California Announces Regulations for Autonomous Car Testing

29 May 2014 Dashboard Insights Blog

Just as manufacturers and other businesses at the edge of autonomous vehicle technology are announcing advances in the field—including, most recently, Google’s fully-autonomous prototype vehicle, featuring no controls other than a programmable navigation computer—California has announced regulations designed to govern the testing of these cars on public roads.

The regulations impose some straight-forward requirements on manufacturers looking to test these technologies, including:

  • That the manufacturer be the one actually conducting the testing, and must certify that the driver is competent to conduct the testing. Each driver must also have relatively clean driving records (no more than one “point” on his or her license under the California Vehicle Code, and no DUIs for the last ten years), obtain a new class of permit designed for autonomous vehicle operators, and undergo defensive driving training and training on operating the vehicle in question. 
  • In addition to driver permits, the manufacturer must obtain a “Manufacturer’s Testing Permit” to conduct testing, and must test the vehicle off-road in an environment designed to closely simulate public roads prior to actually engaging in on-road testing.
  • The manufacturer must be able to satisfy, either via self-insurance, surety bond, or insurance policy, a judgment of up to $5 million for damages caused by the vehicle.
  • The operator of the vehicle, if not in “immediate physical control,” must be capable of “taking over immediate physical control” of the vehicle while it is testing (which may nix immediate plans to road-test Google’s new prototype).
  • Manufacturers must report to the state any incident causing property damage or personal injury arising from testing. Additionally, any incident causing the driver to disengage autonomous driving and take over the vehicle due to safety concerns or failure of the autonomous driving technology must be reported to the state, with certain detailed information regarding the disengagement.

While these regulations may prove to add some burden to manufacturers, including adding reporting obligations, training protocols, and other requirements, the upshot is that California appears to recognize that autonomous vehicle development is progressing—and, encouragingly, its response appears to be that it will monitor these developments, not block them.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Bad Holiday Season News! Estimates of an increase of Cyberattacks 20%!
13 December 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Driving the Future of Automotive Technology
12 December 2019
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Massachusetts Governor Proposes Facility Fee Ban
12 December 2019
Health Care Law Today
American Rule Prevails; PTO May Not Collect In-House Attorneys' Fees as "Expenses"
12 December 2019
IP Litigation Current
ACCC 46th Annual Meeting & Cancer Center Business Summit
04-05 March 2020
Washington, D.C.
Foley/Deloitte Compliance and Privacy Officer Roundtable
27 February 2020
Boston, MA
Let’s Talk Compliance
24 January 2020
Orlando, FL
New England Alliance Annual Meeting
15-17 January 2020
Woodstock, VT