Executive Summary 

Introduction 

On May 20, robotaxi company Waymo announced that 10 million driverless rides had been purchased across four U.S. cities. Autonomous vehicle (AV) technology has the potential to reorder the future, improving safety and saving time and money for American consumers. However, this promising technology is impeded by a challenging regulatory environment in which each local government enforces its own set of laws. To reduce regulatory uncertainty, the federal government should deliver a preemptive standard regarding AV safety and legality. With this national standard in mind, companies could plan, innovate, and expand without encountering new regulations at each intersection. 

Understanding Autonomous Vehicles 

To standardize technological benchmarks for driverless vehicles, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) created a 0-5 driving automation scale. Many high-end consumer retail cars are at Level 2, which is defined as an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) that can control aspects of driving but must have an attentive driver present at all times. For example, Tesla’s Full Self-Driving can carry riders in many conditions, but drivers must be actively watching the road and are held liable for accidents. 

Ridesharing AVs such as Waymo have reached SAE Level 4 in several U.S. cities, allowing passengers to be fully inattentive to the road. This fully autonomous technology is currently far more expensive due to its use of LiDAR and other 3D mapping technologies: each Waymo costs roughly $150,000. Moreover, robotaxi companies must send fleets of test cars before offering rides in a new city, making product rollout slow and expensive.  

Level 5 vehicles can drive on any road, anywhere, without a driver. Whether this innovation will come from an expansion of L4 robotaxi fleets or from a significant upgrade in L2 driver assistance systems, it is only a matter of time before L5 vehicles are invented.  

Ongoing Autonomous Vehicle Regulations 

In such a fast-paced, innovative environment, federal regulations should prepare for and guide the emergence of L5 technologies. Regulations about autonomous vehicles currently exist on a state-by-state basis. Some states explicitly allow the vehicles, some prohibit testing them, and some have made no AV legislation at all. This inconsistency slows growth and decreases competition within the AV industry.  

Some inroads have been made towards clear AV legislation. On April 24, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy unveiled a new Automated Vehicle (AV) Framework in a bid to out-innovate China, “slash red tape and move us closer to a single national standard that spurs innovation and prioritizes safety.”  

However, this national standard has not been finalized. Instead, the new framework largely reiterates NHTSA’s 2021 standing general order that mandated reporting of crashes involving vehicles equipped with autonomous driving systems (ADS) and advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS). This data and self-reported data about AV testing are publicly available.  

A preliminary look at this accident data shows that ADS-equipped vehicles (L3-5) report fewer serious injuries than ADAS-equipped vehicles (L2). ADS-equipped vehicles reported 31 accidents whose highest injury was moderate or severe and 1 fatal accident. ADAS-equipped vehicles, which are mainly Tesla, reported 78 accidents ending in moderate or severe injury and 51 fatal accidents. This along with more in-depth research is beginning to show that autonomous vehicles will improve passenger safety.  

Importantly, for autonomous vehicle fleets, cautious consumers provide an incentive to ensure safety. Waymo had a strong competitor, General Motors’s Cruise robotaxis, but when a Cruise car was involved in an accident, the fleet quickly shuttered — proving that these companies have little room for error.  

Building National Standards 

Though the government should continue to prioritize safety as this technology hits American roads with real consequences, the time has come for the U.S. to create uniform legislation regarding autonomous vehicles. Congress explicitly has the power to regulate interstate commerce, which includes both robotaxi services and self-driving cars. Rather than leave rulemaking up to states, the federal government should create preemptive regulations about AV industries. 

Crucially, a clearer stance from the federal government would lower transaction costs for AV companies as they expand across the United States. If safety benchmarks were decided in advance – without naming specific technology so as not to stifle innovation – manufacturers could plan their investments with more direction. With these benchmarks met, companies could release their technology to the public without lobbying each new location’s government individually.  

This would also stimulate competition. Since each city has separate permitting processes to allow testing, driving, and rideshare services, more established and better financed companies currently have the upper hand. With a single federal standard for AVs, smaller competitors in more diverse locations would have a greater chance of meeting regulations.  

Finally, there is real confusion in legal situations such as crashes and traffic incidents. If there is no driver, should the car manufacturer, software technician, or CEO of the company be held accountable for accidents? A preemptive legal framework answering some of these questions would allow consumers and local governments to put more trust in autonomous vehicles. 

Conclusion 

With clear national standards, companies would create more accurate business models, innovate more strategically, and invest with greater confidence. Legal clarifications and safety requirements would also help consumers feel safe using the new technology. This standard should be drafted to prioritize both safety and innovation, so that when autonomous vehicles can drive safely anywhere, American governments and consumers will be ready to hit the road.