable of performing part or all of the dynamic driving task on a sustained basis.” The law defines “dynamic driving task” as “all of the real-time operational and tactical functions required to operate a vehicle in on-road traffic, excluding the strategic functions such as trip scheduling and selection of destinations and waypoints.” Note that the “part of all of the dynamic driving task” in the definition of “autonomous vehicle technology” appears to create some ambiguity because it could be interpreted to include even cruise control technology.
Total routing distance in miles to the nearest 1/10 mile.
In the addendum to the application, the applicant also agrees to reimburse the police for their direct supervision at a rate of $92.73/hour ($131.67/hour for overtime) plus 53.5 cents/mile.
In the Second Edition of our Autonomous Vehicle White Paper, we addressed how autonomous vehicles would affect the insurance industry. We focused on how increased automobile safety, changes in vehicle ownership, and shifts in liability for accidents could affect the insurance industry, as well as how insurers could adapt to changes in the insurance market. Since drafting that edition, there have been several particularly relevant developments. First, several state laws and executive orders addressing insurance for autonomous vehicles have taken effect. Second, several autonomous vehicle accidents have emerged as potential case studies on how liability will be apportioned among potential tortfeasors. Third, more insurance companies have demonstrated their ability to adapt to, and even lead, the autonomous vehicle revolution.
Other states have recently addressed autonomous vehicle insurance by executive order, but only to a limited extent. Arizona, Maine, and Washington now permit some degree of autonomous vehicle operation on public roads, provided that testers provide proof of insurance,19 however, the executive orders do not address how much insurance coverage is required.20 Ostensibly, the same insurance requirements applicable to traditional vehicles would apply.
In total, at least 29 states and Washington D.C. have enacted legislation related to autonomous vehicles, and governors in 11 states have issued executive orders related to autonomous vehicles.21 Given that only a handful of these laws, orders, or announcements address insurance, and that the ones that do address insurance have little to say on that topic, we should expect to see increasing state legislation and regulation in this area.
As discussed in the Second Edition, the determination of who bears liability in the event of autonomous vehicle accidents will have profound implications for the automobile insurance industry. As the use of autonomous technology increases, there may be increased liability placed upon autonomous vehicle manufacturers. At this time, the law remains underdeveloped in this area.
To date, no lawsuit has been filed.
While the NTSB’s report demonstrates how a fact-finder might analyze a similar accident, the report stated that “[t]he NTSB does not assign fault or blame for an accident or incident. . .”26 Per federal regulation, NTSB investigations “are fact-finding proceedings with no formal issues and no adverse parties. . . and are not conducted for the purpose of determining the rights or liability of any person.”27 Thus, which party or parties bear legal liability for the fatal Tesla crash in May 2016 remains undetermined.
Another case involving a self-driving vehicle yielded a lawsuit, but also failed to establish liability. On January 22, 2018, a motorcyclist filed a negligence claim against General Motors.28 The plaintiff alleged that he was injured when a self-driving Chevrolet Bolt manufactured by General Motors veered into his lane, struck him, and caused him to suffer neck and shoulder injuries.29 The plaintiff did not sue the individual sitting in the driver’s seat of the Chevrolet Bolt. The matter settled on undisclosed terms.
Tempe police released videos from the Volvo’s dashboard camera showing the moments leading up to the pedestrian’s death. That video has sparked a great deal of commentary on what party or parties may be at fault for the incident.32 Some commentators have suggested that, even if the pedestrian was not visible to the human eye for long enough to allow a human driver to brake before impact, the vehicle’s technology should have sensed and reacted to the pedestrian as she approached the vehicle’s lane. This argument begs the question of whether human drivers and autonomous vehicles should be held to the same standards. In other words, is reasonable care for a human driver a lower bar than reasonable care for an autonomous vehicle? There is no easy answer to this question, and those interested in the answer will have to monitor how this issue is eventually addressed in the courts. Note that the decedent’s family has already settled its claims against Uber.
We are likely to soon see more lawsuits capable of testing how liability may be apportioned between autonomous vehicle manufacturers and individuals sitting in the driver’s seat of those vehicles. Insurance companies should pay attention to these lawsuits, assess any trends that develop, and monitor any precedent the lawsuits may set relevant to how liability is imposed.
In the Second Edition, we described how insurers could adapt quickly—and how some already were adapting—to the development of autonomous vehicles. Many insurers are doing so by diversifying their product lines and even creating opportunities beyond traditional insurance products.
Many insurers are wasting no time in developing new ways to assess autonomous vehicle risk. Indeed, many have already applied for and obtained patents related to processing data for determining autonomous vehicle insurance coverage. As a recent example, in November 2017, State Farm Automobile Insurance Company filed a patent application for determining the effectiveness of autonomous features of a vehicle in order to determine insurance pricing.46 Developing and protecting systems to evaluate risk and appropriately price autonomous vehicle insurance policies is an important step in adapting to the changing auto insurance market.
Some insurance companies are pursuing opportunities beyond the sale of insurance products. Allstate Insurance Company’s Chairman and CEO Thomas J. Wilson has said that new technologies, like autonomous cars, “create tremendous opportunity for a company with Allstate’s market position, customer relationships, capabilities and financial resources.”47 Indeed, Allstate is already using these advantages to create opportunities outside of insurance. In November 2016, Allstate announced the creation of Arity, a technology startup company.48 Arity advertises that it “design[s] solutions to help optimize [original equipment manufacturers’] telematics, [advanced driver-assistance systems] and vehicle safety systems, enhance infrastructure planning and improve safety in new forms of mobility, like autonomous vehicles.”49 In February 2018, Allstate obtained a patent related “to controlling autonomous vehicles to provide automated emergency response functions.”50 The patent states that a “computing platform may detect an occurrence of an emergency at a location” and then send “dispatch commands directing the autonomous vehicle to move to the location and execute  one or more emergency response functions.”51 These diversification initiatives are expected to help Allstate mitigate the challenges autonomous vehicles pose to traditional automobile insurance.
The pace of adaptation to autonomous vehicle technology is quickly accelerating. Insurers should keep an eye on the development of law and policy regarding insurance for autonomous vehicles by monitoring legislation, regulation, and judicial precedent. Even better, insurers can help guide change through active involvement with autonomous vehicle development and early formation of innovative insurance practices and products. Insurers that effectively lead the implementation of autonomous vehicle technologies and the systems necessary to support them have the most to gain.
Virginia, Vermont, Washington, Washington, D.C., and Wisconsin.
A template for the voluntary safety self-assessment can be found on the NHTSA’s website. The 12 substantive areas of guidance are: (1) safety systems; (2) operational design domain; (3) object and event detection and response; (4) fallback (minimal risk condition); (5) validation methods; (6) human machine interface; (7) vehicle cybersecurity; (8) crashworthiness; (9) post-crash automated driving system behavior; (10) data recording; (11) consumer education and training; and (12) ensuring compliance federal, state, and local laws.
In contrast, recall that NHTSA’s A Vision for Safety covered twelve (12) substantive areas but was expressly voluntary. Though different in number, the AV START Act’s nine areas are largely similar to those of a Vision for Safety: (1) system safety; (2) data recording; (3) cybersecurity; (4) human-machine interface; (5) crashworthiness; (6) capabilities; (7) post-crash behavior; (8) account for applicable laws; and (9) automation function.
The House’s SELF DRIVE Act also contains a section requiring a privacy plan.
Having gone into effect on April 2, 2018, these new regulations can be found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Division 1, Chapter 1, Articles 3.7 and 3.8.
Senate Bill 2205 amended Chapter 545 of the Texas Transportation Code to include Subchapter J “Operation of Automated Motor Vehicles.” The new law states that “an automated motor vehicle may operate in this state with the automated driving system engaged, regardless of whether a human operator is physically present in the vehicle.” The new legislation defines the owner of the automated driving system as the “operator of the automated motor vehicle” and provides that “the automated driving system is considered to be licensed to operate the vehicle.” Texas allows fully autonomous vehicles access to public roads—with or without a human operator in the vehicle—if the car merely: (1) is capable of operating in compliance with state traffic and motor vehicle laws; (2) is equipped with a recording device; (3) satisfies the federal motor vehicle safety standards; (4) is registered and titled in accordance with Texas law; and (5) is covered by motor vehicle liability coverage.
National Transp. Safety Bd., Preliminary Report, Highway, HWY18MH010 (May 24, 2018), available at https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HWY18MH010-prelim.pdf.
Under the PUC’s original proposal, the time period was 90 days, rather than 30.
Under the PUC’s original proposal, the reports were due each month, which changed to quarterly following public comments.
Compare National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 42 (September 2016), available athttps://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/federal_automated_vehicles_policy.pdf (last visited March 14, 2018), with C.G.S.A. § 13a-260(d)(1) (West 2017), Cal. Vehicle Code § 38756(a) (West 2018), and Cal. Vehicle Code § 38755(a) (West 2017).
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 428A.060 (West 2017).
“Autonomous vehicle network company” is defined as “an entity that, for compensation, connects a passenger to a fully autonomous vehicle which can provide transportation services to the passenger.” Nev. Rev. Stat. AB 69, § 14.24 (West 2017).
Nev. Rev. Stat. AB 69, § 14.9 (West 2017).
Ga. Code. Ann., § 40-8-11(4) (West 2017).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.665(1) (2016).
Tex. Transp. Code § 545.454(b)(5) (West 2018).
Ariz. Exec. Order 2018-04 § 6(d) (Mar. 1, 2018), available at https://azgovernor.gov/sites/default/files/related-docs/eo2018-04_1.pdf; Me. Exec. Order 2018-001 (Jan. 17, 2018), http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=Gov_Executive_Orders&id=776188&v=article2011; Wash. Exec. Order 17-02 (Jun. 7, 2017), http://governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/exe_order/17-02AutonomouVehicles.pdf.
Autonomous Vehicles | Self-Driving Vehicles Enacted Legislation, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES (March 12, 2018), available athttp://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/autonomous-vehicles-self-driving-vehicles-enacted-legislation.aspx (last visited August 15, 2018).
See Landskroner Grieco Merriman Issues Statement on Behalf of the Family of Joshua Brown, LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN, LLC, available at https://www.teamlgm.com/case-filings-recent-verdicts-press-releases#family (last visited March 14, 2018).
Reuters, Driver’s family doesn’t blame Tesla for fatal ‘autopilot’ crash, NEW YORK POST (September 11, 2017), available at https://nypost.com/2017/09/11/drivers-family-doesnt-blame-tesla-for-fatal-autopilot-crash/ (last visited March 14, 2018).
Highway Accident Report NTSB/HAR-17/02: Collision Between a Car Operating With Automated Vehicle Control Systems and a Tractor-Semitrailer Truck Near Williston, Florida, May 7, 2016, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD, at vi (October 12, 2017), available at https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1702.pdf (last visited March 14, 2018).
Compl. for Damages, Nilsson v. General Motors LLC, No. 4:18-cv-00471 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2018), ECF No. 1.
Carolyn Said, Exclusive: Tempe police chief says early probe shows no fault by Uber, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE (March 19, 2018), available at https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Exclusive-Tempe-police-chief-says-early-probe-12765481.php (last visited March 27, 2018).
Gabrielle Coppola and Ian King, Uber Disabled Volvo SUV’s Safety System Before Fatality, BLOOMBERG (March 26, 2018), available at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-26/uber-disabled-volvo-suv-s-standard-safety-system-before-fatality (last visited March 27, 2018).
See, e.g., Troy Griggs and Daisuke Wakabayashi, How a Self-Driving Uber Killed a Pedestrian in Arizona, THE NEW YORK TIMES (March 21, 2018), available at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/20/us/self-driving-uber-pedestrian-killed.html (March 27, 2018).
Class Action Compl., Son et al. v. Tesla Motors, Inc., No. 8:16-cv-2282 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2016), ECF No. 1.
Second Am. Class Action Compl., ¶¶ 36-38, Son et al. v. Tesla Motors, Inc., No. 8:16-cv-2282 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 27, 2017), ECF No. 40.
Compare Class Action Compl., Son et al. v. Tesla Motors, Inc., No. 8:16-cv-2282 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2016), ECF No. 1, at 1, with Second Am. Class Action Compl., Son et al. v. Tesla Motors, Inc., No. 8:16-cv-2282 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2017), ECF No. 40,, at 1.
Second Am. Compl., ¶¶ 30-31, Son et al. v. Tesla Motors, Inc., No. 8:16-cv-2282 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2017), ECF No. 40.
Id. at ¶¶ 69, 71.
Danielle Muoio, Tesla strikes another deal that shows it’s about to turn the car insurance world upside down (October 21, 2017), BUSINESS INSIDER, available at http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-liberty-mutual-create-customize-insurance-package-2017-10 (last visited March 12, 2018); Autopilot, Tesla, available at https://www.tesla.com/autopilot (last visited March 12, 2018).
InsureMyTesla, TESLA, available at https://www.tesla.com/support/Insuremytesla (last visited March 12, 2018).
Danielle Muoio, Tesla wants to sell future cars with insurance and maintenance included in the price, BUSINESS INSIDER (February 23, 2017), available athttp://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-cars-could-come-with-insurance-maintenance-included-2017-2 (last visited March 12, 2018).
Trov, Trov and Waymo Partner to Launch Insurance for Ride-Hailing, PRNEWSWIRE (Dec. 19, 2017), available at https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/trov-and-waymo-partner-to-launch-insurance-for-ride-hailing-300573229.html (last visited March 14, 2018).
Scott Walchek, Trov + Waymo: Accelerating Trov’s Bigger Picture, TROV (Dec. 19, 2017), available at https://www.trov.com/blog/trov-waymo-accelerating-trovs-bigger-picture (last visited March 14, 2018).
Darrell Etherington, Waymo Teams with Trov on passenger insurance for self-driving service, TECHCRUNCH (December 19, 2017), available at https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/19/waymo-teams-with-trov-on-passenger-insurance-for-self-driving-service/ (last visited March 9, 2018); Lyle Adriano, Trov and Waymo collaborate on ridehailing insurance program, INSURANCE BUSINESS AMERICA (December 20, 2017), available at https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/technology/trov-and-waymo-collaborate-on-ridehailing-insurance-program-88167.aspx (last visited March 9, 2018); rov, Trov and Waymo Partner to Launch Insurance for Ride-Hailing, PRNewswire (Dec. 19, 2017), available at https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/trov-and-waymo-partner-to-launch-insurance-for-ride-hailing-300573229.html (last visited March 14, 2018).
TROV, https://www.trov.com/ (last visited March 13, 2018).
U.S. Patent Appl. No. 20180075538 (filed Nov. 8, 2017).
Thomas J. Wilson, Letter to Shareholders, ALLSTATE (April 6, 2015), available at http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/IROL/93/93125/ALL_AR_2014/letter-to-shareholders/ (last visited March 15, 2018).
Allstate Launches Tech Startup Arity to Power Transportation Analytics and Innovation, ALLSTATE (November 10, 2016), available at https://www.allstatenewsroom.com/news/allstate-launches-tech-startup-arity-to-power-transportation-analytics-and-innovation/ (last visited Mach 15, 2018).
Accident Prediction. Automotive Solutions, ARITY, available at https://www.arity.com/industries/automotive-solutions/ (last visited March 12, 2018).
U.S. Patent No. 9905133 (filed Sep. 30, 2016).

References: § 13
 § 38756
 § 38755
 § 428
 § 14
 § 14
 § 40
 § 257
 § 545
 § 6
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.