California Bill Tries to Stymie Proliferation of Autonomous Trucks Without Backup Drivers
While proponents of the AB 316 say that it’s a win for safety, opponents say it simply satisfies labor unions.
Out driving on a California highway or Interstate? There's a chance that some of the semi-trucks you see lumbering down the road around you are fully autonomous—not just using a hands-free feature like Ford's Blue Cruise or GM's Super Cruise. While these self-driving trucks have traveled millions of miles without major incidents, it seems that the California Senate has decided that these autonomous semis and larger vehicles can no longer drive without a human operator behind the wheel, rectifying that by introducing AB 316. You'd think this would be due to unforeseen safety issues, but opponents of the bill say that this is the California Senate's way of satisfying labor unions within the Golden State. The bill also has one final hurdle to pass before it becomes law.
0:00 / 0:00
When looking at California's data on autonomous test vehicles—which includes cars, trucks, and large commercial vehicles like semi-trucks—they have accumulated more than 5.1 million miles with a safety driver and 622,257 miles fully autonomous between December 1, 2021, and November 30, 2022. Tech Crunch also looked at the data between human-driven semis and autonomous semis and found that there have been zero fatalities caused by autonomous trucks over a two-year period of reporting. Despite that safety record, it seems that California's Senate still wants to require autonomous semi-trucks to have a driver behind the wheel via AB 316.
Is It Really About Safety?
Much of what AB 316 adds is already applied to autonomous vehicles in general, which included semis and any vehicle with a GVW of 10,000 pounds. In California, no autonomous vehicle is allowed on the road as a test vehicle without the approval of the state's DMV. And deactivations during testing are already recorded and that data is mandated to be turned over to the DMV. A human driver is mandated to be behind the wheel of those test vehicles.
The only addition that AB 316 makes is requiring a human safety operator being physically present in the autonomous vehicle that is "transporting goods" or "transporting passengers." If an autonomous vehicle is doing that, it's not a test vehicle. It's a vehicle being used by businesses and transportation and has proven to be fully SAE Level 3 capable. Why would a law require a human driver for a proven, fully autonomous vehicle and specifically one of a GVW of 10,000 pounds?
Is AB 316 Pandering To Labor Unions?
With the wording specifying transportation of goods and people, it seems like this law was made to satisfy labor unions. That's what opponents like the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association (AVIA) and others argue when talking about their opposition to the bill. "We are disappointed to see AB 316 pass the California Senate. The Department of Motor Vehicles and Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development were correct that AB 316 undermines oversight of expert regulators in California," said AVIA Executive Director, Jeff Farrah. "AB 316 will also lock in the unacceptable safety status quo on the state's roads and cause California to miss out on the supply chain benefits of autonomous trucking."
It also doesn't help the view that AB 316 panders to labor unions when Chris Griswold, president of the Teamsters Joint Council 42, said that "opposition to the bill came from out-of-touch middle-class Californians" who do not understand that "more than 200,000 people in the state are employed as truck drivers," according to a quote fromTruckingInfo.com.
