[Senate Hearing 119-497]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-497
HIT THE ROAD, MAC:
THE FUTURE OF SELF-DRIVING CARS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 4, 2026
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
64-347 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TED CRUZ, Texas, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota MARIA CANTWELL, Washington,
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi Ranking
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GARY PETERS, Michigan
TODD YOUNG, Indiana TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
TED BUDD, North Carolina TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
JOHN CURTIS, Utah BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
BERNIE MORENO, Ohio JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado
TIM SHEEHY, Montana JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia ANDY KIM, New Jersey
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
Brad Grantz, Republican Staff Director
Nicole Christus, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Lila Harper Helms, Staff Director
Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 4, 2026................................. 1
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................ 1
Letter dated February 2, 2026 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon. Maria
Cantwell from Ken McLeod, Policy Director, The League of
American Bicyclists............................................ 46
Letter dated February 3, 2026 to Senator Ted Cruz and Senator
Maria Cantwell from Stefani Pashman, Chief Executive Officer,
Allegheny Conference on Community Development.................. 47
Letter dated February 4, 2026 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon. Maria
Cantwell from members of the Consortium for Constituents with
Disabilities (CCD)............................................. 48
Letter dated February 4, 2026 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon. Maria
Cantwell from Daniel Greene, Senior Director of Consumer
Protection & Product Safety, The National Consumers League..... 52
Letter dated February 2, 2026 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon. Maria
Cantwell from Leah Shahum, Executive Director, Vision Zero
Network........................................................ 52
Letter dated February 3, 2026 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon. Maria
Cantwell from members of the United for Autonomy coalition..... 53
Letter dated February 4, 2026 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon. Maria
Cantwell from UVEye............................................ 54
Letter dated February 3, 2026 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon. Maria
Cantwell from Stacey D. Stewart, Chief Executive Officer.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)........................... 55
Letter dated February 2, 2026 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon. Maria
Cantwell from Jacqueline Claudia, Executive Director, The White
Line........................................................... 56
Letter dated February 4, 2026 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon. Maria
Cantwell from William Wallace, Director, Safety Advocacy; and
Cooper Lohr, Senior Policy Analyst, Transportation and Safety,
Consumer Reports............................................... 56
Letter dated January 30, 2026 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon. Maria
Cantwell from Alyssa Y. Tsuchiya, Director of Policy and
Government Affairs, Clean Transportation Program, Union of
Concerned Scientists........................................... 58
Letter dated February 4, 2026 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon. Maria
Cantwell from Christine Zinner, Federal Research and Advocacy
Director, Alliance for Justice; Salena Zellers Schmidtke,
Biomedical Engineer, BioInjury LLC; Michael Brooks, Executive
Director, Center for Auto Safety; Joanne Doroshow, Executive
Director, Center for Justice & Democracy; Courtney Griffin,
Director of Consumer Product Safety, Consumer Federation of
America; Rosemary Shahan, President, Consumers for Auto
Reliability and Safety; Maeve Elise Brown, Executive Director,
Housing and Economic Rights Advocates; Amber Rollins, Director.
Kids and Car Safety; Ken McLeod, Policy Director, The League of
American Bicyclists; Christine Hines, Senior Policy Director,
National Association of Consumer Advocates; Robert Weissman,
Co-President, Public Citizen; Joan Claybrook, President
Emeritus, Public Citizen; Sean Kane, President, Safety Research
& Strategies; Jennifer Smith, President, StopDistractions.org;
Zach Cahalan, Executive Director, Truck Safety Coalition,
Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, Parents Against Tired
Truckers....................................................... 59
Letter dated February 3, 2026 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon. Maria
Cantwell from Clarence E. Anthony, CEO and Executive Director,
National League of Cities...................................... 61
Letter dated February 3, 2026 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon. Maria
Cantwell from Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway
and Auto Safety................................................ 62
Letter dated February 3, 2026 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon. Maria
Cantwell from Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, America
Walks, American Academy of Pediatrics, Center for Auto Safety,
Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH), Consumers for
Auto Reliability and Safety, Disability Rights Education and
Defense Fund (DREDF), GreenLatinos, Kids and Car Safety, League
of American Bicyclists, Northern Virginia Families for Safe
Streets, Parents Against Tired Truckers (P.A.T.T.), SMARTER,
Inc. (the Skilled Motorcyclist Association--Responsible,
Trained, and Educated Riders, Inc.), Stopdistractions.org,
Trauma Foundation, and Truck Safety Coalition.................. 72
Letter dated January 30, 2026 to Senator Ted Cruz and Senator
Maria Cantwell from Sam A. Cabral, International President,
International Union of Police Associations..................... 74
Letter dated February 2, 2026 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon. Maria
Cantwell from Claire Stanley, J.D., Director of Advocacy and
Governmental Affairs, American Council of the Blind............ 75
Letter dated February 2, 2026 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon. Maria
Cantwell from Stephen Lieberman, Senior Director, Advocacy and
Policy, United Spinal Association.............................. 76
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 3
Statement of Senator Blackburn................................... 34
Statement of Senator Peters...................................... 36
Article dated December 2, 2025 from The New York Times
entitled, ``The Data on Self-Driving Cars Is Clear. We Have
to Change Course.'' by Jonathan Slotkin.................... 37
Statement of Senator Curtis...................................... 40
Statement of Senator Kim......................................... 77
Statement of Senator Moreno...................................... 79
Statement of Senator Lujan....................................... 81
Statement of Senator Schmitt..................................... 84
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 86
Statement of Senator Lummis...................................... 88
Statement of Senator Duckworth................................... 90
Statement of Senator Young....................................... 93
Statement of Senator Rosen....................................... 95
Statement of Senator Fetterman................................... 97
Witnesses
Lars Moravy, Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, Tesla........ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Dr. Mauricio Pena, Chief Safety Officer, Waymo................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Jeff Farrah, Chief Executive Officer, Autonomous Vehicle Industry
Association.................................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Dr. Bryan Walker Smith, Associate Professor of Law, University of
South Carolina................................................. 30
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Appendix
Response to written question submitted to Lars Moravy by:
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 101
Hon. Tammy Baldwin........................................... 101
Hon. Tammy Duckworth......................................... 101
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Mauricio Pena by:
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 104
Hon. Tammy Baldwin........................................... 105
Hon. Jacky Rosen............................................. 106
Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester.................................... 108
Hon. Tammy Duckworth......................................... 108
Response to written questions submitted to Jeff Farrah by:
Hon. Tammy Duckworth......................................... 115
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 117
Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester.................................... 120
Hon. Tim Sheehy.............................................. 121
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Bryant Walker
Smith by:
Senators Klobuchar, Duckworth, Blunt Rochester............... 123
HIT THE ROAD, MAC:
THE FUTURE OF SELF-DRIVING CARS
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2026
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Cruz,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Cruz [presiding], Fischer, Blackburn,
Young, Schmitt, Curtis, Moreno, Sheehy, Capito, Lummis,
Cantwell, Klobuchar, Markey, Peters, Duckworth, Rosen, Lujan,
Fetterman, and Kim.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
The Chairman. Good morning. The Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation will come to order.
America is at a crossroads in transportation policy.
Autonomous vehicles, or AVs for short, are no longer
theoretical. Like it or not, they are here, and they will be
central to the future of roadways. AVs are now providing
mobility to the disabled, improving auto safety, and advancing
technologies that have the potential to save millions of wasted
hours in traffic, and even more importantly, to save tens of
thousands of American lives. Yet, Congress has failed to
establish a clear Federal framework to govern AV deployment.
That inaction is no longer neutral. It is unsafe.
Without Federal oversight, we risk a fragmented patchwork
of State laws that could undermine safety, innovation, and
American competitiveness. As we consider a Surface
Transportation reauthorization bill, it is imperative that
Congress act now to create a national standard for AVs. Even as
some states seemingly wish to put up metaphorical roadblocks to
AVs, other states are smartly getting into the fast lane. My
home state of Texas understands that clear rules enable growth,
investment, and safety. In Texas, AVs are moving freight on
some highways and operating as taxis in cities like Austin, but
AVs can't just stop at Texas' border.
We should be clear about the resistance to Federal action.
Some insurance interests and advocacy groups argue against
national standards, often under the banner of safety, while
opposing reforms that would modernize our system. The vast
majority of automobile accidents and crashes are from human
error, but lower accident rates challenge business models built
on high premiums driven by preventable collisions. The reality
is this: the overwhelming causes of roadway fatalities today
are drunk driving and distracted driving. Autonomous
technologies never drive drunk. Autonomous technologies, they
don't text while driving. They don't change the radio station.
They don't drop their sunglasses and look for them while
driving down the freeway. Expanding AV deployment offers real,
measurable opportunities to reduce these deadly behaviors and
to improve safety on our highways.
If we want to save lives and avoid tragedy for almost
40,000 families each year, we don't need lawmakers saddling
automakers with expensive junk mandates that make little to no
real difference. Instead, we should follow the data, follow the
evidence, which increasingly shows advanced AVs reduce crashes
and prevent serious injuries. We need a consistent Federal
framework to ensure uniform safety standards, liability,
clarity, and consumer confidence.
Uncertainty benefits no one, not drivers, not
manufacturers, and not State and local officials responsible
for public safety. Some, but not all, insurers are responding
to the data. Companies like Lemonade have lower premiums for
vehicles using full self-driving mode, reflecting growing
confidence and growing evidence that these systems reduce risk.
The numbers confirm what many already see: technology designed
to reduce human error makes roads safer. Let's also acknowledge
that the technological progress from AVs won't endanger jobs.
It will ultimately create them. AVs require American engineers,
software developers, safety technicians, mechanics,
manufacturing workers, and infrastructure specialists. AV
deployment can support new, high-skilled jobs built in the
United States by American workers. Moreover, AVs can make
people more productive and traffic more bearable.
If Congress fails to act, we're not going to stop
innovation. We'll simply push it elsewhere. China is moving
aggressively to deploy autonomous transportation at scale. The
technologies at stake were developed in the United States. They
can be built by American workers, and they should be governed
by American safety standards. A patchwork approach puts that
leadership at risk.
Finally, let me be clear about one other thing. The
American consumer will decide what they choose to drive. No one
is and no one should be mandating AVs. This isn't like Biden's
de facto mandate killing the gas-powered car, but government
inaction should not deny consumers access to be able to choose
safer options. A Federal framework for autonomous vehicles is
not about picking winners. It's about setting clear rules,
improving safety, creating American jobs, and ensuring that
states like Texas can continue to lead. Surface reauthorization
is the moment for Congress to act.
I'll now turn to Ranking Member Cantwell for her remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you know
I certainly want to get the Surface Transportation bill done. I
think I've mentioned it as my number one priority since your
taking over the Committee, so I hope we will get to that. I
don't know whether this kind of legislation is the appropriate
place for that, but I do know that nearly 40,000 people die on
the roads each year, and, thankfully, we have seen how
innovation in vehicle technology can make human drivers safer
on the roads. For instance, automatic emergency braking
technology has been shown to reduce injuries from rear
collisions by 60 percent. These technologies are saving lives
today.
Fully autonomous vehicles offer the potential to reduce
crashes on roads, but we have seen the risk of letting
companies beta test on our roads with no guardrails. In 2024, a
report from NHTSA linked Tesla's autopilot to hundreds of
crashes, including at least 13 fatal crashes and many more
injuries. Safety advocates have linked 65 fatalities to Tesla's
automated technologies. These tragedies have occurred in my
state. In April 2024, Jeffrey Nissen from Stanwood, Washington,
was killed when Tesla's autopilot system failed to recognize
his stopped motorcycle. Tesla was allowed to market their
technology, which they knew needed human supervision as
autopilot because there were no Federal guardrails. In fact, it
was the state of California, not the Federal Government, that
forced Tesla to change its marketing or lose the ability to
sell in that state.
So, I do believe that Federal agencies have a role, but
what's happened so far is the Trump administration has tried to
gut NHTSA. The Federal agency that is responsible for ensuring
the safety of vehicles, he basically, and efforts of DOGE, lost
25 percent of their employees. I would say at this point in
time, it's trying to figure out what are the latest and
greatest technologies, and the people that understand them and
can do appropriate oversight, not basically gut the Agency. At
one point last year, the Office of Automation just had four
people. Four people. Four people. I don't even know if they
knew about automation, but only four people. Fewer resources
mean less enforcement.
NHTSA launched 41 percent fewer recall investigations last
year than in 2024. NHTSA recalls protect consumers. For
instance, over 67 million Takata airbag inflators have been
recalled in the U.S. after NHTSA confirmed that 28 people were
killed when defective airbags exploded. Chrysler recalled 2.7
million vehicles after 51 people died in fires from gas tank
ruptures and rear-end collisions. And I have a suspicion right
now that a lot of repair dealers are installing faulty airbags
from Chinese manufacturers that are failing to protect
consumers. And where is NHTSA in protecting and finding out
what is happening with these faulty airbags? Are we going to
just continue to let people die in the United States?
Without strong Federal oversight, it is no wonder states
are seeking to fill the void. You will hear today from
witnesses that believe that the best way for the Federal
Government to keep people safe is through a safety case for
autonomous vehicles. Companies may try to reassure us that the
safety case is a living, breathing document, but I have my own
experience having seen this played out in the aviation sector,
and all I can tell you is strong oversight is needed. Why?
Because the best engineers working on the best safety is going
to deliver the best product and the best economies for us, in
addition to the best safety, so we cannot just rely on a
checklist.
I do agree, Mr. Chairman, we need a new approach. I'm happy
to work with you on that approach. I have--you know, industry
proposals seek to force autonomous vehicles into the existing
framework of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This is the 60th
anniversary of that law. The Federal Motor Safety Standards has
prevented over 18 million crashes. However, the Federal Motor
Safety Standards were designed to regulate bumpers, and car
doors, and seat belts, and a variety of things that they're not
on top of today. The law was passed 20 years before the first
Windows computer was ever sold, so it's time for us to get a
NHTSA that understands technology and knows what to do with it.
This revolutionary technology needs a new approach to safety
that provides for flexible guardrails for beta testing and a
clear path to safe commercial deployment. It needs to have an
educated, as I just mentioned, strong safety oversight from
officials and the resources to make it the gold standard, just
like we need in aviation.
I did find interesting the House debate on this similar
hearing in which California Teamsters, basically, came out and
called for a Waymo ban in which a lot of anxiety existed.
Really, Mr. Chairman, underneath was the fact that a law most
people were concerned about was somehow going to allow very
large trucks to exist on our highways in automated vehicles.
That seems to be the real crux of the issue, so just like
everything else, the devil is in the details. The devil is in
the details of how we get here. I noticed that after that
hearing, that, again, Teamsters, safety advocates, even
insurers, found fault with a preemptive strategy that was
unclear. I think we're going to hear from Professor Smith about
that.
I think the last point of your statement is that--well, I
like two lines in your statement, ``and people dying today not
because we are careful about automated driving, but rather
because we are careless about the safety generally,'' and the
notion that you--further quoting you, ``I have read many
versions of potential preemptive language.'' In every case, the
preemptive effect and even the preemptive intent of that
language has been unclear to me.
OK, so we're dealing with this in AI, and I do think we
have to talk about the overlay of AI and AV, and how that's
going to work. And if we're going to have a preemptive
strategy, then it has to be a real law, and it has to have real
teeth, and we have to understand exactly what we're doing. But
please understand, many Americans, including Teamsters, are
very anxious about how this plays out for them, how this plays
out for very large trucks, and how we move forward on advancing
both the safety regime that we need here and to continue to be
leaders. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. I'd now like to introduce our
witnesses for today. Our first witness is Lars Moravy, the Vice
President of Vehicle Engineering at Tesla. Mr. Moravy oversees
the design, testing, and engineering at Tesla and brings more
than a decade of hands-on experience, or, more precisely,
hands-off experience with automotive technology and vehicle
safety. I will also note that I understand it's Mr. Moravy's
birthday, so happy birthday, and to celebrate, we decided to
hold a hearing. Our second witness is Mauricio Pena, the Chief
Safety Officer for Waymo. In this role, he leads Waymo's
comprehensive safety efforts, and brings decades of experience
designing, testing, and deploying complex safety critical
systems across the aerospace and autonomous vehicle sectors.
Our third witness is Jeff Farrah, the Chief Executive
Officer of the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association. He
represents companies across the autonomous vehicle sector,
including technology, trucking, ride sharing, and automotive.
Our final witness is Bryant Walker Smith. He is an Associate
Professor of Law in the Joseph F. Rice School of Law at the
University of South Carolina, where he researches emerging
transportation technologies and teaches product liability,
torts, and transportation law.
Mr. Moravy, we'll start with you. You're recognized for
your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF LARS MORAVY, VICE PRESIDENT OF VEHICLE
ENGINEERING, TESLA
Mr. Moravy. Thank you, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member
Cantwell, and the members of the Committee for the opportunity
to appear before you today. My name is Lars Moravy, and I am
the vice president of vehicle engineering at Tesla. Over the
past 15 years, I've had the privilege of engineering the best
cars in the world in a uniquely innovative way. In my role, I
lead a team of over 6,000 engineers, technicians, and analysts
who work tirelessly to make vehicles, batteries, machines, and
other products that people love. I oversee our vehicle design,
automation, and product manufacturing processes. My team and I
develop new systems to ensure the quality, reliability, and
performance of these products. I'm incredibly proud of the work
we do.
At Tesla, we believe autonomous vehicles are the future.
AVs present an opportunity to significantly improve safety on
the road and enhance accessibility to transportation for all
Americans. AVs also provide an opportunity for the U.S. to
create jobs and reassert its dominance in advanced
manufacturing for the 21st century. U.S. automobile
manufacturing was once a tremendous strength of this country,
and Tesla believes it can be once again. In the face of an
unprecedented global challenge, we as a country need to lead
the way in AV innovation to make that a reality. Tesla's
manufacturing footprint spans 52 million square feet across the
country, making the U.S. one of the largest and most advanced
electric vehicle production hubs in the world. Our Giga Texas
headquarters alone is over 11.5 million square feet and ranks
among the largest manufacturing buildings in the world.
We know that the future of vehicle manufacturing largely
depends on investments made now, which is why we are doing
everything we can to ensure that the U.S. is an industry leader
for AVs and EVs. We believe that AVs can fundamentally reshape
how we travel. At Tesla, we are relentlessly innovating to
iterate and expand mobility, independence, and access for
everyone. For example, our vehicles used in the autonomous
driving services, or robotaxis, are designed to support various
accessibility needs, such as screen readers and room for
service animals. But we also understand that safety is
paramount. At Tesla, safety has always come first. Human
behavior is one of the leading causes of accidents, as drivers
may be inattentive, distracted, speeding or impaired, and by
removing this human distraction from the equation, AVs will
dramatically cut accident rates.
We believe AVs are the next big jump in vehicle safety on
our roads. We design our vehicles to exceed all relevant safety
standards, and we're taking safety even further by pioneering
AV technology designed to reduce collisions and save lives.
Building on our industry-leading crash protection, active
safety systems, and over-the-air safety improvements, we are
developing advanced AV features to continuously improve
performance. We work tirelessly to bring the safest cars to the
market today and to leverage technology and ingenuity to create
the safest cars of tomorrow. That's the reason my wife and I
put our children in the back of a Tesla every day when we bring
them to school because I know that the safety of our vehicles
is second to none.
For America to lead in AV technology, we must modernize
regulations that inhibit the industry's ability to innovate.
Federal regulations for vehicles have not kept up with the pace
of the rapid evolution of technology. Many standards were
implemented decades ago and do not adequately address modern
advancements, such as electric drivetrains, automated driving
systems, and over-the-air software updates. We need American
leadership for AV rules and regulations. NHTSA has the
opportunity to set the standard not just in America, but in the
world. To do so, Congress must take steps to modernize so NHTSA
is equipped to address the realities of this new frontier. For
America to maintain its position in global technological
development and grow its advanced manufacturing capabilities,
we must enact a Federal framework for the development and the
deployment of AVs.
The Committee has the opportunity to position NHTSA as a
global gold standard for AV development, and to do so, Congress
must advance this Federal legislation so that these regulators
are equipped to address the realities of a new frontier and
innovators like ourselves have a clear direction forward. Just
as the U.S. has historically led transformative technologies
that reshaped global markets and enabled America to assert
dominance in ways beyond mere transportation, it must now lead
in the development of AVs. Tesla is committed to collaborating
with Congress to create smarter, effective regulations that
drive progress, increase safety, and make mobility accessible
to all.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look
forward to questions about Tesla's role in advancing the
American AV industry.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moravy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lars Moravy, Vice President of Vehicle
Engineering, Tesla
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My
name is Lars Moravy, and I am the Vice President of Vehicle Engineering
at Tesla. I fell in love with designing and building cars at the age of
16, when my brother and I spent a summer restoring a Volvo that had
been sitting in my grandparents' barn for years. This love for building
cars led me to a career in the car industry, and, in 2010, it led me to
Tesla when I jumped at the opportunity to build the best cars in the
world in an innovative way.
For the past 15 years, I have been doing just that. In my current
role, I lead a team of over 6,000 engineers, technicians, and analysts
who work tirelessly to make vehicles that people love. At Tesla, I
oversee our vehicle design, automation, and manufacturing processes,
and I develop new systems to ensure quality, reliability, and
performance. I am incredibly proud of the work that we do each day.
I am excited to speak to you today about autonomous vehicles
(``AVs''). Tesla believes that autonomous driving technology is the
future, and we work every day to lead the transition to safer and more
affordable transportation through autonomy. Our teams are focused on
designing, testing, and refining these systems through continuous
innovation and a strong focus on real-world performance. AVs present an
opportunity to significantly improve safety across our roadways.
Moreover, this juncture in history is an opportunity for the United
States to reassert its dominance in not just automobile manufacturing
but advanced manufacturing for the 21st century. U.S. automobile
manufacturing was once a tremendous strength of this country, and Tesla
believes it can be once again. In the face of unprecedented global
challenges, we as a country need to lead the way in AV innovation to
make that a reality.
About Tesla and Our Vehicles
Founded in 2003 and headquartered in Austin, Texas, Tesla designs
and manufactures electric vehicles, battery energy storage systems,
solar products, and technologies that make clean energy accessible and
affordable. As a proud American manufacturer with over 100,000
employees, our teams design, build, sell, and service our products in-
house. We work every day to make technologically advanced products that
are affordable and available at scale right here in the United States.
At inception, Tesla's mission was to accelerate the world's
transition to sustainable energy through the development of electric
vehicles. Since then, we have redefined the automotive industry by
proving that electric vehicles can deliver superior safety, exceptional
performance, and cutting-edge technology, all at scale. We have driven
down the cost over the past decade, making these vehicles available to
more and more Americans who want them. Today, Tesla's mission statement
has evolved to building a world of amazing abundance. Realizing the
vision of amazing abundance requires that the U.S. lead the world in
advanced manufacturing and implement forward-thinking policies.
Tesla's manufacturing footprint spans approximately 52 million
square feet across the country, making the U.S. one of the largest and
most advanced production hubs in the world. Our Giga Texas headquarters
alone is over 11.5 million square feet and ranks among the largest
manufacturing buildings in the country. We know that the future of
vehicle manufacturing is largely dependent on the investments made now,
which is why we are doing everything we can to ensure that the U.S. is
the industry leader for AVs and vehicles generally. Research has shown
that widespread adoption of AVs could generate over three million new
jobs by 2035, reduce delivery and consumer costs, and boost annual
earnings for the average U.S. worker.\1\ Studies show that the
workforce needed to produce and maintain AVs could reach 455,000, which
would provide incredible job opportunity to Americans with varied
backgrounds and experiences. We at Tesla are not currently just in a
race to develop the best AV in the world--we are in a race to ensure
continued American leadership in one of this Nation's bedrock
industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Securing America's Future Energy, America's Workforce and
the Self-Driving Future 9 (2018), https://avworkforce.secureenergy.org/
wp-content/uploads/2018/06/SAFE AV Policy Brief.pdf; see also
Opportunity AV: How Many and What Types of Jobs Will Be Created by
Autonomous Vehicles?, Chamber of Progress (Mar. 2023), https://
progresschamber.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Opportunity-AV-How-Many-
and-What-Type-of-Jobs-Will-Be-Created-by-Autonomous-Vehicles.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our entry-level models are among the most competitively priced in
the U.S. market for their range and technology. Our Model Y is the
best-selling single vehicle model in the world. Four of the top five
ranked U.S.-made vehicles in 2025 were Teslas, and Tesla has taken the
top position as the best American-made vehicle since 2021.\2\ We are
proud and humbled that people want the cars we make. Our products are
not only safe, fun to drive, and filled with cutting edge technology--
they are responsibly sourced and manufactured right here in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ American Made Index, Cars, https://www.cars.com/american-made-
index/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now we are further accelerating our mission--and impact--through
autonomy. Tesla is working to lead the way in autonomous vehicle
development, creating vehicles that perform all driving functions,
under all roadway and environmental conditions, without any need for
human intervention.
The manufacturing and development of fully autonomous vehicles
represents a major opportunity to create high-skilled American jobs
across multiple industries. By driving America-first innovation, Tesla
is working to ensure that the technology of the future is developed and
built in the U.S. and deployed globally. We believe that AVs can
fundamentally reshape how we travel and that the U.S. can be the leader
in this next frontier--an autonomous future that is accessible to
everyone. For example, vehicles used in our autonomous driving service,
Robotaxi, are designed to support various accessibility needs,
including room for service animals, screen readers, app-based verbal
location assistance, and information available in 29 languages.\3\ We
are relentlessly innovating and iterating to expand mobility,
independence, and access to opportunity for everyone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Get Started with Robotaxi, Tesla, https://www.tesla.com/
support/robotaxi/getting-started.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety
AVs won't just make transportation more accessible to everyone;
they will dramatically improve the safety, efficiency, and
sustainability of car travel. The United States is experiencing what
the Department of Transportation has described as a ``national crisis''
in motor vehicle safety. Motor vehicle fatalities and injuries
increased in frequency in 2020-2021 after 30 years of steady reduction,
notwithstanding steady improvements in vehicle safety design. At Tesla
we fundamentally reject the disturbing trend that almost 40,000 traffic
related fatalities occur each year.\4\ Increased cell phone usage in
the past decade has created enormous potential for deaths and injuries
on U.S. roads. In 2023 alone, 3,908 people were killed in motor vehicle
crashes involving distracted drivers or drowsy drivers.\5\ Sending or
reading a text takes drivers' eyes off the road for 5 seconds--at 55
mph, that is comparable to driving the length of an entire football
field with your eyes closed.\6\ Our teams work tirelessly to address
this epidemic by developing our automated driving systems and designing
the safest vehicles from the ground up. AVs promise an innovative and
proven technology that can eliminate collisions, injuries, and
fatalities associated with high-risk human behavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ NHTSA Estimates 39,345 Traffic Fatalities in 2024, NHTSA (Apr.
8, 2025), https://www
.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/nhtsa-estimates-39345-traffic-fatalities-
2024.
\5\ Distracted Driving, NHTSA, https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/
distracted-driving�
3B; see also Drowsy Driving, NHTSA, https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-
driving/drowsy-driving.
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety maximization is at the center of every product we build. We
design each vehicle to exceed the standards of each safety category,
redefining what safety on our roads should look like to achieve
superior occupant protection. And we're taking safety even further by
developing AV technology designed to drastically reduce accidents and
save lives. Tesla is achieving this by building upon our industry-
leading passive and active safety systems by building an end-to-end
neural network that uses real-time data and over-the-air updates to
continuously improve performance. Our vision is a future where AVs
eliminate human error--the leading cause of traffic fatalities--while
providing more affordable, efficient, and sustainable transportation
for all.
Tesla's Robotaxi software stack, Full Self-Driving (Unsupervised)
(``FSD Unsupervised'') is trained using over 6.5 billion miles of real-
world driving. FSD (Unsupervised) is an evolution of our industry
leading Level 2 advanced driver-assistance system (``ADAS''), Full
Self-Driving (Supervised) (``FSD Supervised''). Unlike Level 2 FSD
(Supervised), Level 4 FSD (Unsupervised) performs the entire dynamic
driving task and does not require an active and attentive human driver.
With FSD (Supervised) data as the foundation of our training
technology for fully autonomous operations, we are able to achieve a
greater level of roadway safety. FSD (Supervised)'s current performance
has already demonstrated how much safer roadways can be with automated
driving systems. For example, Tesla vehicles with FSD (Supervised)
engaged drive on average 5.1 million miles before a major collision and
1.5 million miles before a minor collision. This is compared to U.S.
averages of 699,000 miles and 229,000 miles, respectively.\7\ This
seven-fold improvement in real-world performance is achieved in the
broadest range of driving environments and road conditions, which in
turn gives FSD (Supervised) the most miles driven and the broadest
exposure to road, traffic, and weather conditions accumulated by any
ADAS available to consumers today. Fully autonomous vehicles will only
further these compelling safety statistics on American roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Vehicle Safety Report, Tesla, https://www.tesla.com/fsd/safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent developments in the insurance industry offer an independent
validation of the safety benefits associated with autonomous driving.
In January, Lemonade, an insurance company, announced that it is
reducing per-mile insurance rates for Tesla vehicles by approximately
50 percent when FSD is engaged, citing data that shows a significantly
lower accident risk during autonomous operation. Lemonade's decision
was not based on projections or theory; it was based on data
demonstrating that FSD (Supervised) driven miles are much safer than
human-driven miles.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Abhirup Roy, Lemonade to cut insurance rates for Tesla
drivers in endorsement of EV maker's software technology, Reuters (Jan.
21, 2026), https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/
lemonade-halve-tesla-insurance-rates-miles-driven-with-software-
assistant-2026-01-21/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are closer to a future of AVs than ever before. As discussed
below, clear, modernized standards are essential to advancing safety,
innovation, and consumer choice in the automotive industry. How we
develop and use autonomy--and the new capabilities it makes available
to us--should be informed by its ability to enhance the human
condition. Delivering abundance for all through autonomous technology
is our goal. The number one factor when a consumer purchases a new car
is safety. At Tesla, we not only bring the safest cars to market today
but look toward the future to build the safest cars of tomorrow. That's
the reason my wife and I put our children in the back of a Tesla every
day to drive them to school--because I know that the safety of our
vehicles is second to none.
The Importance of Modernizing Regulations
For the U.S. to maintain its position as a leader in the automotive
industry, and to cement our leadership in AV technology, we must
modernize regulations that inhibit industry's ability to innovate. If
the U.S. does not lead in AV development, other nations--particularly
China--will shape the technology, standards, and global market. And
perhaps more importantly, China will be the dominant manufacturer of
transportation for the 21st Century. The U.S. led the 20th century in
sophisticated manufacturing by pioneering automobile and aircraft
manufacturing because the U.S. led with advanced highway and air travel
certifications. At Tesla, we are moving at the speed of technological
innovation to combat the national crisis on our roadways, but we need
Congress's leadership to ensure a regulatory regime that supports
progress, not impedes it. We urge Congress to ensure American
leadership in manufacturing for the 21st century by enacting Federal
legislation to unlock AV technology and address outdated regulations.
When the U.S. established the Federal Aviation Administration
(``FAA'') in 1958 to improve and maintain safety standards, it gave
innovators the framework needed to help Americans lead the world in
aircraft development and commercial flight and make the U.S. the global
gold standard for aviation. We now have the same opportunity with
surface transportation. By empowering the U.S. Department of
Transportation to create clear, national standards for autonomy, we can
ensure that American companies--not foreign competitors--define the
future of transportation.
Federal safety regulations for vehicles have not kept pace with the
rapid evolution of vehicle technology. Many of the current standards
were implemented decades ago and do not adequately address modern
advancements such as electric drivetrains, automated driving systems,
and over-the-air software updates. Modernizing vehicle regulations is
essential to ensure they reflect real-world performance, enhance
safety, and foster growth of the U.S. automotive industry.
For America to maintain its position in global technology
development, we must enact a Federal framework for the deployment of
AVs. This Committee has the opportunity to position the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration as the gold standard to lead the
effort to unleash autonomy globally. To do so, Congress must advance
Federal legislation so that regulators are equipped to address the
realities of this new frontier and innovators have clear rules of the
road.
Closing
Over the last 15 years, leading a team of world-class engineers to
design and deliver groundbreaking electric vehicles that redefine
safety, performance, and innovation has been both a privilege and a
responsibility I've embraced with pride. Every innovation we've brought
to life reflects our shared commitment to shaping the future of
transportation.
Just as the U.S. has historically led transformative technologies
that reshaped global transportation and enabled America to extend its
leadership beyond transportation, it must now lead in the development
of autonomous vehicles. Tesla is committed to collaborating with
Congress to create smarter, effective regulations that drive progress,
increase safety, make transportation accessible to all, and ensure the
United States leads in autonomous vehicle innovation.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony today. I
look forward to your questions about Tesla's role in advancing the
American AV industry.
The Chairman. Thank you. Dr. Pena, you're now recognized.
STATEMENT OF DR. MAURICIO PENA, CHIEF SAFETY OFFICER, WAYMO
Dr. Pena. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and
members of the Committee, it's an honor to be here today. My
name is Mauricio Pena, and I serve as the Chief Safety Officer
at Waymo, America's leading autonomous driving technology
company. Waymo is the first and only company in the United
States to provide fully autonomous trips to the public at
scale. That means that no human is behind the wheel. When you
ride with Waymo, you can enjoy a safe and reliable ride in a
space of your own. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss why
autonomous vehicles are not just a technological marvel, but a
moral and strategic imperative for the United States.
Tragically, 40,000 people die due to largely preventable
traffic crashes on roads across our country every year, with
hundreds of thousands more injured, often in life-altering
ways. Globally, more than one million lives are lost to traffic
collisions annually. That's the equivalent of 20 commercial
airliners falling from the sky every single day. These aren't
just statistics. They are parents, children, friends, and
neighbors. At Waymo, we believe it doesn't have to be this way.
Seventeen years ago, Waymo started as a moonshot, born out of a
simple but radical idea that we could use technology to
eliminate serious injury and death on our roads and make
autonomous transportation accessible to people who are unable
to drive themselves. Our mission is to be the world's most
trusted driver, and achieving this mission starts with safety.
Today, we have driven nearly 200 million fully autonomous
miles on public roads and served over 20 million trips to
riders. The data shows that our technology, the Waymo Driver,
is making roads safer where we operate. Data from our first 127
million fully autonomous miles indicates our Driver is 10 times
less likely to be involved in a serious injury or, worse, crash
compared to human drivers where we operate, and 12 times less
likely to be involved in an injury-causing crash involving a
pedestrian. We have developed the most rigorous peer review
analysis to conduct apples-to-apples comparisons of human and
automated driving data. We have a relentless safety first
culture that starts at the top and flows through our rigorous
governance processes. Every software update must be approved by
our safety board before it ever reaches the road. For us,
safety is not a competing priority. It is the foundation for
every decision that we make at Waymo.
Today, because of American ingenuity, determination, and
investment, AVs are a reality for millions of people. Right
now, we operate a fully autonomous commercial ride hailing
service for the public in Phoenix, the San Francisco Bay Area,
Los Angeles, Austin, Atlanta, and Miami, providing more than
400,000 rides every week. Americans trust us to get them to
their destination safely, and I'm inspired by the positive
impact that we're making on their lives. Our riders are taking
Waymo rides after their weddings, to gain quality time with
their families, and even to the hospital to deliver their baby
or back home with their newborn. We are there for our riders'
most important moments as well as their daily needs.
Waymo is an American success story, but U.S. leadership is
not guaranteed. We are locked in a race with Chinese companies
for the future of autonomous vehicles. If they win this race,
Chinese companies, not the U.S., will set the technical
standards for the rest of the world. To win, the U.S. needs a
predictable, durable national regulatory framework that sets a
high safety standard based on a safety case. Without it, we
face a fragmented landscape of State regulations that foster
uncertainty, slow investment, and create unequal access to the
technology. To truly deliver on the promise of fully autonomous
vehicles, we need Federal leadership, and we need it in this
Congress.
Chairman Cruz, and members of the Committee, we share your
goal of ensuring a national AV framework is included in the
Surface Transportation reauthorization bill. American
leadership in autonomous driving technology must be defended.
We look forward to working with you to ensure that American
safety and American innovation are the gold standard for
autonomous driving around the world. Let's not cede the future.
Let's lead it. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Pena follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Mauricio Pena, Chief Safety Officer, Waymo
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the
Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the state of the
autonomous vehicle (AV) industry and the critical role of Federal
leadership in ensuring a safer, more accessible, and more competitive
future for American transportation. My name is Mauricio Pena, and I
serve as the Chief Safety Officer at Waymo.
I. An American Innovation Success Story
Waymo's mission is to be the world's most trusted driver. Launched
in 2009 as a Google moonshot, we were motivated by the belief that
autonomous driving technology could improve road safety and eliminate
road crashes due to human errors, such as impairment, distraction, and
speeding, that contribute to the vast majority of the annual
preventable roadway deaths in the United States and around the world.
Today, Waymo is no longer a research project with theoretical
benefits. We are a 24/7 scaled commercial reality, carrying riders
safely to their destinations with no one behind the wheel. We are
already making roads safer in the cities where we operate. Waymo is the
first and only company in the world providing fully autonomous, Level 4
trips to the public at scale, with service currently spanning six major
U.S. metro areas: Phoenix, San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, Austin,
Atlanta, and Miami, with many more to come.
The maturity of our technology--the Waymo Driver--is reflected in
our scale, having now completed nearly 200 million fully autonomous
miles on public roads. This milestone was achieved entirely without a
human behind the wheel. We provide more than 400,000 rides every week,
and at the conclusion of 2025, our lifetime total exceeded 20 million
trips. These are not just rides; they are essential connections for the
people we serve: patients heading to medical appointments, travelers
going to the airport, parents picking up their children from soccer
practice, and even families bringing newborns home from the hospital.
We are there for our riders through their every day moments, both big
and small, and are proud to be getting them safely where they need to
go.
As Waymo safely scales, we are growing a broad AV industry
ecosystem with new businesses that hire workers to support fleets of
AVs, including manufacturers that integrate Waymo's technology into
base vehicles, mechanics and vehicle technicians who maintain AV
fleets, and dispatchers and facilities managers who help run our
operations. Our fully autonomous technology is designed and
manufactured in Silicon Valley. The vehicles themselves are outfitted
with our American-designed hardware and software at our facility in
Mesa, Arizona, an investment that has created hundreds of local jobs.
In every city we expand to, we create a broad spectrum of new roles,
including many that do not require a university degree. We are already
on the ground in more than twenty U.S. cities, and together with our
partners, we are delivering new career opportunities that support our
safe and convenient ride-hailing service.
We recognize that careers in the transportation industry will
shift, even as new job opportunities emerge. Some studies suggest that
190 jobs will be required for the manufacture and servicing of every
1,000 vehicles. These include 95 in development and production; 30 in
distribution; and 65 in maintenance, upgrades and repairs. We are
investing in non-traditional pathways to careers in this industry, to
ensure the opportunities are available to Americans of all backgrounds.
This includes financial support for educational and skills programs in
technical schools, as well as helping fund scholarships for students
and working technicians attending programs outside of the traditional
four-year college setting.
II. A Proven Safety Record Rooted in Data and Transparency
We are making these investments in America to tackle one of our
most pernicious public health problems: the persistent road safety
crisis that needlessly claims 40,000 lives annually in this country and
more than one million people across the globe. At Waymo, we believe it
does not have to be this way.
Our mission is to build the world's most trusted driver--a goal
that begins with a safety culture established at the highest levels of
our leadership. We work every day to earn trust with our riders,
policymakers, regulators, and partners through our transparent and
exceptional safety record. This is the result of years dedicated to
refining a comprehensive set of methodologies to assess safety across
our technology and operations and ultimately to guide the deployment
and safe operations of the Waymo Driver.
Through our operations in major U.S. cities, we are able to observe
the proven, positive impact our technology is having on road safety,
and we believe we have a moral imperative to pair our technology with
ongoing investments in making America's roads safer for everyone.
We conduct extensive safety comparisons between human and automated
driving utilizing peer-reviewed methodology and retrospective analyses,
which we then report to the federal Government. We have found the Waymo
Driver has been involved in 10x fewer serious injury or worse crashes,
12x fewer injury-causing crashes involving a pedestrian, 5x fewer
crashes with airbag deployment, and 5x fewer injury-causing crashes
compared to human drivers covering the same mileage in the cities we
serve, on the same road types, and in the same conditions we operate
in.
Our reviews allow us to better understand the safety impact we have
in the communities in which we operate, such as better protecting
pedestrians and cyclists, or nearly eliminating collisions that occur
in intersections. Using this methodology, Waymo regularly publishes
extensive safety data that demonstrates that the Waymo Driver is
meaningfully improving road safety and reducing related damage and
injuries in the cities where we operate.
We are also working closely with external partners to learn from
the safety performance of our technology. For example, we partnered
with global reinsurance company Swiss Re to analyze our first 25
million fully autonomous miles, determining the Waymo Driver
demonstrated better safety performance compared to human-driven
vehicles (including those with ADAS features). Based on this analysis,
we estimate that the Waymo Driver reduced property damage claims by 88
percent and bodily injury claims by 92 percent.
III. Determining Readiness Prior to Deployment
Prior to the deployment of driverless operations in a specific
location, Waymo implements rigorous evaluation methods--referred to in
the aggregate as our Safety Framework--to determine readiness of the
Waymo Driver to engage in autonomous driving. We use this holistic
approach to evaluate if the Waymo Driver is ready for deployment in a
particular automated driving system (ADS) configuration, for a specific
Operational Design Domain, and a given mileage scale. There is no
single metric or methodology that captures the entire safety
performance. Instead, it takes a suite of complementary methodologies--
including simulation, real-world driving, and closed-course testing--to
analyze and paint a comprehensive picture of the overall safety of the
system. We use 12 methodologies that evaluate the autonomous system
against a set of internal acceptance criteria. Some of these
methodologies are widely-used, traditional safety activities such as
Systems Safety, Verification and Validation, and Risk Management, and
others are methodologies that Waymo has developed specifically for
autonomous driving.
Waymo's safety case serves an important safety assurance function
by pressure testing the assumptions in our various safety methodologies
as well as the credibility of the arguments and the evidence supporting
those arguments. A safety case is defined as ``a structured argument,
supported by a body of evidence that provides a compelling,
comprehensible and valid case that a system is, or will be, adequately
safe for a given application in a given environment.'' Use of safety
cases as a basis for certification of complex safety-critical systems
is common in several safety critical industries, including aerospace,
nuclear, defense, oil and gas, and rail, and safety case methodology is
used in many countries including the U.S. It ensures we can have a high
degree of confidence that through application of our rigorous safety
methodologies we have sufficiently mitigated unreasonable risks posed
by the Waymo Driver prior to deployment.
Our safety record is also the result of rigorous internal
oversight. We have a robust governance structure with three layers of
accountability that culminates in the approval to deploy our vehicles.
First, the leads of each of our twelve safety framework methodologies
evaluate the system against a set of acceptance criteria within their
domains and summarize their findings into a report that is provided to
the second layer, our Safety Framework Steering Committee. This cross-
functional group of senior leaders aggregate the evaluation results
across methodologies and make a recommendation about our deployment to
the third layer, the Waymo Safety Board. This Board is composed of the
Chief Safety Officer, the Chief Product Officer, and one of our co-
CEOs. Together, the body makes the ultimate decision for deployment
approval. Without review through this rigorous governance process, we
issue no software updates, make no determinations to increase our
mileage or fleet scale, and make no updates to the scope of our service
territories, among other key decisions.
Recently, Waymo's safety case approach has been independently
audited by TUV SUD, a global leader in safety testing and
certification. Their audit confirmed that Waymo's safety case program
adheres to AVSC Best Practices and to the ISO 15026 industry standards,
representing the state of the art for safety case assessment and
management. Waymo views such independent audits as a fundamental
component of our overall safety strategy.
IV. Expanding Mobility Options and the Benefits of AVs
Autonomous vehicles technology, like that offered by Waymo,
represent a life-changing advancement for those who currently face
significant transportation barriers, including seniors and people with
disabilities who cannot obtain a driver's license. For blind and low-
vision riders, Waymo provides a reliable, consistent, and independent
mobility experience. Because Waymo owns and operates its fleet, we are
uniquely positioned to integrate purpose-built accessibility features
directly into our product. We believe the benefits of AV technology
will reach the broadest number of riders most quickly through shared
ride-hailing services like ours. To that end, we have made it a
priority to develop inclusive features in partnership with the
disability community, such as screen reader support for navigating our
app, audio cues for the in-car experience, and custom ``car honks'' to
help riders locate their vehicle at pickup.
V. Strategic Imperative: Winning the Global AV Race
Waymo is a proud American success story, but we are at a critical
crossroads. The leadership our country established in the autonomous
vehicle sector is now under direct threat. The United States is locked
in a global race with Chinese AV companies for the future of autonomous
driving, a trillion-dollar industry comparable in strategic importance
to flight and space travel. Chinese competitors are scaling rapidly
with heavy state support, and--second to Waymo--the largest AV fleets
in the world are operated by Chinese AV companies.
The leading Chinese AV startups have tested on U.S. roads already,
and are now taking those learnings and using them to bring their
technology to other countries across the globe. We have seen reports
that Chinese AV companies are moving quickly into international
capitals in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia; in some cases, they are
partnering with U.S. companies to accelerate their desired dominance.
We cannot fall behind when it comes to this American-made technology.
In the absence of U.S. leadership on a national AV legislative
framework, Chinese AV competitors will fill the gap and set the safety
and technical standards for the rest of the world. The global race will
ultimately come down to whether Chinese or American AV companies will
drive the rest of the world, and Waymo wants America's innovators to
win that race. We support Federal efforts, such as the Department of
Commerce's Connected Vehicle rule, to protect our critical
infrastructure and ban Chinese AV software in the U.S. starting this
year.
VI. A Durable National AV Legislative Framework
We believe Congress has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to
secure American leadership in this industry by creating a national AV
legislative framework that sets a high safety standard for this
industry. Greater certainty will unlock even more investment and
prevent bad actors from undermining public trust in this novel, life-
changing technology. We share the Committee's goal of ensuring a
national AV framework is included in the Surface Transportation
Reauthorization bill. This is the vehicle to ensure that the U.S.
remains in the driver's seat of innovation.
Our key legislative priorities for national AV framework include:
Establishing a national safety baseline: Require
manufacturers to document a robust ``safety case'' for their
automated driving systems, providing evidence of safe
performance of important driving competencies within the
system's operational design domain.
National Safety Data Repository: Establish a centralized
repository for safety data, such as crashes and vehicle miles
traveled, to provide easier access to crash information to
state regulators and the public. This would not only
standardize the current state-by-state patchwork of reporting
but would also ensure consistent, industry-wide transparency
and accountability in data reporting.
Modernizing FMVSS: Update the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS) to remove requirements for manual controls
(e.g., steering wheels and pedals) in vehicles specifically
designed for autonomous use.
AV Accessibility Act: Ensure the mobility benefits of AVs
are fully accessible to people with disabilities.
To win the global AV race, the U.S. needs more than just
innovation--we need a predictable, durable national regulatory
framework that sets a high safety standard. Without it, we face a
fragmented landscape of state regulations that creates uncertainty,
slows investment, and creates unequal access to the technology. To
truly deliver on the promise of fully autonomous vehicles, we need
Federal leadership and we need it in this Congress.
Waymo has built a technology that is already achieving remarkable
road safety outcomes. We look forward to working with the Committee to
ensure that American safety and American innovation are the gold
standard for autonomous driving tech standards around the world.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Farrah, you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF JEFF FARRAH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AUTONOMOUS
VEHICLE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Farrah. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, members
of the Committee, my name is Jeff Farrah, and I have the
privilege of serving as the CEO of the Autonomous Vehicle
Industry Association, the unified voice of the autonomous
vehicle industry that is committed to American excellence in
AVs. I am pleased to testify again this morning.
Now is a time of great excitement and promise for the
American autonomous vehicle industry. AVs are no longer a
futuristic dream of a safer world. Autonomous vehicles are
here. They are carrying your constituents to medical
appointments, enhancing supply chains for farmers and
manufacturers, and creating high-quality, new jobs in a
mission-driven industry. Autonomous vehicles are not just
another application of AI. They are the exemplar of what AI
becomes when it moves from the digital to the physical world.
What Federal policymakers decide to do or not do on AVs will
send a clear message about America's commitment to AI
leadership.
I will use my opening comments this morning to describe two
futures for members of this committee. We'll call them choice A
and choice B. Choice A means seizing the moment for American
leadership on autonomous vehicles. Under choice A, the future
looks like this: safer roads as the U.S. drastically reduces
the nearly 40,000 people who die on our streets each year,
enough to fill National Stadium at a sold-out game; more
accessible vehicles that finally give new mobility options to
the millions of Americans who are left behind by our current
transportation system which holds back the elderly, wheelchair
users, the visually impaired, is too expensive, and often does
not provide the routes to get people where they need to go; new
American jobs that simply did not exist until they were created
by the autonomous vehicle industry, jobs like AV fleet
deployment specialists, technicians, fleet managers, and
manufacturing workers. These jobs will power the future of the
American economy. Choice A can be ours if we want it. It does
not require a dime of taxpayer funds, only Congress putting in
place Federal rules of the road that allow American innovators
to thrive.
We need action from Congress in these areas. First, raise
the bar on safety for all autonomous vehicles by requiring the
Department of Transportation to move forward on a series of
rulemakings, including requiring that AV manufacturers develop
a safety case; that is, evidence and documentation
demonstrating why their vehicle is safe to be on the roads. The
Department of Transportation should also require that AV
companies abide by a series of driving competencies so the
public understands that the vehicles are safe. Second, put AV
data reporting on solid legal footing by enshrining in statute
a national AV safety data repository that has NHTSA collecting
data and sharing vital information with State regulatory
partners. Third, modernize Federal standards related to vehicle
controls that are intended for human drivers, thereby allowing
innovators to develop next-generation vehicles that take
meaningful steps forward on accessibility. A Federal framework
should complement the 26 State AV deployment laws already in
place, not replace them. Regulating autonomous vehicles is a
shared responsibility between the Federal and State
governments, but we need the Federal Government to step up.
Under Choice A, we set the global standards, we build the
technology here, we create high-quality American jobs rooted in
U.S. communities. With Choice A, America doesn't just adopt
autonomous vehicles, America defines them.
Then there is Choice B under which we reject this
opportunity and fail to put in place a Federal policy
framework. Choice B has the following consequences: China
becomes the global leader on autonomous vehicles. At this
moment, the People's Republic of China is devoting massive
resources to the development of its national champions. It is
not waiting to find out what American policymakers want to do.
The state-run ``Beijing Review'' put it succinctly: ``Chinese-
developed autonomous driving technologies have made inroads
into a growing number of global markets,'' citing activity in
France, Spain, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Singapore, Saudi
Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, with one Chinese industry
member calling the development of AVs ``a hallmark of Made-in-
China innovation.'' Finally, under Choice B, we accept the
status quo: preventable deaths due to human error,
transportation options that leave millions in the rearview
mirror, faltering supply chains that let small businesses down,
and States leading on AV policy with little guidance from their
Federal counterparts.
Members of the Committee, I implore you to choose Choice A.
This committee can, on a bipartisan basis, advance American
leadership, increase safety standards, and create new, high-
paying and fulfilling jobs. And with the Surface Transportation
reauthorization bill before this committee, you have the
perfect vehicle to lead. Thank you again for the opportunity to
testify this morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Farrah follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeff Farrah, Chief Executive Officer,
Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association
I. Introduction
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
Committee on this important issue. My testimony addresses how this
Committee should use this year's surface transportation reauthorization
to advance a comprehensive Federal policy framework for AVs, including
by implementing the ideas outlined in Securing American Leadership in
Autonomous Vehicles, released by the Autonomous Vehicle Industry
Association in January 2025.\1\ The autonomous vehicle (``AV'')
industry appreciates the Committee's sustained engagement on AV policy,
and we remain committed to working closely with Congress to advance
American leadership on autonomous technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Securing American Leadership in Autonomous Vehicles,
Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n (Jan. 19, 2025), https://
cdn.prod.website-files.com/67ee365c25e6530594bd40c2/683d8d2fa
60ac22d542b1049_Securing%20American%20Leadership%20in%20Autonomous%20Veh
icles1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association (``AVIA'') is the
unified voice of the AV industry, and we represent the world's leading
technology, rideshare, automotive, trucking, and transportation
companies.\2\ Our mission is to bring the tremendous safety, mobility,
transportation, and economic benefits of AVs--i.e., SAE International
Levels 4- and 5-capable vehicles--to consumers and businesses in a
safe, responsible, and expeditious manner and ensure the United States
is the global leader on AVs.\3\ As of May 2025, vehicles operated by
AVIA members have driven over 145 million autonomous miles on U.S.
public roads, a distance roughly equivalent to the average distance
between the Earth and Mars or driving around the Earth over 5,600
times.\4\ That figure is growing every day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ AVIA members include Amazon, Aurora, AVRS, Avride, Bot Auto,
Cavnue, Discount Tire, Doordash, Ford, Gatik, General Motors, Honda,
International, Kodiak, Lyft, Motional, NGV, Nuro, Plus, Stack, Rivian,
Tier IV, Torc Robotics, TaskUs, Terawatt, Uber, UPS, Volkswagen Group
of America, Volvo Cars, Volvo Autonomous Solutions, Waabi, Waymo, and
Zoox. See Our Mission and Members, Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n,
https://theavindustry.org/ (last visited Feb. 2, 2026).
\3\ SAE International's J3016 standard, which has been adopted
industry wide, establishes a taxonomy for vehicle automation
technologies that includes six levels of driving automation, rising
from ``No Driving Automation'' (Level 0) to ``Full Driving Automation''
(Level 5). Level 2 systems (often called advanced driver assistance
systems or ``ADAS'') are available on vehicles today and are capable of
``partial driving automation,'' though they require human supervision
at all times. Level 3 vehicles have ``conditional driving automation,''
where the vehicle requires human interaction only in specific
situations. Level 4 vehicles are defined as having ``High Driving
Automation.'' Only Level 3, 4, and 5 vehicles are equipped with
automated driving systems (``ADS''). See SAE Int'l, Taxonomy and
Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road
Motor Vehicles, J2016_202104 (2021).
\4\ New Report: AV Industry Surges Past 145 Million Autonomous
Miles as AVIA Urges Policymakers to Act, Autonomous Vehicle Indus.
Ass'n (May 19, 2025), https://www.theavindustry
.org/press-release/avia-releases-2025-state-of-av/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past two decades, AVs have gone from science fiction to
aspirational to commonplace on America's roads and highways, using
advanced technology to perform all aspects of the driving task. In
states as diverse as Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Michigan,
and Texas, AVs provide valuable transportation services, transporting
both passengers through autonomous ride-hailing fleets and goods
through trucking fleets and middle-and last-mile delivery operations.
The U.S. Department of Defense has also embraced autonomous technology
to keep America's soldiers safer.\5\ AVs will play a pivotal role in
addressing critical challenges facing our nation, including by reducing
the persistent and unacceptable level of traffic fatalities in our
country, increasing transportation access, enhancing supply chain
efficiency, reviving our industrial capacity, creating new jobs, and
expanding economic output.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Accelerating Autonomous Vehicle Technology for the DoD,
Def. Innovation Unit (Apr. 3, 2024), https://www.diu.mil/latest/
accelerating-autonomous-vehicle-technology-for-the-dod. AVIA member
Kodiak Robotics is currently working with the U.S. Army's Army Robotic
Combat Vehicles program. See U.S. Army Robotic Combat Vehicle (RCV
Program), Kodiak Robotics (Nov. 9, 2023), https://kodiak.ai/news/us-
army-robotic-combat-vehicle-program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When discussing AVs and roadway safety, it is critical to
distinguish autonomous vehicles from other types of technology.
``Driver-assistance technology''--which can be found in tens of
millions of cars and trucks on our roads today--is important and
helpful, but it is not autonomous driving. Rather, the term
``autonomous vehicle,'' or ``AV,'' indicates that the vehicle is
capable of driving on its own, without relying on or having any
expectation that a human will be supervising the vehicle's actions.
With an AV, the vehicle performs all aspects of the driving task on a
sustained basis. These distinctions are vital to understanding AV
technologies and have been laid out in detail within the SAE J3016
industry standard:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The United States is presently the global AV leader and the pace of
deployments in the U.S. has steadily increased in recent years. But
this progress has occurred in the absence of a Federal policy framework
for AVs, leaving U.S. companies to fight with one hand tied behind
their backs compared to competitors in China and other countries. In
recent months, a broad consensus has emerged among stakeholders about
the importance of a Federal framework for AVs. As a result, in November
2025, a diverse group of stakeholders announced the formation of United
for Autonomy to forge ahead on Federal AV policy.\6\ United for
Autonomy members include key stakeholders like the American Council of
the Blind, Blinded Veterans Association, National Council on
Independent Living, National Federation of the Blind, and United Spinal
Association, as well as industry groups like AVIA, the American
Trucking Associations, Alliance for Automotive Innovation, Consumer
Technology Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Retail
Foundation, and several other organizations. The breadth of membership
in United for Autonomy speaks to the importance of AV technology for
our country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See United for Autonomy, https://www.unitedforautonomy.org/
(last visited Feb. 2, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, policymakers are faced with a choice. We can maintain a void
at the Federal level, which would support China's ambitions to dominate
the global AV market and put U.S. states at the forefront of regulating
a space that is calling out for Federal direction. Or the Committee can
lead the way on a Federal policy framework that both supports safer
roads, accessibility, and supply chains and answers key questions on AV
design, construction, and performance. Advancing American AV leadership
also serves to advance American artificial intelligence (``AI'')
leadership. Autonomous vehicles are the exemplar of what AI becomes
when it moves from the digital to the physical world--what many are
calling ``physical AI.'' As with AI leadership, the stakes for
leadership in AVs are high, and U.S. policymakers' actions--and
inactions--are being closely watched by our strategic competitors. In
addition, establishing a Federal policy framework will benefit an
American public that increasingly is using AVs and loving the
experience. Recent data demonstrates that passengers in AVs quickly
become comfortable with the technology and want to experience it
again.\7\ As we see more AV deployments, we can anticipate higher
levels of public acceptance of the technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See generally J.D. Power, 2024 U.S. Robotaxi Experience Study
(2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AV industry is eager to engage with this Committee on AV-
specific Federal policies that supplement the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (``USDOT'') broad authority to regulate vehicles on
public roads. We commend Secretary Duffy and his team at the Department
for their early and significant attention to AVs. In April 2025,
Secretary Duffy announced a new Automated Vehicle Framework as part of
the Department's Innovation Agenda, and this framework included early
action items that are a welcome first step.\8\ It is imperative that
this progress continues, and we are optimistic that under the
leadership of Jonathan Morrison at the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (``NHTSA'') and Derek Barrs at the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (``FMCSA''), more is yet to come.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Trump's Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy Unveils New
Automated Vehicle Framework as Part of Innovation Agenda, U.S. Dep't of
Transp. (Apr. 24, 2025), https://www
.transportation.gov/briefing-room/trumps-transportation-secretary-sean-
p-duffy-unveils-new-auto
mated-vehicle-framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The State of Roadway Safety
A Federal AV policy framework is especially needed at a time when
the United States continues to face epidemic levels of fatalities on
our Nation's roads. 2024 saw over 39,000 people die on America's roads,
only a slight decrease from 2023, which recorded 40,901 deaths in motor
vehicle traffic incidents.\9\ 2023 was the third year in a row to see
traffic deaths above 40,000,\10\ a number of fatalities that previously
had not occurred since 2007.\11\ To put this in context, the number of
traffic fatalities each year is equivalent to the number of people at a
sold-out baseball game at Nationals Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of Transp., DOT
HS 813 710, Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities in 2024
1 (2025), https://crashstats.nhtsa
.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813710.
\10\ Id.
\11\ Fatality Facts 2023: Yearly Snapshot, Ins. Inst. for Highway
Safety (2023), https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/
yearly-snapshot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedestrian deaths have also risen; 2022 was the deadliest year for
American pedestrians since 1981, with 7,508 people killed.\12\ That
trend continued into 2024, with an estimated 7,148 pedestrians killed,
nearly 20 percent higher than the number killed in 2016.\13\ The
increase in roadway fatalities is consistent across vehicle types. In
2022, 5,969 people died in crashes involving large trucks.\14\ This
increase is part of a decade-long 40 percent increase in such
crashes.\15\ Further, in 2023, 114,552 large trucks were involved in
crashes that resulted in an injury, a 12 percent increase since
2016.\16\ The toll of these crashes on families and communities is
immeasurable, but the toll of motor vehicle crashes is not measured in
fatalities and injuries alone. According to the National Safety
Council, ``the total motor vehicle injury costs'' in 2023 were
estimated at $513.8 billion.\17\ When quality-of-life valuations are
considered, the total value of societal harm from motor vehicle crashes
is even higher and was estimated to top $1.37 trillion in 2019.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Governors Highway Safety Ass'n, Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities
By State 2022 Preliminary Data (Jan.-Dec.) (2023), https://
www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2024-12/2022-ped-report.pdf.
\13\ Governors Highway Safety Ass'n, Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities
By State 2024 Preliminary Data (Jan.-Dec.) (2025), https://
www.ghsa.org/resource-hub/pedestrian-traffic-fatalities-2024-data.
\14\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of Transp.,
DOT HS 813 705, Overview of Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes in 2023 7
(2025), https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
813705.
\15\ Nat'l Safety Council, Large Trucks, NSC Injury Facts, https://
injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/road-users/large-trucks/ (last
visited Feb. 2, 2026).
\16\ Id.
\17\ Nat'l Safety Council, Motor Vehicles: Introduction, NSC Injury
Facts, https://injury
facts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/introduction/ (last visited Feb.
2, 2026).
\18\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of Transp.,
DOT HS 813 403, The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle
Crashes, 2019 (Revised) 4 (2023), https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/
Public/ViewPublication/813403.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research continues to confirm that human behavior is overwhelmingly
the most common factor in fatal accidents on our roads. A NHTSA study
found that over 55 percent of all people injured or killed in a roadway
incident tested positive for one or more drugs (including alcohol).\19\
Drivers are also frequently distracted by electronics; during daylight
in 2023, 6.4 percent of all drivers were looking at or using their
handheld device.\20\ Studies have found that drivers manipulating cell
phones are two to six times more at risk for a crash.\21\ Several
categories of behavior-related fatalities have increased in recent
years, including police-reported alcohol-involved crashes and deaths of
unrestrained passengers.\22\ Vehicle crashes are also the leading cause
of spinal cord injury, and emergency room surgeons are on the front
lines dealing with those crises every day.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of Transp.,
DOT HS 813 399, Alcohol and Drug Prevalence Among Seriously or Fatally
Injured Road Users 2 (2022), https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/65623/
dot_65623_DS1.pdf.
\20\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of Transp.,
DOT HS 813 660, Driver Electronic Device Use in 2022 11 (2024), https:/
/crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/View
Publication/813660.
\21\ Distracted Driving, Ins. Inst. for Highway Safety, https://
www.iihs.org/research-areas/distracted-driving (last visited Feb. 2,
2026).
\22\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., U.S. Dep't of Transp.,
DOT HS 813 298, Early Estimates of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities and
Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories in 2021 1 (2022), https://
www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/early-estimate-2021-traffic-fatalities.
\23\ Jonathan Slotkin, The Data on Self-Driving Cars Is Clear. We
Have to Change Course, N.Y. Times (Dec. 2, 2025), https://
www.nytimes.com/2025/12/02/opinion/self-driving-cars.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
America's roads are a dangerous place for drivers, passengers, and
other road users, in large part due to the deficiencies of human
drivers. However, the United States does not need to accept this status
quo. By removing human error from the equation, AVs offer a vital tool
for improving roadway safety.
III. AV Technology as a Vital Tool for Improving Roadway Safety
Improving road safety is the primary goal of the AV industry.
Automated driving systems (``ADS'') are the heart and brain of an AV
and are equipped with suites of sensor systems (including lidar, radar,
and cameras) with sensitivities, capabilities, and reaction times well
beyond those of a human driver. These sensors grant an ADS a 360-degree
field of vision which can detect, track, and react to objects and
people even when hidden from human perception due to vehicles,
buildings, and other obstructions. For example, AVs are developed to
specifically detect vulnerable road users--such as motorcycles,
pedestrians, and cyclists--and then predict and safely respond to their
unique behavior (e.g., motorcycle lane splitting). Included below are
examples of what an AV ``sees'' when it encounters a vulnerable road
user:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
An Aurora autonomous truck safely and accurately detects an
emergency vehicle, slows down, and changes lanes.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Aurora (@aurora_inno), X (Jan. 18, 2024, 5:01 PM), https://
x.com/aurora_inno/status/1748
103257128374548
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A Waymo vehicle recognizes and adheres to a police officer
directing traffic at a Los Angeles intersection.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Dmitri Dolgov (@dmitri_dolgov), X (Jan. 18, 2024, 7:04 PM),
https://x.com/dmitri_dolgov/status/1748134215265456444.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A Kodiak autonomous truck recognizes a pedestrian on a highway from
over 130m away at night, shifting to another lane to give the
pedestrian extra space.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Kodiak (@KodiakRobotics), X (Mar. 21, 2024), https://
twitter.com/KodiakRobotics/status/1770870645116833872.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human error, including speeding and fatigue, is a major contributor
to roadway incidents. AVs are designed to remove that error from the
equation, as they do not drive distracted, angry, impaired, or tired.
AVs have built a compelling safety record, supported by data collected
by NHTSA via the agency's Standing General Order 2021-01, through more
than a decade of development, testing, and deployment, with over 145
million autonomous miles driven by AVIA members on public roads in the
United States alone.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVs also have quantifiable safety benefits. In January 2026, AVIA
released its Robotaxi Report which released new data quantifying the
safety-related economic savings.\28\ The findings reveal substantial
economic benefits from AV deployments. In San Francisco, where human-
driven vehicles experience an injury crash rate of 8.04 per million
miles driven on surface streets, Waymo's AVs demonstrated a rate of
0.87 injury crashes per million miles--an 89 percent reduction.\29\ In
San Francisco, from March 2022 through June 2025, Waymo rider-only
operations covering 29.88 million miles resulted in an estimated $71
million in safety-related economic savings for city residents.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n, AVIA Robotaxi Report (2026),
https://cdn.prod.web
site-files.com/67ee365c25e6530594bd40c2/
6930ab29af2f0cc7461e061b_Robotaxi%20Report.pdf.
\29\ Id. at 14.
\30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinsurer Swiss Re published an analysis of 3.8 million autonomous
miles driven by passenger AVs operated by Waymo. The analysis found
that when compared to baseline human drivers, Waymo AVs reduced
property damage claims by 76 percent.\31\ These results led Swiss Re to
conclude that Waymo's AVs are ``significantly safer towards other road
users than human drivers are[.]''\32\ Waymo's own review of over 56.7
million rider-only autonomous miles found that the company's AVs
demonstrated a 96 percent reduction of injury-involving intersection
crashes and an 85 percent reduction in crashes with suspected serious
or worse injuries when compared to human drivers.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Luigi Di Lillo et al., Comparative Safety Performance of
Autonomous- and Human Drivers: A Real-World Case Study of the Waymo One
Service (2023), https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2309/2309.01206.pdf.
\32\ Id.
\33\ New Study: Waymo is Reducing Serious Crashes and Making
Streets Safer for Those Most at Risk, Waymo (May 1, 2025), https://
waymo.com/blog/2025/05/waymo-making-streets-safer-for-vru.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent Chamber of Progress study found that replacing even 1.3
percent of California drivers with AVs could have prevented 411
fatalities between 2020 and 2022, while replacing 13 percent of
California drivers could have prevented 1,342 fatalities in that same
three year period.\34\ Another study by the Virginia Tech
Transportation Institute found that the full scale deployment of
occupantless AVs for delivery services could reduce roadway deaths by
58.2 percent.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Kaitlyn Harger, Analysis: AVs in California Could Have Saved
Up to 1,300 Lives, Prevented Up to 5,000 Major Injuries Over Past Three
Years (2024), https://progress
chamber.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/AV-Safety-Research-California-
Traffic-Fatality-Analysis-03-24.pdf.
\35\ Christina Witcher et al., Estimating Crash Consequences for
Occupantless Automated Vehicles (2021), https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/
server/api/core/bitstreams/a28aa936-8f89-4302-8859-ee54d34358e2/
content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVs are poised to improve roadway safety and help combat the glut
of roadway deaths facing the United States today. By removing human
error, AVs avoid the risks associated with driver distraction, fatigue,
and incapacitation. Ongoing AV deployments are demonstrating the safety
benefits of AVs, and the wider deployment of AVs will bring these
benefits to communities across the country while helping to end
thousands of tragic roadway deaths.
IV. Social and Economic Benefits of Widespread AV Deployments
In addition to increasing safety, the continued expansion of AV
deployment will bring economic, supply chain, and social benefits to
American communities. For millions of elderly Americans and individuals
with travel-limiting disabilities, AVs can provide greater independence
compared to mass transit or paratransit systems, opening the door for
new employment opportunities, improved access to medical care, and
better connection to their communities. AVs are poised to bring
economic benefits at both societal and individual levels, and they can
help grow the U.S. economy and support the economic competitiveness of
American businesses across many industries.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Jack Caporal, William O'Neil, and Sean Arrieta-Kenna, Bridging
the Divide: Autonomous Vehicles and the Automobile Industry, Ctr. For
Strategic & Int'l Studies (Apr. 14, 2021), https://www.csis.org/
analysis/bridging-divide-autonomous-vehicles-and-automobile-industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Connecting People and Protecting Communities
By increasing transportation access and improving safety, AVs will
serve many Americans who are left behind by today's transportation
options. The USDOT estimates that 25.5 million Americans face travel-
limiting disabilities\37\ and roughly 560,000 people with disabilities
never leave their homes due to transportation difficulties.\38\ Over
7.6 million Americans live with significant vision impairment,\39\
conditions which can leave them unable to operate a vehicle. This lack
of mobility can contribute to a lack of economic opportunity. Only 22.7
percent of people with disabilities are employed, compared to 65.5
percent of people without a disability.\40\ A study by the National
Disability Institute found that the wider deployment of AVs could
result in 4.4 million jobs for people with disabilities, which could
create a 3.8 percent increase in U.S. GDP (nearly $867 billion).\41\
Whether personally owned, serving as on-demand taxis, or as part of
local paratransit services, AVs can provide greater autonomy to people
with disabilities, letting them dictate how, where, and when they move
through the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ ADA at DOT: Accessibility Initiatives, U.S. Dep't of Transp.
(Feb. 13, 2025) https://www.transportation.gov/accessibility.
\38\ Bureau of Transp. Stat., Transportation Difficulties Keep Over
Half a Million Disabled at Home (2012), https://www.bts.gov/archive/
publications/special_reports_and_issue
_briefs/issue_briefs/number_03/entire.
\39\ Blindness Statistics, Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind, https://
nfb.org/resources/blindness-statistics (last visited Feb. 2, 2026).
\40\ Economic News Release, U.S. Bureau of Labor Stat., Persons
with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics Summary (Feb. 25, 2025),
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.nr0.htm.
\41\ Dominic Modicamore et al., Economic Impacts of Removing
Transportation Barriers to Employment for Individuals with Disabilities
Through Autonomous Vehicle Adoption (2022), https://
www.nationaldisabilityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ndi-eco
nomicimpactsofremovingtransportation barriers.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVs also can provide vital connections to ``transit deserts,''
where there is a high demand but low supply of transportation. Access
to transportation and average length of commute are connected to upward
mobility,\42\ and studies have found links between public transit
access, income, and unemployment.\43\ A 2011 study showed that an
average person can access only about 30 percent of all jobs and 25
percent of low-and middle-skilled jobs in a given metropolitan area via
public transit within 90 minutes.\44\ AVs can improve integration with
mass transit by servicing direct trips to workplaces and other
endpoints, providing first-mile and last-mile connections to transit,
and by broadly increasing the overall supply of transportation services
in a given area. Projections indicate that the transportation
connections facilitated by the adoption of AVs would increase access to
jobs within a metropolitan area by 45 percent by 2040.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Mikayla Bouchard, Transportation Emerges as Crucial to
Escaping Poverty, N.Y. Times (May 7, 2015), https://www.nytimes.com/
2015/05/07/upshot/transportation-emerges-as-crucial
-to-escaping-poverty.html.
\43\ Gillian D. White, Stranded: How America's Failing Public
Transportation Increases Inequality, The Atlantic (May 16, 2015),
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/stranded-how-
americas-failing-public-transportation-increases-inequality/393419/.
\44\ Adie Tomer et al., Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs in
Metropolitan America, Brookings (May 11, 2011), https://
www.brookings.edu/research/missed-opportunity-transit-and-jobs-in-
metropolitan-america/.
\45\ Richard Ezike et al., Where Are Self-Driving Cars Taking Us? 6
(2019), https://ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/02/Where-
Are-Self-Driving-Cars-Taking-Us-web.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, AVs can help alleviate inequalities in food access. A
2017 report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research
Service (``ERS'') estimated that 54 million individuals, or 17.1
percent of the total U.S. population, had limited access to a
supermarket or grocery store within 10 miles from their home.\46\ AVs
can improve access to food, both by transporting people to previously
inaccessible grocery stores and by bringing food directly to their
doors. With widespread deployment, AVs could improve access to fresh
food for fourteen million low-income households living in ``food
deserts,'' roughly 70 percent of the total low-income population.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Alana Rhone et al., Low-Income and Low-Supermarket-Access
Census Tracts, 2010-2015, U.S. Dep't of Agric.: Econ. Rsch. Servs. 12
(2017), https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details?pubid=82100.
\47\ Sola Lawal, Serving America's Food Deserts, Medium (July 15,
2020), https://medium.com/nuro/serving-americas-food-deserts-
a7442e922053.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Moving Goods and Growing the American Economy
The integration of AVs into America's commercial fleets will help
optimize the transportation of freight nationwide, bringing goods
directly to consumers faster and strengthening at-risk supply chains.
Autonomous trucking offers a means to address supply chain
inefficiencies by filling workforce gaps, enhancing fleet flexibility,
and reducing travel times.
The growth in autonomous trucking is poised to run in parallel with
an ever-growing market for freight trucking, with the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics estimating that freight activity in the
United States will grow fifty percent from 2020 to 2050, reaching a
projected value of $36.2 trillion.\48\ With trucking representing
roughly 72 percent of all freight transportation tonnage,\49\ the
number of trucks on the road will need to grow as well. As demand for
freight hauling continues to grow, AVs can help shippers keep up with
that demand by supplementing and augmenting human driven fleets. With
AVs hauling long-haul freight, more opportunities will be created for
truck drivers in their communities. This will allow companies to
strategically place drivers where they are needed most and ensure
America's truck drivers can remain in and near their communities and
sleep in their own beds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Freight Activity in the U.S. Expected to Grow Fifty Percent by
2050, Bureau of Transp. Stats. (Nov. 22, 2021), https://www.bts.gov/
newsroom/freight-activity-us-expected-grow-fifty-percent-2050.
\49\ ATA Truck Tonnage Index Increased 2.4 percent in May, Am.
Trucking Assn's (June 20, 2023), https://www.trucking.org/news-
insights/ata-truck-tonnage-index-increased-24-may.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For consumers, AVs are positioned to reduce personal transportation
costs and reduce the cost of transporting goods across the economy.
Studies have shown that the cost savings from the wider deployment of
autonomous trucks could reduce the cost-per-mile of shipping goods by
between 20 percent for 300-mile trips and 30 percent for 900-mile trips
when factoring in other operational costs.\50\ Savings from lower
freight costs can then be passed on to consumers through lower prices
on goods overall. Additionally, through the introduction of shared AV
fleets, transportation costs--which amount to the second-largest
expense for most households--could be reduced by as much as $5,600 per
year.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Ryan Jones et al., Economic Benefits of Autonomous Trucks
(2024), https://advance.sagepub.com/users/912115/articles/1285791/
master/file/data/2_Economic%20Benefits
%20of%20Autonomous%20Trucks_Interim%20Report/
2_Economic%20Benefits%20of%20Autono
mous%20Trucks_Interim%20Report.pdf?inline=true.
\51\ Securing America's Future Energy, Fostering Economic
Opportunity Through Autonomous Vehicle Technology (2020), https://
safe2020.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Fostering-
Economic-Opportunity-through-Autonomous-Vehicle-Technology.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Providing New Jobs
American workers stand to benefit from the greater adoption of AV
technologies. One recent analysis found that AV companies are:
[I]ncreasingly seeking talent that not only develops cutting-
edge technology but also manages large programs, ensures safety
compliance, and builds resilient supply chains and operational
infrastructures . . . The AV industry is moving in the opposite
direction to the wider jobs market in North America. Talent
needs are high, hiring is aggressive, and the industry is
growing significantly. [H]iring in operations, corporate
infrastructure, and safety illustrates an industry moving
beyond the lab and into the real world.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ NGV Talent, AV Talent Demand Report 2, 12 (2025), https://
ngvtalent.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/AV-Industry-Talent-Demand-
Report-2025.pdf.
NGV Talent has conducted additional research that demonstrates the
AV operations career pathway for Americans. As demonstrated below, the
AV industry is offering Americans high-quality jobs with abundant
opportunities for advancement:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Additionally, a USDOT-funded study found that autonomous trucking
will increase U.S. employment by up to 35,000 jobs per year on
average.\53\ AVs will coexist with America's truck drivers, and the AV
industry is committed to creating more opportunities for all Americans.
A growing AV industry will continue to create new job opportunities for
workers with a range of educational backgrounds and experiences,
including local drivers, technicians, fleet managers, safety operations
specialists, sensor calibrators, operations center workers,
transportation planners, and more. Indeed, the same USDOT study found
that most autonomous trucking adoption scenarios would not lead to
layoffs for existing truckers.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Robert Waschik et al., John A. Volpe Nat'l Transp. Sys. Ctr.,
FHWA-JPO-21-847, Macroeconomic Impacts of Automated Driving Systems in
Long-Haul Trucking 1 (2021), https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/54596.
\54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AV industry has already created new jobs and brought new
investment, tax revenue, resources, and human capital to states across
the country, including Arkansas, California, Alabama, Arizona,
Arkansas, Kansas, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Michigan,
Florida, Washington, Colorado, and Texas. Texas offers an ideal case
study for how AV deployments can support the U.S. job market. Today,
several hundred Texans are employed directly by AV companies.
Opportunities for employment are rapidly growing where AVs are
deployed. An AVIA analysis of its members demonstrates at least 118
active AV industry job openings right now in Texas, with a median wage
approximately 208 percent higher than median wage for Texans.\55\ As AV
deployments grow, jobs will grow with them, with an estimated 190
workers needed for manufacturing and servicing every 1,000 AVs produced
and deployed.\56\ Nationwide, AVs could create over three million new
jobs by 2035, all while expanding access to affordable delivery
services, according to a study conducted by Steer.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See QuickFacts: Texas, U.S. Census Bureau (2025), https://
www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/TX/BZA210223 (citing $78,476 as
median households income (in 2024 dollars), 2020 to 2024).
\56\ Steer, Opportunity AV: How Many and What Types of Jobs Will Be
Created by Autonomous Vehicles? 6 (2024), https://progresschamber.org/
wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Opportunity-AV-How-Many-and-What-Type-of-
Jobs-Will-Be-Created-by-Autonomous-Vehicles.pdf.
\57\ Steer, Economic Impacts of Autonomous Delivery Services in the
U.S. XI (2020), https://www.steergroup.com/ites/default/files/2020-09/
200910_%20Nuro_Final_Report_Public
.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVs will bring myriad benefits to communities and individuals
across the country. From connecting underserved communities and people
with disabilities, to creating new opportunities for employment and
independence, to boosting the economy by lowering transportation costs,
AVs can help address a diverse set of challenges. To ensure the many
benefits of AVs are realized, now more than it is critical ever to
institute a supportive Federal policy framework that unlocks further
pathways to widespread AV deployment nationwide.
V. Competition with China for AV Leadership
America's leadership is integral to securing the economic growth,
job creation, safety, and societal benefits offered by AVs. That
leadership, however, is increasingly challenged by significant foreign
competition, especially from China.
The Chinese government has invested heavily in AV development in
recent years as part of its strategy to overtake and replace foreign
market leaders. The Chinese market for AVs is estimated to grow from
$17.23 billion in 2024 to $170.57 billion by 2033.\58\ Research
indicates that the total available market for Chinese robotaxis will
increase to $47 billion by 2035, up from $54 million in 2025, driven by
decreasing costs of hardware and algorithms and lowering operating
costs for fleet owners. China is also expected to see revenues per
robotaxi reach up to $31,000 per year by 2035, higher than current
revenues of up to $9,000 per year.\59\ Reflecting this potential, the
Chinese government has supported the growth of the Chinese AV industry.
A 2020 national strategy prioritized AV development and called for at
least 20 percent of all new vehicles sales to have SAE Level 4
capabilities by 2030.\60\ Then, in 2022, China's Ministry of
Transportation released rules in an effort to commercialize driverless
mobility.\61\ Beijing considers AVs a strategic sector; with government
support, Beijing intends for China to become a world leader in AV
technology by 2035.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Renub Research, China Autonomous Vehicles Market Report by
Level of Driving, Hardware, Software, Vehicle Type, Application,
Propulsion, and Companies Analysis 2025-2033 1 (2025), https://
www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5562699/china-autonomous-vehicles-
market-report-by-level.
\59\ Allen Chang et al., Robotaxi: China's Robotaxi Market--The
Road to Commercialization 9 (2025), https://www.goldmansachs.com/pdfs/
insights/goldman-sachs-research/robotaxi/report.pdf.
\60\ Takashi Kawakami & Naoshige Shimizu, China's self-driving car
push hits legal and cost roadblocks, Nikkei Asia (Jan. 19, 2023),
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Automobiles/China-s-self-driving-car-
push-hits-legal-and-cost-road blocks.
\61\ Id.
\62\ Linda Lew, Chinese robotaxi companies outnumber Waymo in
global push, L.A. Times (Oct. 27, 2025), https://ww w.latimes.com/
business/story/2025-10-27/chinese-robotaxis-race-waymo-to-take-
driverless-cars-global.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 50 different Chinese cities are testing AVs and over 20
cities are actively testing both robotaxis and autonomous buses.\63\ In
August 2024, the Chinese government announced it had issued a total of
16,000 test licenses for AVs and approved 32,000 kilometers of roadway
for AV testing.\64\ Chinese technology company Baidu operates a fleet
of about 1,700 vehicles, with roughly 400 robotaxis tested in Wuhan
alone and over 900 AVs deployed in Beijing. Another Chinese robotaxi
company, Pony.ai, currently provides over 26,000 trips every week in
China. These robotaxi companies have plans to expand operations outside
of China to places like Singapore, Dubai, and Abu Dhabi. Chinese
robotaxi companies are also looking to Europe, considering launches in
Germany, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere.\65\ WeRide, for example,
has obtained autonomous driving licenses in five countries and is
performing autonomous driving R&D, testing, and operations in more than
10 countries.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Xinhua, Autonomous Driving Shifts into High Gear in China,
China Daily (Aug. 13, 2024), https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202408/
13/WS66bace6da3104e74fddb9b9e.html; Cao Yingying, Testing on Public
Roads a Leap Forward for L3 Autonomous Vehicles in China, China Daily
(June 17, 2024), https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202406/17/
WS666f8a64a31095c51c
5092fb.html.
\64\ Press Release, State Council of the People's Republic of
China, 16,000 Test Licenses for Autonomous Vehicles Issued in China
(Aug. 27, 2024), https://english.www.gov.cn/news/202408/
27/
content_WS66cd745ac6d0868f4e8ea485.html#: :text=At%20a%20press%20confere
nce%20in,
senior%20official%20from%20the%20ministry.
\65\ Lew, supra note 62.
\66\ Chang et al., supra note 59, at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of the AV growth in China has been government-driven, defined
by policy support from the national to city level.\67\ Industry growth
in the U.S., on the other hand, has been market-driven. The U.S. should
not seek to emulate Chinese policy. There is, however, a clear and
present need for domestic policy that will allow innovators to flourish
while prioritizing safety. Avoiding being outpaced by the Chinese AV
industry will require partnership between American AV developers and
Federal and state governments. This can be achieved through the
creation of a Federal AV policy framework, as laid out in AVIA's
Securing American Leadership in Autonomous Vehicles and by instilling
public trust in AV technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Building Public Trust in AVs
Public trust in AVs is critical to bring AV technology's benefits
to communities across the United States. AV deployments have shown that
public trust can be built through greater public exposure to the
technology and transparency in operations.
A. Growing Public Trust in AVs
AV deployments have grown public trust in AV technology. For
example, a study by J.D. Power surveyed residents of cities where AVs
have been deployed and found that 77 percent of riders were comfortable
with AVs being tested on streets and highways, compared to 35 percent
of non-AV riders in the same city and 21 percent of individuals
nationally.\68\ According to the same study, 76 percent of non-riders
expressed a desire to hear about others' experiences with AVs.\69\ This
demonstrates opportunities for public education to pave the way for
expanded AV deployments that, in turn, benefit more people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ J.D. Power, supra note 7.
\69\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. AVIA's TRUST Principles
The AV industry believes that public trust goes hand-in-hand with
AV deployment, and that we must earn and maintain that trust. AVIA has
created a set of TRUST Principles to guide our work with government,
communities, and the public at large.\70\ The TRUST Principles, when
combined with the policy proposals in Securing American Leadership in
Autonomous Vehicles,\71\ will help instill public trust and ensure
benefits of AV technologies can reach more American communities. AVIA's
TRUST Principles are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ See Trust Principles, Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n, https:/
/theavindustry.org/trust-principles (last visited Feb. 2, 2026).
\71\ Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n, supra note 1.
Transparent Interactions with Government Officials and the
Public. This includes responding in a timely manner to
appropriate questions and data requests from lawmakers and
regulators, making experts available to address potential
concerns, sharing incident information with regulatory
officials as required under state and Federal regulatory
frameworks, disclosing crash-related information as required by
law, and fully participating in any formal crash investigations
conducted by government officials. This also includes making
safety evaluation reports public, engaging communities prior to
commencing AV operations and on an ongoing basis, and providing
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
public education on AVs through a variety of channels.
Responsible Integration into Communities and Deep Engagement
with Law Enforcement and First Responders. This includes early
engagement with law enforcement and first responders prior to
operating on public roads and implementing first responder
interaction plans to provide important information about AVs to
first responders. To further these efforts, AVIA formed the Law
Enforcement and First Responder Engagement Council, designed to
strengthen collaboration between the AV industry and first
responders.\72\ The Council is comprised of law enforcement
officials, first responders, and AV industry representatives,
all of whom share the goal of ensuring AVs are deployed in a
safe, responsible manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association Introduces Law
Enforcement and First Responder Engagement Council, Autonomous Vehicle
Indus. Ass'n (Sept. 25, 2024), https://www.theav
industry.org/press-release/autonomous-vehicle-industry-association-
introduces-law-enforcement
-and-first-responder-engagement-council.
Upholding Cybersecurity and Privacy Standards. AV developers
should review and implement relevant cybersecurity and privacy
best practices and standards for AV design, testing, and
deployment, including conducting regular risk assessments, as
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
appropriate.
Safety-First Culture and Governance. By building safety-
first cultures, AV developers prioritize safety in all aspects
of vehicle design and operation. This can be supported through
the development of regulatory standards for ADS design and
performance, e.g., those relevant to safety cases and
behavioral competency testing.
Transportation Policies that Will Increase Safety and Public
Trust of AVs. AVIA supports state and Federal policies that
will increase public trust in AV technologies, including
requiring first responder interaction plans, and requiring AVs
be capable of complying with all applicable traffic laws and
relevant Federal safety standards. This can also include crash
reporting (and the creation of a National AV Safety Data
Repository), increased funding for NHTSA and the FMCSA to
reinforce their ability to administer Federal regulatory
processes.
VII. Building a Strong AV Policy Framework That Complements State
Regulation
In recent years, U.S. states have taken the lead on AV policymaking
as the Federal government has struggled to move forward with a Federal
policy framework. Today, 26 states have put in place AV deployment
statutes.\73\ Many of these laws follow common themes of authorizing
Level 4 or 5 AVs within the state; requiring that AVs abide by traffic
regulations; establishing appropriate protocols with law enforcement
and first responders; and addressing state insurance requirements. The
AV industry commends state policymakers for their interest in this
life-saving technology and we hope to see more states pass AV
deployment statutes in the coming years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ The following states represented by Committee members have an
AV deployment law in place: Texas, South Dakota, Mississippi, Nebraska,
Kansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, Utah, Montana, West Virginia,
Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, and Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While state deployment laws are helpful, they are inherently
limited to motor vehicle policy matters that can be regulated by U.S.
states. Only the Federal government can implement uniform, nationwide
rules governing vehicle design, construction, and performance. To
advance American transportation and technological excellence, the
Federal government must move forward on AV policy within its lane of
authority that complements the policymaking of state governments.
Leadership from the Federal and state governments is needed, and both
must be working together to move AVs forward.
This year's surface transportation reauthorization presents an
important opportunity for the Congress to advance a Federal policy
framework on AVs and we encourage this Committee to seize the
opportunity. In January 2025, AVIA released Securing American
Leadership in Autonomous Vehicles,\74\ which details a comprehensive
set of Federal policy recommendations that would accelerate the safe
and timely deployment of AV technology and solidify the U.S. as the
global leader in this transformative field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n, supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The intent of these recommendations is not to create an entirely
new regulatory structure for AVs, but instead ensure that the existing
regulatory structure, including the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (``FMVSS''), include considerations for the nature of ADS-
equipped vehicles. AVs remain subject to the same self-certification
process and recall requirements that traditional vehicles are subject
to under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Importantly, NHTSA would still
retain its authority to conduct investigations and inspections, as well
as request records, from ADS manufacturers, just as it can for
manufacturers of traditional vehicles and vehicle equipment.\75\ The
agency's traditional powers to investigate defects related to motor
vehicle safety or non-compliance with FMVSS would likewise remain
applicable to ADS.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ See 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30166.
\76\ See 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To maintain and strengthen American leadership in the AV industry,
Congress should enact Federal legislation that outlines the necessary
statutory and regulatory elements that are critical to the industry's
success. This legislation should include the full universe of AV use
cases, from small delivery vehicles, to robotaxis, to commercial motor
vehicles. Many of AVIA's policy priorities have been incorporated into
the SELF DRIVE Act of 2026,\77\ the AMERICA DRIVES Act,\78\ and the AV
Accessibility Act.\79\ AVIA strongly encourages this Committee to
consider these priorities as it considers its own AV legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ See Safely Ensuring Lives Future Deployment and Research in
Vehicle Evolution Act of 2026, H.R. ___, 119th Cong., discussion draft
available here: https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloud
front.net/03_H_R_SELF_DRIVE_Act_c6810113bc.pdf.
\78\ AMERICA DRIVES Act, H.R. 4661, 119th Cong. (2025), available
here: https://www.con
gress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4661/text.
\79\ AV Accessibility Act, H.R. 4419, 119th Cong. (2025), available
here: https://www.con
gress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4419/text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To best support the further development of the AV industry, Federal
AV legislation should:
Require an ``ADS Safety Case.'' As directed by Congress,
NHTSA should initiate rulemaking, informed by industry and the
work of existing standards setting bodies, to require that
commercially deployed ADS manufacturers develop, and provide
upon request, a detailed record (often described as a ``safety
case'') \80\ of the basis for the manufacturer's conclusion
that the design, construction, and performance of an ADS
protects against an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety,
as defined in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30102(a)(9). Safety cases have
been used as part of safety assurance in a number of other
fields, including energy,\81\ aviation,\82\ and defense,\83\
and have been proposed for use with AI systems.\84\ The ADS
safety case would include: (1) a technical description of the
ADS's parts, capabilities, and integration into the vehicle
platform, (2) explanation of how the ADS performs all elements
of the driving task, (3) engineering methodologies used to
design and assess the ADS's performance and ensure the absence
of unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety, (4) a description
of ADS's safety performance, (5) evidence supporting the
manufacturer's claim for validating the ADS's performance
competencies, and (6) an explanation of how the ADS detects and
responds to crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ See, e.g., Welcome to Safety Case 101, Aurora (Mar. 8, 2022),
https://aurora.tech/newsroom/welcome-to-safety-case-101.
\81\ See, e.g., What are Safety Cases? A Historical Overview,
SynergenOG (Dec. 12, 2024), https://synergenog.com/what-are-safety-
cases-history/ (explaining the history and the safety benefits of using
safety cases when managing high-risk oil and gas energy and industrial
facilities, including onshore processing plants, offshore fixed
platforms, and floating vessels).
\82\ See, e.g., Safety Case Development, Va. Tech, https://
maap.ictas.vt.edu/capabilities/safety
cases.html (last visited Feb. 2, 2026) (explaining the robust
development of safety cases for aviation operations).
\83\ See, e.g., DSA 03.OME Part 1: Defence Code of Practice (DCOP)
103, U.K. Def. Safety Auth. (Aug. 2024), https://
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/689f2414cc5ef8b4c5fc44b4/
DSA_03.OME_Part_1_DCOP_103_-_OME_Safety_and_Environmental_Case_-
_SEC.pdf (describing the extensive requirement to use safety cases for
the U.K. Ministry of Defence).
\84\ See Geoffrey Irving, Safety cases at AISI, AI Sec. Inst. (Aug.
23, 2024), https://www
.aisi.gov.uk/blog/safety-cases-at-aisi.
Establish ADS Competencies. Public trust in AVs is essential
to their successful deployment. As part of the required safety
case, ADS manufacturers should explain how their ADS meets a
set of key competencies, including: (1) the ability to perform
the entire dynamic driving task (``DDT'') within its
Operational Design Domain (``ODD'') and to recognize and
appropriately respond to the boundaries of its ODD; (2)
accurately detecting and responding to relevant road users,
including vulnerable road users and emergency vehicles and
personnel; (3) transferring control back to human driver when
necessary for Level 3 systems; (4) achieving a ``minimal risk
condition'' as defined by SAE J3016 for Level 4 and 5 systems,
when necessary; and (5) complying with applicable local traffic
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
laws and laws relevant to the performance of the DDT.
Establish a National AV Safety Data Repository. As directed
by Congress, NHTSA should establish, implement, and maintain a
National AV Safety Data Repository, to collect safety-relevant
data about AV incidents and expand AV data reporting to include
state-level location of AVs. This repository would provide
timely information to the public and regulators to promote AV
transparency and accountability. The database should include
only material and relevant data and specify a meaningful
minimum damage threshold for reportable crashes. NHTSA should
further ensure that all information shared in the repository is
subject to strict confidential business information
protections.
Clarify and Modernize the FMVSS. Whether by legislation or
through congressionally directed action by NHTSA (by
interpretation and/or regulatory changes) it should be
clarified that the FMVSS requirements for manually operated
driving controls and certain indicators and telltales are not
applicable to Level 4 or Level 5 ADS-dedicated vehicles, since
they are intended for an in-vehicle human driver only. Such
action would support AV innovation by avoiding imposing
requirements that do not advance safety and hamper the
opportunity to re-imagine what motor vehicles look like and how
they are designed, paving the way for greater accessibility,
safety, and societal utility.
Revise the ``Make Inoperative'' Prohibition. Existing
Federal law prevents manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and
repair businesses from disabling any safety-related device or
design element required by an FMVSS in a vehicle for any
purpose after its first sale. To ensure that innovative safety
and technical features can be adopted, AV legislation should
clarify that making a vehicle's manual controls inaccessible or
altering their functionality for safety reasons during
autonomous operation does not run afoul of the ``make
inoperative'' provision of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49
U.S.C. Sec. 30122).
Expand the FAST Act Testing Exception. An exemption included
in the FAST Act (49 U.S.C. Sec. 30112(b)(10)) permits only
qualifying original equipment manufacturers to test and
evaluate vehicles that do not conform to the FMVSS. AV
legislation should further include a means for AV developers to
conduct commercial operations, including the carrying of
members of the public as passengers and transporting freight as
part of that testing or evaluation.
Move Forward with an AV Demonstration Program. Direct NHTSA
to move forward with a voluntary AV demonstration program that
offers uniform Federal rules that provide oversight for the
safe design, construction, and deployment on public roads for
ADS-equipped vehicles manufactured and operated by participants
admitted into the program. Such a program would benefit AV
developers seeking to demonstrate innovative vehicle designs
while also providing NHTSA with additional data on AV
operations beyond the safety data collected under the National
AV Safety Data Repository proposed above.
Advance AV Cybersecurity and Privacy. Congress should
include in its comprehensive AV legislation language requiring
AV manufacturers to develop cybersecurity and privacy plans for
their technologies. Cybersecurity plans should include a
written cybersecurity policy describing the manufacturer's
practices for detecting and responding to cyberattacks,
unauthorized intrusions, and false and spurious messages or
vehicle control commands. For privacy, AV manufacturers should
be required to develop a plan with respect to the collection,
use, sharing, and storage of personal information collected by
an AV and a method for providing notice to vehicle owners or
occupants about the privacy policy.
Promote AV Accessibility. Congress should support access to
AVs for people with disabilities by passing the AV
Accessibility Act.\85\ The Act would prohibit states from
issuing motor vehicle operator licenses in a manner that
prevents people with disabilities, or other individuals without
a driver's license, from riding as a passenger in an ADS-
equipped vehicle. This Act also requires the Secretary of
Transportation, in collaboration with the National Academies of
Science, to conduct an accessible infrastructure study to
determine the best practices for public transportation to
improve the ability of Americans with blindness and other
disabilities to find, access, and use ride-hail AVs, including
during pickup and drop off.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Autonomous Vehicle Accessibility Act, H.R. 7126, 118th Cong.
(2024) https://www.con
gress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7126/text.
AVIA is a partner of the United Spinal Association's SecureRide
Coalition,\86\ and would encourage Congress to provide funding
for the testing and development of the Universal Docking
Interface Geometry (``UDIG'') wheelchair securement standard,
which helps wheelchair users automatically and safely secure
their wheelchairs in a motor vehicle. Funding is needed to
expand UDIG testing to a wide array of vehicle configurations,
including ADS-equipped vehicles with nontraditional seating
arrangements, to ensure wheelchair users can secure their
wheelchairs across vehicle designs, greatly expanding overall
accessibility.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ See SecureRide Coalition, United Spinal Ass'n, https://
unitedspinal.org/secureride/ (last visited Feb. 2, 2026).
\87\ For more details on UDIG research, see AVIA's recent response
to a request for comment from the USDOT's Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Research and Technology. See Comment Letter on Request
for Information-Research Ideas To Support Nationwide Automated Vehicle
(AV) Deployment from the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association (Oct.
17, 2025), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2025-1029-0026.
Support the Wider Deployment of ADS-Equipped Commercial
Motor Vehicles. To ensure uniform, national rules for operating
autonomous commercial motor vehicles (``CMVs'') in interstate
commerce, AVIA recommends codifying the USDOT's 2018
interpretation that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (``FMCSRs'') do not assume that a CMV driver is
always a human or that a human is necessarily present onboard a
CMV, and that when a CMV does not require a human operator,
none of the human-specific FMCSRs (i.e., drug testing, hours-
of-service, commercial driver's licenses, and physical
qualification requirements) apply.\88\ Further, to reduce
barriers to interstate commerce, AV legislation should include
a provision that when operating in interstate commerce, a CMV
equipped with a Level 4 or Level 5 ADS is expressly allowed to
operate without a human driver on board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Preparing for the Future of
Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0 (AV 3.0) 9 (2018), https://
www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/policy-initiatives/
automated-vehicles/320711/preparing-future-transportation-automated-
vehicle-30.pdf.
Streamline and Update Regulations to Accommodate the
Integration of ADS into CMVs. This includes updating vehicle
width limits to provide flexibility for the placement of
sensors and other key safety technologies. This also includes
updating regulations to allow for the use of cab-mounted
beacons as a warning device, which would update antiquated
regulations and improve safety for both autonomous CMVs and
human drivers. In October 2025, FMCSA issued a waiver that
allows ADS-equipped CMVs to use cab-mounted beacons on their
vehicles rather than physically place warning devices on the
roadway.\89\ That waiver should be codified to ensure its
benefits are available permanently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ See Letter from Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin. to Aurora
Operations, Inc. (Oct. 10, 2025), https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/
fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2025-10/Letter%20to%20Aurora%20
Operations%2C%20Inc.%20-
Waiver%20of%20Warning%20Device%20Requirements%20Terms%20
and%20Conditions.pdf; see also Off. of Sci. & Tech. Policy, White
House, Trump Administration Science & Technology Highlights: Year One
48 (2026), https://www.white
house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/WHOSTP-2025-Wins.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. Conclusion
The continued deployment of AV technologies will improve roadway
safety and deliver substantial economic benefits across the country. To
ensure these benefits are realized across the United States, we must
preserve American leadership in the AV industry and implement a
forward-looking Federal policy framework for AVs. I thank the Committee
for its leadership on these important issues. The Autonomous Vehicle
Industry Association stands ready to serve as a resource to the
Committee on technical and policy matters and to work collaboratively
to make safe autonomous vehicles a reality for Americans nationwide.
Senator Curtis [presiding]. Thank you. Professor Smith,
your five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. BRYANT WALKER SMITH, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF
LAW, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Dr. Smith. Thank you for your invitation. I'll offer seven
points. First, American driving is dangerous. Automated driving
could help if we're careful about it, but people are dying
today, not because we're careful about automated driving, but,
rather, because we're careless about road safety generally.
Other countries do care. Driving in the U.S. is twice as deadly
as in Canada and Australia. As a South Carolinian, I'm 10 times
more likely to die in a crash than my friends in the U.K.--10
times. These countries aren't hiding some vast secret fleet of
AVs. I can't yet hail a robotaxi in London, but I can cross the
street.
Second, arrogance is careless. AVs have tremendous
potential, but believing they will be a panacea virtually
guarantees they won't because that confidence blinds us to
risks. Many engineers working on AVs show humility. They talk
with me about what's hard, what went wrong, and what's
uncertain. They want to learn from local officials. I wish AV
companies would show more of this humility in their PR. Third,
the best proxy for the safety of AVs is the trustworthiness of
AV companies. There are no self-driving or driverless cars. The
companies that develop and deploy AVs are the drivers. This
means that an AV is only as safe as the companies responsible
for it. We can and should proactively assess their
trustworthiness. AVs won't be perfect, but a company can still
do right after its technology fails. It can explain what went
wrong, how it's addressing the actual harm, how it's reducing
future risks, and, critically, what it's learned more broadly.
We need to see more of this. Doing right does not mean forcing
victims into arbitrations, and it does not mean buying their
silence and, thereby, misleading the public. These are
betrayals of trust.
Fourth, safety is a marriage, not a wedding. Safety is a
lifelong commitment that continues as long as an AV is on the
road. It's not just a one-time test or certification or
checklist. A credible safety case must be a living document
that is clearly supported, robustly interrogated, and routinely
updated. Vehicles placed on our roads stay there for decades
and, therefore, need oversight for decades. NHTSA provides some
of this oversight, and AVs will dramatically expand the scope
of it, yet both NHTSA and FMCSA are tiny, under-resourced
agencies with huge mandates.
Fifth, AVs are an especially visible part of a much broader
discussion of AI. As a society, we're likely to place many of
our hopes and fears about AI generally and AVs specifically.
The Transforming Transportation Advisory Committee, which I
vice-chaired, addressed many of these issues, including
employment, accessibility, sustainability in the face of
climate change, privacy vis-a-vis both companies and
governments, and fundamental questions of power. For each, we
need clear policy goals and an iterative approach to achieving
them. Sixth, local government has essential expertise. Few
appreciate how much local governments are subsidizing automated
driving. First responders, for example, solve all kinds of
problems today, from waking up people in robotaxis, to
literally moving AVs that are stuck. These local officials
deserve our respect. They want the people who remotely assist
AVs to be in the U.S. They need to know AVs will help rather
than hurt their response to disasters. They want to be able to
ticket AV companies for moving violations just as they would
any other driver. They emphasize that every city is unique, and
AVs must operate accordingly.
Finally, we must empower, not disempower, our communities.
Preempting State and local authority would be profoundly
shortsighted, and I say this as someone who believes strongly
in the potential of AVs. Many states want the Federal
Government to lead on AV policy, but great leaders lead.
Telling USDOT what to do and providing the resources to do it
would help much more than telling states what not to do.
Preemption could create litigation rather than certainty. It
could bar states from getting unsafe vehicles and unsafe
drivers, human or otherwise, off the road.
Our AV industry started through Federal research decades
ago and then grew through our system of federalism. Brand
America does have a serious credibility problem abroad, but
preemption does not solve it. In a scary time of technological
change, we need to make sure that communities and the people in
them have control and feel in control. We can deploy both
technology and policy in a way that protects and empowers them.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Bryant Walker Smith, Associate Professor of
Law, University of South Carolina
Thank you for inviting my testimony. I would like to share seven
points for your consideration.
First: We should also care about traffic safety when we're not
discussing automated driving.
I think of a three-year-old in the hospital--hurt, scared, crying--
who wants his mom to hold him and comfort him. But she's not there. She
can't be. She died, while pregnant, because a drunk driver hit her.
This family is all too real, but they're not famous. After all,
some 100 Americans will die in traffic today and every day. And even
though these are deaths of violence--unexpected, often lonely, often
painful--we don't really seem to care. Until it happens to us. Or until
we start talking about something like automated driving.
I say this because we actually know how to prevent so much of the
carnage on our roads. Other wealthy countries have reduced their
traffic deaths in the 15 years we've been increasing ours. On a per-
mile basis, driving in the United States is twice as dangerous as in
Canada and Australia. As a South Carolinian, I'm ten times more likely
to die in a crash than my friends in the United Kingdom. Ten times.
These countries are not hiding a vast secret fleet of automated
vehicles. I can't yet hail a robotaxi in Toronto or Sydney or London.
But I can cross the street.
I believe three things: Driving is dangerous. Automated driving
could help, if we are careful about it. And people are dying today not
because we are careful about automated driving but, rather, because we
are careless about road safety generally.
Second: Arrogance is careless.
Believing that automated driving will be a panacea virtually
guarantees it won't be, because that confidence blinds us to risks we
don't expect and might even create.
The story of technology, and of policy, is about replacing an old
set of problems with a new set of problems and hoping that, in
aggregate, our new problems are less bad than our old problems.
An example: The first cars were hailed as environmentally
friendly--because, unlike horses, cars don't poop. Except that it turns
out they do. Even after the horrific smog and the mass lead poisoning
of 20th Century America, here's a fact: A horse dumps about 25 pounds
of manure a day, and a car dumps about 25 pounds of carbon dioxide a
day.
I admire many of the mid-level engineers who are working on
automated driving. Not just because they are doing incredible,
important work. Also because, often, they show real humility. At least
privately, they talk about what's hard, what went wrong, and what's
uncertain. They want to listen to and learn from local officials. They
engage with academic researchers, and they show their work.
I wish more automated driving companies demonstrated more of this
humility in their public relations and in their lobbying.
Third: The best proxy for the safety of AVs is the trustworthiness of
the companies developing and deploying them.
Automated driving currently encompasses a wide range of
technologies, applications, business cases, and companies at various
stages of maturity.
In my view, these companies ``drive'' and ``operate'' their AVs
through a combination of their machine agents and their human agents.
In other words, these vehicles are not ``self-driving'' or
``driverless.'' They have drivers, and those drivers are the companies
developing and deploying them.
It follows that an AV is only as safe as the companies responsible
for it. This is important, because while it is possible to evaluate the
performance of an AV after a crash (provided relevant data are
available and credible), it is much more difficult to determine the
safety of an AV in advance. But we can proactively assess the
trustworthiness--that is, the integrity--of the company driving that
AV.
A trustworthy company shares its safety philosophy by explaining
what it is doing, why it believes that to be reasonably safe, and why
we can believe it. It makes a promise to the public that it markets
only what it believes to be safe, that it will be candid about its
limits and failures, and that when it fails it will make things right.
And it keeps that promise by appropriately managing public
expectations, by supervising the entire product lifecycle, and by
mitigating harms promptly, fully, and publicly.
AVs will not be perfect. But in those moments of technological
failure, a company can still do right. It can explain what went wrong,
the steps it is taking to address the actual harm, the steps it is
taking to reduce future risks, and--critically--what it has learned
more broadly. One unforeseen risk points to many more foreseeable
risks.
Doing right does not mean simply and repeatedly saying, in effect,
``Of course our system is safe; there was an issue, but now we've fixed
it.'' It does not mean forcing victims into arbitrations that are
almost certain to disfavor them. And it does not mean buying their
silence and thereby misleading the public. These are betrayals of
trust.
Fourth: Safety is a marriage, not a wedding
Safety is a lifelong commitment that begins when an AV is being
developed and continues as long as that vehicle is on the road. Safety
cannot be reduced to just a one-time test, a one-time certification, or
a one-time approval. A safety case must be a living document that is
robustly interrogated and routinely updated.
The vehicles placed on our roads stay there for decades. They can
outlast the federal safety standards to which they were certified (or
from which they received an exemption) and even the companies that
manufactured them.
NHTSA provides some oversight of these older vehicles through its
authority over defects, but states primarily regulate operational
safety on light-duty vehicles. And when these vehicles or their
drivers--human or otherwise--are unsafe, it is states that can actually
order them off our roads.
Automated driving, however, will dramatically expand the scope of
NHTSA's oversight authority over these vehicles. An individual vehicle
that is not properly maintained or whose occupants are not properly
belted is not necessarily defective under Federal law. But if such a
vehicle should not be operated, then an automated driving system that
nonetheless engages on it could be defective.
Both NHTSA and FMCSA are tiny agencies with mandates that, even
now, are impossible. Effectively supervising the operational safety of
automated vehicles will require significant new resources for these
agencies. This includes experts in specific technologies. It also
includes hackers in the broad and best sense of the term: People who
can deconstruct a system, question assumptions, see what's missing, and
ask whether conclusions necessarily follow from premises.
Fifth: AVs are an especially visible part of a much broader discussion
of AI.
Almost everyone interacts with motor vehicles almost every day.
Because this mode of transportation is so visible, as a society we're
likely to disproportionately focus many of our hopes and fears about AI
generally on AVs specifically.
In late 2024, the U.S. DOT's Transforming Transportation Advisory
Committee, which I vice-chaired, released recommendations about
automated driving specifically and AI generally. We noted that the
uncertain nature of both technology and regulation merits both clear
policy goals and an iterative approach to achieving those goals.
We recognized the profound implications of AI. We also highlighted
that many of these issues might fall outside the authority or
capability of U.S. DOT to address. In some cases, such as privacy vis-
a-vis both governments and companies, the lines of responsibility among
Federal agencies are particularly unclear.
All of these topics, however, are within Congress's power to
consider, if not fully to decide. Among many others, they include
employment, social structures, access to justice, and power generally.
And it is critical to consider the impacts of automated driving and
other advanced technologies on communities as well as on individuals.
Sixth: Local government has essential expertise.
Very few people appreciate the extent to which local governments
are currently subsidizing automated driving.
When AVs come to an area, local officials share maps of schools,
information about special events and emergencies, and reports of
incidents. Local first responders spot and solve all kinds of AV-
related problems, from waking up people who are sleeping in the back of
a robotaxi to literally moving AVs that are stuck. All of this amounts
to a significant public investment.
These local officials who interact with AVs every day know more
about them than almost anyone. They deserve our respect and our
attention. They want to make sure that the remote assistants who play a
critical role in automated driving are within the state and not on the
other side of the world.
They want to know whether these automated driving companies have
realistic disaster plans for the kind of disasters that could disable
communications, render remote assistance impossible, and necessitate
quick emergency response and evacuation. And they want to know how they
can hold automated driving companies accountable for the kind of
everyday moving violations that get regular drivers a ticket.
Fundamentally, they want to know that these companies are giving
their communities the respect they deserve.
Finally: We must empower, not disempower, our communities.
Preempting state and local authority would be profoundly short-
sighted--and I say this as someone who believes in the potential of
automated driving.
Many states very much want the Federal Government to lead on AV
policy. But great leaders lead. They actually do the work. They don't
just order others to stop working. Telling U.S. DOT what to do (and
providing the resources needed to do it) would be far more helpful than
telling states what not to do.
Preemption would not necessarily create certainty. Rather, it could
lead to years of litigation over what the relevant statutory language
means and therefore what states can still do and therefore what
companies can actually do. Over the years, I have read many versions of
potential preemption language. In every case, the preemptive effect and
even the preemptive intent of that language have been unclear to me.
Preemption would not necessarily improve safety. Again: It is
states that can order unsafe vehicles and unsafe drivers--human or
otherwise--off the roads. And it is states whose juries tell
manufacturers to keep up with new technologies when federal standards
fall behind. Automakers don't like to be sued. But they know how to
manage, and the best ones take seriously their responsibility to fairly
compensate victims.
Preemption would not necessarily improve global competitiveness.
Our AV industry is flourishing today because of the foundational
research that the Federal Government supported decades ago. And while
Brand America does have a serious credibility problem abroad, this has
nothing to do with our commitment to federalism at home.
In fact, this federalism offers choice to U.S. and foreign
companies. Some companies have embraced California for the certainty
they believe it offers, and some have embraced Texas for the
flexibility they believe it offers. Waymo has done both, and now has
activity in multiple states and even countries.
Finally, there is a fundamental issue that discussions about
preemption often seem to overlook.
We find ourselves in a time of profound change. Change often
involves a loss of control, whether actual or perceived. That can be
scary and destabilizing both for individuals and for societies.
The ability of communities to set their own rules--and yes, even
restrictions--on AVs acts as a steam release valve on a boiler. It
keeps pressure from building up, and that in turn reduces the risk of
catastrophic explosion.
Would I advise a community to ban AVs? Absolutely not. I would tell
them that we should be concerned about automated driving but terrified
about conventional driving. Nevertheless, preserving that option lets
me have that conversation.
AVs will survive some location friction and a few modern-day
Mackinac Islands--if we deploy them in a way that truly empowers
communities and respects people.
Senator Curtis. Thank you to our witnesses. We'll now begin
our questioning, and I'll yield to my colleague, Senator
Blackburn, to begin the questioning.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Blackburn. Thank you so much, and to each of you,
thank you for taking the time to be here today.
Mr. Farrah, I want to come to you first. 2017, I was over
in the House and chaired Comms and Tech over at the Energy and
Commerce Committee, and that is when we took the first
legislative text to the Committee to deal with autonomous
vehicles and to allow this technology to flourish. We had
worked on it for about 3 years to get to that point, and, of
course, we had some folks that did not realize the safety
components that come from working on this technology, so they
chose to repeatedly shut down the guidelines that would be
there for AVs. And I want you to just touch on how this
technology, the autonomous technology, helps make our roads
safer, helps make our vehicles safer and more responsive, and
how it is helping to reduce fatalities?
Mr. Farrah. Senator Blackburn, thank you very much for the
question, and before I answer, I'll just say thank you very
much for all your leadership going back to when you were in the
House and now here in the Senate. And I'll say that it has been
quite a few years since a lot of this discussion has started,
but a couple of things have really changed. The first thing
that's changed is this is no longer science fiction. This is on
roads. As I said in my opening statement, 26 states proactively
authorize this technology. They are carrying passengers right
at this very moment, so this is a reality for many, many
Americans. The second thing that's changed is that we are no
longer alone in the quest to have self-driving vehicles. We now
have strategic competitors, most notably, the People's Republic
of China, that are bound and determined to be the global
leaders when it comes to autonomous vehicles. But without a
Federal policy framework, we are asking our innovators to fight
with one hand behind their back, and so that is why it's so
important to pass a Federal policy framework.
And you touched on safety. This is the driving force behind
our industry. We want to make our roads safer. We reject this
idea that we just have to accept all the fatalities, accept all
the injuries, accept millions of Americans being held back
because vehicles are not accessible enough. And fundamentally,
what we're trying to do with safety is we're trying to overcome
human error. We're trying to overcome the things that Chairman
Cruz talked about in his opening statement, the big drivers of
fatalities in this country.
Senator Blackburn. And Mr. Moravy--pardon me--and Dr. Pena,
let me come to you. I know that you all are working on safety,
and we talked about this yesterday when we met, and thank you
again for your time, and one of the things that people are
concerned about is the amount of consumer data. They like the
safety, they want you to innovate, they want to lower
fatalities, but they're saying what kind of data are you
getting? So, how are you all collecting and storing and working
through the data? Mr. Moravy?
Mr. Moravy. Thank you, Senator Blackburn, and I appreciate
the time we had yesterday to discuss a little bit ahead of it.
With regards to the data that we collect to improve our
products, you know, we always use an opt-in policy, and that
occurs when you select the advanced driving systems. We always
aggregate and anonymize the data to ensure, you know, customer
privacy, and then we use the swath of data that was collected,
you know, to create generalizations about individual scenarios
that we can improve.
Senator Blackburn. OK. So, you do not store the data from
the car. You anonymize that data.
Mr. Moravy. That's correct.
Senator Blackburn. All right.
Mr. Moravy. The data comes to our central----
Senator Blackburn. Let me ask you this. I know you all are
focused on U.S. production, so how are you dealing with supply
chains? And, Dr. Pena, I'm coming with you to you on that one
also after his answer.
Mr. Moravy. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. Yes, as you may
know, Tesla produces 4 of the 5 top U.S.-made cars, and we've
always been committed to building locally. We produce all of
the vehicles sold in the U.S. by Tesla in the U.S. We have
facilities in both Texas and Fremont, California, that do that,
and we work hard with our supply chain----
Senator Blackburn. OK.
Mr. Moravy.--to ensure that they are also local to the U.S.
and North America.
Senator Blackburn. OK.
Mr. Moravy. Over 95 percent of our parts come from North
America.
Senator Blackburn. OK. Dr. Pena?
Dr. Pena. We are not a vehicle manufacturer. We design and
build an autonomous driving system, so that's the hardware and
software that we then install onto a variety of vehicle
platforms at our factory in Arizona.
Senator Blackburn. But are you affected by supply chains?
Is that a constriction?
Dr. Pena. We like to have a stable supply of vehicles, and
so it does affect us.
Senator Blackburn. OK. All right. That's what I wanted to
know. Thank you.
Senator Curtis. Thank you, Senator. I call on Senator
Peters now for his questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Peters. Thank you, Senator Curtis, and thank
Ranking Member Cantwell for deferring. I appreciate that.
As a senator from Michigan, I have long focused on issues
related to autonomous vehicles, and I believe that today, more
than ever, Congress cannot continue to stand on the sidelines
when it comes to AVs. First, we know that this technology is a
huge part of the future of the global automotive industry, but
right now, as has been said, China is investing heavily in
dominating the autonomous vehicle market. So, I believe it's
absolutely imperative that we take action to ensure that
American innovation and American standards lead the way on the
world stage and not China.
Second, it's a matter of protecting good-paying American
jobs. Congress cannot be silent on a technology that will
literally shape the future of mobility. Automotive jobs have
been at the heart of my state of Michigan and our manufacturing
economy for over a century, and we need to ensure that those
jobs stay here in America. And finally and most importantly, as
has been said, this technology will save lives. Today, more
than 100 Americans die on our roadway each and every day. As we
sit here today, a hundred people will die today, and we must do
everything we can to harness solutions with the power to bring
that number as close to zero as possible, but that also
requires building trust. Americans deserve to know with
certainty that these vehicles will deliver safer streets and
that Federal regulators have laid out clear rules of the road.
The bottom line, it's up to Congress to do something, and
that's why today, I'm calling on our Chairman and my colleagues
on the Committee to work with me to make that a reality, and
I'm calling for a bipartisan AV title in our next Surface
Transportation bill. We can't wait any longer.
With that, I got a couple questions. First, Professor
Smith, you and I share the position that it is both avoidable
and unacceptable to have 40,000 deaths on our roads every year.
And I believe we need to harness every solution to that
problem, as evidenced by the hearing that I held on this issue
last year, and I believe that AVs are certainly a part of that
answer. However, even autonomous vehicles will not be perfect.
We know that accidents will occur, and I believe we should
assess those incidents against the larger backdrop of our
extremely dangerous roads today. So, my question for you is, in
your opinion, how should legislators approach the idea of
relative safety when it comes to AVs, and why should we not be
satisfied with the default level of danger that we see on our
roads today?
Dr. Smith. Thank you, Senator Peters. Because the current
level of carnage is horrific and is preventable, and we know
how to prevent it. And so, with automated driving, we have
these two different frameworks that are kind of intentioned.
One, is the car framework: can we save one more person? The
other is the aviation framework: any crash is a failure and
unacceptable. And so, automated driving is, essentially, this
challenge of shifting from that first paradigm to the second.
And so, in assessing the safety of any crash, right, we could
ask, well, did the system perform at least as well as a human
driver in the equivalent scenario? Did it perform at least as
well as a competing technology, and, importantly, did it
perform better than the last one that failed? In other words,
we can't have static standards. The bar has to keep going up.
Senator Peters. Right. Well, I thank you for that answer,
but I'd also, Mr. Chairman, like to enter into the record an
op-ed from a neurologist published in the New York Times about
his experience with car accident victims, and how recent peer-
reviewed AV data is too promising not to pursue. I think it's
important and would like to enter that in the record.
Senator Curtis. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows.]
The New York Times
The Data on Self-Driving Cars Is Clear. We Have to Change Course.
Dec. 2, 2025
By Jonathan Slotkin
Dr. Slotkin is a neurosurgeon.
I recently got called to see a teenager ejected in a rollover car
crash. The trauma team rushed him into surgery to stop major abdominal
bleeding, but we all knew. When that much energy enters a skull, no
operation can turn it back. He was declared brain dead. His death was a
reminder of the staggering amount of suffering and loss of human life
we accept from car accidents every single day.
The self-driving car company Waymo recently released data covering
nearly 100 million driverless miles in four American cities through
June 2025, the biggest trove of information released so far about
safety. I spent weeks analyzing the data. The results were impressive.
When compared with human drivers on the same roads, Waymo's self-
driving cars were involved in 91 percent fewer serious-injury-or-worse
crashes and 80 percent fewer crashes causing any injury. It showed a 96
percent lower rate of injury-causing crashes at intersections, which
are some of the deadliest I encounter in the trauma bay.
So far, other autonomous vehicle companies don't report or they
report incomplete data. Waymo, by contrast, published everything I
needed to analyze the data: crash statistics with miles driven that
allow accurate comparison with human drivers in the same locations.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
If Waymo's results are indicative of the broader future of
autonomous vehicles, we may be on the path to eliminating traffic
deaths as a leading cause of mortality in the United States. While many
see this as a tech story, I view it as a public health breakthrough.
The reasons autonomous vehicles are safer are straightforward. A
system that follows rules, avoids distraction, sees in all directions
and prevents high-speed conflicts will avert deadly collisions much
more often.
These vehicles aren't perfect. A passenger heading to the airport
was recently stuck inside a Waymo that looped a parking lot roundabout
for five minutes. Waymo issued a recall last year to update the
software on its vehicles after one hit a utility pole at low speed
while pulling over.
And there have been two fatalities and one serious injury in
crashes involving a Waymo vehicle. In all three cases, however, human-
driven vehicles caused the collision: a high-speed crash that pushed
another car into a stopped Waymo, a red-light runner hitting a Waymo
and other vehicles before striking and injuring a pedestrian, and a
Waymo rear-ended by a motorcyclist, who was then fatally struck by a
hit-and-run driver.
This last instance may give some skeptical readers pause. There's a
common misconception that these cars brake erratically and get rear-
ended. But they are involved in far fewer rear-end injury crashes than
human drivers are. And Waymo has never rear-ended another vehicle at
injury level. Autonomous vehicle companies have to report every contact
resulting in injury or property damage over $1,000, while studies show
that humans don't report the majority of accidents, even many with
injuries.
In medical research, there's a practice of ending a study early
when the results are too striking to ignore. We stop when there is
unexpected harm. We also stop for overwhelming benefit, when a
treatment is working so well that it would be unethical to continue
giving anyone a placebo. When an intervention works this clearly, you
change what you do.
There's a public health imperative to quickly expand the adoption
of autonomous vehicles. More than 39,000 Americans died in motor
vehicle crashes last year, more than homicide, plane crashes and
natural disasters combined. Crashes are the No. 2 cause of death for
children and young adults. But death is only part of the story. These
crashes are also the leading cause of spinal cord injury. We surgeons
see the aftermath of the 10,000 crash victims who come to emergency
rooms every day. The combined economic and quality-of-life toll exceeds
$1 trillion annually, more than the entire U.S. military or Medicare
budget.
This is not a call to replace every vehicle tomorrow. For one
thing, self-driving technology is still expensive. Each car's equipment
costs $100,000 beyond the base price, and Waymo doesn't yet sell cars
for personal use. Even once that changes, many Americans love driving;
some will resist any change that seems to alter that freedom.
Not all autonomous vehicles are created equal. Many of the
devastating crashes that capture headlines involve ``driver
assistance'' systems--the kind found in millions of Teslas and other
modern cars--where humans need to remain vigilant behind the wheel.
Tesla recently released results suggesting that what it calls ``full
self-driving (supervised)'' decreases the frequency of crashes, but we
will still need more independent analysis of that data before we can
draw firm conclusions. And research on other partial automation
vehicles has yielded mixed results. A study from the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety found ``no convincing evidence'' that
partial automation reduces crash rates.
Waymo operates cars with no human driver. Its vehicles use cameras,
radar, and the specialized sensors known as lidar, which create
detailed 3-D maps. They operate only in cities where Waymo has studied
every intersection.
We don't yet know whether other autonomous vehicles will have a
similar safety record. Tesla recently started a driverless pilot
program (with a person supervising from the front passenger seat) in
Austin, Texas, but has not released performance data yet. Other
companies operate fully self-driving ride-hail services, but so far
without comparable data transparency.
There is likely to be some initial public trepidation. We do not
need everyone to use self-driving cars to realize profound safety
gains, however. If 30 percent of cars were fully automated, it might
prevent 40 percent of crashes, as autonomous vehicles both avoid
causing crashes and respond better when human drivers err. Insurance
markets will accelerate this transition, as premiums start to favor
autonomous vehicles.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Researchers predict that the shift to autonomous vehicles will take
more than a decade. We should use that time to plan wisely. Autonomous
vehicles improve safety remarkably when they replace humans driving
personal vehicles, but if they end up primarily pulling riders from
trains and buses, which are already exceedingly safe, there will be far
less of a benefit. It makes sense to deploy these vehicles through
commercial robotaxis, which is the current approach, but we need
deliberate workforce planning to address the way that this will
threaten the livelihoods of America's millions of commercial drivers.
Rather than grapple with these challenges, many cities are erecting
roadblocks. In Washington, D.C., local politicians have long postponed
a key report that would facilitate the broader use of these vehicles
despite 18 months of successful vehicle testing. In Boston, the City
Council is considering mandating a ``human safety operator'' in every
vehicle, effectively stalling meaningful deployment. Policymakers need
to stop fighting this transformation and start planning for it.
Federal leadership is essential. Current regulations require
companies to report crashes, but not the number of miles driven or
where. We need the denominator, not just the numerator. Data-reporting
requirements should include crash rates, miles driven and where, and
safety performance. Independent auditors should verify this data
against police reports, insurance claims and privacy-protected medical
records.
This transformation will happen. We can guide it toward a safer,
more equitable future or let it unfold haphazardly around us. There's a
future in which manual driving becomes uncommon, perhaps even quaint,
the way riding horses is today. It's a future where we no longer accept
thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of broken spines as the price
of mobility. It's time to stop treating this like a tech moonshot and
start treating it like a public health intervention.
Dr. Jonathan Slotkin is an executive and vice chair of neurosurgery
at Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania. He is a co-founder and
general partner of Scrub Capital, a venture capital firm that invests
in health care start-ups.
Graphics by Bhabna Banerjee. Source images by Valeriy Volkonskiy
and Salah Uddin/Getty Images.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the
editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of our
articles. Here are some tips. And here' our e-mail:
[email protected].
A version of this article appears in print on, Section SR, Page 5
of the New York edition with the headline: The Human Driver Is a Failed
Experiment
Senator Peters. One of the key reasons I believe Congress
must act on autonomous vehicle legislation is because AVs
represent a huge part of the future of the U.S. automotive
industry. We need to not only make sure AV technology is
developed here, we also need to make sure these vehicles and
their sensor suites are manufactured in America as well.
Michigan auto workers have led the Nation and made the U.S.
automotive industry internationally competitive, and I believe
they can do the same for autonomous vehicles.
Mr. Pena, Waymo currently does import vehicles from China
to pair with its software stack, and I'm glad that you're
moving away from this partnership. But from your perspective,
how can Congress better ensure that AV companies prioritize
U.S. manufacturing and union labor when it comes to building
the vehicles' hardware of the future, and is this something
that aligns with your company's vision of the future?
Dr. Pena. Senator, we design and build our autonomous
driving system right here in America. And as I mentioned
before, we use a variety of platforms, and we install an
autonomous driving system onto those platforms in our factory
in Arizona.
Senator Peters. Great. Time is low. Mr. Chairman, could I
just have--ask a question for the record, and appreciate that.
Mr. Farrah, some of your automotive manufacturing members,
including Michigan's own General Motors and Ford, are driving
consumer acceptance by introducing consumers to high levels of
autonomy in their personal vehicles, including, as you know,
hands-free highway driving and more. That includes the goal of
introducing Level 3 hands-off, eyes-off driving technology for
consumers to deploy when they choose. This way, autonomous
technologies are delivering safety benefits in personally owned
consumer vehicles today. Neither NHTSA nor Congress, though,
has established a dedicated regulatory framework for Level 3
systems. What do you think are the greatest regulatory gaps
today for Congress to fill the Level 3 deployment? I can enter
that for the record to respond, unless you have a quick
response.
Mr. Farrah. With the indulgence of the Chairman, I would be
very glad to elaborate on the response for the record. And
certainly, Level 3 is an important piece of automotive
technology, and I didn't want to miss the opportunity to thank
you for all of your past efforts on behalf of the AV industry.
Senator Peters. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CURTIS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Curtis. Thank you. We welcome any other responses
afterwards as well.
Well, I now yield to myself and appreciate our witnesses
being here. Appreciate this topic. I think it's fair to say
that there's broad agreement that Congress must lead on this.
Professor Smith, I'll give you a little asterisk that states
can play a role as well, and I think that's a worthy
conversation. I think the real question isn't whether or not we
should lead, but how we should lead without sacrificing data
privacy, without sacrificing transparency, without sacrificing
innovation. If not careful, the Federal Government can clamp
down on innovation.
And with that in mind, I'd kind of like to turn to the data
privacy part of this. Dr. Pena, I was in Los Angeles this
weekend, and I noticed with some awe the number of your
vehicles that I saw. Do you know roughly, off the top of your
head, how many you would have, like, in a market, like in Los
Angeles, how many vehicles?
Dr. Pena. I don't know--don't have exact number for you,
but there are a few hundred vehicles down there.
Senator Curtis. Yes, enough that you see them on almost
every corner. Do you know, per vehicle, how many cameras are
part of that?
Dr. Pena. We have, I think, 29 cameras, approximately.
Senator Curtis. Twenty-nine. Are any of those internal?
Dr. Pena. Well, yes, we do have cameras internally to help
our riders when they need it.
Senator Curtis. Sure. So, if you take 29 cameras and you
times it by a couple hundred vehicles, the potential for data
collection. That was my first impression when I saw that
vehicle go by with those cameras is the amount of data that
potentially could be collected is staggering. And so, I think
my first question for you and then Mr. Moravy is, like, what
internal policies do you currently have for data privacy?
Dr. Pena. We have strong privacy protections for our
riders. We don't share any personally identifiable information,
and when we are driving, we collect information to make our
Waymo Driver better. That is the only purpose of collecting
data as we drive through our cities.
Senator Curtis. So, as a former mayor, I would often be
approached if somebody had an accident and they wanted to go
get the traffic information from our recordings on the lights.
Is that a scenario that's possible where law enforcement's
going to come to you and say, hey, you were going by this
intersection, share with us your recordings of what happened at
that intersection?
Dr. Pena. Senator, we would only comply with a valid legal
order, and even at that point, we will review it to ensure that
is not too broad, and if we believe it's too broad, we can
object as well.
Senator Curtis. OK. Mr. Moravy?
Mr. Moravy. Yes, similar to what Mr. Pena said, we do
collect a bit of data. We have only eight or nine cameras in
our vehicles today. All that data is for our consumers, as I
mentioned before, as an opt-in policy, but it is aggregated and
anonymized when it comes through to our servers for review. And
to your point about whether or not we comply with, you know,
Federal or State authorities for requests for data, actually,
Tesla has been doing that for almost 15 years now with our
vehicles and the recordings that they take, both in our event
data recorders and our cameras, whenever there is a pertinent
legal order to do so.
Senator Curtis. Yes, and I think that's--I don't want to
overstate that point: compliant with law enforcement. I think
more my point is the vast amount of data, particularly with 29
cameras collecting through a community, and have we really
thought through that data and what to do with it. Mr. Farrah, I
kind of turn to you as an industry. Is the industry ready for
this data privacy question, and are you prepared or is industry
prepared with future legislation to discuss how we deal with
data privacy?
Mr. Farrah. Senator Curtis, thank you very much, and I
think that Mr. Pena articulated very well what's the industry
standard, which is that you would need to get a valid order
from a law enforcement agency or court in order to comply with
that. And if it was appropriately overbroad, that would be
something that the company would certainly evaluate, and I
would say that, you know, we are very eager to participate. As
Congress, as this committee takes on future data privacy
discussions, we absolutely want to be a part of that process.
Senator Curtis. Yes, and I would point out we've got good
actors at the table today, but as industry grows, you'll have
people who may not take good care of that data, and may have
data breaches, and I just think it's something that's very
important for us to consider.
We talked just briefly before the hearing about Utah. Utah
would love to be a leader on this. We have the Olympics coming.
We've talked a lot about safety. Could you briefly just discuss
traffic congestion and how a state like Utah might use
autonomous vehicles to deal with less traffic on the roads, and
the impact that that could have on a state like Utah?
Mr. Farrah. Absolutely, Senator, and as you know, I'm a
huge fan of your state. As I told you, I've been there many
times. And I will say that Utah is one of the 26 states that
has an AV deployment statute, so you're very well positioned to
take advantage of this, including for the upcoming Olympics. In
terms of traffic congestion, what we're really trying to do is
to give more transportation options. So, in many cases, for
example, in Salt Lake, this may be an elegant solution for
moving people through city centers in a more effective way in
some sort of shared use vehicle. That's something that, you
know, on a city-by-city basis, we're trying to give new
optionality.
Senator Curtis. I've used up my time, and I'll yield to our
Ranking Member for her questions.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Professor Smith,
you talked about trust and faith, and building that over a
period of time. My point is that the information age is
delivering a lot of technology change. I'm not sure Boeing
understood software as well as they should've understood
software. I think, here, we may not have a NHTSA that
understands these challenges either, but we certainly can't
dismantle them. And we need to have people--when it comes to AI
or privacy, we need people in the Federal Government who are
going to understand the issues. Otherwise, we're not going to
do a good job. So, I think that's part of building that trust
and faith you're talking about because you're going to continue
to repeat issues. Not everything is going to be known. You're
still going to--again, there's a difference between a beta
program and a large-scale program, and then something else you
find out happens.
So, I'm trying to get to this point because we have these--
you know, we have an autopilot issue. I mentioned a constituent
of mine, Mr. Nissen, who was run over. He was on a motorcycle,
and he was run over by a Tesla car on autopilot that the family
is saying did not detect the motorcycle. This isn't like
blaming it on the people who were supposed to be in the car,
although that is a pretty big debate that, did the term,
``autopilot,'' mean something to the users of Tesla and that
they're responsible? But I think the family, in some of these
cases--there was a case in Florida where they, basically, are
saying, no, it's still negligence because of the way autopilot
was marketed.
I'm assuming, Dr. Pena, you like this binding arbitration
that your users are under now, that they sign an agreement, and
then if something goes wrong----
Dr. Pena. Could you describe the arbitration----
Senator Cantwell.--in the user for Waymo, you, basically,
sign an agreement that, basically, if there's a dispute about
what happened, you now are in a binding arbitration with the
manufacturer, with Waymo, over the results of those cases.
Dr. Pena. Ranking----
Senator Cantwell. I'm trying to get to liability here. I'm
trying to get to liability.
Dr. Pena. Great.
Senator Cantwell. So, you approve that now, correct?
Dr. Pena. Ranking Member Cantwell, I--that's not my area of
expertise. My area is primarily AV safety, but I'd be happy to
get back to you.
Senator Cantwell. OK. My understanding, Professor Smith,
these are just like binding arbitration contracts.
Dr. Smith. It's very common in industry, yes,
unfortunately.
Senator Cantwell. And so, we are not going to take this
common standard in software where I'm downloading a game or
some app, and now we'll apply it to cars. We're just not going
to do that. I'm not going to do that, and I'm not going to
allow that to happen. I'm not going to sign a binding
arbitration agreement with Waymo, and then basically say I
can't sue them. I'm just stuck in binding arbitration. I
guarantee you this Congress isn't going to be for that either.
The Senate has already taken action trying to be more
aggressive. But where do we go with this issue, you know, of
building that trust that you're talking about and showing. Mr.
Farrah just said he doesn't believe in preempting states.
That's a good--that's a good thing, but how do we--how do we
get this to the point where there is true liability so that
people will build products and be accountable for them?
Dr. Smith. Thank you, and the reality is that we all do
sign these agreements every day agreeing to arbitration, and we
don't realize it. We don't realize it matters until we're hurt,
until we're the victims, and then we realize that we can't--we
can't use the courts. And no one else realizes it because
arbitration is often secret, and, therefore, that information
is not coming out. So, you talked very much about
trustworthiness. The companies in this field are necessarily
saying to regulators and to the public, trust us, and that
needs to come with substance, right?
With great power comes great responsibility. So, they need
to say, here's what we're doing, here's why we believe it's
safe, and here's why you can trust us, and then that needs to
be interrogated by, as you've described, competent, capable,
well-resourced officials. The idea that our--that our automated
driving office could fit in a McDonald's or our defects agency
could fit in a warehouse is astounding to me for a country of
this size and sophistication.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I think not. I think the Chairman
of this committee berated the then-CEO of Boeing, Dave Calhoun,
for, you know, breaking that trust and faith. I think Kelly
Ortberg is trying to reestablish it and to say that, no, it has
to be based on good engineering and a constant accountability.
But I do think figuring out the Federal responsibility so that
we can have predictability and certainty, but it has to come
with some liability. It just does, and when you look at these
instances of NHTSA playing this role in the past, it also had
to come with changing a culture. We're trying to change the
culture of the FAA right now, but you're going to have to
change the culture. You know, when companies just want to go
along and just keep promoting airbags that don't work, then
that's a problem. You got to get rid of and change the culture.
So, anyway, I look forward to hearing more about what you think
that Federal framework looks like. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you. Today, autonomous
vehicles are being deployed on public roads, yet there's no
unique safety standard for AVs from the Federal regulator,
NHTSA. There's no Federal framework governing their deployment.
There's no accountability or consistency across states. The
patchwork of State laws means that driverless AVs can be
deployed commercially in States like Texas, Arizona, and
California, but they aren't allowed in New York, Massachusetts,
and Vermont, where a driver must be present, or in the case of
California, AV operational data must be turned over to
regulators, but not in Florida or Michigan. Mr. Moravy, from
Tesla's perspective, what risks does this regulatory gap
create, and why is a clear national framework necessary sooner
rather than later?
Mr. Moravy. Thank you, Chairman Cruz. Appreciate the
opportunity to answer this question. As an original, you know,
equipment manufacturer up here of autonomous vehicles, a
patchwork of State regulations really presents a lot of
uncertainty for us in producing those vehicles. When we talk
about FMVSS regulations, it's important that we homogenize them
for, you know, purpose-built AVs so that we have certainty and,
you know, we have a path forward that is consistent across all
50 states.
The Chairman. Dr. Pena, when incidents occur with AVs,
they're highly scrutinized, in part because the technology is
so novel and different. Recently, there have been incidents
with Waymo involving school buses in Austin, and a child in
Santa Monica, California. What safeguards has Waymo implemented
since the school bus incidents in Austin, and how do you verify
that these changes will protect school bus riders moving
forward?
Dr. Pena. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We take those incidents
very seriously. Safety is our top priority, especially safety
of children and pedestrians. We're evaluating every one of
those events and developing fixes to address them, and we have
already incorporated many changes to our software to
dramatically improve our performance. And we are working with
the Austin Independent School District to collect data on
different lighting patterns and different conditions, and we're
also incorporating those learnings into our system. But we do
safely navigate thousands of school bus encounters every single
week, and we're continuously learning and improving because our
work is safety--on safety is never done.
The Chairman. And the report of Waymo striking the child in
Santa Monica indicates the AV quickly slowed down from 17 mph
to 6 mph. What lessons can be drawn from what occurred, and how
might that have been different if a human driver had been
driving?
Dr. Pena. Mr. Chairman, first I'd like to express that we
are grateful that the young girl was able to walk away from the
scene. And as you state, our analysis indicates that our
technology was able to detect a young girl as she emerged from
behind a tall SUV, brake hard, reduce speed, and reduce harm.
And we performed an analysis as well of how we were compared
with an always attentive human driver, and we found that the
Waymo Driver would have responded faster than our models of an
attentive human driver. So, in this case, I believe that we
mitigated harm.
The Chairman. Question for both Mr. Moravy and Dr. Pena. In
your assessment, what are the safety benefits of widespread
adoption of AVs? What human lives do we think could be saved?
Mr. Moravy. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Cruz. I mean, I think
NHTSA has a legacy of safety over the years, and we've--the
auto industry has made improvements since the 1970s when that
was in--first in place, you know, on the road, getting us down
to, as many folks have said, about 40,000 deaths per year, but
in the last 20 years, that number has stayed pretty flat. I've
been involved in some form of automotive safety over my career
for the last 25 years, whether it's crash structures, airbags,
seat belts, autonomous driving systems. I can tell you without
a shadow of a doubt that the next big jump we have in reducing
that number from 40,000 to hopefully a day where it's zero is
autonomous driving. Simply put, an autonomous driver, you know,
the system and the computer that operates it, doesn't sleep,
doesn't blink, and doesn't get tired, and those are the real
opportunities we have to face against the, you know, the
serious crisis we have on our roads today.
The Chairman. By the way, one just marketing suggestion.
I'm not sure I would use the litany from ``The Terminator'' to
describe your AVs.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Dr. Pena, same question.
Dr. Pena. I think we have demonstrated our performance
today. In over 100 million miles, our data shows that we are 10
times less likely to be involved in a serious injury collision
as compared to human drivers in the cities where we operate,
and data also shows that we're 12 times less likely to be
involved in a pedestrian injury collision in the cities where
we operate. So, I think we're making a difference already.
The Chairman. All right. Final question. There's quite a
bit of concern that the advent of AVs with automobiles may
jeopardize jobs. At the same time, I think Tesla is
demonstrating that AVs can produce an awful lot of high-paying
jobs, that there is a strong positive job story. Share with
this committee how many new jobs has Tesla's automatic driving
system already created in Texas, and how many more are
projected?
Mr. Moravy. Yes. Thanks, Senator Cruz. As you mentioned, we
build all our AVs here in North America and in Texas. We've
invested over $2 billion on a purpose-built AV line in Texas
that will operate, first, at 1,200 jobs a shift, and then when
fully ramped up, to 5,000 jobs. And that doesn't include our
supply base, which is also largely here, and the exponential
factor that that would have, perhaps 10 times that many.
The Chairman. Thank you. I've also received outreach from
33 stakeholders who support an autonomous vehicle Federal
framework, and I ask unanimous consent that these be entered
into the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
The League of American Bicyclists
Washington, DC, February 2, 2026
Hon. Ted Cruz, Chair,
Hon. Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member,
United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Cruz and Ranking Member Cantwell:
The League of American Bicyclists writes in support of a national
autonomous vehicle (AV) framework's inclusion in the Surface
Transportation Reauthorization Bill, provided that an AV framework
includes strong safety standards, including a ``vision test,'' and does
not preempt the ability of state and local governments to regulate the
safe operation of AVs in the ways that they traditionally have
regulated the safe operation of human driven vehicles. Especially while
Federal safety standards are not yet adopted, it is critically
important that state and local governments and the public have the
traditional regulatory and legal tools that protect the public under
our existing human driven vehicle framework. For the last five years,
we have promoted the creation of a national AV framework that
prioritizes safety, preserves consumer and worker rights, protects all
road users, retains local control, ensures sustainable transportation,
and guarantees accessibility and equity. We continue to support those
tenets [1] and their inclusion in a national AV framework in the
Surface Transportation Reauthorization bill.
The League of American Bicyclists (League) is a national nonprofit
dedicated to creating a Bicycle Friendly America for everyone. Each
year, thousands of cyclists are killed or injured on America's roads,
often by drivers engaged in distracted driving and speeding. The most
common crash type in cyclist fatalities in data from the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration is a motorist overtaking a
cyclist and failing to detect the cyclist in time to avoid them,
misjudging space, or otherwise failing to observe laws that require
safe overtaking. Between 2015 and 2023, crashes where laws requiring a
safe distance while overtaking were violated represented more than a
quarter of cyclist deaths. In contrast, SAE Level 4 and 5 fully
autonomous vehicles are designed to obey traffic laws and safely share
the road with cyclists, pedestrians and other road users.
Fully autonomous vehicles have the potential to reduce cyclist
injuries and fatalities on our Nation's roads, but we need leadership
from Congress to establish a safety baseline and policy framework for
AVs. This will ensure the technology's safety benefits are realized
nationwide. For the League, it is critical that a Federal framework
includes a ``vision test'' safety standard that provides objective data
on the ability of AVs to detect, identify, and respond to cyclists,
pedestrians, and other road users. A ``vision test'' is essential to
understand the performance of AV systems and promote public trust and
understanding of their performance. Without standards in place, the
tragic status quo for those who choose to cycle will be prolonged and
injuries and deaths will be the only objective data we receive on AV
performance.
Federal leadership at this moment can proactively help save lives,
protect vulnerable road users, and ensure the United States leads the
world in safe autonomous vehicle development and deployment. We urge
the Committee to address the need for a national AV framework,
including a ``vision test,'' alongside this reauthorization, and to
incorporate the tenets that we support into that framework.
Sincerely,
Ken McLeod,
Policy Director,
The League of American Bicyclists.
______
Allegheny Conference on Community Development
February 3, 2026
United States Senator Ted Cruz,
Chairman
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Washington, DC.
United States Senator Maria Cantwell,
Ranking Member
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cruz and Senator Cantwell:
On behalf of the Allegheny Conference on Community Development,
founded to strengthen the economic vitality and quality of life of the
Pittsburgh region, I write to express our strong support for the
continued advancement--and responsible, safe deployment--of autonomous
vehicle technologies in the United States. This sector represents a
major and growing economic development opportunity for southwestern
Pennsylvania and for the Nation.
For decades, the Pittsburgh region has been a nationally recognized
hub of innovation in autonomy. Beginning with Carnegie Mellon
University's No Hands Across America, NavLab 5 project--the first long-
distance autonomous trip across the country--our region established
itself early as a global leader in robotics and intelligent
transportation systems. That foundation has since matured into one of
the country's most dynamic commercial ecosystems.
According to the Allegheny Conference's Forefront: Securing
Pittsburgh's Break-out Position in Autonomous Mobile Systems report,
the Pittsburgh region is now home to more than 71 firms with core
operations in autonomy, supporting approximately 6,300 direct jobs and
generating $651 million in annual labor income. These firms represent a
highly skilled workforce and a growing cluster that attracts
investment, nurtures startups, and anchors cutting-edge research and
commercialization.
In addition, continued growth in the autonomy sector is catalyzing
new infrastructure and industry-serving assets. A prime example is the
establishment of PennSTART, a high-speed transportation testing,
research, and training facility designed to accelerate innovation while
improving safety across the transportation sector. Opening this fall,
PennSTART will help companies advance next-generation autonomous
technologies while supporting workforce training and expanding the
region's capacity to host and grow this industry.
Given this significant and ongoing economic impact, I respectfully
urge the Committee to champion policies that advance autonomous vehicle
safety research, testing, manufacturing, and workforce development,
enabling Pittsburgh to gain a competitive advantage in developing these
technologies in the United States.
Sincerely,
Stefani Pashman,
Chief Executive Officer,
Allegheny Conference on Community Development.
______
Consortium for Constituents with Disabilities
February 4, 2026
Hon. Ted Cruz,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
RE: Letter for the Record for the Hearing titled ``Hit the Road, Mac:
The Future of Self-Driving Cars''
Dear Chairman Cruz and Ranking Member Cantwell:
The undersigned members of the Consortium for Constituents with
Disabilities (CCD) Transportation Task Force and friends write to
submit a letter for the record for the February 4, 2026 hearing titled
``Hit the Road, Mac: The Future of Self-Driving Cars''. As noted in the
hearing announcement, autonomous vehicles (AVs) have the potential to
save lives and could also ``significantly expand mobility and
independence for people with disabilities who are unable to drive,
improving access to employment, healthcare, and the community.''
CCD is the largest coalition of national organizations working
together to advocate for Federal public policy that ensures the self-
determination, independence, empowerment, integration and inclusion of
people with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
sought to ``provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the
elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.''
Through AV policymaking, Congress has the opportunity to lead, uphold
the ADA's mandate, enhance safety, and improve lives and mobility for
all.
To ensure people with disabilities benefit from AVs, the vehicles
must accommodate passengers who remain in their wheelchairs, the human
machine interface (HMI) must be accessible for people with sensory and
cognitive disabilities, and AVs must be able to detect all types of
disabled pedestrians. Access and safety for disabled passengers is not
addressed in the discussion draft of the House SELF DRIVE Act of 2026.
To ensure American leadership in AVs and automated driving system
(ADS)-equipped vehicles, we urge you to consider and prioritize the
safety and access needs of disabled passengers and pedestrians. We are
also providing ``Disability Access in AVs and Motor Vehicles'' draft
bill text (Access in AVs Draft) for your consideration.
Background
Nearly 1 in 5 people in the U.S. has a disability (more than 57
million). In addition, many older adults who acquire short or long-term
disabilities or health conditions in both rural and urban settings will
need accessible transportation options to access healthcare and remain
active in their communities. The ADA was passed in 1990 yet significant
barriers remain to accessible, affordable transportation.
Many people with disabilities cannot drive because of their
specific disability, are currently unable to obtain a driver's license,
are denied transportation services, or cannot afford to purchase a
wheelchair accessible vehicle (WAV).\1\ It's critical that ride-share
and on-demand services provide disability access, yet there are not
adequate WAVs, and trip denials for service animal users and other
people with disabilities are rampant. There are no purpose-built
wheelchair accessible passenger vehicles on the market today in the
United States. Wheelchair users often pay nearly double the price of
the vehicle for necessary aftermarket modifications, including to have
a ramp installed or other features that require exemptions from the
FMVSS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) study of adults
with disabilities found that roughly half of respondents 18 to 64
reported living in a household with income under $25,000. Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (2018). Travel Patterns of American Adults
with Disabilities. Available at https://www.bts.gov/travel-patterns-
with-disabilities.
\2\ The aftermarket modifications for wheelchair accessibility are
vitally important for the ability of wheelchair users to travel outside
their homes. However, wheelchair users face an uncomfortable tradeoff
between that access and their safety since the modifications may
decrease the overall crashworthiness of the vehicle. People with
disabilities regularly choose access over safety. This tradeoff exists
because neither manufacturers nor NHTSA have obligations to make
today's passenger vehicles both safe and accessible to all people with
disabilities and fail to do so voluntarily. As long as this tension
exists, nothing in the proposed legislation should diminish access to
after-market modifications of vehicles to provide vehicle access to
people with disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without affordable, accessible transportation, people with
disabilities are unable to travel to work, to school, to contribute to
and participate in their communities, to support and spend time with
family and friends, and live their lives to the fullest. A report by
the National Disability Institute found that a critical barrier to
competitive integrated employment and entrepreneurship is a lack of
accessible transportation options. Accessible, affordable, and
sustainable AVs could lead to an additional 4.4 million jobs for people
with disabilities, an additional $867 billion in U.S. GDP, and $1.6
trillion in U.S. output.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ National Disability Institute (December 30, 2022). Economic
Impacts of Removing Transportation Barriers to Employment for
Individuals with Disabilities Through Autonomous Vehicle Adoption.
Available at https://www.nationaldisabilityinstitute.org/reports/
autonomous-vehicle-adoption/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disability AV Advocacy and Engagement
The CCD Transportation Task Force has a track record of advocating
for fully accessible AVs through adoption of cross-disability AV
Principles and providing feedback on past AV legislative
drafts.\4\,\5\ Many of our members also participated in
three days of AV accessibility workshops in 2019 hosted by the Alliance
of Automobile Manufacturers (an organization preceding the Alliance for
Automotive Innovation) with government, industry and disability
stakeholders, and U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and U.S.
Department of Labor (USDOL) listening sessions.\6\,\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Consor/um for Constituents with Disabilities Transportation
Task Force Autonomous Vehicle Principles, updated May 2022. Available
at https://www.c-c-d.org/fichiers/CCD-Disability-AV-Framework-Hearing-
Letter-072523-FINAL.pdf.
\5\ CCD Transportation Task Force August 23, 2019 feedback on AV
Bill Issues, including disability access, advisory committees,
rulemakings, exemptions, privacy, safety evaluation reports and
accessibility features, crash data, resources for NHTSA, consumer
education, studies examining potential impacts, and infrastructure
available at https://www.c-c-d.org/fichiers/CCD-Transpo-TF-Feedback-on-
AV-Bill-Issues-082319.pdf. November 4, 2019 Feedback on AV Legislation
Sections, including on a HAV advisory council, and disability
exemptions available at: https://www.c-c-d.org/fichiers/CCD-Transp-TF-
Feedback-on-AV-Sections-110419.pdf. December 9, 2019 Feedback on AV
Legislation Sections, including on new FMVSS and licensing and
insurance available at https://www.c-c-d.org/fichiers/CCD-Transp-TF-
Feedback-on-AV-Sections-120919.pdf. February 21, 2020 Feedback on AV
Legislation Sections, including on consumer education, cybersecurity,
personnel and staffing, and additional considerations available at:
https://www.c-c-d.org/fichiers/CCD-AV-Sections-Response-02-21-20.pdf.
\6\ Autonomous Vehicles and Increased Accessibility Workshops (May
3, July 19, September 10, 2019). Hosted by the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (an organization preceding the Alliance for Automotive
Innovation). Washington, D.C. Summary Report, agendas and presentations
available at https://www.autosinnovate.org/avaccessibility.
\7\ U.S. Department of Labor (October 2019). Autonomous Vehicles:
Driving Employment for People with Disabilities. Available at https://
www.dol.gov/odep/topics/AV-Info-Guide-Revised
.doc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers and transportation providers are developing, testing
and deploying autonomous shuttles and passenger vehicles. We
acknowledge AVs have the potential to dramatically improve access for
people with disabilities. However, the promise and safety of AVs will
only be realized if the vehicles and the surrounding infrastructure are
fully accessible, and the safety elements consider the needs of all
people with disabilities.
Recommended AV Legislation Provisions to Ensure Disabled Traveler
Access & Safety
Licensing and Insurance--Legislation should prohibit discrimination
on the basis of disability by states and any other governmental
authorities in licensing and insurance.
Highly Automated Vehicles Advisory Council--An Advisory Council
comprised of industry, consumer, safety, labor, civil rights and other
stakeholders is necessary to continue discussions and identify
barriers, unintended impacts and solutions. Disability representation
is critical and should be included within any advisory council, and the
Council should also be required to consider accessibility needs.
Disability Inclusive Safety Case, Frameworks and Self-Assessment
Rulemakings--Safety case or self-assessment requirements should include
accessible HMI that would ensure accessibility for people with sensory
and cognitive disabilities, as well as physical accessibility of the
vehicle for wheelchair users. We also support including ADS detection
of and appropriate response to any vulnerable road user and
strengthening this language to ensure a broad range of disabled and
other road users are detected. A Disability Rights Education & Defense
Fund brief on ableism in AV AI and algorithms recommends standards be
set to ensure AVs can detect all people with disabilities and other
members of marginalized communities outside the vehicle.\8\ Research
and recent anecdotes suggest that not all AVs are being taught to
detect people seated in their wheelchairs, service animal users, or
people with darker skin tones, among others. The Access to AVs Draft
requires a safety rulemaking for accessible AV HMIs and a rule for
automated driving systems (ADS) to assess and validate the performance
of sensing, perception, and response to disabled people outside the
vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Ian Moura for the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
(November 2022). Addressing Disability & Ableist Bias in Autonomous
Vehicles: Ensuring Safety, Equity & Accessibility in Detection,
Collision Algorithms & Data Collection. Available at https://dredf.org/
addressing-disability-and-ableist-bias-in-avs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A mandate from Congress for all AV-related rulemakings to consider
the needs of disabled travelers would ensure inclusion. The vehicle's
ADS HMI and object detection outside the vehicle are critical
components in any safety framework.
Updating Existing FMVSS Standards--Existing FMVSS must be updated
to ensure the safety of AVs, including level 4 and 5. We strongly
encourage Congress to require USDOT to include a review of how updated
FMVSS will ensure the safety of fully accessible AVs, including those
that are both electric and autonomous, and are built with wheelchair
ramps and will require testing and deployment of automatic securement
systems.\9\ The Federal safety framework must assume deployment of, and
advance progress toward, fully accessible passenger vehicles (both
large and small) as well as accessibility standards. These standards
will not only increase public trust of AVs, but also a roadmap for
those in the industry seeking to develop and deploy the safest, most
accessible vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The industry's safety standards for independent wheelchair
securement and passenger restraint should be adopted by NHTSA and
integrated into the FMVSS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of FMVSS related standards that require attention for
passenger-related accessible ergonomics are active suspension and
kneeling capabilities for level entry, vehicle doorway height and width
for entry, rear passenger entry for ambulatory self-or assisted
passenger transfers, passenger restraint systems, ramps and mobility
equipment securement, and grab assistance throughout vehicles that
allow for perpendicular movement. Any updates to the FMVSS must
maintain the current exemptions to crashworthiness for modified
vehicles to install a ramp until vehicles are fully accessible and such
modification is no longer required for physical access. The Access to
AVs Draft requires a standard for automated restraint systems for
wheelchair users and ramps and ramp installations.
Preemption--Overly broad preemption provisions may unintentionally
restrict AV accessibility or equity performance measures or
requirements at the state or local level, including state laws that
would mandate vehicle environmental standards to mitigate harm. While
we understand the need for Federal standards of vehicle design and
construction, we also encourage allowing states and local jurisdictions
to seek higher performance requirements that also ensure the greatest
access and benefits for disabled and other historically underserved
travelers. Many cities like New York City, Chicago, and San Francisco
have taken the lead in requiring accessibility from rideshare providers
and taxis. Their leadership and innovation for service needs to
continue to be allowed and local and state levels. The Access to AVs
Draft bill prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by AV
operators that would protect the rights of disabled passengers and
pedestrians should preemption be included.
Forced Arbitration--We strongly encourage inclusion of a
prohibition on forced arbitration clauses in any AV framework. AV
providers must be held accountable for injuries and property damage,
and remedies available under applicable civil rights laws must be made
available.\10\ Disabled passengers repeatedly face discrimination from
rideshare and micromobility services and disabled pedestrians and
cyclists routinely have dangerous interactions with vehicles in public
streets and rights of way. The rights of disabled travelers should be
protected to ensure a safe and quality experience. In order to fully
protect their rights, all disabled people must have the option to take
their claims, including those under civil rights laws and the ADA, to
court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ We support provisions prohibiting some predispute arbitration
claims. We also encourage remedies available under applicable civil
rights laws be included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should forced arbitration be allowed, we urge upholding disabled
travelers' rights. The Access to AVs Draft bill includes a provision
and language limiting forced arbitration when involving death or injury
of a disabled person, unfair practices affecting a disabled person, and
harm to wheelchairs or service animals.
Crash Data--Required industry crash data should include whether
vulnerable road users such as pedestrians or wheelchair users were
involved. Whether assistive devices such as wheelchairs, walkers, or
service animals were damaged or harmed should also be included.
USDOT Personnel and Staffing, Resources for Development--We
strongly encourage funding and identification of staffing and resource
needs required to ensure accessibility and safety are prioritized in
the development of AVs, as well as creating a department within the
Center for Excellence, or a separate center, focused on accessibility
of AVs. We also encourage the hiring of experts with disabilities who
bring their own lived experience and informed perspective.
Infrastructure Data and Considerations--For travelers with
disabilities to safely utilize, enter and exit an AV the surrounding
infrastructure must be accessible. When data is collected through
mapping or other means, AV service providers and government entities
should collect and share infrastructure accessibility information,
including areas where pick-ups and drop-offs may be unsafe. This data
could then be used to identify necessary improvements.
Privacy--Passengers' health, disability status, and locations
visited must not be shared or used for commercial or tracking purposes
without the permission of the individual.
U.S. Access Board AV Standards Mandate--The U.S. Access Board
currently provides accessibility guidelines and standards for
policymakers and industry for transportation vehicles including buses
and vans, rail cars and automated guideway vehicles and public rights
of way.\11\ There are currently no Federal accessibility standards for
fully accessible AV passenger vehicles. USDOT has on their Inclusive
Design Challenge webpage a list of existing standards, e.g., wheelchair
securement, that may be used as a guide for the time being.\12\ There
is also a summary report from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers-
hosted AVs and Increased Accessibility workshops that identifies
accessibility needs in detail.\13\ However, these do not hold the same
weight, nor are they enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The U.S. Access Board is an independent Federal agency that
promotes equality for people with disabilities through leadership in
accessible design and the development of accessibility guidelines and
standards. Learn more and review the guidelines and standards they have
developed at https://www.access-board.gov/.
\12\ U.S. Department of Transportation Inclusive Design Challenge
Resources. Available at https://www.transportation.gov/inclusive-
design-challenge/resources.
\13\ Autonomous Vehicles and Increased Accessibility Workshops
(2019). Available at https://www.autosinnovate.org/avaccessibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A mandate for the U.S. Access Board to draft AV standards is
critical in any legislative framework. In addition, including a
deadline within which the Department of Justice and USDOT must adopt
the standards and providing sufficient funding for the Access Board to
develop the standards is necessary.
Thank you for your consideration. Please contact CT Tyson at
[email protected] and Sarah Malaier, [email protected], with any
questions. We are eager to support your efforts to enhance safety and
mobility for all.
Sincerely,
CCD Transportation Task Force Co-
Chairs
Danica Gonzalves, Paralyzed
Veterans of America,
[email protected]
Sarah Malaier, American Foundation
for the Blind, [email protected]
Tyler Beck, Epilepsy Foundation of
America, [email protected]
Signatory Organizations
Access Ready
American Association of People with
Disabilities
American Council of the Blind
American Foundation for the Blind
American Printing House for the
Blind
Autistic Women & Nonbinary Network
Deaf Equality
Christopher & Dana Reeves
Foundation
______
National Consumers League
Washington, DC, February 4, 2026
Hon. Ted Cruz,
Chair,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chair Cruz and Ranking Member Cantwell,
The National Consumers League (NCL) respectfully submits this
letter for the hearing titled ``Hit the Road, Mac: The Future of Self-
Driving Cars.'' We applaud the Committee for exploring opportunities to
support the safe and responsible deployment of autonomous vehicles
(AVs).
NCL believes in the promise of AV technology. Technology that
performs the entirety of the driving task safely, reliably, and free of
behaviors that have contributed to the unacceptable number of crashes,
injuries, and deaths on our Nation's roads each year. Technology that
provides convenient, affordable transportation services for those who
lack access to traditional mobility services, who are disabled, or who
are elderly. Technology that more effectively and efficiently ships
freight and delivers goods.
We also recognize that technology is only as reliable as its human
developers. Without appropriate safeguards in place, the race to
develop AVs may become a race to the bottom, where deploying quickly
supersedes deploying safely and responsibly. Troubling safety
incidents, regulatory black holes, and lax oversight threaten to
disrupt this critical balance and the future of this technology itself.
AVs will not save lives if they do not operate safely and adhere to
state and local traffic laws. They will not bridge the mobility divide
if we weaken enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
preempt state and local accessibility laws. AVs will not benefit
society if crash victims and their families do not have the right to
seek justice in the courts. AVs will not create jobs and grow wages if
we don't address how AVs may displace workers. AVs will not improve
public health or the environment if congestion management and tailpipe
emission laws are invalidated.
For self-driving cars to succeed, appropriate safeguards must be in
place. We support establishing a Federal framework to ensure that the
automated driving system (ADS)--the suite of sensors and software
driving the AV--meets the need for motor vehicle safety and urge
lawmakers to ensure that AVs comply with applicable safety standards.
We urge Congress to protect Americans' rights to access the courts and
preserve the appropriate role of state and local governments. We also
encourage Congress to consider the workforce impacts of AV technologies
that could jeopardize the livelihoods of millions of Americans
gainfully employed in the driving profession.
We thank you for considering our perspective on autonomous
vehicles.
Sincerely,
Daniel Greene,
Senior Director of Consumer Protection & Product Safety,
The National Consumers League.
______
Vision Zero Network
Oakland, CA, February 2, 2026
Hon. Ted Cruz, Chair,
Hon. Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Cruz and Ranking Member Cantwell:
On behalf of Vision Zero Network, thank you for the opportunity to
submit comments to express our interest in a national framework for
autonomous vehicles that prioritizes safety, first and foremost.
Vision Zero Network's mission is to help communities prevent
traffic fatalities and serious injuries on America's roads. We work
across the Nation to ensure that everyone can move about their
communities safely, whether walking, biking, driving, or riding
transit.
Instead of focusing simply on human error, we base our work on a
Safe Systems approach across safe vehicles, safe roads, safe speeds,
safe people, and emergency response, as shared by the U.S. Department
of Transportation and reflected in International Standard ISO 39001.
(Also, please note that we discourage the use of the outdated statistic
that ``94 percent of traffic crashes are caused by human error,'' which
fails to accurately represent the influence of other factors on
individual behavior, such as roadway and vehicle designs, speeds, and
other policy decisions.)
We recognize the safety benefits that autonomous driving technology
offers, as it can be designed to follow the rules of the road,
including speed limits, which is critical, given that unsafe speeds
play a role in more than one-third of traffic deaths. AVs--along with
improved road designs, speed management policies, and safer vehicle
designs--are all important tools to address the road safety crisis in
this country.
To ensure fully autonomous driving technology delivers on its
safety promises, we need a strong national AV framework to define and
ensure an appropriate safety baseline. AV deployment should
complement--rather than compete with--policies that support transit and
safer street designs for all road users.
We encourage Congress to work with stakeholders to establish an AV
framework defining a strong safety baseline that is aligned with Safe
Systems principles that prioritizes human life and well-being.
Thank you for considering our perspective and for your leadership
in advancing transportation safety.
Sincerely,
Leah Shahum,
Executive Director.
______
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
February 3, 2026
Hon. Ted Cruz, Chair,
Hon. Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member,
United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Cruz and Ranking Member Cantwell:
Our organizations are members of the United for Autonomy coalition,
which has come together in recognition of the significant benefits that
autonomous vehicles (AVs) will bring the American public and to
encourage policymakers to set in place a Federal policy framework on
AVs.
We commend the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, &
Transportation for its upcoming hearing entitled, ``Hit the Road, Mac:
The Future of Self-Driving Cars.'' We appreciate the Committee using
this hearing as an opportunity to kick off its process for drafting
Federal autonomous vehicle legislation. Congressional action this year
on the surface transportation reauthorization presents an incredible
opportunity to legislate regarding autonomous vehicles and promote
American leadership. We encourage you to take advantage of this
opportunity.
It is imperative that the United States create a Federal policy
framework on AVs. In recent years, U.S. states have set the pace on AV
policy and it is long past time for the Federal government to establish
Federal policy that supports safe autonomous deployment. We believe
that such a framework will help ensure that millions of Americans are
able to access the benefits of autonomous vehicles, which provide safer
roads, greater supply chain resilience, and create new economic and
enhanced accessibility opportunities for people with disabilities.
Autonomous vehicles have driven more than 145 million autonomous
miles on U.S. public roads, a distance equivalent to the distance
between Earth and Mars. These vehicles undertake diverse operations,
carrying passengers across major U.S. cities like Phoenix, Austin, Los
Angeles, and San Francisco, assisting with transit access in rural
communities in the Midwest, filling in middle mile cargo roles in
Arkansas, and hauling freight across Texas and beyond.
By prioritizing Federal AV legislation, the Committee will help the
United States remain the global leader AVs amidst fierce competition
with the People's Republic of China. China is the United States's
closest strategic competitor on autonomous vehicles and determined to
replace the U.S. A strong Federal policy framework will allow U.S.
companies to compete and win.
AV legislation should promote safety, accessibility for people with
disabilities, supply chain resiliency, and cybersecurity protections.
We believe that strong policy measures in these areas will lay the
foundation for years of growth and allow U.S. companies to lead the
pack in developing standards and practices worldwide.
Thank you again for holding this critical hearing. We look forward
to engaging with members of the Committee throughout the legislative
process.
Sincerely,
Alliance for Automotive Innovation National Association of
American Council of the Blind Manufacturers
ACES National Venture Capital
American Trucking Associations Association
Autonomous Vehicle Industry National Retail Federation
Association Bay Area Council Paralyzed Veterans of America
Blinded Veterans Association Reason Foundation
Chamber of Progress Road Safe America
Consumer Technology Association TechNet
Contra Costa Transportation Truck & Engine Manufacturers
Authority Association
Intelligent Transportation Society United for Autonomy
of America United Spinal Association
Institute for Safer Trucking U.S. Chamber of Commerce
MEMA. The Vehicle Suppliers Zero Emission Transportation
Association Association
CC: Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, &
Transportation
______
UVEye
Teaneck, NJ, February 4, 2026
Hon. Ted Cruz,
Chairman,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Cruz and Ranking Member Cantwell,
On behalf of UVEye, a New Jersey-based developer and manufacturer
of advanced vehicle inspection systems, I am writing to commend the
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation for its
upcoming hearing entitled, ``Hit the Road, Mac: The Future of Self-
Driving Cars.'' As a company focused on vehicle safety, we believe in
the promise of autonomous vehicles (``AVs'') as a tool to improve our
transportation system and appreciate the Committee using this hearing
as an opportunity to kick off its process for drafting legislation to
create a Federal policy framework for AVs. This year's surface
transportation reauthorization presents a unique opportunity to support
the further development and adoption of advanced transportation
technologies of all kinds, including AVs. We encourage you to take
advantage of this opportunity.
UVEye is dedicated to creating safer vehicles and safer roadways
for drivers, passengers, and pedestrians, by providing objective,
consistent, and instant evaluations of the condition of a vehicle that
help identify issues before they become safety hazards. Our patented
AI-driven system uses 360+ imaging to scan each vehicle in seconds,
detecting under-body damage, tire wear, exterior dents or scratches,
alignment issues, and windshield defects. The system operates in all
weather conditions--rain, snow, or mud--and delivers standardized,
easy-to-read inspection reports. UVeye systems are installed in
Original Equipment Manufacturing (OEM) facilities, rental fleets,
auctions, dealerships, and heavy-duty/commercial fleets, scanning more
than two million vehicles each month. This includes customers testing
and deploying AVs. Trusted by industry leaders, UVeye's technology is
proven across millions of scans worldwide.
Just as AVs can make vehicles safer and more efficient by removing
human error, our technology is helping make vehicles safer and more
efficient by identifying issues that may be invisible during manual
inspections--such as leaks, under-body damage, and worn or outdated
tires--that can lead to breakdowns or accidents. UVeye provides an
``always on'' inspection process to substantially increase the
likelihood of detecting safety issues. Faster inspections also keep
vehicles on the road and mission ready.
A Federal policy framework on AVs is vital to supporting the safe,
widespread deployment of AVs across the country, and help ensure that
millions of Americans can enjoy the safety, mobility, and economic
benefits of AVs. By crafting such a framework, the Committee will help
the United States remain the global leader AV technologies and help
drive further innovation in transportation.
Thank you again for holding this critical hearing. We look forward
to engaging with members of the Committee on this and other issues as
it continues its work on the surface transportation reauthorization
process.
Sincerely,
UVEye.
______
Mothers Against Drunk Driving
February 3, 2026
Hon. Ted Cruz, Chair,
Hon. Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member,
United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Cruz and Ranking Member Cantwell:
On behalf of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), we respectfully
request that the Committee include a National Autonomous Vehicle
Framework in the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill.
MADD is a national nonprofit dedicated to saving lives by ending
drunk driving and supporting victims and survivors. Drunk driving
remains the leading cause of fatalities on our Nation's roads, with
more than 12,000 fatalities a year.
Drunk driving deaths are 100 percent preventable. MADD supports
preventing drunk driving through legislation like the HALT Drunk
Driving Law that directs the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to establish a Federal safety standard requiring new
vehicles to include technology to prevent drunk driving. This is
lifesaving technology that can and should be developed and implemented
now.
Because fully autonomous vehicles (AVs) never drive drunk or
impaired, we believe they are another important part of the solution to
prevent drunk and impaired driving fatalities. Companies and the public
need a strong Federal framework to establish a clear safety baseline
for this innovative and life-saving technology.
A Federal AV framework will help build public trust and allow the
safe adoption of technology that will save tens of thousands of lives
each year.
If Congress acts now to establish a first-ever Federal policy
framework for autonomous vehicles, we can ensure life-saving
innovations create a multifaceted approach that will save lives on our
roads nationwide.
We urge the Committee to develop a Federal AV framework to help
drive a future where no more lives are lost due to drunk and impaired
driving.
Sincerely,
Stacey D. Stewart,
Chief Executive Officer.
______
The White Line
February 2, 2026
Hon. Ted Cruz, Chair,
Hon. Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member,
United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Cruz and Ranking Member Cantwell:
On behalf of The White Line, we are supportive of a first-ever
National Autonomous Vehicle Framework being included in the Surface
Transportation Reauthorization Bill. Establishing a clear Federal
safety baseline for fully autonomous vehicles is essential to ensuring
this technology delivers on its promise to save lives.
The White Line is a national nonprofit dedicated to the urgent
mission of protecting cyclists, pedestrians, and other vulnerable road
users and ending preventable traffic fatalities. Approximately 40,000
people continue to die on U.S. roads each year, largely due to human
error and choices, including speeding and impaired driving.
Our team members have ridden in Waymo SAE Level 4 fully autonomous
vehicles and observed firsthand how the technology is designed to stay
constantly vigilant, follow speed limits, and drive with the safety of
other road users in mind. To save lives and prevent injuries on our
roads, The White Line strongly supports efforts to develop and deploy
Level 4 and Level 5 autonomous vehicles. The evidence so far indicates
that in its current operational conditions, an advanced L4 automated
driver system like the Waymo Driver can outperform human drivers across
several safety metrics (crash rate, injury claims, etc.).
This technology can change the deadly road safety status quo, but
the public needs Congressional leadership on regulation to establish a
Federal AV policy framework and set a strong Federal safety baseline.
Without this baseline, bad actors could undermine public trust in
autonomous vehicles, slowing adoption of a life-saving technology.
Delaying this framework is contributing to the constantly increasing
number of preventable fatalities in the U.S. Surface transportation
reauthorization offers a rare and urgent opportunity for Congress to
lead. Federal action will save lives and ensure the United States
establishes themselves as a leader for autonomous technology. We urge
the Committee to act now.
With Respect,
Jacqueline Claudia,
Executive Director,
The White Line.
______
Consumer Reports
February 4, 2026
Hon. Ted Cruz, Chairman,
Hon. Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Cruz and Ranking Member Cantwell:
Consumer Reports (CR), the independent, nonprofit, and nonpartisan
member organization, writes regarding the February 4, 2026, hearing,
``Hit the Road, Mac: The Future of Self-Driving Cars.'' We ask that
this letter be included in the hearing record.
For 90 years, CR has used rigorous research, independent testing,
and evidence-based advocacy to advance vehicle safety innovations that
protect consumers. We have championed everything from seat belts and
anti-rollover systems to the latest crash avoidance technologies that
can help prevent tragedies and reduce injuries both inside and outside
the vehicle.
As the Committee considers a Federal framework for autonomous
vehicles (AVs), we urge you to prioritize a consumer-centered approach
that holds manufacturers and AV technology developers accountable, and
ensures that safety and innovation go hand in hand. While we agree that
AVs hold the potential to improve safety and mobility, they remain in a
developmental stage, and there is much unknown about how AVs will
ultimately affect consumers on our roads. As such, any Federal
framework must take a prudent approach and be built upon rigorously
evaluated safety data, not an unproven assumption that all AVs are
safer than human drivers.
Whether the Senate's framework is based primarily on companies'
safety cases or their compliance with performance standards--and we do
think enforceable safety standards are important to include, even if
the framework is primarily centered on safety cases--it is insufficient
for manufacturers or developers of safety-critical AV technology to
grade their own homework. Safety claims, incident reports, and
compliance with Federal standards should be independently verified,
with objective confirmation that the automated driving system operates
safely on a consistent basis. Among other things, this means that the
system can handle challenging environmental conditions, and detect and
respond appropriately to all road users, including pedestrians,
cyclists, law enforcement, and emergency responders. If an automated
driving system is assuming the role of a human driver, then--at a bare
minimum--it needs to be held to the standards for safe driving that we
expect of human drivers in any given situation on the road.
These recommendations align with consumers' views. According to a
December 2024 Consumer Reports nationally representative survey, two
out of three U.S. adults think vehicle safety
standards should be stricter for AVs than those for traditional
passenger vehicles, and just 3 percent think safety standards for AVs
should be less strict than for traditional passenger vehicles.\1\ About
six in ten (59 percent) strongly support a ``vision test'' requirement
for AVs, with an additional 20 percent responding that they somewhat
support this requirement.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Consumer Reports, nationally representative American
Experiences Survey of 2,130 U.S. adults (Dec. 2024) (online at:
article.images.consumerreports.org/image/upload/v1736806650/prod/
content/dam/surveys/Consumer_Reports_AES_December_2024.pdf).
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, we also recognize that AV technology blurs the
line between the regulation of vehicle design, primarily a Federal
role, and the regulation of driver behavior, which typically falls to
states and localities. Because the automated system is now the driver,
some industry groups would solve this dilemma by broadly preempting
state authority to regulate AVs.
In our view, it would be a profound mistake to sweep away state and
local safeguards. State and local officials already play a vital role
regulating AV operations in their communities, in places where AVs have
been deployed. These officials truly are on the front lines of road
safety, overseeing AVs' interactions with first responders, school
zones, and human-driven vehicles.
They must retain the authority to protect their residents and
manage their streets--and consumers agree. According to the same
December 2024 Consumer Reports nationally representative survey
referenced above, 52 percent of U.S. adults think their local
government should keep the power to decide whether and how autonomous
vehicles are allowed on roads in their community, compared to just 21
percent who say their local government should not keep this power.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id. 27 percent are unsure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective oversight of AV technology also depends on regulators and
the public having access to meaningful, high-quality safety data that
goes beyond reports of severe crashes and fatalities. We support the
establishment of a comprehensive national data repository that includes
information on near-misses, system disengagements, hard braking,
evasive steering, and other safety-critical events necessary to
evaluate real-world system performance. Safety data should be specific
and detailed enough to allow for meaningful analysis of system
performance and safety outcomes.
Company claims regarding ``confidential business information''
should be permitted only for true trade secrets, and not for safety
data or to hide concerning or embarrassing incidents from public
scrutiny.
Additionally, the baseline expectation for AVs should be that they
meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Relying on general
exemptions from FMVSS for deployment--particularly on the basis of
``overall safety level'' compared to traditional vehicles--is likely to
be opaque and unaccountable to the public compared to the rulemaking
process. While AV-related updates may be needed to FMVSS, and some have
already been implemented, FMVSS have performance requirements, not
design mandates, which permit innovation while ensuring safety.
Exemptions from FMVSS should be limited to equipment required for the
driving task which may be fully replaced by automation, and granted
only if backed by safety evidence provided through a publicly defined
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) process.
Looking ahead, while we agree that AVs have the potential to bring
meaningful independence for numerous Americans, including people with
disabilities and older adults, this potential will only be realized if
a Federal framework explicitly mandates accessibility. The market alone
will not guarantee that these vehicles are accessible to wheelchair
users or those with sensory impairments. Legislation should guarantee
that AVs are designed with universal access in mind, including
accessible human-machine interface and physical accommodations.
We thank the Committee for its consideration of our comments, and
look forward to working with all member offices to ensure that a
Federal framework for AVs puts consumers and their safety first.
William Wallace,
Director, Safety Advocacy.
Cooper Lohr,
Senior Policy Analyst,
Transportation and Safety.
cc: Members of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
______
Union of Concerned Scientists
January 30, 2026
Hon. Ted Cruz,
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
RE: February 4, 2026 hearing, ``Hit the Road, Mac: The Future of Self-
Driving Cars''
Chair Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is the Nation's leading
science-based nonprofit putting rigorous, independent science to work
to solve our planet's most pressing problems. On behalf of UCS's half a
million supporters, we write to help inform the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation's consideration of autonomous
vehicle (AV) policies.
Foremost, we urge the Committee to work closely with stakeholders
on the interplay of Federal and state authority. There have been
longstanding concerns about Federal AV legislation preempting states
and localities from implementing their own policies and safeguards. For
instance, previous legislation preempted states or subdivisions of
states from enacting any law that can be read to be an ``unreasonable
restriction on the design, construction, or performance of highly
automated vehicles,'' with the term ``unreasonable'' left undefined.
A discussion draft was recently unveiled in the House, the H.R.
___, the Safely Ensuring Lives Future Deployment and Research In
Vehicle Evolution (SELF DRIVE) Act of 2026. At the House Energy &
Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade hearing on
Tuesday, January 13, 2026, Michael Brooks, Executive Director of the
Center for Auto Safety testified:
The proposed preemption language would infringe on traditional
state and local authorities to regulate traffic law, auto
dealers, insurance, registration, licensing, crash
investigation, safety and emissions inspections, congestion
management, environmental laws, and various additional consumer
protections. Critically, the proposed preemption language would
also threaten the application of state negligence and product
liability laws to AVs, given the extremely ambiguous language
in the savings clause. Ultimately, the preemption scheme
envisioned by the proposed SELF DRIVE Act would act to ensure
that local authorities are powerless to protect citizens while
weakening those citizens' ability to pursue effective claims
against irresponsible AV companies.
We concur with Mr. Brooks. We are concerned about overly broad
preemption language in the SELF DRIVE Act. As the Senate considers its
own AV legislation, we urge you to work with states and localities to
ensure their authority to protect the health and welfare of their
residents are protected from unintended consequences of autonomous
vehicle legislation.
For additional information on the Union of Concerned Scientists'
work on autonomous vehicles, see:
UCS explainer and principles: Self-Driving Cars Explained
UCS report: Where Are Self-Driving Cars Taking Us?
Sincerely,
Alyssa Y. Tsuchiya,
Director of Policy and Government Affairs,
Clean Transportation Program,
Union of Concerned Scientists.
CC: Members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
______
February 4, 2026
Hon. Ted Cruz, Chair,
Hon. Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
RE: Disregard for consumer safety, state and local law, and civil
justice by the autonomous vehicle industry
Dear Chair Cruz and Ranking Member Cantwell:
We the undersigned, on behalf of the members of each of our groups
individually, and all drivers, passengers, pedestrians and other road
users nationwide, write today with grave concerns about the autonomous
vehicle (AV) industry's relentless push for broad and unnecessary
assertion of Federal authority and omission of vital consumer
protections in AV legislation.
Amongst a host of provisions that would degrade consumer safety,
the vague and incredibly broad preemption of state and local authority
demanded by the AV industry would have wide ranging consequences on
state and local laws crafted to ensure the responsible introduction of
novel autonomous vehicles into the varying transportation ecosystems of
U.S. cities. Additionally, at a time when so much is unknown about the
safety performance of AVs, prohibiting the inclusion of mandatory
arbitration clauses in contracts is critical to ensure that consumer
claims are not forced into secretive courts of arbitration to protect
companies from legal scrutiny and accountability.
States and their political subdivisions are already preempted from
exercising their powers in the area of motor vehicle performance to
ensure that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and other safety
rules administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) are the law of the land. Despite this long-
standing prohibition on state and local action, the AV industry
continues to demand legislation proposing a preemption scope that
extends far beyond the Federal government's traditional authority to
regulate vehicle performance and ensure consistent national performance
standards to help ensure vehicle safety.
The vague and broad preemption language favored by the AV industry
would infringe on traditional state and local authorities to regulate
traffic law, auto dealers, insurance, registration, licensing, crash
investigation, safety and emissions inspections, congestion management,
environmental laws, and various consumer protections. Not only does
such preemption language prevent state law enforcement from enforcing
the rules of the road, but it also prevents them from even
investigating a crash. Critically, the industry-favored preemption
scheme also threatens state negligence and product liability laws as
they would apply to AVs, before any Federal safety standards are in
place to ensure safe operation.
Ultimately, preemption as envisioned by the AV industry would act
to ensure that local authorities are powerless to protect citizens
while weakening those citizens' ability to pursue effective claims
against irresponsible AV companies. Federal preemption is traditionally
used as a tool for ensuring that Federal statutes or regulations, once
enacted, are able to operate without conflict across the country. But
the preemption structure proposed by the industry turns this model on
its head, ensuring that even in the absence of Federal safety
regulations governing AV performance or safety, consumers will have
nowhere to turn when the inevitable problems raise their head.
This isn't a speculative threat--AV companies are already pushing
back vigorously against state and local government efforts to protect
citizenry. In Austin, TX, Waymo has ignored the safety requests of the
local school district despite repeatedly failing to address its
vehicles' inability to properly respond to the presence of school
buses. Likewise in Santa Monica, CA, Waymo has sued the city to block
efforts to enforce the local noise ordinance and protect its citizens'
quality of life. A broad grant of preemption will only embolden AV
companies to ignore local impacts as the industry attempts to scale
across the country.
Furthermore, the AV industry continuously and successfully lobbies
state legislatures across the country to enact legislation precluding
local authorities from enforcing laws that inhibit AV operations in any
way. Ultimately, the industry's goal is Federal law prohibiting states
from exercising authority to prevent negative impacts from autonomous
vehicles, meaning that citizens will no longer be able to turn to their
city or state as these problems continue to arise. As the industry is
well aware, this will leave Americans with only one option to turn to--
a creakingly slow-to-respond Federal government with zero autonomous
vehicle regulations on the books and limited authority to address
issues of local impact.
In the absence of any Federal safety regulations geared to ensure
that AVs don't kill and injure road users, and a preemption scheme that
prevents state and local authorities from stepping up to the plate to
protect residents, injured parties would typically be able to turn to
the civil justice system as a last resort. Yet even this avenue of
consumer relief is actively being blockaded by the use of mandatory
arbitration clauses. Whether they are in the terms of service of
autonomous vehicle rideshare companies or those that will surely reside
in future potential ownership or leasing agreements absent a
legislative prohibition, mandatory arbitration clauses should not be
allowed as a means to shield irresponsible AV companies from civil
claims.
As you know, forced arbitration contract terms require consumers to
adjudicate claims in forums that do not have the protections of the
legal system--the rules of evidence and discovery do not apply, there
is no requirement that arbitrators follow the law, there are no juries,
and there is little to no opportunity for witness depositions.
Moreover, arbitration proceedings are secretive, and the findings of
arbitrators are seldom appealable. Additionally, because arbitration
firms rely on repeat customers for their profits, it is unlikely that
arbitrators will find for a consumer over the corporation likely to
provide additional business in the future.
The potential for inserting forced arbitration clauses into a
contract between an AV operator or manufacturer and an individual
consumer is ever present and creates an alternate system of justice
when the inevitable defects in new technology occur. Such a result
would create yet another incentive for unscrupulous manufacturers to
put shareholders' interests ahead of safety concerns.
For years now the auto industry has been emboldened by the
intrusion of forced arbitration in other fields. As a result, it is all
too common for consumers to be deprived of their Federal and state
rights by contracts conditioned on acceptance of forced arbitration as
a means to resolve disputes. We have long believed that when a company
makes a defective vehicle, they should use their engineers to build a
better vehicle, and not their lawyers to find a legal loophole to avoid
responsibility. To be clear, forced arbitration has no place in
rideshare agreements or in the sale or lease of automobiles, be they
used or new, human driven or autonomous.
Arbitration, when voluntarily consented to by both parties post-
dispute is a fine dispute resolution mechanism. But the use of binding
arbitration clauses continues to proliferate. Waymo's partnership with
Uber to provide autonomous rideshare raises significant questions in
this area, since Uber has zealously defended binding arbitration
clauses at the expense of consumers for many years now, and Waymo
currently uses forced arbitration as well. Future self-driving vehicles
may be purchased or leased directly by consumers from multi-national
manufacturers, creating an even greater power imbalance than when
buying from a local dealership, enabling foreign manufacturers to
insert forced arbitration provisions directly into consumer sales
contracts.
This moment presents an opportunity to ensure that a practice
designed to deprive consumers of their constitutional rights not be
allowed to continue into the next generation of vehicles. Importantly,
there is precedent in the area of forced arbitration and cars:15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1226, the Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Dispute Resolution
Process Act. Passed into law in 2002, this law prevents auto
manufacturers from forcing arbitration clauses on their franchisees,
without consent. Consumers deserve the same rights when it comes to
driverless vehicles.
Together, industry-supported preemption language and the absence of
a Federal prohibition on mandatory arbitration would leave consumers
without access to the civil justice system, unable to turn to state and
local authorities to address the many negative consequences that AVs
have and will continue to bring to our cities, and ultimately reliant
on a Federal authority that has no plans to issue comprehensive AV
safety regulations, and no ability to respond to negative ramifications
at the state and local level.
Under this structure, consumers and localities would ultimately be
forced to rely on the DOT's limited and oftentimes incredibly slow and
ineffective defect enforcement authority to address safety issues after
they occur, while local authorities would be prohibited from regulating
AV safety. These local authorities would also be prohibited from
current or future regulation of AVs in the large range of other concern
areas where states and cities have long used their authorities to
minimize negative impacts of automobiles. This arrangement is
unacceptable--consumers should remain the highest priority, not
powerless bystanders, as autonomous travel continues to develop.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter,
Christine Zinner, Federal Research and Advocacy Director
Alliance for Justice
Salena Zellers Schmidtke, Biomedical Engineer
BioInjury LLC
Michael Brooks, Executive Director
Center for Auto Safety
Joanne Doroshow, Executive Director
Center for Justice & Democracy
Courtney Griffin, Director of Consumer Product Safety
Consumer Federation of America
Rosemary Shahan, President
Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety
Maeve Elise Brown, Executive Director
Housing and Economic Rights Advocates
Amber Rollins, Director
Kids and Car Safety
Ken McLeod, Policy Director
The League of American Bicyclists
Christine Hines, Senior Policy Director
National Association of Consumer Advocates
Robert Weissman, Co-President
Public Citizen
Joan Claybrook, President Emeritus
Public Citizen
Sean Kane, President
Safety Research & Strategies
Jennifer Smith, President
StopDistractions.org
Zach Cahalan, Executive Director
Truck Safety Coalition, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways,
Parents Against Tired Truckers
______
National League of Cities
Washington, DC, February 3, 2026
Hon. Ted Cruz,
Chair,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chair Cruz and Ranking Member Cantwell,
The National League of Cities remains committed to providing
substantial feedback to the Commerce Committee on any proposed
legislation on autonomous vehicles (AVs). With thousands of AV fleets
driving on city streets and passenger rides increasing every day,
America's cities have gained extensive practical understanding of how
the policy and regulatory structure falls short for AV deployment. It
has become clear where regulatory blind spots are causing clear risks
to public safety without appropriate accountability and any legislation
should work to address them.
As state and local government associations have shared with this
Committee during previous Congressional sessions where SELF DRIVE was
discussed and set aside, overly broad preemption will not advance
autonomous vehicles safely. While the regulation of motor vehicle
safety standards should remain a Federal obligation, state and local
governments are the primary authorities concerning operational safety,
including regulating the operation of motor vehicles after such
vehicles have been constructed, the operators of those motor vehicles,
as well as the rules of the road governing how motor vehicles are
required to be safely operated on public roadways.
As incubators of innovation and the level of government closest to
the people, local governments must retain the authority to initiate the
necessary choices that best serve constituents and protect local public
safety, privacy, and efficiency of the road network as new technologies
like autonomous vehicles develop over time. The House SELF DRIVE Act as
currently written will not ensure that autonomous vehicles consistently
and reliably follow the rules of the road and are held accountable for
safe operations in our communities.
We support a competitive American economy that embraces technology
improvements including autonomous vehicles, but we must integrate them
in a manner that ensures safe operations which is the role of states
and local governments.
Sincerely,
Clarence E. Anthony,
CEO and Executive Director.
______
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
February 3, 2026
Hon. Ted Cruz, Chair,
Hon. Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chair Cruz and Ranking Member Cantwell:
Thank you for convening tomorrow's hearing, ``Hit the Road, Mac:
The Future of Self-Driving Cars.'' Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (Advocates) urges this Committee to advance proven solutions to
improve safety on our Nation's roads and establish sensible safeguards
to ensure self-driving cars are developed and deployed safely.
Advocates respectfully requests this letter be included in the hearing
record.
Motor Vehicle Deaths Remain Historically High
America's roads are moving an ever-increasing number of people and
goods.\1\ This activity comes with a significant yet preventable human
toll as well as infrastructure challenges and a robust price tag. On
average, 112 people were killed every day on roads in the U.S.,
totaling nearly 41,000 fatalities in 2023.\2\ This is a 24 percent
increase in deaths in just a decade.\3\ An additional 2.44 million
people were injured.\4\ Early projections for 2024 traffic fatalities
remain at a similar historic high level; over 39,000 people are
estimated to have been killed that year.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2025 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, American Society
of Civil Engineers, https://infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/
roads-infrastructure/
\2\ Traffic Safety Facts Research Note: Overview of Motor Vehicle
Traffic Crashes In 2023, NHTSA, Apr. 2025, DOT HS 813 705, (Overview
2023).
\3\ Overview 2023; and Traffic Safety Facts 2022: A Compilation of
Motor Vehicle Traffic Crash Data, NHTSA, Dec. 2024, DOT HS 813 656
(Annual Report 2022).; [comparing 2013 to 2023].
\4\ Overview 2023.
\5\ Traffic Safety Facts: Crash Stats, Early Estimate of Motor
Vehicle Traffic Fatalities in 2024, NHTSA, Apr. 2025, DOT HS 813 710
(Early Estimates 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the physical and emotional repercussions and
infrastructure damage due to motor vehicle crashes, the annual economic
cost is approximately $340 billion (2019 dollars).\6\ This figure
equates to every person living in the U.S. essentially paying an annual
``crash tax'' of over $1,000. Moreover, the total value of societal
harm from motor vehicle crashes in 2019, which includes loss of life,
pain and decreased quality of life, was nearly $1.4 trillion.\7\ When
adjusted solely for inflation, this figure amounts to over $1.79
trillion.\8\ Research from the Network of Employers for Traffic Safety
(NETS) finds motor vehicle crashes cost employers $72.2 billion in
direct crash-related expenses in 2019.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes,
2019, NHTSA, Dec. 2022, DOT HS 813 403. (Economic and Societal Impact
2019).
\7\ Economic and Societal Impact 2019.
\8\ CPI Inflation Calculator, BLS, available at https://
www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator
.htm, calculated from Jan. 2019-Jan. 2025.
\9\ Cost of Motor Vehicle Crashes to Employers--2019, Network of
Employers for Traffic Safety, March 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These devastating crashes impact millions of Americans each year
including the families of U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT)
Secretary Duffy and Members of Congress. These tragedies result in
long-lasting effects which often are not accounted for in statistics
alone. For every single death and serious injury, there is a horrific
ripple effect forever changing the lives of children, parents, friends
and communities. However, the solutions to meaningfully reduce its
impact are known, including vehicle safety improvements.
Federal Safety Standards Prevent Motor Vehicle Crashes, Save Lives,
Avert Injuries and Reduce Associated Costs
Advocates always has enthusiastically championed proven vehicle
safety technology and for good reason--it is one of the most effective
strategies for preventing deaths and injuries. According to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), ``[t]he FMVSS
[Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards] remain NHTSA's core way of
ensuring that all motor vehicles provide the requisite level of safety
performance and provide it within a technical timeframe.'' \10\ In
fact, the agency has estimated that from 1968 through 2019, NHTSA's
safety standards have prevented more than 865,000 deaths, 49 million
nonfatal injuries and damage to 65 million vehicles.\11\ In addition,
during that time frame the comprehensive societal benefits amounted to
$17.3 trillion, using 2019 dollars.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 89 FR 76923, Sep. 19, 2024.
\11\ Kahane, C. J., & Simons, J. F. (2024, December). Fatalities,
injuries, and crashes prevented by vehicle safety technologies and
associated FMVSS, 1968 to 2019--Passenger cars and LTVs (Report No. DOT
HS 813 611). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
\12\ NHTSA: 50 Years of Vehicle Safety Standards Saved Hundreds of
Thousands of Lives, Prevented Millions of Injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1991, Advocates led the coalition that supported enactment of
the bipartisan Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)
of 1991\13\ which included a mandate for front seat airbags as standard
equipment. As a result, by 1997, every new car sold in the United
States was equipped with this technology and the lives saved have been
significant. Frontal airbags have saved an estimated 70,059 lives from
1968 to 2019, according to NHTSA.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Pub. L. 102-240 (Dec. 18, 1991).
\14\ Kahane, C. J., & Simons, J. F. (2024, December). Fatalities,
injuries, and crashes prevented by vehicle safety technologies and
associated FMVSS, 1968 to 2019--Passenger cars and LTVs (Report No. DOT
HS 813 611). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates built on this success by supporting additional proven
lifesaving technologies as standard equipment in all vehicles in other
Federal legislation and regulatory proposals. These efforts include:
tire pressure monitoring systems;\15\ rear outboard 3-point safety
belts;\16\ electronic stability control;\17\ rear safety belt reminder
systems;\18\ brake transmission interlocks;\19\ safety belts on
motorcoaches;\20\ rear-view cameras;\21\ safer power window
switches;\22\ advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS);\23\ advanced
impaired driving prevention technology;\24\ rear designated seating
position alert (hot cars);\25\ enhanced vehicle hood and bumpers to
better protect vulnerable road users;\26\ and, advanced head lamps.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and
Documentation (TREAD) Act, Pub. L. 106-414 (Nov. 1, 2000).
\16\ Anton's Law, Pub. L. 107-318 (Dec. 4, 2002).
\17\ Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Pub. L. 109-59 (Aug. 10, 2005).
\18\ Id.
\19\ Id.
\20\ Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act,
Pub. L. 112-141 (Jan. 3, 2012).
\21\ Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007,
Pub. L. 110-189 (Feb. 28, 2008).
\22\ Id.
\23\ Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. 117-58 (Nov.
15, 2021).
\24\ Id.
\25\ Id.
\26\ Id.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recent regulatory action undertaken by NHTSA to require
pedestrian automatic emergency braking (PAEB) on light passenger
vehicles is an excellent example of the benefits of requiring effective
safety systems as standard equipment. The agency predicts that PAEB
will save 362 lives, mitigate over 24,000 injuries annually and result
in a yearly cost benefit of between $5.8-$7.2 billion. The Final Rule
for PAEB issued in 2024 also noted that the end user price for the
safety technology for a popular make and model vehicle, a Toyota Camry,
is $240.24.\28\ This cost is modest, particularly given the returns on
the investment. Moreover, research performed by the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety (IIHS) has found that AEB can reduce front-to-rear
crashes with injuries by 56 percent. Any delay in implementing the
Final Rule is an unnecessary safety setback.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 127; Light Vehicle
Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB); AEB Test Devices, NHTSA, Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis, April 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research also demonstrates that lifesaving vehicle safety
technologies are not the chief contributor to increased prices for new
cars. IIHS/Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) President David Harkey
recently wrote in an article, ``Sacrificing safety is not the way to
make cars affordable,'' ``. . . safety features aren't the main thing
pushing up prices.\29\ Buyers are paying more for convenience features
such as hands-free power liftgates, puddle lights and automatically
retracting mirrors. Size is also a major factor: Americans continue to
gravitate toward larger vehicles.'' \30\ Additionally, a 2023 study by
Consumer Reports (CR) found that ``[c]ommonly reported changes in
average transaction prices appear to be primarily driven by shifts
toward larger, more expensive SUVs and away from smaller and cheaper
cars, rather than from the cost of technology improvements in
individual models.'' \31\ As a result, CR concluded that ``[t]hese
findings prove that regulators can and should be aggressive in ensuring
that automakers continue to deliver cost-effective technology
improvements that save dollars and lives.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ David Harkey, Sacrificing safety is not the way to make cars
affordable, IIHS Insight (Jan. 20, 2026).
\30\ Id.
\31\ Consumer Reports, Vehicle Price Trends Fuel Economy and Safety
Improvements Come Standard.
\32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experimental Autonomous Driving Technology Remains Unproven
In stark contrast to the effectiveness of Federal standards and
proven safety technology, cars equipped with various levels of
automated driving systems (ADS), for which there are no FMVSS, already
have been involved in numerous serious and deadly crashes, many of
which have been subject to investigation by the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) and NHTSA.\33\ As NHTSA noted in the 2025 Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the ADS-Equipped Vehicle Safety,
Transparency, and Evaluation Program (AV STEP), vehicles equipped with
automated driving systems (ADS) ``. . . often struggle with driving
tasks that humans consider relatively simple.'' \34\ Furthermore,
according to data collected by NHTSA's Standing General Order (SGO)
2021-1 requiring manufacturers to report certain crashes involving
vehicles equipped with ADS or SAE Level 2 ADAS, there have been
approximately 1,874 crashes involving ADS and 3,003 with ADAS. These
include 51 crashes resulting in a fatality.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Ian Duncan and Aaron Gregg, Crashes involving Tesla's Full
Self-Driving prompt new Federal probe, WaPo (Oct. 18, 2024).
\34\ 90 FR 4132.
\35\ Standing General Order on Crash Reporting: For Incidents
Involving ADS and Level 2 ADAS, NHTSA, available at https://
www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-reporting,
last accessed Dec. 17, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, several San Francisco transportation agencies
submitted comments to the California Public Utilities Commission in
2023 detailing numerous dangerous incidents involving AVs operating in
the city.\36\ These events include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ San Francisco Comments on the Draft Resolution Approving
Authorization for Waymo Autonomous Vehicle Passenger Service Phase I
Driverless Deployment Program, R.12-12-011 (May 31, 2023).
Interfering with emergency response operations including 18
incidents documented by the San Francisco Fire Department in
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
which AVs put firefighters and the public at risk.
Making planned and unplanned stops in travel lanes that have
interfered with transit service and blocked traffic.
Intrusions into construction zones where City employees were
working.
Obstructions caused by AVs having to interpret and respond
to human traffic control officers.
Erratic driving.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Id. at pgs. 9-11.
According to recent media reports, similar issues continue to occur
including failing to stop for school buses,\38\ ceasing operating in
the middle of city streets during a power outage\39\ and traveling on
light rail tracks causing the robotaxi's passenger to flee.\40\ The
NHTSA and the NTSB have opened investigations into the incidents
involving school buses. Just last week, a child was reportedly hit by
an autonomous vehicle during school drop off.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Mary Cunningham, Waymo recalls more than 3,000 vehicles over
faulty software following school bus violations, CBS News (Dec. 11,
2025).
\39\ Grace Eliza Goodwin, Waymo robotaxis stop in the streets
during San Francisco power outage, BBC News (Dec. 22, 2025).
\40\ Mickaela Castillo, Waymo passenger flees after car drives on
Phoenix light rail tracks, AZ Family News (Jan. 8, 2026).
\41\ Washington Post, Waymo robotaxi hits child at school drop-off,
triggering safety inquiry, Jan. 19, 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many promises have been touted about AVs bringing reductions in
motor vehicle crashes and resultant deaths and injuries, lowering
traffic congestion and vehicle emissions, expanding mobility and
accessibility, improving efficiency, and creating more equitable
transportation options and opportunities.\42\ However, as auto industry
leaders have acknowledged, these outcomes are far from certain.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association, State of AV Report
2025.
\43\ Kristopher Brooks, The main reason why self-driving cars are
not ready for prime time, CBS News (May 1, 2024); Nilay Patel and
Andrew J. Hawkins, Pete Buttigieg is Racing to Keep Up with Self
Driving Cars. The Verge (Jan. 6, 2022); Rebecca Fannin, Where the
billions spent on autonomous vehicles by U.S. and Chinese giants is
heading, CNBC (May 23, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, supporters of AVs often assert that these vehicles
will improve roadway safety by inaccurately stating that 94 percent of
crashes are due to human error pointing to a report from NHTSA as
support for this misleading claim. However, the agency stated in the
same document with this statistic that ``[a]lthough the critical reason
is an important part of the description of events leading up to the
crash, it is not intended to be interpreted as the cause of the crash
nor as the assignment of the fault to the driver, vehicle, or
environment.'' \44\ [Emphasis added.] In addition, NTSB Chair Jennifer
Homendy has declared that using the statistic in such a manner is
``dangerous'' and ``[a]t the same time it relieves everybody else of
responsibility they have for improving safety, including DOT.'' \45\
Proponents of AVs also have made the claim that these vehicles will
prevent 90 percent of crash fatalities.\46\ Yet, as NHTSA states in the
AV STEP NPRM, ``[t]his proposal recognizes that the potential of ADS is
still largely unproven.'' \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Singh, S. (2015, February). Critical reasons for crashes
investigated in the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey.
(Traffic Safety Facts Crash Stats. Report No. DOT HS 812 115).
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
\45\ Hope Yen and Tom Krisher, NTSB chief to fed agency: Stop using
misleading statistics, Associated Press (Jan. 18. 2022).
\46\ Iyad Rahwan and Azim Shariff, Self-Driving Cars Could Save
Many Lives. But Mental Roadblocks Stand in the Way. Wall Street Journal
(Apr. 6, 2021).
\47\ 90 FR 4132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AV manufacturers and proponents of the technology often claim that
AVs are safer because they don't get tired, distracted or drive
impaired. While some AVs may be readily able to avoid crashes caused by
those human drivers who operate impaired, fatigued or distracted, they
also may cause crashes that sober, alert and engaged drivers would
routinely avoid. AVs, which are essentially billion-dollar pieces of
equipment with years of research, should not drive better than only the
worst drivers on the road.
Often, claims made about the safety of their operations do not
provide a complete picture. For example, as of September 2025, ``Waymo
has driven 127 million rider-only miles without a human driver.'' \48\
Human beings drove 3.2 trillion miles on U.S. roads in 2023 alone.
Thus, in its entire history from approximately 2019 to September 2025,
Waymo vehicles have operated without a human driver for less than 0.004
percent of the mileage driven on U.S. roads by human drivers in a
single year.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ https://waymo.com/safety/impact/
\49\ Traffic Safety Facts 2023: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle
Crash Data, NHTSA, DOT HS 813 738, Aug. 2025, available at https://
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813738
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waymo claims reductions in ``serious injury or worse crashes,''
``airbag deployment in any vehicle crashes,'' and ``injury-causing
crashes.'' \50\ However, over 40 percent of the crashes reported by
Waymo pursuant to the SGO had no human occupants in the vehicle. The
absence of passengers in a Waymo vehicle in a crash by default lowers
the injury rate and could be unrelated to the safety performance of the
vehicle given that there was no occupant available to be injured.
Moreover, if the goal of AV operations is to transport people, claiming
a safety benefit from crashes where no occupant is present is
incongruous. Additionally, the majority of the incidents reported by
Waymo pursuant to the SGO involved the Waymo vehicle being struck in
the rear on roads with speed limits of 25 mph or less, conditions not
generally associated with airbag deployments. In sum, Waymo vehicles
are operating on roads with lower speed limits, and are over involved
in rear end crashes, with a large number of incidents not involving
passengers in the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ https://waymo.com/safety/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, the SGO does not provide the data needed to fully analyze
the operational difficulties and incidents that are occurring with
Waymo vehicles. To properly assess the safety of these operations,
additional performance data beyond crashes is needed considering recent
events such as Waymo vehicles traveling on light rail tracks and
passing school buses.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Mickaela Castillo, Waymo passenger flees after car drives on
Phoenix light rail tracks, AZ Family News (Jan. 8, 2026); Mary
Cunningham, Waymo recalls more than 3,000 vehicles over faulty software
following school bus violations, CBS News (Dec. 11, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. is Not Lagging Behind Other Countries in Deployment
In sharp contrast to what is happening in the U.S., other countries
are taking a more calculated, careful and cautious approach to the
development of AVs.\52\ Often-repeated claims about the U.S. ``falling
behind'' other countries in the ``race'' for AVs are simply not true
nor supported by research. For example:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Autonomous vehicles: cross jurisdictional regulatory
perspectives update, Oct. 7, 2022.
China continues to require permits or restricts operations
of AVs on its roads to only those areas approved by the
authorities.\53\ In fact, the Nation recently delayed plans for
production of AVs after a deadly crash.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ China drafts rules on use of self-driving vehicles for public
transport; Aug. 8, 2022, Reuters; and Baidue bags China's first fully
driverless robotaxi licenses, Aug. 7, Reuters. Real driverless cars are
now legal in Shenzhen, China's tech hub, Jul. 25, 2022, TechCrunch+.
\54\ Keith Bradsher, China Delays Plans for Mass Production of
Self-Driving Cars After Accident, NY Times (Dec. 23, 2025).
Germany continues to require permits, approvals, and limits
areas of operation for AVs.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Germany completes legal framework for autonomous driving |
Federal Cabinet approves new ordinance, Apr. 2022, Malterer, M.
In Japan, the introduction of Level 4 vehicles will be
controlled and limited to specific, lightly populated
areas.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Japan to open roads to autonomous vehicles in 2023, Nov. 28,
2022, Wessling, B., The RobotReport.
The latest United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
(UNECE) regulations will limit operations to restrict risks and
oversee approval through testing and other requirements.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ New rules to improve road safety and enable fully driverless
vehicles in the EU, Jul. 6, 2022, UNECE.
In sum, no country is selling fully automated vehicles for
unfettered use to the public and by many accounts, none will be for a
significant amount of time.\58\ According to the most recent KPMG
analysis, the U.S. ranks fourth in the world for AV readiness, while
China stands at number twenty.\59\ The U.S. is not lagging behind other
countries in allowing AVs to go to market, but we are behind in
establishing comprehensive regulations to ensure public safety will not
be jeopardized or diminished.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Lawrence Ulrich, Driverless Still a Long Way From Humanless,
N.Y. Times (Jun. 20, 2019); Level 5 possible but ``way in the future'',
says VW-Ford AV boss, Motoring (Jun. 29, 2019).
\59\ Autonomous Vehicle Readiness Index, KPMG, 2020,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AV Tenets Offer a Sound and Sensible People-and-Safety-First
Approach to AV Deployment
To identify a people-and-safety-first path forward on AVs,
Advocates and numerous stakeholders developed the ``AV Tenets.'' \60\
These sound and sensible policy positions should be a foundational part
of any national AV policy. The AV Tenets are based on expert analysis,
real-world experience, and public opinion. They have four main
categories including: (1) prioritizing safety of all road users; (2)
guaranteeing accessibility and equity; (3) preserving consumer and
worker rights; and, (4) ensuring local control and sustainable
transportation. They are supported by a coalition of more than 65
organizations representing consumers, public health and safety experts,
pedestrians, bicyclists, disability rights activists, emergency
responders, law enforcement, labor and others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See: https://saferoads.org/autonomous-vehicle-tenets/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requiring that AVs meet minimum performance standards, including
for cyber security and a ``vision test'' to ensure the vehicle can
respond to all people, vehicles and objects in the roadway environment,
is essential. In addition, AV operations must be subject to adequate
oversight, including a comprehensive database accessible by vehicle
identification number (VIN) with basic safety information. These are
fundamental prerequisites to prevent crashes caused by AVs and boost
consumer confidence in this burgeoning technology. While the AV Tenets
were first established in 2020, the approach remains relevant today as
progress in advancing key safeguards to ensure safety and the purported
societal benefits of AVs has not been met.
Legislation to Improve Safety for Vehicles Equipped with an ADS Must be
Advanced; Anti-Safety Measures Should be Opposed
Advocates supports: the AV Safety Data Act, S. 3742/H.R. 4376,
which will help to ensure U.S DOT is getting important data on the
operations of AVs; the Stay in Your Lane Act, S. 3536, to compel
manufacturers of vehicles equipped with an ADS to identify the
operation design domain (ODD) for which the systems can safely operate
and restrict operations to such; and, the Know Before You Drive Act,
Discussion Draft, which will ensure consumers have accurate information
on the capabilities of partially automated driving systems and AVs.
Advocates opposes discussion draft versions of the Motor Vehicle
Modernization Act (Discussion Draft), which fails to ensure that the
U.S. New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) is upgraded to meet its
international counterparts and provides a pathway for mass exemptions
from safety standards for vehicles equipped with an ADS, and the Safely
Ensuring Lives Future Deployment and Research In Vehicle Evolution
(SELF DRIVE) Act of 2026 (Discussion Draft), which perpetuates anti-
safety measures proposed in past AV legislation including: a lack of
new safety standards to ensure the self-driving systems perform to a
minimum level of safety; preemption of states' ability to protect users
on their roadways prior to Federal AV regulation; weakening of current
safety data reporting requirements; and, a lack of regulation of remote
AV operators, among other issues. Advocates also opposes the Autonomous
Mobility Ensuring Regulation, Innovation, Commerce, and Advancement
Driving Reliability in Vehicle Efficiency and Safety Act (AMERICA
DRIVES) Act (H.R. 4661), to preempt state laws requiring a human driver
or a remote operator in commercial motor vehicles (CMV) operating with
an ADS Level 4 or 5 (ACMVs) and update regulations as well as inform
future regulations to make them favorable for ACMV operations including
for emergency beacons, and the Autonomous Vehicle Acceleration Act (S.
1798), to modify existing safety standards to support mass deployment
of AVs as outlined in a 2016 Volpe Center Report, Review of Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for Automated Vehicles.
Major Contributors of Crashes Must be Addressed with Effective
Solutions
We urge this Committee to continue to address the leading
contributing factors to motor vehicle crashes. In 2023, alcohol
impaired driving resulted in 12,429 people killed;\61\ speeding
resulted in 11,775 people killed;\62\ 10,484 vehicle occupants killed
in crashes were unrestrained;\63\ and, crashes in which at least one
driver was distracted resulted in 3,275 fatalities.\64\ In 2023, 7,314
pedestrians and 1,166 pedalcyclists were killed in traffic crashes.\65\
Motorcycles continue to be the most hazardous form of motor vehicle
transportation;\66\ 6,335 riders were killed in 2023.\67\ From 2013-
2023, fatalities involving pedestrian increased 53 percent,
pedalcyclists increased 55 percent and motorcycles increased 35
percent.\68\ Additionally, in 2021, the most recent year for which data
is available according to the Non-Traffic Surveillance (NTS) system, an
estimated 3,990 people were killed in non-traffic motor vehicle
crashes, an increase of 26 percent from 2020.\69\ These issues are
persistent, and the solutions are known and available, yet remain
underused, underfunded or are not required as standard equipment in
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Traffic Safety Facts Research Note, Overview of Motor Vehicle
Traffic Crashes in 2023. DOT HS 813 705 April 2025.
\62\ Id.
\63\ Id.
\64\ Id. These crashes are known to be underreported and
undercounted.
\65\ Traffic Safety Facts: Overview of Motor Vehicle Traffic
Crashes In 2023, April 2025, DOT HS 813 705.
\66\ The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes,
2019 (Revised), NHTSA, Feb. 2023, DOT HS 813 403.
\67\ Traffic Safety Facts: Overview of Motor Vehicle Traffic
Crashes In 2023, April 2025, DOT HS 813 705 [Overview 2023].
\68\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2025, April,
Revised). Traffic safety facts 2022: A compilation of motor vehicle
traffic crash data (Report No. DOT HS 813 656). National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
\69\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2024, April).
NonTraffic Surveillance: Fatality and injury statistics in non-traffic
crashes in 2021 (Report No. DOT HS 813 539).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) can mitigate the issues of
impairment, speeding, distraction and fatigue
Crashes, including those that result from some of the leading
contributors to fatalities, can be prevented or mitigated by AEB and
other ADAS systems. Research by IIHS has demonstrated significant crash
reductions associated with these safety systems.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Real-world benefits of crash avoidance technologies, IIHS,
July 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We urge this Committee to conduct oversight to ensure the U.S. DOT
issues the Final Rule for AEB in heavy vehicles and lane departure
warning (LDW) and lane keeping assist (LKA) in passenger vehicles, as
Congressionally mandated. Additionally, we urge Congress to direct
NHTSA to enhance the AEB rule by including bicycle and motorcycle rider
detection and response in all lighting conditions. Research conducted
by IIHS found that clothing which makes pedestrians stand out to human
drivers may make them invisible to automated crash prevention systems,
so ensuring AEB operates properly in all lighting conditions is
essential.\71\ As noted, the Final Rule for AEB in passenger vehicles
must be swiftly complied with, absent added delay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ IIHS, High-visibility clothing may thwart pedestrian crash
prevention sensors (Jan. 9, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also urge Congress to direct U.S. DOT to issue standards and
requirements for other vehicle safety technologies shown by research to
reduce crashes and impacts, including as noted by IIHS research, blind
spot detection, rear AEB and rear cross traffic alert.
Impaired Driving
In 2019, the total comprehensive cost of drunk driving over the .08
percent blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit was estimated at nearly
$296 billion.\72\ Adjusted for inflation only, that amounts to $373
billion in 2025 dollars.\73\ The total cost to employers of motor
vehicle crashes with an alcohol-impaired employee or dependent driving
(both on-the-job and off-the-job) was $8 billion in 2018 (expressed in
2019 dollars).\74\ Accounting for inflation only, that amounts to over
$10 billion in 2025 dollars.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes,
2019, NHTSA, Feb. 2023, DOT HS 813 403 available at https://
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813403;
[Economic Impact 2019].
\73\ CPI Inflation Calculator, BLS, January 2019 to January 2025
dollars, available at https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl.
\74\ Cost of Motor Vehicle Crashes to Employers 2019; Network of
Employers for Traffic Safety.
\75\ CPI Inflation Calculator, BLS, January 2019 to January 2025
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to NHTSA, between 2011-2020, an average of almost 10,500
people were killed each year due to alcohol impaired driving
crashes.\76\ The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) directed
NHTSA to issue a FMVSS requiring passenger motor vehicles to be
equipped with impaired driving prevention technology by 2024.\77\ IIHS
research estimates that passive impaired driving prevention technology
will save more than 10,000 lives each year, once widely deployed.\78\
The agency issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in
January 2024 but has taken no further regulatory action.\79\ Until
NHTSA completes this overdue rulemaking, lives will continue to be
needlessly lost, injuries suffered and associated costs expended. As
such, we urge this Committee to employ its oversight authority to
ensure NHTSA swiftly issues a Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ 89 FR 830 (Jan. 5, 2024).
\77\ Pub. L. 117-58, Sec. 24220 (2021).
\78\ Alcohol and Drugs, IIHS.
\79\ 89 FR 830 (Jan. 5, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speeding
Speeding-related crashes cause $46.4 billion in economic costs and
$225 billion in comprehensive costs (2019).\80\ These costs account for
14 percent of all economic costs and 16 percent of all societal harm
(measured as comprehensive costs) from motor vehicle crashes.\81\ If
these costs were updated for inflation alone, in 2025 they would equate
to $58.6 billion in economic costs and $284 billion in comprehensive
costs.\82\ Speeding-related crashes cost employers nearly $10 billion
in 2018 (expressed in 2019 dollars); the majority are a result of off-
the-job crashes.\83\ If this cost were updated for inflation alone, in
2025 it would equate to $12.6 billion.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ The Economic and Societal Impact Of Motor Vehicle Crashes,
2019, NHTSA, Feb. 2023, DOT HS 813 403.
\81\ Id.
\82\ CPI Inflation Calculator, BLS, Jan. 2019 to Jan. 2025,
available at https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl.
\83\ Cost of Motor Vehicle Crashes to Employers 2019; Network of
Employers for Traffic Safety.
\84\ CPI Inflation Calculator, BLS, Jan. 2019 to Jan. 2025,
available at https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excess speed can contribute to both the frequency and severity of
motor vehicle crashes. At higher speeds, additional time is required to
stop a vehicle, and more distance is traveled before corrective
maneuvers can be implemented. Speeding reduces a driver's ability to
react to emergencies created by driver inattention, unsafe maneuvers of
other vehicles, roadway hazards, vehicle issues (such as tire blowouts)
or perilous weather conditions. Increases in speed also can mean life
or death for vulnerable road users (VRUs) who lack the protective
structure of a vehicle. While many drivers have a proclivity to exceed
posted speed limits or may approve of higher speed limits, AAA has
found that raising speed limits leads to a very minimal reduction in
time on the road noting, ``Raising speed limits is often thought of as
a way to improve traffic flow and to allow drivers to get to their
destinations more quickly. However, AAA research shows that driving at
higher speeds increases risk which can outweigh the potential benefits
of saving a few minutes of time.'' \85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ AAA: Higher Speed Limits don't mean Faster Commutes, July 13,
2023, available here: https://info.oregon.aaa.com/aaa-higher-speed-
limits-dont-mean-faster-commutes/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligent speed assistance (ISA) can provide information to
drivers about present speed limits, warn drivers when a vehicle speed
is above the limit, prevent a vehicle from exceeding the speed limit,
or maintain a set speed.\86\ The U.S. DOT Volpe Center released
research, ``New York City Intelligent Speed Assistance Pilot
Evaluation,'' in 2024 which showed ``ISA produced a 64 percent
reduction in overall speeding and an 82 percent decrease on high-speed
roads.'' \87\ The IIHS found that more than ``60 percent of drivers
would find it acceptable if their vehicle provided an audible and
visual warning when they exceeded the posted speed limit.'' \88\ The
NTSB has recommended that NHTSA require ISA in all new vehicles that,
at a minimum, warns drivers when they exceed the speed limit. States
have already started acting on this technology; Washington State,
Virginia and the District of Columbia have enacted laws for ISA use for
repeat and/or extreme speeding offenders. All states should be
incentivized to follow suit, and ISA should be required on all new
vehicles in the next surface transportation reauthorization bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ European New Car Assessment Programs: Speed assistance
systems, available at https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-
ratings-explained/safety-assist/speed-assistance/
\87\ New York City Intelligent Speed Assistance Pilot Evaluation,
October 2024. Available here: https://www.nyc.gov/assets/dcas/
downloads/pdf/fleet/nyc-intelligent-speed-assistance-pilot-evaluation-
2024-oct.pdf
\88\ ISA in the USA? The likelihood of U.S. drivers accepting and
using intelligent speed assistance, Reagan, Ian J., Cicchino, Jessica
B., Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour,
February 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupant Protection
Seat belt use is a proven lifesaver. From 1975 to 2019, seat belts
prevented over 403,000 fatalities and saved society approximately $2.5
trillion in economic costs.\89\ Seat belts serve as the first line of
defense against injury or death for vehicle occupants when crashes
occur. According to NHTSA, the combination of an airbag plus a lap and
shoulder belt reduces the risk of death in frontal crashes by 61
percent.\90\ Sadly, for passenger vehicle occupant fatalities in 2023,
it is estimated that nearly half (49 percent) were unrestrained.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes,
2019 (Revised), NHTSA, Feb 2023, DOT HS 813 403, available at https://
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPubli
cation/813403. [Economic Impact 2019].
\90\ Lives Saved by Vehicle Safety Technologies and Associated
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 1960 to 2012, Passenger Cars
and LTVs, With Reviews of 26 FMVSS and the Effectiveness Of Their
Associated Safety Technologies in Reducing Fatalities, Injuries, and
Crashes; NHTSA, Jan. 2015, DOT HS 812 069, available at https://
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812069.pdf.
\91\ National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2025, May).
Occupant protection in passenger vehicles: 2023 data (Traffic Safety
Facts. Report No. DOT HS 813 730). National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seat belt reminder systems have been proven to improve seat belt
use and save lives.\92\ Congress as part of the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) directed NHTSA to amend
Federal safety standards to require these systems in the rear seats of
passenger vehicles (previously these systems were only required for the
front driver's seat although most automakers also equipped the front
passenger seat).\93\ NHTSA recently issued a Final Rule requiring a
seat belt use warning system for rear seats by September 1, 2027. The
rule also updates and enhances the current seat belt warning
requirements for the driver's seatbelt and extends these requirements
to the front outboard passenger seat by September 1, 2026.\94\ We urge
the Committee to conduct oversight to ensure it is implemented without
delay to improve vehicle occupant safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ 84 FR 51076 (Sep. 27, 2019).
\93\ Pub. L. 112-141, Sec. 31503 (MAP-21).
\94\ 90 FR 390 (Jan. 3, 2025). Multi-stage manufacturers and
alterers have an additional year to comply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distracted Driving
Crashes in which at least one driver was identified as being
distracted imposed an economic cost of $98.2 billion in 2019.\95\
Adjusted for inflation only, that amounts to $123.9 billion in 2025
dollars.\96\ In 2018, distracted driving crashes cost employers nearly
$19 billion.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes,
2019, NHTSA, Feb. 2023, DOT HS 812 403.
\96\ Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator.
\97\ Cost of Motor Vehicle Crashes to Employers 2019, NETS, 2018
data expressed in 2019 $.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver distraction is known to be a major contributor to motor
vehicle crashes.\98\ However, the true impact of distracted driving
remains unclear due to issues with the underreporting of crashes
involving distraction, including differences in police crash report
coding and database limitations.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Blincoe, L., Miller, T., Wang, J.-S., Swedler, D., Coughlin,
T., Lawrence, B., Guo, F., Klauer, S., & Dingus, T. (2023,February).
The economic and societal impact of motor vehicle crashes, 2019
(Revised) (Report No. DOT HS 813 403).
\99\ Traffic Safety Facts Research Note: Distracted Driving 2022,
April 2024, NHTSA, DOT HS 813 559, available at https://
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813559.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2023, over two trillion text and multimedia messages were sent
or received in the U.S. Mobile wireless data traffic has risen
dramatically over the last decade, from 3 trillion megabytes in 2010 to
100.1 trillion in 2023.\100\ Research has shown that because of the
degree of cognitive distraction these devices cause, the behavior of
drivers using mobile phones (whether handheld or hands-free) is
equivalent to the behavior of drivers at the threshold of the legal
limit for alcohol in most states (0.08 percent BAC).\101\ Crash risk
increases dramatically--as much as four times higher--when a driver is
using a mobile phone, with no significant safety difference between
handheld and hands-free phones observed in many studies.\102\ A study
by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found that text messaging
increased the risk of a safety-critical driving event (i.e., crashes,
near-crashes, crash-relevant conflicts and unintentional lane
deviations) by 23.2 times.\103\ Sending or receiving a text message
causes the driver's eyes to be off the road for an average of 4.6
seconds. When driving 55 miles per hour (mph), this is the equivalent
of driving the entire length of a football field with one's eyes
closed.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ 2024 Annual Survey Highlights, CTIA.
\101\ Fatal Distraction? A Comparison of the Cell-Phone Driver and
the Drunk Driver, Strayer, D.L., Drews, F.A., Crouch, D.J., University
of Utah, Department of Psychology, available at https://
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1518/001872006777724471.
\102\ McEvoy, S.P.; Stevenson, M.R.; McCartt A.T.; Woodward, M.;
Haworth, C; Palamara, P.; and Cercarelli, R. 2005. Role of mobile
phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a
case-crossover study. Britich Medical Journal 331(7514):428; available
at http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7514/428; and Redelmeier, D.A.
and Tibshirani, R.J. 1997. Association between cellular-telephone call
and motor vehicle collisions. The New England Journal of Medicine
336:453-58, available at http://www.stat.wmich.edu/naranjo/articles/
nejmcell
phone.pdf.
\103\ What is Distracted Driving? Key Facts and Statistics, DOT
NHTSA, citing Olson, R.L., Hanowski, R.J., Hickman, J.S., Bocanegra,
J.; ``Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations'', VTTI, Sep.
2009, available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/
docs
/DriverDistractionStudy.pdf.
\104\ Blueprint for Ending Distracted Driving, NHTSA, June 2012,
DOT HS 811 629, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/
files/811629.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IIJA directed U.S. DOT to conduct research regarding the
installation and use of driver support systems, also known as driver
monitoring systems, to minimize or eliminate driver distraction and
automation complacency within three years and report to Congress within
six months of the completion of the research.\105\ The Euro NCAP is
already evaluating these systems including for non-fatigue impairment
detection.\106\ In addition, several major automakers include some type
of driver monitoring/driver support technologies in their vehicles sold
in the U.S.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ Pub. L. 117-58, Sec. 24209 (2021).
\106\ European New Car Assessment Program: Assessment Protocol--
Safety Assist Safe Driving, Implementation 2023, V 10.4, Euro NCAP,
Feb. 2024
\107\ IIHS, Partial automation safeguard ratings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vulnerable Road User (VRU) Safety
Crashes involving pedestrians resulted in $17.6 billion in economic
costs and $112.5 billion in comprehensive costs in 2019.\108\
Accounting for inflation alone, this would equate to $22.2 billion in
economic costs and $142 billion in comprehensive costs in 2025.\109\
Crashes involving bicyclists resulted in $5.6 billion in economic costs
and $32.2 billion in comprehensive costs in 2019.\110\ Accounting for
inflation alone, this would equate to $7 billion in economic costs and
$40.6 billion in comprehensive costs in 2025.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes,
2019 (Revised), NHTSA, Feb. 2023, DOT HS 813 403.
\109\ CPI Inflation Calculator, Bureau Of Labor Statistics,
Comparing value Jan. 2019 to Jan. 2025.
\110\ The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes,
2019 (Revised), NHTSA, Feb. 2023, DOT HS 813 403.
\111\ CPI Inflation Calculator, Bureau Of Labor Statistics,
Comparing value Jan. 2019 to Jan. 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lack of conspicuity is a roadway safety issue, especially for VRUs.
Of the 7,314 pedestrians killed in traffic crashes in 2023, 77 percent
occurred in dark conditions.\112\ Also in 2023, there were 1,166
pedalcyclists fatalities, and 53 percent occurred in dark
conditions.\113\ Improvements to vehicle lighting would afford drivers
additional time to identify and respond accordingly to pedestrians,
bicycle riders and other VRUs in the roadway. The IIJA directed U.S.
DOT to issue a Final Rule updating the headlamp standard (FMVSS 108)
and permitting adaptive driving beam (ADB) headlamps within two years.
ADB headlights are a lighting technology which uses headlight beam
modification to increase illumination of the road while avoiding glare
to other traffic. While the U.S. DOT has taken action to allow use of
ADB, it should improve the standard and require them.\114\ This action
has been recommended by the NTSB and others.\115\ According to IIHS, 44
percent of headlight systems tested on model year 2024 vehicles earned
a good rating.\116\ About 23 percent of the systems tested were rated
marginal or poor because of inadequate visibility, excessive glare from
low beams for oncoming drivers, or both.\117\ Ensuring that the U.S.
DOT takes action to improve the headlamp standard and advance a
requirement should be pursued by the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ Traffic Safety Facts 2023 Data: Pedestrians, NHTSA, DOT HS
813 727, Jun. 2025.
\113\ Traffic Safety Facts 2023 Data: Bicyclists and Other
Cyclists, NHTSA, DOT HS 813 739, Jul. 2025.
\114\ Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment, Adaptive Driving Beam Headlamps,
Final Rule, NHTSA, 87 FR 9916, Feb. 22, 2022. NHTSA-2022-0013-001.
\115\ See related NTSB investigation reports.
\116\ IIHS, Headlights, available at: https://www.iihs.org/
research-areas/headlights
\117\ IIHS, Headlights, available at: https://www.iihs.org/
research-areas/headlights
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the IIJA included a provision directing NHTSA to
issue a Notice for Public Comment on updating hood and bumper standards
for passenger vehicles to ``to reduce the number of injuries and
fatalities suffered by pedestrians, bicyclists, or other vulnerable
road users.'' \118\ In September 2024, NHTSA issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to establish a new FMVSS to ensure passenger
vehicles are designed to mitigate the risks of serious injuries and
fatalities in crashes involving pedestrians including children.\119\
The standard proposed in the NPRM would save 67 lives annually with the
benefits far outpacing the costs by establishing test procedures
simulating a head-to-hood impact and performance requirements to
minimize the risk of head injury.\120\ While this is a step in the
right direction, we urge the Committee to ensure that the U.S. DOT
pursues a comprehensive upgrade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ Pub. L. 117-58, Sec. 24214 (2021).
\119\ 89 FR 79622 (Sep. 19, 2024).
\120\ 89 FR 76926.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annually, motorcycle crashes cost nearly $17 billion in economic
impacts and $107 billion in societal harm as measured by comprehensive
costs based on 2019 data.\121\ Accounting for inflation alone, in 2025,
this would equate to over $21 billion in economic impacts and over $135
billion in societal harm.\122\ Serious injuries and fatalities
accounted for 83 percent of total comprehensive costs of motorcycle
crashes, compared to 60 percent of the total comprehensive costs of all
motor vehicle crashes.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes,
2019 (Revised), NHTSA, Feb. 2023, DOT HS 813 403.
\122\ CPI Inflation Calculator, BLS, January 2019 to January 2025
dollars.
\123\ The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes,
2019 (Revised), NHTSA, Feb. 2023, DOT HS 813 403.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motorcycle riders continue to be overrepresented in fatal traffic
crashes.\124\ IIHS evaluated on-road data and found motorcycle anti-
lock braking systems (ABS) were associated with a 22 percent reduction
in the rate of fatal crash involvements.\125\ Requiring ABS as standard
equipment via a FMVSS on new motorcycles will prevent and mitigate
crashes. European Union General Safety Regulation (EU GSR) has required
ABS fitment on motorcycles since 2016. IIHS most recently filed a
Petition for Rulemaking to require ABS on motorcycles with NHTSA in
2023.\126\ We urge the Committee to pursue a standard for this safety
improvement in the next surface transportation reauthorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ NHTSA, Motorcycle Safety, available at: https://
www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/motorcycles
\125\ Motorcycle Antilock braking Systems and Fata Crash Rates:
Updated Results, Aug. 2021, IIHS.
\126\ IIHS, Petition for rulemaking: Upgrade Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 122, Motorcycle Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.122), to
require antilock braking systems (ABS) for new on-road motorcycles
(Nov. 9, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child Passenger Safety
Since 1990, over 1,100 unattended children have been killed in
``hot cars,'' and 7,500 more have been injured.\127\ Cost effective
technology exists to prevent these tragedies now. The IIJA directed
U.S. DOT to issue a Final Rule within two years requiring all new
passenger motor vehicles weighing less than 10,000 pounds to be
equipped with a system to alert the operator to check rear-designated
seating positions after the vehicle engine or motor is deactivated by
the operator. The U.S. DOT has not taken regulatory action and should
issue a Final Rule which requires the system to detect occupants in the
entire passenger compartment rather than rely on reminder systems which
are less effective. Of note, Euro New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)
added testing of child detection systems in 2023 (protocol), and from
2025 onwards will only be assigning points for direct sensing
systems.\128\ We urge the Committee to direct U.S. DOT to
comprehensively elevate NCAP and minimally adopt protocols from global
NCAPs which have advanced beyond the U.S. program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ Kids and Car Safety, Hot Cars, available at: https://
www.kidsandcars.org/hot-cars/media-resources
\128\ See: https://www.euroncap.com/media/79888/euro-ncap-cpd-test-
and-assessment-protocol-v12.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your consideration of these issues. We look forward
to working with you to address the public health crisis of motor
vehicle crashes.
Sincerely,
Catherine Chase,
President.
cc: Members of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
______
February 3, 2026
Hon. Ted Cruz, Chair,
Hon. Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate
Washington, DC.
Dear Chair Cruz and Ranking Member Cantwell:
In advance of tomorrow's hearing, ``Hit the Road, Mac: The Future
of Self-Driving Cars,'' the undersigned write to urge you to pursue a
people-and-safety-first approach to the development and deployment of
autonomous vehicles (AV). Guardrails to ensure the safety of road users
on public roadways must be established. Moreover, we urge you to reject
proposals that undermine the safety for vehicles equipped with an
automated driving system (ADS) and other road users. Improving public
safety, realizing societal benefits and advancing AVs and innovation
are mutually achievable goals.
A comprehensive and thoughtful approach to AV development and
deployment would include these sensible safeguards:
Minimum Standards for ADS and Foundational Safety Technologies
Safety standards to ensure that the ADS will ``see'' and
safely respond to all road users, vehicles and infrastructure
in the roadway environment (aka a ``Vision Test'') are
elemental.
Performance standards for safety technologies can save lives
now as well as contribute to an automated driving future. These
include: automatic emergency braking (AEB) that detects and
responds to all road users, vehicles and roadway
infrastructure; lane departure warning (LDW)/lane keeping
assist (LKA); blind spot detection with intervention;
intelligent speed assistance (ISA); occupant detection; and, a
system to ensure a driver is sober, aware and capable. The AV
will need to see and respond to everyone and everything in the
roadway environment, stay in its lane, be aware of other road
users before switching lanes or turning, adhere to the speed
limit, know if an occupant is in the vehicle and ensure a
driver can take over from the ADS at a moment's notice for
vehicles equipped with a partial ADS system.
Retain States' Rights to Protect Their Road Users
States must not be hampered from taking action to ensure
safety on their roadways including by establishing requirements
to report safety and crash data, to limit operations due to
safety deficiencies, to support enforcement of traffic safety
laws and to conduct crash investigations.
Collection of and Public Access to Comprehensive Safety Data is
Essential
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
established the standing general order (SGO) to require the
reporting of safety data for vehicles equipped with a level 2
advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) and an ADS. The SGO is
a needed step in the right direction and should be improved to
collect new safety data and made permanent.
States and localities must have access to recent and robust
safety data to make determinations on AV operations.
Establish Accessibility Requirements
While the AV industry has consistently included
accessibility and mobility improvements for people with
disabilities as a top priority, known and persistent issues
including wheelchair securement remain unsolved. Remedies must
be required.
Address Safety Considerations for Remote Operators
AV operations are using remote operators (ROs) and remote
assistants (RAs) to overcome deficiencies in their ADS and
bolster their operations.
Information on the scope of ROs/RAs and the safety
deficiencies they are addressing is currently undocumented, yet
needs to be, to understand the safety and readiness of related
ADS.
Safety issues related to use of ROs/RAs must be identified
and safeguards established including but not limited to
restrictions on the number of vehicles each RO/RA is managing,
limitations on hours of service (HOS), requirements for a
commercial drivers license (CDL) and experience operating
related vehicles.
Include Workforce Protections
Workforce issues for certain working drivers must be
addressed.
Prevent Mass Exemptions from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS)
A procedure for exemption (up to 2,500) from FMVSS already
exists. Provisions that permit mass exemptions from current
FMVSS, particularly in the absence of new standards to ensure
the safety of the ADS, are dangerous.
Curb Allowances for Testing and Demonstration
Under current law, motor vehicle manufacturers can introduce
vehicles that do not comply with Federal safety standards into
interstate commerce for the sole purposes of testing and
evaluation.
Current law should not be expanded to allow more groups to
take advantage of this allowance or to monetize the testing
period.
Roadway safety must be prioritized in the approach to AVs. On
average, 112 people were killed every day on roads in the U.S.,
totaling nearly 41,000 fatalities in 2023.\1\ Early projections for
2024 traffic fatalities remain at a similar historic high level; over
39,000 people are estimated to have been killed that year.\2\ The
public health crisis on our roadways should not be exacerbated with
additional dangers caused by AVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Traffic Safety Facts Research Note: Overview of Motor Vehicle
Traffic Crashes In 2023, NHTSA, Apr. 2025, DOT HS 813 705, (Overview
2023).
\2\ Traffic Safety Facts: Crash Stats, Early Estimate of Motor
Vehicle Traffic Fatalities in 2024, NHTSA, Apr. 2025, DOT HS 813 710
(Early Estimates 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your consideration of these issues. We respectfully
request this letter be included in the hearing record.
Sincerely,
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
America Walks
American Academy of Pediatrics
Center for Auto Safety
Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH)
Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF)
GreenLatinos
Kids and Car Safety
League of American Bicyclists
Northern Virginia Families for Safe Streets
Parents Against Tired Truckers (P.A.T.T.)
SMARTER, Inc. (the Skilled Motorcyclist Association--Responsible,
Trained, and Educated Riders, Inc.)
Stopdistractions.org
Trauma Foundation
Truck Safety Coalition
cc: Members of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
______
International Union of Police Associations
January 30, 2026
Senator Ted Cruz, Chairman,
Senate Commerce Committee,
Washington, DC.
Senator Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member,
Senate Commerce Committee,
Washington, DC.
Honorable Senators:
As President of the International Union of Police Associations, I
am writing to express my concerns about the deployment of autonomous
vehicles in our communities. We represent rank and file active duty law
enforcement professionals across this great nation, including the U.S.
territories of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Autonomous vehicles present a serious and unacceptable danger at
police, fire, and emergency medical scenes.
Emergency scenes are not predictabie environments. They invoive
hand signais, verbal commands, temporary traffic patterns, flares,
cones, and split-second judgment by trained responders. Autonomous
systems cannot reliably interpret these conditions and cannot exercise
discretion when lives are on the line.
Police officers, firefighters, and paramedics routinely work in
active roadways. A vehicle that hesitates, misreads an officer's
direction, or fails to recognize an evolving scene is not just a
technological inconvenience, but potentially a lethal hazard.
How can a pubiic safety officer stop one of these vehicles that is
entering an area restricted because of a hazardous material, active
shooter or crime scene?
When autonomous vehicles malfunction or behave unpredictably at
emergency scenes, responders are forced to manage the technology
instead of saving lives. That risk is unacceptable. Accountability is
also unclear when autonomous systems cause injury, block emergency
access, ortrigger secondary crashes.
We believe that deployment of autonomous vehicles should not
proceed without proven, enforceable safeguards that protect first
responders and the communities they serve.
Respectfully,
Sam A. Cabral,
International President.
______
American Council of the Blind
Alexandria, VA, February 2, 2026
Hon. Ted Cruz, Chair,
Hon. Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member,
United States Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Cruz and Ranking Member Cantwell:
The American Council of the Blind (ACB) writes in support of a
first-ever National Autonomous Vehicle Framework being included in the
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill.
ACB is a national nonprofit representing the millions of Americans
who are blind or have low vision, advocating for access to
independently live, work, and fully participate in all aspects of
society.
SAE Level 4 and 5 fully autonomous driving technology has the
potential to be a safe, reliable, on-demand mobility option for those
who are blind or have low vision across America, including those who
can never hold a driver's license. However, there is an urgent need to
establish a Federal policy framework for AV technology. Currently,
reliable transportation can be a major barrier for people who are blind
or have low vision. If a person does not live in a community with a
strong public transit infrastructure, accessing transportation can be
immensely difficult.
This keeps our community from important responsibilities such as
procuring employment because we have no way to get to a place of
employment. Since the advent of major rideshare companies, the blind
community has become regular users. However, blind and low vision
passengers are routinely denied rides from rideshare drivers. Most
specifically, persons like myself, who get around with the guidance of
a trained guide dog, I am constantly denied rides by drivers who refuse
to let a dog in their car despite Federal laws. This creates a barrier
in accessing such transportation. I have even heard stories from blind
travelers without guide dogs who have been denied rides simply because
the driver does not want the hassle of accommodating a person with a
disability. The wonderful thing about an autonomous vehicle is that it
cannot discriminate against a person for any reason. In the
approximately six times I have traveled in an autonomous vehicle, I had
no fear of being denied a ride. I was able to travel freely, safely,
and easily to the places I needed to go. I felt safe in my experiences
because I know the technology is safer than that of a human being who
is more prone to error. When I ride in a vehicle with a rideshare
driver who is displeased with my presence in his or her car, I feel far
more unsafe than I do in a vehicle designed with safety in mind.
Most people who are blind or have low vision cannot drive a
vehicle. This leaves them completely dependent on other drivers or
public transportation. The creation of autonomous vehicles is opening a
long-closed door for our community. As a person who developed by visual
impairment at a young age, I have never been able to drive a car. So,
when I took my first independent ride in a Waymo in Phoenix, Arizona in
April of 2025, it was the first time in my life I was able to travel in
a car completely by myself. It is difficult to put into words how free
and independent I felt during that ride. I can only imagine the
opportunities such services will offer to the blind and low vision
community as the service becomes more widespread across the Nation.
A national AV framework would define fully autonomous vehicles, set
a strong Federal safety baseline, and provide the regulatory certainty
companies need to invest, expand services, and compete. Without Federal
leadership, this technology will continue to roll out piecemeal as each
state has to reinvent the wheel when it comes to AVs. This risks
leaving many blind Americans behind. For those who live in accessible
cities such as San Francisco, California or Phoenix, Arizona, the
opportunity has opened numerous doors. However, for those who do not,
the exciting opportunity seems unobtainable. As a Maryland resident, I
dream of the day autonomous vehicles come to the greater Washington,
D.C. area. Because I have had a few limited experiences in Arizona and
California, it makes my desire to access such transportation increase
that much more. I urge Congress to take the steps necessary to allow
the process to move more quickly so that blind and low-vision Americans
from across the country can access this life changing service.
Establishing a national AV framework will ensure that blind
Americans can freely choose this life-changing mobility innovation. The
American Council of the Blind respectfully urges Congress to act.
Please reach out if you have any questions. I can be contacted at (202)
559-2041.
With Gratitude,
Claire Stanley, J.D.,
Director of Advocacy and Governmental Affairs.
______
United Spinal Association
February 2, 2026
Hon. Ted Cruz,
Chairman,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Cruz and Ranking Member Cantwell:
On behalf of the United Spinal Association, we respectfully request
that the Senate include a National Autonomous Vehicle (AV) Framework in
the upcoming surface transportation Reauthorization Bill. The AV moment
is upon us. The time to enact a life-saving, life-changing technology
national safety baseline and regulatory certainty for new market
expansion is now. An AV framework is a critical opportunity for the
United States to lead the world in advancing safe mobility technology
with the promise to expand freedom and independence for millions of
Americans in both rural and urban sectors, especially for the Nation's
5.5 million wheelchair users.
United Spinal has almost 70,000 members, more than 40 chapters, 107
support groups, and over 120 rehabilitation facilities and hospital
partners nationwide. Founded by paralyzed veterans in 1946, we are
dedicated to enhancing the quality of life of all people living with
spinal cord injuries and disorders (SCI/D), paralysis, neurological
conditions and other mobility disabilities, including veterans, and
providing support and information to loved ones, care providers and
professionals. We also work collaboratively with Spinal Cord Injury
Model (SCI) System Centers and the Model Systems Knowledge Translation
Center that provide innovative research and support in the field of
SCI, traumatic brain and burn injuries.
United Spinal has a long history of supporting accessible
transportation for America's wheelchair users. We are acutely aware
that wheelchair accessible AVs can be a true game changer in elevating
the quality of lives of wheelchair users. For untold numbers of
wheelchair users, especially those living in rural areas, the lack of
transportation options serves as a major obstacle to gain entry to the
job market or to sustain employment. Wheelchair accessible AVs would
help level the playing field for wheelchair users.
In fact, a recent analysis\1\ based on ``the estimated change in
labor force participation by people with disabilities facilitated by an
increase in mobility due to AV adoption'' has found that under a
moderate scenario, ``an increase in the labor force participation by
people with disabilities of 15 percent, is projected to result in 4.4
million direct jobs for people with disabilities and 9.2 million total
jobs across the U.S. The U.S. GDP and output are projected to increase
by $868 billion and $1.6 trillion, respectively. Direct income, those
associated with the wages and earnings of people with disabilities, is
projected to increase by $160 billion, while total income is projected
to increase by almost $417 billion.'' Further, the analysis found that,
``Total Federal tax revenue, associated with the increase in direct,
indirect, and induced employment is projected to be almost $93 billion,
or a 1.8 percent increase in total Federal tax revenue.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See: https://www.nationaldisabilityinstitute.org/wp-content/
uploads/2023/02/ndi-economic
impactsofremovingtransportationbarriers.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of our community members have experienced Waymo's SAE Level 4
fully autonomous driving technology and learned how this technology can
help expand mobility for people with disabilities. Establishing a
Federal AV framework would provide regulatory certainty, allowing
companies to invest in and expand their services. Otherwise, people
with disabilities could be left behind. We have a long-standing
relationship with AV companies working to improve the accessibility of
their services and are optimistic about the potential momentum a
Federal framework could provide to design, develop and deploy
wheelchair accessible AVs.
United Spinal's SecureRide Coalition\2\ was initially formed to
tackle the AV industry-wide challenge of developing a single automated
wheelchair securement standard and system for application in autonomous
vehicles. It soon became apparent that the work must be expanded to
provide for a securement system that could provide for seamless, safe
and independent travel across all transportation modes--from public
transit and ride-shares to rail and air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See: https://unitedspinal.org/secureride/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coalition's work built upon an existing voluntary industry
safety standard that has been safety tested by researchers such as
those at the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute
(UMTRI).\3\ While the Universal Docking Interface Geometry (UDIG)
standard has not yet been commercialized, two National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
Grant recipients are working to bring a securement system based on the
UDIG standard to commercialization. This 2-point UDIG-based securement
system should replace the predominantly current labor intensive
(requiring another individual other than the wheelchair user) and time-
consuming 4-point securement system (four tie-down straps must be
attached to the wheelchair as well as to the vehicle floor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See: https://wc-transportation-safety.umtri.umich.edu/udig-
universal-docking-interface-geo
metry/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importantly though, further research is necessary to provide
seamless, safe and independent securement in a variety of vehicle
types. Specifically, research is needed on an automated system that,
using a UDIG standard, secures a wheelchair within a motor vehicle
utilizing a deployable anchor. A deployable anchor will allow a
wheelchair user to roll past an anchor that can be deployed from a
recess in the vehicle floor or an anchor that can be deployed laterally
from either side of the wheelchair. A provision in the surface
transportation reauthorization bill directing the Secretary of
Transportation to conduct this specific research will yield tremendous
benefits.
The additional research will not only aid more flexible passenger
configurations for wheelchair accessible AV design and development, but
it will also help usher in more seamless transportation between
transportation modes. That seamlessness for wheelchair users will also
quickly translate into time savings for transit and paratransit
services. The time savings between tying down four straps versus
independent automated wheelchair securement will be significant.
Enacting a Federal AV framework will not only improve mobility
access for people with disabilities but it will also strengthen U.S.
leadership amid growing global competition. We respectfully urge the
Committee to act now. We look forward to working with you on both the
research provision and the AV framework accessibility provisions.
For more information, please contact Kent Keyser, United Spinal's
Policy Fellow at: [email protected].
Sincerely,
Stephen Lieberman,
Senior Director, Advocacy and Policy,
www.unitedspinal.org
The Chairman. Who's next? Senator Kim.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANDY KIM,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Kim. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you to all of you
for coming out for this really important conversation.
Before I even came into Congress, I spent years and years
working on cybersecurity, national security-related issues. So,
as we're talking through safety and control, I guess I just
wanted to get a sense from you just where we're at when it
comes to the capacity to protect ourselves from cybersecurity
attacks? As we are worried about the growing number of devices
that we have that are connected to the internet, I have to say,
at the top of the list, you know, I do have concerns just about
autonomous vehicles, and I wanted to just get a sense from you
what's true and what's not. So, maybe--Dr. Pena, maybe we can
just start with you. Just what levels of concern have you had,
and what steps are you all taking to try to prevent the ability
for someone else to be able to access data as well as take
control of controls and features of the vehicles?
Dr. Pena. Yes. Cybersecurity is a very important part of
our safety framework. It is something that we take very
seriously, and we take a number of measures to identify
vulnerabilities, perform risk assessments, and then mitigate
those vulnerabilities. One example is, by design, our safety
critical systems in the vehicle are protected from external
connections, so you cannot actually hack into it, connect to
it, and drive it remotely. And so, we do design, we do testing,
so we do a pretty extensive evaluation of cybersecurity and
mitigations.
Senator Kim. So, with your--with your company and with your
fleet, have you had any instances where someone was able to
access data or features or control of any of the vehicles?
Dr. Pena. Not that I'm aware of, Senator.
Senator Kim. Dr. Moravy, I guess I wanted to ask you just
similar questions. Just, you know, how are you able to protect
your consumers, your drivers, from cyberattacks, and have you
had any instances of cyberattacks upon vehicles that were able
to access data, features, or gain control?
Mr. Moravy. Yes. Thanks, Senator Kim, for the question. You
know, I guess I'll quote our CEO here from over 10 years ago
when we started on this endeavor. He said one of his biggest
fears was the possibility that someone could do as you
described----
Senator Kim. Yes.
Mr. Moravy--take over an autonomous vehicle and do
something nefarious. Since that day, we've been committed to
making sure that never happens. We have many layers of security
within our system, and similar to what Dr. Pena said, our
driving controls--go, stop, steer--are in a core embedded
central layer that cannot be accessed from outside the vehicle.
In addition, our security protocols ensure that no firmware can
be downloaded to the vehicle without what is the modern-day
equivalent of a two-man rule. In order to sign such a firmware,
two people have to sign it off with individual keys to make
sure that that encrypted firmware can be uploaded to that
vehicle safely. You know, and to answer your question very
bluntly about has anyone ever been able to take over control of
our vehicles, the answer is quite simply no. And to make sure
that that happens, we actively participate in hacking events,
trying--paying people to try to get into our vehicles, and we
are the only automotive manufacturer that does it.
Senator Kim. Yes. Mr. Farrah, just from an industry side, I
mean, I think we all are in agreement here, we want to make
sure that answer continues to be ``no'' in terms of ability to
be able to access. Just what are--what are you seeing in terms
of across the industry as well as what we should be thinking
about here in terms of setting standards to be able to ensure
that we can look the American people in the eye and say, you
know, this is not a scenario that can happen, and you don't
have to worry about this?
Mr. Farrah. Senator Kim, I appreciate the question, and I
think what Mr. Pena described is very much industry standard.
There's a thought of this as being a closed universe that the
company controls, and that is a natural way of keeping out
certain cybersecurity intrusions. I'll also just note here
that, from our perspective, we want Americans to understand
that these vehicles are safe. We want Americans to trust these
vehicles and understand that this is--this is a huge priority
of each of the companies that are there. If we don't have that
trust, the technology doesn't get developed and it doesn't get
deployed, and that's obviously not something that we want to
see. And so, there's a massive incentive on the part of the
companies to do everything they can to address cybersecurity
intrusions, and that's, I think, why we have the track record
that we do.
Senator Kim. Yes. Dr. Pena, one last quick question for you
on a different topic. You know, I'm from New Jersey, very
densely populated area. Just as I'm talking to people in my
state, how do you explain deployment to a densely populated
area? What types of markers, what types of metrics you need
before you can say, you know, this is safe now to deploy in
these different areas?
Dr. Pena. Yes. Before we enter any market, we do an
extensive evaluation and test of the different driving
features, different road types. We do analysis simulations, and
we also perform testing with our vehicles, what we call
autonomous driving specialists, behind the wheel prior to us
removing the human driver. So, we take our time. We do it very
methodically, and we have a very strong safety framework. And
all of that--those arguments, that evidence needs to be
presented to a safety board, of which I'm a part of, and we
approve that deployment with the sufficient evidence that the
system has been demonstrated to perform safely in that city.
Senator Kim. OK. Thank you so much, and I'll yield back,
Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Moreno.
STATEMENT OF HON. BERNIE MORENO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO
Senator Moreno. Mr. Moravy, if a Tesla robotaxi is in an
accident and there is a question about liability and it turns
out that it was a software error, it's possible hardware error,
who would accept liability?
Mr. Moravy. Yes. Thanks for the question, Senator Moreno.
Of course, if, in the unlikely event that a software error
occurred in our autonomous driving system, we would take
liability for that event, much in the same way that a driver
takes liability in our current legal system if they make an
error.
Senator Moreno. Right. So, it'd be no different. Dr. Pena,
how about at Waymo?
Dr. Pena. Likewise.
Senator Moreno. So, you would be--you would take that
liability, and you wouldn't look to skirt the types of
protections that we have now, which is, obviously, some sort of
terms and conditions that nobody reads that's 17 pages long
that you just hit ``accept.'' In other words, a driver does not
have binding arbitration against somebody that they hit, so you
would not be in favor of that, correct?
Dr. Pena. Senator, that's, again, not my area of expertise,
so I would have to discuss with my team, and I can get back to
you.
Senator Moreno. OK. I mean, that's not a great answer.
Are you familiar that seven years ago, President Trump
issued a national emergency around foreign adversaries
accessing our critical infrastructure and put in place
something that we call the Connected Vehicle Rule? Are you
familiar with that?
Dr. Pena. Yes, I am.
Senator Moreno. OK. And Mr. Moravy, are you familiar with
that as well?
Mr. Moravy. Yes, sir.
Senator Moreno. OK. And you're fully--Mr. Moravy, are you
in favor of the Connected Vehicle Rule? Do you think that was
good policy?
Mr. Moravy. I think any policy that, you know, regulates
and promotes U.S. security and manufacturing is a good policy.
Senator Moreno. And how much of your vehicle, again for the
record, is made in America?
Mr. Moravy. Over 95 percent of our vehicles are made with
North American parts. All of our cars are made in the U.S. that
are sold in the U.S., and we're working toward making that a
hundred percent.
Senator Moreno. So, you get to the point soon with these
robotaxis they're a hundred U.S. content?
Mr. Moravy. That's correct.
Senator Moreno. So, the Connected Vehicle Rule would have
no impact on you whatsoever because, obviously, all the
telecommunications infrastructure connections would be U.S.-
based, correct?
Mr. Moravy. Yes, sir.
Senator Moreno. And, Dr. Pena, how about you?
Dr. Pena. Our autonomous driving system is designed and
built in the U.S., and we install onto several different
platforms. We are in support of the Connected Vehicle Rule.
Senator Moreno. But how is that possible given that
you're--you said in your testimony that we're locked in a race
with China, but it seems like you're getting in bed with China.
The cars that you're looking to bring into the United States
are Chinese automobiles owned by Chinese auto companies, are
they not?
Dr. Pena. We use a variety of platforms. They are----
Senator Moreno. Right now, you use a Jaguar that's made in
Graz, Austria, and the car that you're looking at doing is a
car by a subsidiary of Geely, which is a Chinese company. Is
that not accurate?
Dr. Pena. Yes, and we----
Senator Moreno. So then, how would--how would advancing the
U.S. interests over China be met by having a company allow
Chinese-made automobiles to enter the U.S. market, which are
currently not allowed to enter the market? It seems like a very
backdoor way of bypassing the Connected Vehicle Rule.
Dr. Pena. Those Chinese vehicles, the Geely vehicles, have
no smarts, no connectivity. What we do is we install our
autonomous driving system right here in America, and we don't
share any information whatsoever. And so, I feel that having a
stable auto supply is actually enable us to scale more quickly
and more efficiently, which is, in fact, helping us retain our
lead over China and even extend it.
Senator Moreno. So, giving a natural market to a Chinese
company to ship us cars is making us better and creating more
jobs for Americans? That's completely ridiculous. Let me ask
you another question. When you operate in the cities that you
do, what's the price difference between Waymo and Uber? Like,
if I were to go and pick an Uber and then I go and pick a
Waymo, what's the price difference?
Dr. Pena. Senator, it really varies----
Senator Moreno. More or less.
Dr. Pena--by market.
Senator Moreno. One percent, a hundred percent?
Dr. Pena. It varies so much that I probably can't give you
an accurate answer.
Senator Moreno. Well, I'll give you the answer. It's almost
exactly identical, so what you're really doing is really taking
the labor cost out of your--out of your business model. So,
just be--let's just be clear, which is--by the way, I'm a
capitalist. I'm not--but don't--we need to frame this as, hey,
look, we figured out a way to save a ton of money, which is to
get rid of the human driver in the vehicle so we could make
more profit, but let me ask you another question. You're owned
by Google, correct?
Dr. Pena. Alphabet is our parent company, amongst others.
Senator Moreno. Are you going to be using disaggregated
data to target advertising toward your users?
Dr. Pena. No, that's not our plan.
Senator Moreno. That's not your plan. So, that would not be
any kind of situation where you'd serve up different ads,
people could use the service, and then get that data that allow
them to target ads toward----
Dr. Pena. Yes----
Senator Moreno.--toward your users?
Dr. Pena. That's not the plan.
Senator Moreno. Is that plan subject to change?
Dr. Pena. Oh, I'm not privy to that.
Senator Moreno. OK. All right. Thank you. I'm out of time.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Lujan.
STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Many of you may be
aware of some legislation that I was proud to work on years ago
with some of my Republican colleagues, and we got together and
we came up with some legislation that would require technology
and vehicles that would prevent drunk driving deaths. I remind
my colleagues that when I was in my early 20s, I was hit on by
a drunk driver. Thank God, I'm here today. As many as 10,000
people, 11,000-12,000 people lose their lives every year
because of this.
Now, one of the questions that I have in this particular
space is around the many types of anti-drunk driving technology
that already exists. There's even a recent announcement from a
company that will provide a Japanese OEM with a driver
monitoring system that includes alcohol impairment detection.
The current NHTSA Administrator, Jonathan Morrison, recently
warned, ``There's a very major difference between an advanced
driver assistance system and an automated driving system. The
system you can buy in your vehicle today, with very rare
exception, is a driver assist system. If you have an extra
cocktail or two, and you get behind the wheel and put it in,
'hands-free mode,' you're a drunk driver. I want you to be
pulled over, and I want you to be removed from the road.''
That's what Jonathan Morrison, the current NHTSA Director
recently said.
Mr. Smith, can you explain why self-driving features in
cars requires a person to be alert and able to safely take over
the vehicle's operations?
Dr. Smith. Thank you, Senator, for the question, but
particularly for your work on the HALT Drunk Driving Act. That
is--that is incredible to be able to do something that will
eventually save tens of thousands of lives every single year,
and what you're describing is the fact that we have
technologies that can do that. We have technologies that can
drive a vehicle. Some of the same ones and other ones are able
to detect if a human is actually capable of safely driving the
vehicle. And as you point out, certain applications of driving
automation envision that a human might still be able to or even
need to drive for a portion of the trip, not the kind of
robotaxis that we might talk about, but features on production
vehicles often.
And as part of the safe design of the system, the
manufacturer needs to know that when the system says, hey,
human drive, that the human is in a position to do so, that
they're not sleeping, that they're not drunk, that they're able
to reengage. And so, a lot of that is the ability to
understand, directly or indirectly, if a human is able to
drive.
Senator Lujan. Mr. Moravy, what technology does Tesla
leverage to ensure that a driver is alert, in other words, not
impaired, drunk, distracted, or fatigued, and ready to take
over the vehicle at a moment's notice? For your self-driving or
autopilot technology to work correctly, isn't it necessary to
determine that the driver can safely take over the vehicle?
Mr. Moravy. Thank you, Senator Lujan. Currently, for our
full self-driving supervised system that is deployed in our
consumer products, it is an L2 system, to your point, and it
requires driver supervision. In those vehicles, we use a
variety of detections to ensure that the driver is attentive,
including eye monitoring, hands-on detection, and other bits of
information to ensure that they're being attentive.
Senator Lujan. So, when NHTSA completes its rule and sets
standards to passively detect drunk or impaired driving, with
the HALT Act, do you believe Tesla will be able to implement
this technology in the near future?
Mr. Moravy. Senator Lujan, we have a good relationship with
NHTSA, and we work closely with them on all regulations and
abide by them. And should they pass a new regulation to the
description that you just mentioned, we would gladly ensure
that we comply with it.
Senator Lujan. Appreciate it. Dr. Pena, do you support
implementation of the HALT Drunk Driving Act, and how can your
company help advance this life-saving initiative?
Dr. Pena. This is, you know, one of my goals as well, to
eliminate impaired driving, and so we support it, and this is
one of the benefits of our vehicle. We never drive drunk, never
distracted.
Senator Lujan. Dr. Pena, your systems--you're a systems
engineer by trade, correct?
Dr. Pena. Yes, I am.
Senator Lujan. Can you explain the role of redundant
systems and safety critical systems?
Dr. Pena. Oh, absolutely. Having redundancy allows you to
have higher reliability and higher levels of safety. You always
have to plan for the unexpected, so if some of your systems
malfunction, you want a backup system to be able to come into
play and allow you to continue to travel safely.
Senator Lujan. One of those tools is sensor fusion, if I'm
not mistaken, and I'd ask if we could just get that entered
into the record and we'll get the definition.
As my time is expired here, Mr. Moravy, can you explain to
me why Tesla has decided to limit redundancy for its sensing
systems by removing radar and relying solely on cameras?
Mr. Moravy. Yes. Thank you, Senator Lujan. Just a quick
answer here. Our human roads are designed to be operated by
pure vision, and I reject the notion that we don't have
redundancy. We have nine cameras, and each of them is
independently wired to our central control, so in that sense,
we have redundancy across the vision system that you mentioned.
Senator Lujan. I mean, would you say that when Elon said--
Elon Musk, your CEO, that LiDAR and radar reduce safety due to
sensor, you agree with that?
Mr. Moravy. Senator Lujan----
Senator Lujan. If you don't want to answer, you don't have
to because I don't want to compromise you with whatever your
next endeavor is.
Mr. Moravy. We believe strongly that we can--you know, we
can solve all of the self-driving needs with vision alone.
Senator Lujan. All right. Well, Mr. Chairman, I know that
when we talk about these self-driving things, there seems to be
unanimous agreement--Democrats, Republicans, everyone
involved--that LiDAR, cameras, all of this stuff works to keep
everybody safe, and so I'm hoping we can get--drill in more.
One question that I didn't have time to ask today, Mr.
Chairman, is as we talk about all of these rules around self-
driving cars, before you can get to full self-driving, Congress
has to take action.
Mr. Moravy, will you commit that Tesla--I don't want to
call them salespeople, but the people that are at your
facilities where people go pick up the cars that they order, to
stop telling people that are purchasing Teslas that they can
order a little hand weight from Amazon to trick the vehicle?
Will you commit to sending an order out and saying please stop
that, or not ``please,'' but demand that it stops?
Mr. Moravy. Senator----
Senator Lujan. If you--if you--if you don't know what's
going on, I can tell you, and if you want to see a video, I'll
show you one.
Mr. Moravy. Yes. Senator Lujan, I'm not aware of the
specific instances you have, but we do inform our staff to
educate our customers on the features of full self-driving
supervise and the functionality during all sales events.
Senator Lujan. Mr. Chairman, I'll follow up with you on
this one. I think we can get this one done. You don't have to
do something publicly, but to teach people how to trick the
rules, to put a little weight--and if you do a search on
Amazon, you can get one right now. They're like 10 bucks. You
strap the sucker on the wheel, and then it tricks the vehicle
like your hands are on it. Tell them to stop doing that, and I
just hope that we can--we can work on that one, Mr. Chairman.
It doesn't have to be a big thing. Just tell them to stop it.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Schmitt.
STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC SCHMITT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These kinds of
hearings I think are fascinating because I--and I try to bring
the perspective of the folks back home and what they really
want to understand because this is emerging. It's not going
away. I think Missouri is kind of going through its own process
right now of figuring out what sort of rules of the road, for
lack of a better term, that they want to have in place. And one
of the things that I think is most exciting about it, and I
know that we have some advocates here, is the opportunities
that it provides for individuals with disabilities to get to
more places and have that kind of connectivity that, in many
ways, they don't have right now or it's much more challenging
for them. So, I think there's a lot of opportunity, but I
suppose the nature of the questions I get from back home, which
I want to pose to you guys now, is related to safety. As you
can kind of tell, there's--obviously it's a new technology.
People, they have concerns, or questions, I guess, is a better
way to put it.
Mr. Moravy, in your testimony, you make the argument that
Tesla's full self-driving, the FSD supervised system, already
performs significantly better than the U.S. average, driving
5.1 million miles before a major collision. What in that
analysis, or that study, or that data, what sort of independent
validation do you guys rely on for those results?
Mr. Moravy. Yes. Thank you, Senator Schmitt. So, you know,
we publish all of our data, regarding vehicle safety in
particular, yearly in a safety report, in our impact report and
online on our safety page to show the number of miles we've
driven and the incidents that have occurred. And we regularly
meet with our regulators, such as NHTSA, to review incidents
that do occur.
Senator Schmitt. OK. Dr. Pena, I want to ask you, there
was--in December 2025, pretty recently, there was a powder--
power outage in San Francisco--I'm sure you're well aware of
this--where traffic lights went down, and the vehicles--your
vehicles there were just sort of frozen. What changes are you
making to the software that you guys use that would--and the
decision-making logic to ensure that those kinds of situations,
like dark signals or whatever, are not a problem, because this
is the kind of stuff that people, they get concerned about,
right?
Dr. Pena. Yes. It was a widespread power outage with many
traffic lights, as you said, disabled. And I think it was the
sheer number of traffic lights that created a challenge for us
in terms of delays in traversing intersections. In a way, we
had tuned the system to be very conservative, and what we're
doing is we are updating our software--we've already done it--
to provide more context about a regional power outage so that
we can more confidently traverse those lights. And we're also,
you know, updating our incident procedures and, you know,
working with law enforcement to ensure that we're
communicating, that we're collaborating.
Senator Schmitt. OK. Mr. Moravy, I want to ask you, from
your perspective, and I think that when we talk about so many
things are happening in this country, bringing back
manufacturing in this country, not relying on other places for
the things that we need that are critical, whether it's iPhones
or F-15s, and certainly the auto industry in this country has
been the gold standard for a very, very long time. From your
perspective, what's at stake in this competition with China for
autonomous vehicles, and what happens if we lose?
Mr. Moravy. Yes. Thanks, Senator Schmitt. You know, as you
mentioned, Tesla is committed to U.S. manufacturing, and we
have been for many, many years. You know, we are in a sort of
precipice and in a competition with China to develop, you know,
autonomous vehicles. And I think we have the leaders here in
the world today that are actually making the best autonomous
vehicles that are on the market. We need to maintain that
leadership in order to really, hopefully, transition autonomous
vehicles into a state where the FAA has, with Boeing, and
become the gold standard of the future of aviation, you know,
some 70, 80 years ago. If we--if we take that same leadership
now and we put forth, you know, an AV framework that Congress
instructs NHTSA to enact, we will have that leadership where,
you know, the best American companies will make the most AVs
for the--for the world to follow.
Senator Schmitt. And to put a finer point on it, it matters
not just for here, but you see what China does worldwide with
their--with their EVs, right? They effectively subsidize them.
They dump them in a market. They take over a whole continent
because they wipe out an entire industry, and then all you're
left with are Chinese EVs. If you think about the data that can
be gathered from having AVs all around the world as sort of
roving sensors for our chief adversary, I think that that is a
sort of an underrated aspect of this competition.
And then, finally, with the 4 seconds I have remaining, I
just want to ask between you guys, if you want to weigh in, how
should--we're talking about this Federal framework, you've got
all this kind of patchwork of the states, but how should the
Federal framework account for local differences? I mean, there
are going to be differences, and what are those--how do you
minimize it? What's important? How do you guys see it?
Mr. Farrah. Senator Schmitt, I'll just briefly say this is
an opportunity for federalism. We have states that are passing
AV deployment statutes. They need to be involved in all this.
At the same time, the Federal Government needs to step up with
regard to vehicle design, vehicle construction, and vehicle
performance. There's an opportunity for both states and the
Federal Government to be involved together to make sure that we
are winning this race.
Senator Schmitt. OK. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you, and I will say the last point
Senator Schmitt raised about the dangers of Chinese
surveillance in EVs and Chinese-manufactured cars are very real
concerns and one that I think all of us need to take very
seriously. Senator Markey.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
start with a little-known fact about autonomous vehicles. When
an AV, such as a Waymo, encounters a situation on the road that
it doesn't know how to handle, the Waymo phones a human friend
for help. The autonomous vehicle communities then communicate
with a so-called remote assistance operator, human being, who
is located remotely and guides the self-driving car through the
difficult driving environment. And despite the crucial role
these operators play in autonomous vehicle safety, the public
knows almost nothing about those people, those human beings.
And that is why yesterday, I opened an investigation into all
of the major autonomous vehicle companies demanding answers
about their remote assistance operators.
Mr. Pena, let's learn more about Waymo's remote assistance
operation. I understand that Waymo calls these people ``live
agents'' and ``rider agents,'' these human beings. Yes or no,
does Waymo employ humans located remotely to help its vehicles
navigate difficult driving scenarios?
Dr. Pena. Senator, they provide guidance. They do not
remotely drive the vehicles. As you stated, Waymo asks for
guidance in certain situations and gets an input, but the Waymo
vehicle is always in charge of the dynamic driving task, so
that is just one additional input----
Senator Markey. But the human being--the human being helps
the vehicle to navigate those difficult driving scenarios. Is
that correct?
Dr. Pena. Yes.
Senator Markey. OK. So, are all of these human operators
located in the United States? Are they all here?
Dr. Pena. No, we have some in the U.S. and some abroad.
Senator Markey. So, how does that break down? What percent
are abroad?
Dr. Pena. Senator, I don't have that number for you. We can
get back to you.
[The information referred to follows:]
[COMMITTEE INSERT]
Senator Markey. Is it a majority are abroad?
Dr. Pena. I just don't have that number.
Senator Markey. Well, that's very curious that someone
who's running the program has no idea how that workforce breaks
down. It just seems kind of curious that you don't know that
answer, but are some of these operators located outside the
United States?
Dr. Pena. Yes, some are located abroad.
Senator Markey. Yes. And so, for me, that's fairly
shocking. Waymo has critical safety employees who may need to
intervene in a split second if a Waymo encounters an unknown,
dangerous situation located in the United States, but they are
outside the United States. In what countries are these
employees located?
Dr. Pena. The Philippines.
Senator Markey. Excuse me?
Dr. Pena. The Philippines.
Senator Markey. So, they're in the Philippines.
Dr. Pena. Yes.
Senator Markey. Mr. Pena, that is completely unacceptable,
and here's why. Having people overseas influencing American
vehicles is a safety issue. The information the operators
receive could be out of date. It could introduce tremendous
cybersecurity vulnerabilities. We don't know if these people
have U.S. driver's licenses. And let's not forget, Waymo is
trying to replace the jobs of hardworking taxi and rideshare
drivers, and now you're saying that of the human beings, the
human jobs that remain in the system, you're shipping those
jobs overseas. It's one thing when a taxi is replaced by an
Uber or a Lyft. It's another thing when the jobs just go
completely overseas, which is what we're talking about because
no one likes a backseat driver, but a transatlantic backseat
driver is downright dangerous in our country.
Now, I want to turn to another autonomous vehicle issue.
When designing an autonomous or partially autonomous vehicle,
engineers define where and when the system is safe to drive.
This operational limit is known as the Operational Design
Domain. Virtually every automaker, with one notable exception,
restricts their driving systems to these domains. Mr. Pena, yes
or no, does Waymo restrict its vehicles to safe, pre-mapped
operational design domains?
Dr. Pena. Senator, we do. We have a very well-defined
Operational Design Domain--different road types, weather,
different conditions--and so we ensure that our vehicles are
capable of performing.
Senator Markey. Well, that's good. Thank you. So, just to
be clear, Waymo vehicles include technological safeguards to
prevent them from operating on certain roads. Yes. Let's turn
to Tesla. Mr. Moravy, yes or no, does Tesla restrict its
partially autonomous driving systems, such as full self-drive
and autopilot, to safe, pre-mapped Operational Design Domains?
Mr. Moravy. Senator Markey, our driver's assistance system
that you mentioned, full self-driving, supervised in our
vehicles is--can be operated on a generalized solution in--on
all public roads. On the other hand, our fully autonomous
solution that is in operation in Austin is geofenced and mapped
to a limited area.
Senator Markey. So, what Tesla is doing, unlike Waymo,
unlike Waymo--Teslas do not have technology that prevents
drivers from triggering the full self-drive and autopilot in
unsafe conditions. So, from my perspective, that's outrageous
because autopilot and full self-drive have already been
involved in dozens of deaths because in part, Tesla drivers can
enable these driving systems on any road, under any conditions.
And by failing to follow the best practices of every other AV
company, Tesla is putting American lives at risk, and that is
unconscionable.
And it's why in December, I introduced the Stay in Your
Lane Act, which requires automakers to define where and when
their driving systems are safe, and restrict the driving
systems to those conditions only. Tesla does not do that.
Tesla's vehicles say full self-drive, but, really, they are
only partial full self-drive for the driver. That's very
misleading to call something full self-drive when you cannot,
in fact, meaningfully use that technology without increasing
the danger. We need to ensure that they are supervised by human
drivers when they are using full self-drive. So, that's my
message to Tesla. You got to do that. Other companies do it.
You have to do it as well, or else we're going to continue to
see recurrence of these accidents on the streets of our
country. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Lummis.
STATEMENT OF HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Among the things
that have come up as I've listened in this hearing, is the
human factor behind the wheel. So, Mr. Moravy, you've spent
your career involved in designing systems for automobiles, both
with drivers and without drivers. Am I correct?
Mr. Moravy. Yes, Senator, that's correct.
Senator Lummis. Could you tell me what things that you've
worked on designing over your career have reduced deaths in
automobiles--in passenger automobiles?
Mr. Moravy. Yes, Senator. The list is quite long, so I'll
try not to belabor everyone here, but I've worked on systems
related to crash safety, occupant restraints, autonomous
driving systems, driver's assistance systems, automatic
emergency braking, and all of them have had some impact on
saving lives.
Senator Lummis. But then didn't it drop to a point where it
kind of plateaued?
Mr. Moravy. Yes. If you follow the number of deaths on
American roads, we've made great strides as an industry since
the 1970s up until about 2005, where we've sort of leveled off
between 35,000 and 40,000 deaths a year, and it's really
tragic, to be honest. It's like, as a safety engineer, it's,
like, hard to not see that number go down, and my team, and I,
we work every day to try and figure out ways to reduce it.
Senator Lummis. And what has--what made it plateau?
Mr. Moravy. Well, Senator, there are a number of causes,
I'm sure, in any dataset. But, you know, in the early 2000s,
there have been a number of studies that point to the advent of
the smartphone and the amount of distraction that that causes
within a driving scenario that have made it difficult for
safety engineers like ourselves to----
Senator Lummis. Yes, so text----
Mr. Moravy.--to further reduce that number.
Senator Lummis. So, texting and driving. So, it sounds to
me like efforts have been made to help humans not kill
themselves in cars, but it reached a plateau because texting
and driving, and distracted driving is something that you can't
correct for in a way that continues the decline of automobile
deaths. Am I correct?
Mr. Moravy. I think that's a fair assessment, Senator
Lummis.
Senator Lummis. Well, so one of the things that makes me
excited about autonomous vehicles is it does provide another
leap in our ability to prevent human error in automobile
deaths. Am I correct?
Mr. Moravy. I would say that I believe it is the next giant
step we can take as an industry.
Senator Lummis. So, here's why I think it's so important
that we work with NHTSA, that we have some national standards
for autonomous vehicles. I think everybody here in this room,
unless you're really young, knows somebody who was driving
drunk and died, who fell asleep at the wheel and died, who
slipped on black ice because they were driving too fast and
died, who were texting and got in an accident. These are so
common in my state of Wyoming, where we're driving long
distances alone. I was once asked what is the most important
factor for running for political office in Wyoming, and I've
always said it's the ability to drive long distances alone
without falling asleep because we're campaigning one day in
Meeteetse, and the next day in Rock Springs, and the next day
in Cody, and the next day in Cheyenne. And so, you're driving
because it's retail politics. You have to get around.
And I am so excited about autonomous vehicles for a couple
reasons. I have three grandsons. They're all under the age of
seven. Autonomous vehicles provides an avenue for them to get
home at night when they have exercised poor judgment as human
beings, and I hope they don't exercise poor judgment, but
they're boys, and they might.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lummis. It also protects people who have driven and
fallen asleep in Wyoming because they're pushing themselves too
far. And this texting and driving thing is not something that
plagues me, but it terrifies us as parents. So, the last thing
that makes me excited is I'm quickly entering the era when I
might be a little old lady who wants the freedom to still be
able to drive when maybe she should not. And I just want a
button in a car that, if I don't know where I am or I'm not as
sharp as I was behind the wheel, that I can push a button in
the car that says, ``grocery store'' and another button that
says ``home,'' take me home. And the freedom that will give
elderly people is such a comfort to me as I become an elderly
people.
And. Mr. Chairman, the work you're doing on this, I join
you in being excited about it. You know, I got to drive--ride
in a Waymo out in San Francisco, and there were two interesting
things to me. One is how safe I felt. The other was when we
pulled into their yard, how many jobs there were for people
that were working on the cars. They're different jobs in the
same industry. And what Tesla's talking about doing with
automobiles, where all the parts are made in America and
they're using, like, U.S. lithium and other raw materials to
make these cars, that's transformative. That's a game changer
for personal passenger vehicles.
So, I just want to compliment the people that are
testifying today. I think that the opportunities provided for
human safety are unparalleled, and that the jobs that will be
created within the same industry are a little different than
the jobs that we have today in that industry, but they're jobs
nonetheless, and they're going to be good jobs. So, I'm excited
about this technology. I can't wait because if I ever get
dementia, man, I want that little take me home button on a car.
It's freedom for old people, and it's safety for young people,
and so I want to thank you all for what you're doing to advance
the opportunity for those of us who want to get home safely.
And, Mr. Chairman, you know, count me in on your efforts to
create a Federal standard below which you cannot fall, but that
has the criteria NHTSA needs to move forward and help this
industry embed and grow in the United States. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Well, and I will say, at least for the next
year, you're in a good place for dementia. You're in the U.S.
Senate.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I also want to encourage people to listen to
Senator Lummis' excellent description of being a parent or a
grandparent and concern for the safety of young people, and I
think--I think you're exactly right that AVs are a total game
changer. I say this as the father of two teenage girls. I am
very concerned. I will not let my daughters go in an Uber. In
my hometown of Houston, four Uber drivers were just indicted
for sexually assaulting teenage girls in their car. And I am
thrilled for the day that I can send an AV to take my girls
where they need to go, and I don't have to worry about a man in
the front seat who might do something violent. And I think
there are a lot of parents who share exactly the concern that I
have, and I think that's an enormous safety improvement as
well. Senator Duckworth.
STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, am
excited about the future of autonomous vehicles, especially for
those in the disability community. Unfortunately, we as a
Nation have become collectively numb to the tens of thousands
of lives lost on our roads every year. But the Federal
Government and the automotive industry's shared failure to
significantly reduce traffic fatalities must never be
weaponized as an excuse to rush out AV designs that are merely
as deadly, or perhaps slightly less deadly, than the status
quo. So, let's not kid ourselves. While self-driving technology
is exciting, it has a long way to go, and our regulatory system
is even further behind.
And so, I want to bring the panel's focus to where self-
driving cars have been massively hyped, but inadequately
prioritized: helping Americans with disabilities lead more
independent lives. Senator Lummis touched on this a little bit.
Everybody, hopefully, will live long enough to develop
disabilities, but I got to tell you, I'm somewhat skeptical
because no matter how much lip service is paid to accessibility
by so-called ``autonomous driving technology companies'', the
reality is that all of you are dependent on traditional OEMs.
Let's be real. The auto industry has not exactly been a
proactive leader in designing, building, and testing vehicles
that embrace universal design principles as a default. They
treat it as a luxury. Wheelchair users often pay nearly double
the price of the vehicle because of necessary aftermarket
modifications.
Mr. Moravy, I understand that Tesla offers no model that is
wheelchair-accessible right out of the factory. Is that
correct? Just a ``yes'' or ``no.''
Mr. Moravy. First of all, Ms. Duckworth, I'd just like to
thank you for your service. Like, I know you bring a point of
accessibility which is extremely important to us at Tesla. If I
may, certain regulations that are adopted by NHTSA in order for
us to produce our vehicles somewhat limit the ability for us to
provide accessible vehicles, and I think we're here today to
talk about----
Senator Duckworth. So, you don't have a single vehicle
right now that is wheelchair accessible out of the factory,
right?
Mr. Moravy. No, ma'am.
Senator Duckworth. OK. So, given your broad ambitions,
indeed, existential necessity when you consider how much of
Tesla's valuation is tied to future promises of widespread full
self-driving, I am deeply disappointed that not only does Tesla
not provide a wheelchair-accessible model, but the leading
aftermarket conversion company, BraunAbility, does not even
list Tesla among its common conversion platform. So, for
example, I have a Toyota minivan, but I could actually purchase
a--an accessible wheelchair platform from the factory when I
purchased my car--actually, when the VA purchased my car. Mr.
Moravy, is Tesla currently working with BraunAbility or any
other mobility modifier to develop a specific common conversion
platform for electric vehicles?
Mr. Moravy. Yes. Thank you, Ms. Duckworth. I will say we've
had conversations in the past with the companies you mentioned
about converting many of our vehicles to fully accessible. I
cannot speak for the decisions of those companies in terms of
their financial goals or benefits, and what they choose to
adopt, but we are committed to, with our future products and
our robotaxis, provide accessible transportation to everyone.
Senator Duckworth. OK. Dr. Pena, while Waymo appears to be
far ahead of Tesla when it comes to actually deploying a
limited robotaxi service, at least when it comes to wheelchair
users, I'm afraid that Waymo doesn't seem that far ahead of
your competitors sitting next to you. What percentage of
Waymo's current fleet is wheelchair accessible?
Dr. Pena. We do provide a wheelchair-accessible option. It
is not fully autonomous, but I don't have a percentage for you,
but we can get back to you with the specific number.
[The information referred to follows:]
[COMMITTEE INSERT]
Senator Duckworth. OK. How many of those wheelchair-
accessible Waymo rides can be used by a passenger in a
wheelchair without human assistance?
Dr. Pena. Currently, we don't have----
Senator Duckworth. So none.
Dr. Pena.--a fully autonomous service.
Senator Duckworth. OK. As you know, beginning in 2020, the
Department of Transportation began an inclusive design
challenge to spur the invention of innovative design solutions,
and Waymo was a semifinalist in that competition, so
congratulations on that. As a member of the Secure Ride
Coalition, I trust that Waymo is actively seeking to
incorporate automated wheelchair securement systems to its
fleet so that you can actually get to that fully autonomous
option in the future.
Dr. Pena. Yes, and we're not a vehicle manufacturer, so we
are looking for an OEM who's able to meet our requirements to
have safe wheelchair accessibility fully autonomously, but it
has to meet our safety requirements first.
Senator Duckworth. So, what time-frame is that? If you're
working--if you're looking for somebody now, I mean, by what
date would a wheelchair user be able to request a Waymo ride
featuring a universal securement system, such as the automated
wheelchair tie-down and occupant restraint system that was
designed by researchers at University of Michigan?
Dr. Pena. Senator, I don't have a timeline for you. We have
not found an OEM that provides a vehicle that would meet our
safety requirements yet.
Senator Duckworth. OK.
Dr. Pena. So, I don't have a specific timeline for you.
Senator Duckworth. This is my point. Yes, we need to
prioritize making sure its AV--autonomous vehicles move
forward. I fully support it, but I need to make sure that, as
you're moving forward, that there are options available for
people with disabilities, and that whatever the--for example,
wheelchair securement standard is applied across personal
vehicles, public transits, rails, and airplane, and I think
this happens during the development phase. As you're looking
for an OEM, you need to find the most effective and efficient
system, cost-effective, but also, we need to try to make it
more universal. Will Waymo commit to working with other
developers in this space, including the team at Purdue
University and BraunAbility? I'm hyping Indiana here, to my
colleague on the other end of the dais. They've developed life-
size operational demonstration platforms known as the Easy
Rider, who need more support to bring these products to market.
Dr. Pena. We definitely would like to explore those
partnerships.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I just want to make sure
that--I want to emphasize how important this function is for
persons with disabilities, but it is also an opportunity for
profitability for each and every one of you. As my colleague
from Wyoming mentioned, baby boomers are aging. They have a car
culture from the time they were teenagers. They want their
cars. They want to keep their cars well beyond the time when
they can personally drive them. So, this is--the demand is
going to be there. We just need to make sure that we can meet
that demand in a safe way, and that we do it in a way that also
allows those same baby boomers, who are going to develop
disabilities, access to these vehicles. Whether it's somebody
who is vision impaired, whether it's somebody who is hearing
impaired, cognitively impaired, whether it's in a wheelchair,
this is a market that has spending power, and I urge you to
keep them in mind as you move forward with your developments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Young.
STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Young. Well, thank you, Chairman, and I want to
thank our witnesses for being here today. I share the
excitement and enthusiasm that many of my colleagues do for
autonomous vehicles and their potential deployment.
I visited with a number of you and so many other
stakeholders, really over recent years, and consistently tried
to elicit from you what regulatory constraints there are to
safely deploying different technologies that are already
available, highly vetted, and seem very sophisticated, and then
to learn how Surface Transportation reauthorization, which is
coming up here in Congress, could serve as a vehicle to address
these sorts of regulatory roadblocks. I continue, and I know--
as does the Chairman of the Committee, I continue to have this
desire to work with you on this, and I think it's essential
that we seize this moment of opportunity. I'll be chairing for
the remainder of the year the Surface Transportation
Subcommittee. And this reauthorization is something that's very
important to me, and I think it's our one opportunity for this
Congress to make some serious headway for the benefits of
safety, mobility, and economic benefits that have been
highlighted here.
Mr. Farrah, if you could just very quickly, once again,
summarize what you believe are the components we should be
focusing on as part of a Federal framework to deploy AVs so
that we can enjoy all of these value propositions.
Mr. Farrah. Senator Young, I'd be glad to. I'll give you
just a few items. I would say, first of all, we need to make
sure that Congress is directing the Department of
Transportation to require a safety case and also to establish
certain driving competencies. Second, we need to create a
national AV safety data repository that allows for incident
data to be housed at NHTSA and shared out with State regulatory
partners. And then third, but certainly not finally, we need to
evolve some of the standards that apply to human-driven
vehicles. A lot of the accessibility challenges that Senator
Duckworth was talking about, these are ones because we are
trying to adapt to rules and regulations that were written when
it was only contemplated that a human would be the one driving
the vehicle. That's no longer the case. Now that an autonomous
vehicle can do the driving, we need to evolve a lot of those
standards.
Senator Young. Fantastic, and because of the different
design of our autonomous vehicles, there'll probably be a whole
lot of solutions to the that problem set of how you can
accommodate someone in a wheelchair, right? So, we need to, if
not loosen up the regulations, fundamentally rework them to
accommodate this new era. Is that accurate?
Mr. Farrah. We can have safety but also innovation at the
same time.
Senator Young. Yes.
Mr. Farrah. We can have a situation where vehicles can look
fundamentally different. When we all get into our cars and
drive home today----
Senator Young. Yes.
Mr. Farrah.--look around you. The things around you,
they're placed there, by and large, because you're a human.
You're the one that's driving the vehicle. When that's not the
case, you would design the vehicles in a better way. You can
make them more accessible.
Senator Young. Dr. Pena, thank you for our recent visit.
I'd like to sort of pull on a thread that was mentioned by Mr.
Farrah, which is the safety case. You've indicated this is the
backbone of our--of your operations at Waymo. What does the
safety case look like in practice, and how does this framework
allow you to identify and mitigate risks in real time before
they ever manifest in the real world?
Dr. Pena. Thank you, Senator. The safety case is really an
aggregation, a combination of the assessment that is done to
ensure that the system is safe to deploy, that includes
analysis, tests, simulation, and is put together in a logical
argumentation that determines safety with evidence. So, you
have to show evidence that backs it up.
Senator Young. Well, very good. Very good, and we think
that if we can get the regulatory atmosphere right, again, that
will have immeasurable safety benefits to consumers.
In my very limited time, I have not yet heard a lot of
emphasis on the economic case, which is also pretty compelling,
our need to stay ahead of not just the innovation curve, but
also the deployment curve in this country so that we'll
continue to have the right incentives so that our workers and
our industry can benefit from the economics of this. What are
the economic benefits--Mr. Moravy, I'll ask you--to the United
States that we'll see if we can establish the right regulatory
framework, and what happens if China wins this competition?
Mr. Moravy. Yes. Thank you, Senator Young. Appreciate the
question. You know, as I mentioned before, but I'll say it
again, you know, Tesla is committed to building all of the
vehicles we sell in the U.S. in the U.S. And, you know, our
factories in Texas that are already ready to deploy purpose-
filled AVs offer the opportunity of up to 5,000 jobs locally,
plus an extension into the supply base that could be 10 times
that. In addition, you know, there's a--as some of the other
Senators mentioned, there's an opportunity here to create a
better quality of life for those workers as we shift the
industry from a disparate, you know, driver industry where they
spend many hours away from the home, to a much more localized
solution where they can work in factories at high-paying,
highly skilled jobs, or in other areas of the business, such as
service and operations.
Senator Young. Mr. Farrah, do you have anything to add
about the economic benefits to the United States generally, and
paint a brief picture of what happens if our chief national
security adversary wins this economic competition?
Mr. Farrah. Senator, I'll briefly state that what's really
special about job creation in the AV sector----
Senator Young. Yes.
Mr. Farrah.--is that you get all the jobs involved in
building vehicles, but then you get all these other additive
jobs involved in the technology development, involved in the
servicing, involved in the fleet management, and so on and so
forth. So, this is really an economic boon to the United
States.
Senator Young. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Rosen.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Rosen. Thank you, Chairman Cruz. Appreciate you and
all the witnesses for being here, for testifying today, and for
the work that you're doing.
You know, Nevada's been at the forefront of autonomous
vehicle testing and deployment, I'm proud to say, and I'm proud
also to say our state is really helping to pave that way for
this technology. AVs offer enormous potential to improve
safety, reduce congestion, expand mobility for seniors and
people with disabilities. I want to associate myself with
Senator Duckworth's remarks. This is going to be critical for
the future incorporation of AVs into all of our lives as we go
from being, well, a young person into a--into hopefully--we all
live to 105, right? But that promise of this is going to depend
on robust safety standards. So, Nevada allows fully driverless
operations in certain limited areas, and autonomous vehicle
companies have been operating in my hometown for some time. And
we're also hopeful that Waymo's autonomous ride hailing service
will begin in Las Vegas this summer after phase testing and
local approvals, bringing another major player into our AVs'
ecosystem.
So, Mr. Pena, you've been talking about the datasets and
all the things that you've been learning. So, can you describe
how the safety data that has emerged from what you've been
doing--your testbeds, your deployment so far--how does that
data inform your approach to remote intervention protocols,
because we think about when something happens, you mentioned
all the multitude of stop lights going out in a--well, maybe an
emergency, a flood, a hurricane, whatever that is. And so,
could you talk about how that is informing your remote
intervention protocols?
Dr. Pena. Yes, Senator. We evaluate our system very
thoroughly and methodically before we go into any particular
area. And in the event that the vehicle faces uncertainty, we
have been conservative in terms of asking for guidance. And as
we evaluate those situations, we determine whether we can tune
the vehicle or provide an update so that it can more
confidently handle that scenario so that, eventually, that need
to ask for guidance will be further reduced.
Senator Rosen. Well, and that leads me to calibration
standards, I guess, as we reevaluate, reapply on the data that
we learn because Nevada's, again, been--long been a leader on
testing and deployment of AVs and emphasis on real-world
performance. What you really learn out there, hopefully it's
going to be shared with everyone because it's to the benefit of
all of our safety, public safety, and they continue to evolve
on our roadways and their reliability. Ensuring that is
critical, again, for the incorporation of this technology in
our lives.
So, Waymo vehicles rely on a suite of sensors, radar,
LiDAR, cameras. They come together for automated driving
system. They allow the vehicle to perceive, respond to the
environment just like all the vehicles do. I do believe that
you need more than cameras for redundancy, just for the record.
These same types of sensors are also used in advanced driving
assistance systems, increasingly common in vehicles today. They
enable safety features like emergency braking, lane keeping
assistance now. And so, we know that proper sensor calibration
is really essential for these systems to function right.
Research shows that even a 0.2-degree misalignment, just a
little bit, in a camera at just 25 miles an hour can be the
difference between a timely response and an untimely system
activation that could result in, well, devastating
consequences, whether the vehicle avoids collision, in
particular.
So, Mr. Pena, I'm going to ask you again with that in mind,
can you speak to the importance of sensor calibration for
Waymo's vehicles? How often are your vehicles calibrated,
checked? How often do you make sure that they remain aligned
over time and appreciate that? And then, if the others want to
join in, if they want to talk about that after.
Dr. Pena. Yes, and we do use a variety of sensors, so we
use LiDAR, which is a laser sensor, radar, and cameras as well,
and we're continuously checking their performance and their
data, so this happens continuously. As we drive, we check that
they're performing to our expectations.
Senator Rosen. But if I'm the end user, how often are you
going to calibrate my car--the soft updates? Are you going to
be checking--like, how does this happen? Do I take it just for
maintenance in between? I mean, I can see that this 0.2
misalignment causing a collision. If it's in between, my
regular maintenance, that seems a little bit of a hole there.
Dr. Pena. Yes, real time, we're able to detect whether our
sensors are misbehaving, and then because we have a variety of
them, they're complementary, we're able to correct for that
real time as we drive.
Senator Rosen. Real time as we drive. Does anyone else want
to talk about calibrating of the sensors in real time or
notifying the owner of the car that the sensors have been
recalibrated, take it to the next--like, you know, some little
emergency light, go to your service station, wherever that is,
service department?
Dr. Smith. Yes. Thank you, Senator Rosen. Yes, so much of
the Federal regulatory regime is on--is on what does the
vehicle look like when it's manufactured.
Senator Rosen. Right----
Dr. Smith. And what we're talking about is the life of the
vehicle.
Senator Rosen. Right.
Dr. Smith. And the average passenger car in the U.S. is
some 13 years old.
Senator Rosen. Get that little check engine light, right?
Dr. Smith. And so, yes, we're shifting from a what does the
vehicle look like when manufactured to a much more
comprehensive, every second that a system is engaged, is it
safe, whether today, or in a year, or 10 years, and that's an
essential shift of our regulatory mindset.
Senator Rosen. And I know I'm the last person, but I think
this is incredibly important as the cars are going to--well, if
you're out here driving on the ice and snowmageddon over here,
that could maybe bump a sensor, change things, whatever that
is. And I think this constant calibration is really important,
Mr. Chairman, for us to think about the safety for your
daughters, my daughter, all of our kids, grandkids, even
ourselves. Anyone else before we close out? Oh, I think Senator
Fetterman is here.
The Chairman. Senator Fetterman.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN FETTERMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA
Senator Fetterman. Thank you, Chairman Cruz, and I trust
you enjoyed your Primantis.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. It was absolutely delicious, and I have to
say, you look damn handsome with that Texan's bling.
[Laughter.]
Senator Fetterman [presiding]. Yes. Thank you. OK. So, hi.
I'm proud to represent Pennsylvania. Now, Pennsylvania has the
fifth most truck drivers in the Nation. Clearly, it's a very,
very critical piece of our economy. And now that's not an
interesting story, but back in 1994, I worked with UPS drivers
there, and I was proud to work with Teamsters then--back then,
and now I also realized how difficult their way of life is, but
I also think that is something necessary that we need to
protect. And now, I am not going to bash AV or any of these
things, nor am I not a Luddite or anything, and I see it's a
necessary part of the future moving forward. So, that's--I want
to get that established. And I also want to acknowledge that
Pittsburgh played a significant part of the history of
developing AV, that is, as well, too. So, that means that we
have--you know, two things must be true. Now, for me, I'm going
to be--I'm going to be the voice for the 90,000 drivers here,
and I'm going to be the Teamsters' voice here, so I don't ever,
ever let them be left behind. So, I think it's really these--
those union members are very critical in this economy.
So, I mean, Mr. Farrah, what is your organization's
proposal to deal with the workers, like the--those 90,000
truckers here in my state? And now they--of course, they're
concerned about losing their job because of the technology. If
they were going to replace senators with chatbots, you know,
we'd be pretty concerned here, too, and I assure you as well,
too. So for me, it's an honest question, not anything--it's,
like, why shouldn't trucks and other AVs be supervised by
qualified operators in the roads and our highways? I mean, it's
a--it's a sincere question.
Mr. Farrah. Senator, I appreciate the question. And I'll
first thank you for acknowledging the role that Pennsylvania
has played in autonomous vehicle development, both includes the
companies itself, but also institutions like Carnegie Mellon. I
want to be very clear in terms of the impact on truck driver
jobs here. If someone is a truck driver today and they want to
retire a truck driver, they absolutely will have the
opportunity to do that.
Autonomous vehicles are not out to replace truck drivers.
Truck drivers are an indispensable, critical aspect of our
supply chain. They are the backbone of the American economy. I
think people take for granted how many of their goods are
brought to them by truck drivers in this country. The goal of
the industry here is to coexist with autonomous trucks. We see
roles for human truck drivers and autonomous trucks doing
different types of functions. And when I talk to people that
are involved in autonomous vehicle deployment, they see a
hybrid network where certain functions are done by autonomous
vehicles, others by human drivers, and that is something that
is fundamental to the industry.
And I will just say to conclude, that we've had an
incredible dialogue with many different entities within labor,
and we're very, very sensitive to a lot of those concerns. We
want opportunities to get out and talk to your constituents to
describe how it is that we see a lot of this unfolding and make
sure that we really answer any misconceptions that might be out
there.
Senator Fetterman. Yes. No, I mean, so for me, absolutely,
your technology are part of the future, but I also have to be
clear that I'm going to be--make sure that the Teamsters are in
their future as well now, too. I'm not sure how many people
would be comfortable getting in an AV jet, you know? I mean, I
don't--I don't know. I mean, I do think it's entirely
appropriate to have a human, you know, part of the equation.
Anyway, moving--now, I've heard that Waymo is bringing AV to
Pennsylvania, you know.
Dr. Pena. Yes, we are. We're excited to serve your
constituency.
Senator Fetterman. Yes. And now we've had some constituents
reach out, and now there are different kinds of--what's the
word I'm looking for? A lot of people in Pittsburgh and
Philadelphia reached out, and it's different kinds of places
with different streets and different kind of circumstances that
are very unique there now, too. And now a lot of people brought
that to me where, especially after that super storm. You know,
Pittsburgh, we got 16 hours of snow, and Philadelphia got a lot
now, too. So, now my question is, how does your technology
account for these kinds of different drivers and the cultures
in different communities across, you know, my state and the
country? You know, questionably, are Waymo going to respect the
parking chair?
[Laughter.]
Dr. Pena. Before we go into any territory, we do a very
methodical approach. We first send our vehicles with the human
driver to make sure that we understand the different street
types, the topology, we understand the unique rhythms of the
city. And then, we systematically and slowly then provide a
little more autonomy still with a human behind the wheel, just
learning the city, and we do that evaluation over time. And
when we are--feel we're ready, we go through a safety board
that evaluates, hey, are we really ready to deploy for that
particular environment? And we do a very thorough review before
we fully take the human out of--out of the equation, which is
what we're doing in your state.
Senator Fetterman. Yes. Well, I would--I would strongly
encourage Waymo to incorporate that, to respect the parking
chair. When you see examples of people that don't, it doesn't
really end very well for folks like that, so regardless, so
thank you.
Now, after all the questions are now complete, Chairman
Cruz will bring this hearing to a close. Thank you for all the
witnesses for all of their important testimony today.
Senators have until close of business on Wednesday,
February 11, to submit questions to the record. The witnesses
will have close of business, until Wednesday, February 25, to
respond to any of those questions.
This concludes today's hearing, and the Committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Lars Moravy
Each winter, we see preventable crashes due to severe weather and
inadequate preparation for snow and ice conditions. Vehicles must be
prepared for cold weather conditions before they are on the road, which
is why testing done at facilities like TRS Minnesota in Baudette,
Minnesota--North America's largest cold weather vehicle testing
facility--is so crucial.
Question 1. What steps is your company taking to ensure vehicles
can safely operate in cold weather conditions?
Answer. Tesla vehicles are engineered to be among the safest cars
in the world, and the safety of our vehicles in all conditions is our
top priority. Our safety features come standard in every vehicle we
produce, and our passive, active, and advanced driver assistance
systems set the standard for vehicle safety worldwide. We conduct
comprehensive, real-world testing of our vehicles in all operating
conditions, including severe cold and extreme weather. Tesla vehicles
are tested in cold weather conditions at TRC Minnesota, and in Alaska
and New Zealand. All Tesla vehicles offer optimal winter driving
performance due to equal weight distribution, highly responsive motor
control, and dynamic traction control. Every year, we deploy vehicles
into many unique locations of varying temperature, humidity, and
precipitation type to ensure we validate vehicle safety and performance
across all possible operational design domains. We also proactively
analyze and evaluate the impact of roadway snow and ice treatments that
can vary greatly by location, vehicle dynamics, and operational safety.
Additionally, Tesla vehicles are designed to automatically defog or
defrost whenever fogging or frosting conditions are detected. Tesla
vehicles also have tire mu slip detection that adjusts automatic
braking system calibrations for cold weather environments. We provide
Tesla Cold Weather Best Practices for owners on our website, intended
to ensure the best ownership experience possible in harsh cold weather
conditions.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to
Lars Moravy
Question 1. Do you have any testing results done by a third party
which show the rate at which your products are able to successfully
detect vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, cyclists, and
motorcyclists?
Answer. Tesla vehicles are subject to extensive independent testing
by multiple third-party safety rating organizations, such as NHTSA and
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), and they are among
the highest-rated vehicles, having received numerous awards, including
IIHS's Top Safety Pick Safety+ and the European New Car Assessment
Programme's Best-in-Class awards. Organizations such as these conduct
standardized, scenario-based testing of crashworthiness and active
safety systems, including response to vulnerable road users. Safety is
our top priority, and we publish a public vehicle safety report to
transparently share Tesla's safety performance and practices.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth to
Lars Moravy
Wheelchair Securement
Question 1. Please provide in detail how much Tesla has invested in
bringing a universal wheelchair securement system to its vehicles.
A. With whom did you partner? Over what period of time?
B. Did you engage with members of the disability community? If so,
with whom?
Answer. Accessibility is a foundational component of our AV
development program, and we will continue to expand the suite of
features and products to unlock accessibility for all, including how
our Robotaxi vehicles can be accessible to wheelchair users. Active
engagement with national, regional, and local disability groups is an
important component of our product development process. We have a
library of direct feedback from the disabled community that is used to
inform vehicle ergonomic design and engineering of wheelchair
securement systems.
Tesla has engaged with third-party mobility securement companies on
retrofit systems in addition to ground up new product design. Our
Robotaxi vehicles are already designed to support various accessibility
needs including space for service animals and storage for some
wheelchairs and other assistive devices. Tesla currently refers to its
Bay Area and Austin customers requiring wheelchair accessible vehicles
(WAVs) to local third-party WAV providers. As we expand our service to
new markets and products, we will continue to collaborate with members
of local disability communities to understand their unique barriers to
transportation.
Question 2. Will you partner with researchers and engineers, such
as those at the University of Michigan and Purdue University, who have
designed universal wheelchair securement systems and need the funding
the resources to bring them to market?
A. Please provide information on your timeline for deployment of
such a system.
B. When can riders who use wheelchairs expect to be able to request
a fully autonomous ride with Tesla?
C. Will your next line of AVs be wheelchair accessible?
a. Do you plan to make a certain portion, all or none of these
vehicles, wheelchair accessible?
Answer. As we expand the product line-up in Robotaxi, we will
ensure the supply of wheelchair accessible vehicles meets the demand of
the community. Tesla is actively evaluating engineering concepts for
wheelchair securement across many sources and will expand access for
wheelchair users progressively. We believe a safe and seamless
experience for wheelchair users entering, securing, and exiting our
Robotaxi products is critical to unlocking accessibility and increasing
utilization of Avs. We will continue to launch products that expand
access and provide an inclusive experience for those with mobility
challenges. In the coming years, we expect to incorporate purpose-built
wheelchair accessible vehicles into our Robotaxi fleet.
Question 3. Do you support Federal rulemaking that would provide
national standards for automated wheelchair securement?
Answer. Tesla supports performance-based, technology-neutral
Federal standards for the regulation of AVs. Uniform Federal guidelines
can help eliminate inconsistencies across states, accelerate the
deployment of safe automated securement technologies, and ensure
wheelchair users can independently and securely travel without
compromising crash protection or usability.
Universal Design
Question 4. How do you ensure your technology and AVs are able to
detect and appropriately respond to people with a wide range of
disabilities, including those who use mobility devices, such as
wheelchairs, or those who use service animals?
A. Would you support rulemaking to establish standards to ensure
the detection of and response to people with disabilities?
Answer. Tesla supports performance-based, technology-neutral
Federal standards for the regulation of AVs. Tesla Robotaxi is designed
to safely respond to vulnerable road users at varying speeds including
those using assistive devices or accompanied by service animals. The
vehicle's neural network processes visual data to identify humans,
animals, and objects, enabling appropriate response actions like
slowing, stopping, yielding, or rerouting to maintain safety.
Question 5. Please explain in detail how Tesla incorporates
universal design principles in its designing, testing and deployment of
its AVs and associated software.
B. Are your AVs and associated software accessible to people with
sensory disabilities (e.g., hearing and visual impairments)?
a. People with intellectual or developmental disabilities?
b. People with a variety of mobility impairments?
C. With whom did you partner? Over what period of time?
D. Did you engage with members of the disability community? If so,
with whom?
Answer. Robotaxi accessibility features have been heavily crafted
with our disability partners' input. Our partnerships with the
disability community have been critical in the development of screen
reading functionality as well as other user experience improvements in
our app and vehicle-user interface including voice commands, screen
visualization, wayfinding assistance, and braille for in-vehicle
controls. We are also developing opt-in accessibility user profiles in
the Tesla Robotaxi app that allow customers to select their in-vehicle
accessibility needs prior to ride pick-up.
Requesting Rides and Ensuring Safety
Question 1. For travelers with disabilities to safely utilize,
enter and exit an AV the surrounding infrastructure must be accessible.
A. Do you collect data and map to ensure pick-up and drop-off
locations are accessible and safe for people with disabilities,
including wheelchair users?
B. How do you plan to work with local, State and Federal officials
in ensuring people with disabilities, including wheelchair users, can
safely enter and exit the vehicle?
Answer. Our top priority is to provide a safe and accessible
service, including thoughtful pick-up and drop-off locations, for all
riders. We continuously gather and analyze real-world data through our
fleet to improve the safety and usability of our AVs. Testing and
validating the functional performance of a new feature with the
disabled community before releasing to the wider public is, and will
continue to be, our design and release protocol. Recently, we released
screen reader functionality for Robotaxi with key feedback integrated
from targeted user testing.
Enhancement of the rider experience will come from the synergy of
community engagement both before and after feature release, as well as
our advanced vehicle technology which we will craft to create a
personalized experience. We actively engage with local, state, and
Federal stakeholders, to ensure our vehicles and services align with
all applicable accessibility requirements and standards.
What is your company doing to extend AV service to rural America?
C. Will your AVs be able to navigate backroads and long, rural
driveways so passengers with disabilities are picked up and dropped off
at their doors?
Answer. Tesla's goal is to make AVs accessible to all Americans,
including those in rural communities. We rigorously test our vehicles
in a range of geographies. Our AVs are designed to handle a wide
variety of roadways and conditions including residential streets,
country roads, narrow winding routes and complex scenarios using our
vision-based, end-to-end neural network system that is trained on
billions of miles of real-world driving data. This broad testing
approach ensures that the system learns and improves continuously in
various operational design domains.
Consumer Protection
Question 1. Current proposed legislation allows AV providers to
require forced arbitration, which would deny disabled users from filing
claims in court if their right under the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) were violated or they or their devices are injured.
A. What responsibility does Tesla have to ensure the civil rights
of people with disabilities are upheld?
B. Do you support legislation that would ban forced arbitration
clauses for Americans with disabilities who seek recourse due to
violations of the ADA?
Answer. We are deeply committed to ensuring that our Robotaxi
service promotes safety, accessibility, and equal access. Tesla engages
constructively with policymakers to help shape frameworks that balance
safety, innovation, and consumer protection. We believe that all
customers deserve to have their disputes resolved fairly, particularly
in cases involving civil rights protections like those under the ADA.
Riders benefit from expeditious resolutions to their disputes and on
the whole, arbitration is more efficient, flexible, and faster than
courts. Nevertheless, Tesla does not employ forced arbitration clauses
for its Robotaxi customers, as all customers have the right to opt out
of the arbitration provision in their customer agreement.
Question 2. What steps is your company taking to protect
passengers' data privacy?
A. What specific steps are you taking to ensure passengers' health,
disability status and locations visited are not shared or used for
commercial or tracking purposes without the permission of the
individual?
Answer. We are committed to protecting our customers anytime they
enter a Tesla vehicle. That commitment extends to data privacy. Tesla
has developed a robust privacy program to ensure privacy protections
are embedded in each product, service, and feature by design. By
default, Robotaxi vehicle data is either in a form that is not
associated with your Tesla account, is stored in an encrypted format
that Tesla cannot decrypt, or remains inaccessible unless a specific
event is triggered: (a) safety critical event--such as collision,
airbag deployment or emergency stop event, (b) if you provide your
consent, or (c) another legal basis is applicable.
Tesla does not request or require information about passengers'
health conditions or disability for Robotaxi rides, by default. We do
not collect information beyond what is minimally needed for
accessibility accommodations, such as noting the presence of a service
animal in accordance our Robotaxi Service Animal Policy, or requesting
wheelchair accessible vehicle (WAV) rides via the mobile app. Precise
location data is collected only as needed and is used for routing, fare
calculation, pickup and drop off coordination, and receipt generation.
Further, cabin camera and microphone are off by default (until needed)
and through the Robotaxi app, a customer can manage their privacy
settings, including opting in or out of features like sharing cabin
camera analytics or sound detection data with Tesla to help improve
related features/services.
In addition to limiting the data we collect, we also limit how and
with whom we share personal data. Data is used only for purposes such
as fulfilling rides, ensuring safety, processing payments, fraud
prevention, and complying with applicable laws and regulations. In our
Robotaxi Privacy Notice, we explicitly state: ``We do not sell your
personal data to anyone for any purpose, period.''
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Dr. Mauricio Pena
Winter Driving. Each winter, we see preventable crashes due to
severe weather and inadequate preparation for snow and ice conditions.
Vehicles must be prepared for cold weather conditions before they are
on the road, which is why testing done at facilities like TRS Minnesota
in Baudette, Minnesota--North America's largest cold weather vehicle
testing facility--is so crucial.
Question 1. What steps is your company taking to ensure vehicles
can safely operate in cold weather conditions?
Answer.
For years, we've been developing the Waymo Driver to safely
and effectively operate in winter weather. Across three
generations of the Waymo Driver, we've tested our system in
some of the most severe cold and snow conditions across the
country--regularly driving in Upstate New York, Michigan's
Upper Peninsula, and the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range.
For the past 9 years, we've had a continuous test presence
in the Detroit area, and with our growing operations in snowy
cities like Minneapolis, Boston, Denver, Philadelphia,
Pittsburgh, and Washington, D.C., in addition to visits to
other areas, we're deepening our understanding of winter
weather conditions and validating our capabilities.
Waymo has conducted testing at Baudette, Minnesota over the
years related to motion control on snow and ice road surfaces.
We've amassed tens of thousands of miles in diverse, snowy
conditions. This has allowed the Waymo Driver's AI to learn
from real driving experience and train to navigate a wide range
of winter weather. We validate our generalizable system through
real-world, supervised driving, closed-course testing, and
large-scale simulation. At closed-course testing facilities, we
push the system to its limits in controlled environments,
teaching it to recognize and respond to extreme scenarios like
losing traction on ice. Then, we expand our learning year-round
through simulation, long after the snow has melted, so the
Waymo Driver is prepared for rare and unusual events. In
accordance with Waymo's safety framework and processes, we will
only launch driverless operations in winter conditions when our
safety bar is met.
Whether it's dense urban cores or snowy winters, we are
committed to bringing the safety benefits of the Waymo Driver
to diverse communities across America. At the same time, we are
committed to safely operating within the parameters of our
technology's capabilities. If there are weather conditions that
are out of scope for our automated driving system, we will not
drive in them.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to
Dr. Mauricio Pena
Question 1. Do you have any testing results done by a third party
which show the rate at which your products are able to successfully
detect vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, cyclists, and
motorcyclists?
Answer. Waymo is committed to transparency and works with external
partners to validate the safety performance of our technology. We
partnered with Swiss Re, a global reinsurance company, to analyze our
first 25 million fully autonomous miles. This analysis determined that
the Waymo Driver demonstrated superior safety performance compared to
human-driven vehicles, reducing property damage claims by 88 percent
and bodily injury claims by 92 percent.
Furthermore, based on 127 million rider-only miles, our peer
reviewed data shows substantial reductions in injury-causing crashes
involving vulnerable road users compared to human benchmarks:
Pedestrians: 92 percent reduction.
Cyclists: 83 percent reduction.
Motorcyclists: 80 percent reduction.
Our Autonomous Driving System (ADS) is designed to identify and
distinguish between all road users--cyclists, scooterists, pedestrians,
and other road users--an essential capability we have been designing
and refining since our earliest days. Finally, our safety case approach
has been independently audited by TUV SUD, which confirmed that our
program adheres to international ISO 15026 standards and industry best
practices.
Question 2. Recent shutdowns of Waymo robotaxis--including well
publicized incidents that created significant traffic congestion--raise
serious concerns about the vulnerability of automated fleets to
disruption. If similar systems were operated by companies with ties to
the Chinese government, the risks could be far greater.
a) What assurances can you provide that the Chinese government
could not remotely disable or interfere with vehicles using your
technology?
Answer. Cybersecurity is core to Waymo's design and our safety
mission. We consider comprehensive cyber threats in advance, and the
safety of our Autonomous Driving System (ADS) is protected by its
design: it is independently in control of the vehicle and can refuse
any guidance it deems unsafe.
Our server side tools are protected by sophisticated cybersecurity
measures which use hardware backed multi-factor authentication. Access
to Waymo fleet management tools occurs on devices that use
cryptographic authentication to access corporate networks and are
managed and monitored for cybersecurity. Waymo also encrypts all
communications between its vehicles and offboard support systems,
including Remote Assistance, over a mutually authenticated connection.
This connection is initiated by the ADS to the Waymo servers, to
protect against the ADS accepting connection attempts from malicious
sources. This strategy also includes removing the factory telematics
from the base vehicle to prevent the base vehicle from communicating
with the vehicle manufacturer's backend systems.
As an analogy, this would be similar to a human driver with a
special cell phone that can only call out one-way, to one trusted party
for directions, and both parties have to exchange a secret password
before communicating.
Our ADS is designed and manufactured in the U.S. and includes our
perception sensor suite, compute, and telematics systems. The AV-ready
base vehicle platforms being provided to Waymo from countries outside
of the U.S. have no driving automation or telematics capabilities built
into them. Waymo maintains complete software control over our vehicles.
Our ADS does not rely on code, cloud infrastructure, software, or other
connected technology developed outside of the U.S. Waymo strongly
supports the Department of Commerce's BIS Connected-Vehicle Rule, which
addresses national security risks from foreign AV technology, including
both software and hardware. Our vehicles contain no Chinese-linked ADS
or vehicle connectivity software, and our fleet is compliant with BIS's
Connected Vehicle Rule.
All autonomous hardware and software are designed in-house by Waymo
in the United States. The ADS is added to base vehicles at Waymo's
factory in Mesa, Arizona.
Crucially, our vehicles have no ability to directly receive over-
the-air updates from base vehicle manufacturers (OEMs). All firmware
updates are provided to Waymo first, allowing us to conduct penetration
testing and control the deployment timing. We also isolate safety-
critical systems, such as steering and braking, from outside wireless
communications.
b) What are the risks to the U.S. if key allies and economic
partners allow widespread deployment of Chinese built robotaxis in
their own transportation networks?
Answer. The U.S. is locked in a global race with Chinese AV
companies for the future of autonomous vehicles, a trillion-dollar
economic opportunity. If Chinese companies dominate allies' networks,
they, rather than the U.S., will set the global technical and safety
standards for the industry and drive the future of transportation
around the world. Autonomous driving is considered a strategically
important advanced technology comparable to flight and space travel.
Ceding this market to Chinese AV companies would mean losing a major
engine for American innovation and job creation. American leadership in
this sector is a prerequisite for a projected surge in national GDP, as
domestic AV integration will revolutionize mobility and reclaim
billions of hours of human productivity currently lost to driving.
Furthermore, Chinese-developed AV technology operating globally
poses national security risks through the potential for remote access
and unauthorized data collection. Widespread deployment of foreign
technology in transportation networks poses potential risks to critical
infrastructure, which is why Waymo supports Federal efforts like the
Department of Commerce's connected vehicle rule to ban Chinese AV
software which went into effect March 17, 2025.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jacky Rosen to
Dr. Mauricio Pena
Remote Intervention in AV Operations:
Nevada has been at the forefront of autonomous vehicle testing and
deployment, and I'm proud our state is helping to pave the way for this
technology. AVs offer enormous potential to improve safety, reduce
congestion, and expand mobility for seniors and people with
disabilities--but that promise depends on robust safety standards.
Nevada allows fully driverless operations in certain limited areas,
and autonomous vehicle companies have been operating here for some
time. We're also hopeful that Waymo's autonomous ride hailing service
will begin in Las Vegas this summer after phased testing and local
approvals, bringing another major player into our state's AV ecosystem.
Question 1. Dr. Pena, can you describe what safety data has emerged
from Waymo's AV deployments so far, and how that data informs your
approach to remote intervention protocols?
Answer. Data from our first 127 million fully autonomous miles
shows that the Waymo Driver is significantly safer than human drivers.
We saw a tenfold reduction in serious injury or worse crashes and were
12 times less likely to be involved in injury-causing pedestrian
crashes compared to human drivers.
This data informs our Remote Assistance (RA) approach. Unlike
``remote driving,'' the Waymo Driver is responsible for all of the
Dynamic Driving Task. Our ongoing evaluation helps inform how we
continuously improve the ADS and reduce its requests for supplemental
context from an RA agent, such as when encountering an ambiguous road
closure, while ensuring the onboard system handles all immediate,
safety-critical actions. The ADS can also reject RA suggestions if it
deems it appropriate. This distinction is fundamental to our safety
model, ensuring the vehicle's onboard system remains the primary, real-
time authority for safe operation. By nature, RA requests aren't
designed to help the AV with real-time collision avoidance--the ADS
handles real-time driving, including evasive actions, braking or other
behavior needed to avoid collisions.
Question 2. Even highly automated vehicles encounter situations
they cannot handle on their own. How do companies determine when a
remote human should take control, what training do those remote
operators receive, and how many vehicles are they typically responsible
for?
Answer. Waymo deploys its Autonomous Driving System (ADS),
consisting of redundant compute, sensors, and software, to safely and
fully autonomously navigate public roads. Waymo uses Remote Assistance
(RA) agents, who provide advice only when requested by the ADS on an
event-driven basis. Waymo's RA agents provide advice and support to the
Waymo Driver but do not directly control, steer, or drive the
vehicle.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For more information about the distinctions between Remote
Assistance and remote driving, see Automated Vehicle Safety Consortium.
2023. AVSC Best Practice for ADS Remote Assistance Use Case. SAE
Industry Technologies Consortia, available at https://avsc.sae-itc.com/
; SAE J3016 Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving
Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles (2021), especially
sections 3.23 and 3.24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, Remote Assistance agents are not passively monitoring
a vehicle or group of vehicles with the expectation to identify when
intervention is needed. Rather, the ADS reaches out to Remote
Assistance when the vehicle encounters an ambiguous situation in which
it may benefit from more context, even if the ADS can confidently
proceed--a helpful safety redundancy. The ADS will only be matched with
an available agent who is trained and certified for the specific
request.
Waymo has not used remote driving or ``tele-operations'' where a
human performs the Dynamic Driving Task. As mentioned above, we do not
have humans passively monitoring the AVs as if they are engaging in
normal driving, nor are there humans who are able to start driving an
AV remotely.
Waymo has developed a tool that is reserved as an additional
safeguard for a rare set of potential situations to assist a stopped AV
fully onto the shoulder from the adjacent lane on a high-speed road. In
such situations, a specially trained, U.S.-based, agent could prompt
the AV to move forward at 2 mph for a short distance at fixed steering
angles to exit the travel lane. To date, this functionality has never
been used outside of training.
Our Remote Assistance program, which has been independently
audited, is designed to match the level of training to the complexity
of the scenarios the vehicle might encounter.
The training program includes knowledge and skill-based education,
guided observation, simulations, hands-on practice, supervised time on
the live tools, and evaluation by an experienced Remote Assistance
Instructor for each level. Agents must demonstrate mastery through
certification testing for each specific request type before handling
live requests. In addition to training at the time of hire, agents also
regularly attend recurrent training as part of continuous quality
improvement efforts. Additionally, training material itself is
regularly audited. Training includes academic-style lectures on ADS
concepts and capabilities, shadowing operators, knowledge assessments,
and multiple types of skills assessment including hands-on simulation
training using playback of real recorded events.
Calibration Standards Question
Nevada has long been a national leader in the testing and
deployment of autonomous vehicles, with an emphasis on real-world
performance and public safety. As these technologies continue to evolve
and operate on Nevada's roadways, ensuring their reliability is
critical.
Waymo vehicles rely on a suite of sensors, radar, LiDAR, and
cameras that together form the automated driving system and allow the
vehicle to perceive and respond to its environment. These same types of
sensors are also used in advanced driver-assistance systems that are
increasingly common in vehicles today, enabling safety features like
automatic emergency braking and lane-keeping assistance.
We know that proper sensor calibration is essential for these
systems to function as intended. Research shows that even a 0.2-degree
misalignment in a camera, at just 25 miles per hour, can be the
difference between timely and untimely system activation--and
ultimately whether a vehicle avoids a collision.
Question 1. Dr. Pena, with that in mind, can you speak about the
importance of sensor calibration for Waymo's vehicles? And how often
are your vehicles recalibrated--or at least checked--to ensure those
sensors remain properly aligned over time, particularly as vehicles
experience normal wear and tear?
Answer. Sensor calibration is fundamental to our system's safety,
as the Waymo Driver relies on a fusion of lidar, radar, and cameras to
build a 360-degree view of the world. We design, assemble, and test key
parts of our proprietary sensor suite in California to ensure high
performance. This process begins with high-precision initial
calibration during assembly and testing, but our driverless ecosystem
is designed to manage calibration dynamically throughout the vehicle's
entire lifecycle. Rather than relying on static schedules, we use a
continuous validation model that monitors the vehicle's health both on
the road and in the cloud. This allows us to account for wear and tear,
thermal expansion, or sudden physical impacts in real time.
Onboard: Real-time introspection
The vehicle is constantly ``self-diagnosing'' its own calibration
health while driving. This onboard system allows the Waymo Driver to
react immediately to sudden changes, such as sensors being bumped or
shifting due to road conditions. If the alignment no longer conforms to
our strict specifications, the system can trigger immediate safety
fallbacks.
Offboard: Fleet-Wide Validation
Our offboard servers analyze vast amounts of collected driving data
to detect and correct subtle drifts that may not be visible to the
onboard system alone. This approach uses a much larger context to
proactively issue new calibration updates before a minor misalignment
ever becomes a safety issue.
Automated Safety Protocols
We maintain a wide safety margin; vehicles are often updated or
flagged for minor deviations long before they reach a ``failure''
state.
Proactive Refinement: Most calibration drifts are corrected
via calibration updates pushed to the vehicle, preventing any
loss of service.
Service Suspension: If a vehicle's calibration fails our
stringent validation and cannot be corrected remotely, the
vehicle is automatically blocked from being put into driverless
operations until the issue is resolved.
Manual Inspection: These flagged vehicles are immediately
removed from the fleet and routed to our dedicated technicians
for physical inspection and recalibration.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester to
Dr. Mauricio Pena
Child Safety:
Question 1. Autonomous vehicles may be a solution for roadway
safety issues; however, I still see reports of safety incidents with
existing AVs, including some with Waymo that now have Federal
investigators looking into the incidents.
a) In response to the incidents, what has Waymo done to prevent
similar incidents from occurring?
Answer. Improving road safety is our top priority. Following
incidents involving school buses in Austin in which a Waymo vehicle may
initially stop or slow for a school bus but then ends up proceeding, we
implemented software updates that materially improved our ability to
detect specific visual cues like extended stop arms and flashing red
lights. We also partnered with the Austin Independent School District
to collect data on various different light patterns to further refine
our performance. This is part of our commitment and culture of
continuous improvement.
b) I recognize Waymo previously committed to fully cooperating with
the NHTSA investigation. Will Waymo continue to honor this commitment,
and will it extend to the ongoing NTSB investigations?
Answer. Yes. Waymo is fully cooperating with NHTSA's preliminary
evaluations and has officially joined the NTSB as a party to their
investigations. We intend to remain transparent and provide all
necessary data and analysis throughout these processes.
c) Can Waymo commit to providing relevant and reasonably unredacted
vehicle safety data regarding these events?
Answer. Waymo already provides detailed, voluntarily unredacted
narratives in collision reports submitted to NHTSA. We are committed to
sharing safety data through these official channels and our public
Safety Impact reports. The NTSB handles the release of public
information on events it investigates. Any information about events
Waymo is investigating with the NTSB will, therefore, be released by
the NTSB.
d) Can Waymo commit to releasing at the appropriate time the
relevant and reasonably unredacted vehicle safety data to the public?
Answer. Waymo is an industry leader in transparency and already
publishes extensive safety data, including collision rates and impact
analyses--on our public website, waymo.com/safety/impact, in addition
to voluntarily forgoing opportunities to redact the narratives of our
vehicle crash reports. We provide safety data in a format that allows
for third-party researchers to check and challenge our methods and
inferences.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth to
Dr. Mauricio Pena
Wheelchair Securement
Question 1. Please provide in detail how much Waymo has invested in
bringing a universal wheelchair securement system to its vehicles.
A. With whom did you partner? Over what period of time?
Answer. Since 2019, Waymo has partnered with the United Spinal
Association to engage in meaningful, ongoing conversations about the
future of accessible transportation and to better understand the
diverse needs of wheelchair users, including both manual and power
chair users.
Together, we've collaborated in a variety of ways including:
Waymo became an inaugural member of United Spinal
Association's Secure Ride Coalition, funding the research and
design of a potential universal securement system that would
benefit many industries (air travel, bus travel, train travel,
AVs).
Recruiting wheelchair users to participate in paid, in-
person user experience (UXR) research to inform potential
future vehicle and service designs.
Supporting and providing funding for essential United Spinal
programs.
Providing disability etiquette trainings for Waymo's Rider
Support agents to best communicate with riders with
disabilities.
Inviting local wheelchair users to be early riders of our
human-driven, on-demand WAV service in Waymo markets, available
through the Waymo app.
Partnering on public education campaigns to raise awareness
about accessible mobility.
These partnerships have reinforced that accessibility requires
holistic solutions. For example, while developing a universal
securement system is a critical step, it is just one of many challenges
that must be addressed to ensure companies can safely and reliably
offer autonomous vehicle rides to power chair users.
Lastly, it's important to note that to date Waymo relies on OEMs to
build vehicles to upfit with our Automated Driving System (ADS), thus a
significant challenge in this space is that OEMs do not currently offer
base vehicle models that are factory-equipped for wheelchair
accessibility, and vehicle dimensions (especially for battery electric
vehicles) are not conducive to these modifications.
B. Did you engage with members of the disability community? If so,
with whom?
Answer. Engagement with the disability community has been a
foundational part of our mission since Waymo began as the Google Self-
Driving Car Project in 2009. Our dedicated Waymo Accessibility Network
has been in place for years, providing ongoing guidance as we scale our
operations.
Waymo supports over 120 disability organizations across the United
States, at both the local and national level. Every day, Waymo's
service is being used by people with visual, physical, cognitive and
sensory disabilities.
While we engage in direct partnerships with disability
organizations, we also have a forum where we bring together voices from
around the country through our Waymo Accessibility Network, which meets
quarterly to have direct communication with Waymo's Product, User
Experience, Public Affairs, and Policy teams. People who attend this
meeting receive confidential updates about future product releases and
provide feedback and insights on how Waymo can best meet the needs of
people with disabilities. Many of the accessibility features that are
publicly available for riders today were inspired by recommendations
directly from our disability partners.
We work with partners in a variety of ways to meet the needs of
each organization--examples below:
San Francisco, California
In July 2023, Waymo launched a charitable delivery
program in partnership with the SF-Marin Food Bank and
Openhouse to deliver fresh groceries to homebound seniors
who are experiencing food insecurity, and are unable to
pick up their own groceries. Waymo conducts these
deliveries every Wednesday supporting an average of 30
households in San Francisco each week.
Waymo provides free ride promo codes on an ongoing
basis to Curry Senior Center so they can run their Joy Ride
program for LGBTQIA+ seniors. This program involves seniors
taking Waymo rides to activities around San Francisco, keep
active and avoid isolation.
Waymo provides free ride promo codes on an ongoing
basis to Homeless Prenatal Program (HPP), to eliminate
barriers to transportation HPP clients face during critical
moments, including prenatal and postpartum appointments,
urgent care visits, and time-sensitive housing
appointments.
Waymo provides free ride promo codes on an ongoing
basis to The Arc San Francisco, to support adults who live
with intellectual and developmental disabilities get to and
from work, social programs and access essential services.
Los Angeles, California
Waymo has provided outreach and educational sessions
for several organizations serving people with disabilities,
including a Spanish-language presentation with Integrated
Community Collaborative: we've provided free rides to
unhoused and expectant mothers through Harvest Home, and
several older-adult-serving organizations, including the
Fairfax Senior Center, St Barnabas Senior Services, Wise &
Healthy Aging, and Bridge the Divide. Through these
partnerships, we provide in-person presentations about how
to use Waymo, paired with in-kind ride credits, and
sponsorship of their events and programming. We
additionally partner closely with the San Diego Seniors
Community Foundation that advocates for seniors statewide.
Arizona
Since 2017, Waymo has engaged with accessibility
organizations including the Foundation for Senior Living,
now called AllThrive365, and the Foundation for Blind
Children. Engagement over the years has evolved as our
service has expanded in Metro Phoenix. We've trained adults
who are new to vision loss on how to use Waymo, volunteered
for mock job interviews with young adults entering
employment, or educated and provided free rides to older
adults living in affordable housing communities who do not
have reliable modes of transportation.
We have created several public education campaigns in
partnership with disability-serving organizations to raise
awareness about how people with epilepsy, autism or other
neurodivergent diagnoses, blinded veterans, cerebral palsy,
older adults and blindness can use Waymo for safely
commuting, accessing opportunity and healthcare, and
connecting to their community to combat loneliness.
Waymo has frequently used its service to assist
organizations that serve people with disabilities, often
collaborating on free or discounted ride pilots to help
people with intellectual or developmental disabilities and
physical disabilities. During the pandemic, we also helped
many senior-serving organizations move and receive PPE.
Texas
In April 2023, Waymo hosted a presentation at the
Texas School for the Blind's staff, students and members of
the public from numerous disability organizations. This
pre-launch event was an opportunity for the community to
learn from and ask questions about autonomous vehicles, and
for us to learn about Austinites' expectations of us and
our service.
Waymo provides early access to its services, prior to
a fully public launch, to disability organizations' leaders
or advocates. This allows for meaningful engagement on how
the service is being rolled out and how to thoughtfully
address concerns from members of the public with a unique
perspective on AVs and our mobility offering. In San
Antonio, Houston, Dallas and Austin, we've provided early
access and free rides to affiliates of Best Buddies,
Epilepsy Foundation, National Federation of the Blind,
American Council of the Blind, The Senior Source and
several other organizations serving a diverse Texan
community.
Atlanta, Georgia
Waymo partnered with TechSmart for Seniors to
supplement their ride-hailing curriculum with specific
instructions on how to download the Uber app, opt-in for
fully autonomous rides, and provide tips about the unique
safety features available during a Waymo ride.
In November 2025, Waymo hosted a live demonstration at
Calvin Court, an affordable senior living complex, to
educate community members about Waymo technology and the
Atlanta service, and answer questions.
Question 2. Will you partner with researchers and engineers, such
as those at the University of Michigan and Purdue University, who have
designed universal wheelchair securement systems and need the funding
and resources to bring them to market?
Answer. Waymo maintains a deep and longstanding commitment to the
principle of universal design, and we consistently seek opportunities
to learn from the brightest minds in academia and the research
community. Our approach to accessibility is rooted in collaboration, as
seen through our Waymo Accessibility Network, where we engage with
numerous advocacy and technical organizations to understand the
evolving landscape of assistive technology. We are certainly encouraged
by the innovative work being done at institutions like Purdue
University regarding automated securement. As we continue to refine the
Waymo Driver, we remain open to exploring how such emerging research
might eventually align with the technical specifications of the base
vehicle platforms provided by the OEMs, ensuring that any future
integration meets our rigorous safety and operational standards.
A. Please provide information on your timeline for deployment of
such a system.
Answer. The deployment of advanced, automated accessibility
features is a journey we are navigating with a focus on safety. Because
the Waymo Driver technology is designed to be integrated into vehicles
manufactured by OEMs, our timelines are necessarily influenced by the
development cycles and hardware capabilities of those base vehicles.
Currently, no major OEM produces a factory-ready, ADA-compliant base
vehicle for scale. While a specific timeline for the broad availability
of universal automated securement remains fluid, there is an
encouraging and ongoing dialogue within the larger automotive and
accessibility ecosystems. We remain optimistic that as the industry
continues to evolve, these collective efforts will eventually mature
into solutions that offer a seamless and safe experience for all
riders.
Waymo is actively engaged in developing new solutions through
initiatives like the USDOT's Inclusive Design Challenge, where we were
selected as a semifinalist. This challenge sought to elicit new
solutions for people with disabilities to use autonomous vehicles to
access transportation needs.
B. When can riders who use wheelchairs expect to be able to request
a fully autonomous ride with Waymo?
Answer. Our vision is centered on the belief that the future of
mobility should be inclusive, and we are proud to currently facilitate
Wheelchair-Accessible Vehicle (WAV) service. As the landscape of
autonomous driving continues to mature, the realization of a fully
independent request experience remains part of a broader, industry-wide
journey involving many stakeholders. Because the integration of
advanced accessibility features is often dependent on the natural
progression of base vehicles and the surrounding hardware ecosystem, we
are focused on participating in the collective dialogue required to
bring these complex solutions to the forefront.
C. Will your next line of AVs, the Waymo Ojai, be wheelchair
accessible?
Answer. The Waymo Ojai represents a step in the ongoing evolution
of our fleet. Developed in coordination with the OEM, the vehicle
features an interior architecture that prioritizes cabin flexibility
and passenger comfort. While this base vehicle is not wheelchair
accessible, this spacious design is highly adaptable; for instance, the
generous proportions provide ample room for stowable wheelchairs or
other mobility aids to be stored within the cabin or the trunk,
depending on the specific needs of the journey. To further enhance
accessibility, the vehicle's wide door opening and lower step make for
significantly easier ingress and egress for passengers. Additionally,
we have incorporated inclusive tactile elements, such as Braille
labeling on interior buttons, to assist passengers with visual
impairments.
D. Do you plan to make a certain portion, all or none of these
vehicles, wheelchair accessible?
Answer. Our mission is to improve everyone's access to mobility. We
continue to evaluate our fleet mix and work toward a future where our
service can accommodate the diverse needs of all riders, including
those requiring wheelchair-accessible solutions. In the immediate term,
we plan to continue supporting manual wheelchair accessible
alternatives.
Question 3. Do you support Federal rulemaking that would provide
national standards for automated wheelchair securement?
Answer. Waymo supports a Federal rulemaking that would provide
national standards for automated wheelchair securement and hopes that
doing so would support an active market of wheelchair accessible
vehicles appropriate for ride-hailing.
This commitment to universal design is also why Waymo supports the
bipartisan H.R. 4419 AV Accessibility Act, which seeks to improve the
ability of people with disabilities to find, access, and use ride-hail
AVs by:
Removing Licensing Barriers: Prohibiting states from
requiring a motor vehicle operator's license for qualified
individuals with disabilities when riding as passengers in
fully autonomous (Level 4 or 5) vehicles.
Improving Infrastructure: Requiring a Department of
Transportation study to determine best practices for modifying
public transportation infrastructure to better accommodate
people with disabilities during pickup and drop-off.
Fostering Independence: Ensuring that Americans with
disabilities can use ride-hail ADS-equipped vehicles with
confidence and independence.
By establishing national standards for securement and passing the
AV Accessibility Act, which is supported by a coalition including the
National Federation of the Blind and the Blinded Veterans Association,
the Federal government can help ensure that autonomous vehicles fulfill
their promise of expanding mobility for every American.
Universal Design
Question 1. How do you ensure your technology and AVs are able to
detect and appropriately respond to people with a wide range of
disabilities, including those who use mobility devices, such as
wheelchairs, or those who use service animals?
Answer. The Waymo Driver is designed to be a safe, diligent, and
always attentive driver that utilizes a sensor suite with 360-degree
vision up to three football fields away. This technology is
specifically trained to detect and respond safely to vulnerable road
users, including pedestrians, cyclists, and people using mobility
devices.
Our system has been trained and tested on cases including
pedestrians who are using manual wheelchairs, power chairs, motorized
mobility scooters, walkers, and other mobility aids. Some of our
technology, like pedestrian keypoints, help the system to better
understand and predict the actions of mobility aid users specifically,
allowing the Waymo Driver to create more safe and courteous
interactions with these pedestrians.
A. Would you support rulemaking to establish standards to ensure
the detection of and response to people with disabilities?
Answer. Yes, Waymo supports Federal rulemaking that would establish
an ADS driving competency standard, ensuring all autonomous systems can
sufficiently detect and respond safely to all road users, including
those with disabilities.
Question 2. Please explain in detail how Waymo incorporates
universal design principles in its designing, testing and deployment of
its AVs and associated software.
A. Are your AVs and associated software accessible to people with
sensory disabilities (e.g., hearing and visual impairments)?
Answer. Yes, our ride-hailing service integrates features such as
turn-by-turn walking navigation and in-ride audio support to assist
riders with visual or hearing impairments. During the trip, riders who
have selected ``descriptive audio'' in their app settings will receive
audio updates about key intersections and certain vehicle behaviors
such as ``Yielding for pedestrians''. In addition to turn-by-turn
walking navigation, we offer a wayfinding feature that plays a musical
melody or honks a vehicle's horn to assist people who are blind or have
low vision in locating their vehicle. To help riders visually
distinguish which car is theirs at pickup, we also enable riders to
customize initials and color of the rooftop display. Further, we
empower our Support agents to assist all riders. For example, people
who are Deaf or hard of hearing can chat in-app with rider support, and
our in-car screen shows text notifications aligned with in-car audio
announcements. We also display the rider's location relative to the
Waymo vehicle, enabling support agents to provide more personalized
instructions at pickup.
We incorporate inclusive design practices through extensive user
research and by gathering feedback from internal riders who have
disabilities. This process identifies opportunities for improvement
that we then incorporate into our development roadmap.
a. People with intellectual or developmental disabilities?
Answer. Our features are designed for a diverse range of needs,
including a clean and consistent ride experience and the option to
contact Rider Support for assistance through in-car consoles or the app
at any time. Riders can control the vehicle's temperature, leg room,
and audio environment-including selecting music and specifying the
frequency of audio announcements. These choices put riders in control
to build a familiar routine and accommodate their own sensory needs.
Riders can also send their trip details to a trusted contact, who can
then follow along. Riders (or a friend, family member, or caregiver)
can specify and create a custom name for favorite locations (e.g.,
Home, Work, School) to make trip planning in the app as familiar and
easy as possible, without having to enter a street address.
b. People with a variety of mobility impairments?
Answer. We offer features such as requesting to minimize walking
time when ordering a trip to assist those with mobility impairments.
Prior to pickup, riders can adjust the amount of leg room, creating a
more comfortable ride for passengers with limited leg flexibility or
range of motion. If feasible for the rider, the trunk has ample space
for mobility aids and folding wheelchairs.
B. With whom did you partner? Over what period of time?
Answer. We have worked for years with members of the Waymo
Accessibility Network, which includes groups such as the National
Federation of the Blind, Deaf Equality, United Cerebral Palsy, United
Spinal Association, The Autism Society and the Epilepsy Foundation, to
ensure our technology meets the needs of these communities.
C. Did you engage with members of the disability community? If so,
with whom?
Answer. As stated above, we're proud to partner with members of the
Waymo Accessibility Network including, but not limited to:
AllThrive365, formerly Foundation for Senior Living
United Cerebral Palsy
Blinded Veterans Association
National Federation of the Blind
American Council of the Blind
Easterseals
The Arc
The Autism Society
Deaf Equality
United Spinal Association
Requesting Rides and Ensuring Safety
Question 1. Many cities like New York City, Chicago and San
Francisco have taken the lead in requiring rideshare and taxi companies
to ensure people with disabilities, including wheelchair users, are
able to use their services without unreasonable wait times.
A. For the past 12 months, what is the minimum, median and maximum
wait time for a wheelchair accessible vehicle (WAV) requested through
the Waymo app?
Answer. While specific wait-time data for individual vehicle types
is not publicly available, we are continually working to improve our
service and take into account feedback from our riders to ensure a
positive, timely, and safe experience.
B. How many WAVs were requested? How many such requests were
fulfilled?
Answer. The number of WAVs requested is not publicly available.
C. What percentage of your fleet are WAVs? What percentage of Waymo
requests are for WAVs?
Answer. Our autonomous fleet does not include WAV vehicles, however
riders can order manually driven WAVs through our app or by contacting
rider support.
D. How do you plan to work with local, State and Federal officials
in ensuring people with disabilities, including wheelchair users, do
not experience unreasonable wait times?
Answer. We work closely with local, state, and Federal officials to
ensure we are accommodating local needs. We have also partnered with
regional transit authorities, such as Valley Metro in Phoenix, to
explore mobility solutions for groups traditionally underserved by
public transit.
Question 2. For travelers with disabilities to safely utilize,
enter and exit an AV the surrounding infrastructure must be accessible.
A. Do you collect data and map to ensure pick-up and drop-off
locations are accessible and safe for people with disabilities,
including wheelchair users?
Answer. The Waymo app includes features to minimize walking time
and provide turn-by-turn walking navigation to help riders safely reach
and exit the vehicle. Riders can also adjust their pickup or drop off
location if desired.
B. How do you plan to work with local, State and Federal officials
in ensuring people with disabilities, including wheelchair users, can
safely enter and exit the vehicle?
Answer. Waymo views city and state leadership as critical partners.
We work closely with them to ensure our service complements existing
transit networks and addresses local infrastructure challenges.
Question 3. What is your company doing to extend AV service to
rural America?
Answer. While our current commercial focus is on major metropolitan
areas, we recognize the potential for AVs to improve transportation
equity in rural communities. We believe AVs can play an important role
in addressing last-mile challenges and expanding mobility options for
rural populations.
A. Will your AVs be able to navigate backroads and long, rural
driveways so passengers with disabilities are picked up and dropped off
at their doors?
Answer. Yes, we are continually testing the Waymo Driver in a
number of different environments to ensure its ability to handle all
types of terrain and situations to best serve our riders.
Consumer Protection
Question 1. Current proposed legislation allows AV providers to
require forced arbitration, which would deny disabled users from filing
claims in court if their rights under the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) were violated or they or their devices are injured.
A. What responsibility does Waymo have to ensure the civil rights
of people with disabilities are upheld?
Answer. Serving the disability community is foundational to our
mission. We prioritize the safety and well-being of our passengers.
B. Do you support legislation that would ban forced arbitration
clauses for Americans with disabilities who seek recourse due to
violations of the ADA?
Answer. Waymo supports existing state insurance and liability
frameworks and prioritizes providing a safe, independent mobility
option for underserved populations.
Question 2. What steps is your company taking to protect
passengers' data privacy?
Answer. Waymo takes several comprehensive steps to protect
passenger data privacy, governed by policies developed with industry-
best practices regarding transparency, collection and retention limits,
and user controls.
Privacy by Design: Waymo's systems are not designed to use sensor
or camera data to identify individual people, and the company does not
collect or keep biometric data.
Data Retention Policies: Internal cabin data is generally retained
for only a short period. Longer retention is limited to specific
exceptions, such as training machine learning models or addressing
safety incidents like vehicle damage or passenger injury.
Independent Governance: Since 2016, Waymo has operated as a
separate company from Google, with its own internal and external
privacy policies and a dedicated Privacy Officer who reviews all data
requests from government entities. Personal data is only shared with
Google under a limited set of circumstances like when a user gives us
consent and when Google is acting as a service provider. See Waymo
Services Privacy Policy for more info.
De-identification: In cases where interior camera footage is used
for service improvements (e.g., detecting if a rider is smoking or not
wearing a seatbelt), the video is not linked to a specific person.
A. What specific steps are you taking to ensure passengers' health,
disability status and locations visited are not be shared or used for
commercial or tracking purposes without the permission of the
individual?
Answer. Trust and privacy are fundamental to our success. Our
privacy policy emphasizes transparency, collection and retention
limits, and user controls. We limit who has access to sensor and
location data and how long it is retained, and our data management is
governed by independent policies separate from Google.
Waymo identifies precise geolocation and data concerning health,
including disability status, as ``sensitive personal information'' and
applies specific protections to ensure it is not misused.
Commercial Use Restrictions: Waymo does not disclose personal
information to third parties for commercial or tracking purposes unless
an individual provides explicit consent.
Right to Limit Use: In accordance with U.S. state law requirements,
Waymo does not use or disclose sensitive personal information for any
purpose other than as permitted by law without providing users the
right to limit such use.
Opt-Out Options: Users have the right to opt-out of the ``sale'' or
``sharing'' of their personal information for targeted advertising
purposes.
Precise Geolocation Controls: Geolocation data is collected from
sensors and GPS to provide services, but users can manage their privacy
and data choices through app and device settings.
Limited Disclosures: Personal data is only shared in a few limited
cases, such as with service providers who perform tasks on Waymo's
behalf (under strict confidentiality agreements) or for legal and
safety reasons, such as complying with a governmental request or
protecting the safety of customers.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth to
Jeff Farrah
Wheelchair Securement
Question 1. Will you encourage your members to partner with
researchers and engineers, such as those the University of Michigan and
Purdue University, who have designed universal wheelchair securement
systems and need the funding the resources to bring them to market?
Answer. AVIA is a partner of the SecureRide Coalition,\1\ which has
been organized by the United Spinal Association, and has supported
providing funding for the testing and development of the Universal
Docking Interface Geometry (``UDIG'') wheelchair securement standard,
which helps wheelchair users automatically and safely secure their
wheelchairs in a motor vehicle. For example, funding is needed to
expand UDIG testing to a wide array of vehicle configurations,
including autonomous vehicles (``AVs'') with nontraditional seating
arrangements, to ensure wheelchair users can secure their wheelchairs
across vehicle designs, greatly expanding overall accessibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See SecureRide Coalition, UNITED SPINAL ASS'N, https://
unitedspinal.org/secureride/ (last visited Feb. 2, 2026).
Question 2. Would you provide support for such research and
deployment of autonomous wheelchair securement systems?
Answer. We have voiced our support for UDIG research in both our
recent comments to the USDOT's Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Research and Technology,\2\ and in the written testimony provided for
this hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Comment Letter on Request for Information-Research Ideas To
Support Nationwide Automated Vehicle (AV) Deployment from the
Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association (Oct. 17, 2025), https://
www.regulations.gov/comment/DOT-OST-2025-1029-0026.
Question 3. Do you support Federal rulemaking that would provide
national standards for automated wheelchair securement?
Answer. AVs offer an exciting development for mobility for
wheelchair users. AVIA would like to meet with your office,
researchers, regulators, and other stakeholders to discuss further how
such standards would be developed and ultimately translated into
regulations.
Universal Design
Question 1. Please provide in detail AVIA's engagement with the
disability community.
A. Have you engaged in listening sessions or advisory committee
meetings? If so, when?
Answer. AVIA is deeply engaged with the disability community. This
is a regular part of AVIA's work and includes our membership in
SecureRide. In addition, in December 2025, as part of our Autonomy
Summit 25, we hosted an event with the American Association of People
with Disabilities to discuss how AVs will transform mobility for
Americans with disabilities.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Autonomy Summit 25: Building Momentum for America's Autonomous
Future, Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n (Dec. 17, 2025), https://
www.theavindustry.org/blog/autonomy-summit-25-building-momentum-for-
americas-autonomous-future.
B. Which disabilities were represented at such meetings?
Answer. AVIA has a formal ``Partners'' program which includes
organizations that share our desire to see the safe and effective
deployment of AVs in the United States.\4\ The following organizations
from the disability community are part of our Partners program:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Our Partners, Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n, https://
www.theavindustry.org/about (last visited Feb. 25, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Council of the Blind
Blinded Veterans Association
Epilepsy Foundation
National Council on Independent Living
National Federation of the Blind
United Spinal Association
Question 2. How do you ensure your members develop technology that
is able to detect and appropriately respond to people with a wide range
of disabilities, including those who use mobility devices, such as
wheelchairs, or those who use service animals?
Answer. AVs are designed and developed to detect and respond to all
road users. AVIA members are particularly focused on ensuring that
vulnerable road users (``VRUs'') are protected. An AV has a 360-degree
view of the world around the vehicle and can respond to road
developments, including the activities of VRUs, far quicker than human
drivers. In those states that have passed AV legislation, AVs are
required to obey all traffic regulations, just as human operated
vehicles are. AVIA is hopeful that the state of Illinois will enact an
AV deployment statute soon to bring the benefits of the technology to
the citizens of your state.
A. Would you support rulemaking to establish standards to ensure
the detection of and response to people with disabilities?
Answer. As noted in my written testimony, AVIA supports the
codification of a safety case requirement for automated driving systems
(``ADS'') that includes a requirement that ADS manufacturers explain
how their ADS accurately detects and responds to relevant road users,
including VRUs and emergency vehicles and personnel. This also includes
people with disabilities. We encourage members of the Committee to
support such an approach as the Senate considers AV-related
legislation.
Question 3. Please explain in detail how AVIA helps its members
incorporate universal design principles in its designing, testing and
deployment of its AVs and associated software.
A. Are your AVs and associated software accessible to people with
sensory disabilities (e.g., hearing and visual impairments)?
a. People with intellectual or developmental disabilities?
b. People with a variety of mobility impairments?
Answer. AVIA and its members are committed to supporting the
deployment of accessible AVs that can expand access to mobility for
Americans living with disabilities, and as noted above we partner with
a number of major disability advocacy groups who support the further
development and deployment of AVs nationwide. While our members are
better positioned to answer specific questions on how their vehicles
are designed, tested, and deployed, on the policy side of this
discussion AVIA would highlight its support for the passage of the AV
Accessibility Act.\5\ The Act would prohibit states from issuing motor
vehicle operator licenses in a manner that prevents people with
disabilities, or other individuals without a driver's license, from
riding as a passenger in an ADS-equipped vehicle. This Act also
requires the Secretary of Transportation, in collaboration with the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct an
accessible infrastructure study to determine the best practices for
public transportation to improve the ability of Americans with
blindness and other disabilities to find, access, and use ride-hail
AVs, including during pickup and drop off.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Autonomous Vehicle Accessibility Act, H.R. 7126, 118th Cong.
(2024) https://www.congress
.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7126/text.
B. With whom did you partner? Over what period of time?
Answer. Please see above for a list of AVIA Partners working on
disability-related issues.
C. Did you engage with members of the disability community? If so,
with whom?
Answer. Please see above.
Requesting Rides and Ensuring Safety
Question 1. Many cities like New York City, Chicago and San
Francisco have taken the lead in requiring rideshare and taxi companies
to ensure people with disabilities, including wheelchair users, are
able to use their services without unreasonable wait times.
A. How do you plan to work with your members, as well as local,
State and Federal officials in ensuring people with disabilities,
including wheelchair users, do not experience unreasonable wait times?
Answer. In order to speed the creation of accessible AVs, AVIA
encourages members of the Committee to support updates to existing law
and regulations that amend existing requirements for manually operated
driving controls and certain indicators and telltales to clarify that
such requirements are not applicable to Level 4 or Level 5 ADS-
dedicated vehicles, because those requirements are intended for an in-
vehicle human driver.\6\ These changes would allow for AVs to be widely
available to people with disabilities across the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Securing American Leadership in Autonomous Vehicles,
Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n (Jan. 19, 2025), https://
cdn.prod.website-files.com/67ee365c25e6530594bd40c2/683d8d2
fa60ac22d542b1049_Securing%20American%20Leadership%20in%20Autonomous%20V
ehicles1
.pdf.
Question 2. For travelers with disabilities to safely utilize,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
enter and exit an AV the surrounding infrastructure must be accessible.
A. Do you encourage your members to collect data and map to ensure
pick-up and drop-off locations are accessible and safe for people with
disabilities, including wheelchair users?
Answer. AVIA supports our members creating accessible vehicles, but
the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards constrain the industry's
ability to build these vehicles, as noted above. We are eager to work
with you to resolve this issue and update relevant laws and regulations
to speed the deployment of accessible AVs.
A. How do you plan to work with your members, as well as local,
State and Federal officials in ensuring people with disabilities,
including wheelchair users, can safely enter and exit the vehicle?
Answer. As noted above, AVIA partners with a number of disability
advocacy groups and is eager to work with those partners and you to
address accessibility issues and speed up the deployment of accessible
AVs nationwide.
Question 3. What is AVIA doing to extend AV service to rural
America?
A. How do you plan to work with your members, as well as local,
State and Federal officials in ensuring AVs are able to navigate
backroads and long, rural driveways so passengers with disabilities are
picked up and dropped off at their doors?
Answer. To facilitate the deployment of AVs-including in rural
areas--it is imperative that Congress take action to enact a Federal
policy framework. Presently, robotaxis are deploying in a variety of
U.S. states and companies are progressively expanding the Operational
Design Domain of robotaxi services to suburban and exurban places. This
has particularly been the experience in the Bay Area of northern
California and in Arizona, where deployments have been occurring for
years.
Contracts
Question 1. Current proposed legislation allows AV providers to
require forced arbitration, which would deny disabled users from filing
claims in court if their right under the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) were violated or they or their devices are injured.
A. What responsibility does the vehicle manufacturer or operator
have to ensure the civil rights of people with disabilities are upheld?
Answer. AV companies must comply with Federal and state law on this
matter.
B. Do you support legislation that would ban forced arbitration
clauses for Americans with disabilities who seek recourse due to
violations of the ADA?
Answer. No.
Question 2. What steps should your members take to protect
passengers' data privacy?
A. What specific steps should they take to ensure passengers'
health, disability status and locations visited are not shared or used
for commercial or tracking purposes without the permission of the
individual?
Answer. As part of a broader Federal framework for AV policy, AVIA
supports requiring AV manufacturers to develop a plan with respect to
the collection, use, sharing, and storage of personal information
collected by an AV and a method for providing notice to vehicle owners
or occupants about the privacy policy. Such a requirement is included
in our proposed Federal AV policy framework.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Jeff Farrah
Infrastructure & Autonomous Vehicles. As the types of vehicles on
our roads change, our roadways and safety systems need to keep pace.
Question 1. As more autonomous vehicles are deployed on the road,
what specific infrastructure investments are most critical to improving
safety?
Answer. Autonomous vehicles (``AVs'') benefit from the same
infrastructure investments as all other vehicles. While AVs do not need
any specialized infrastructure, what is needed is a Federal policy
framework for AVs, as laid out in the written testimony. AVIA strongly
encourages you to support legislation to create such a framework. This
year's surface transportation reauthorization presents an important
opportunity for the Congress to advance a Federal policy framework on
AVs and AVIA encourages the Committee to seize the opportunity. In
January 2025, AVIA released Securing American Leadership in Autonomous
Vehicles,\8\ which details a comprehensive set of Federal policy
recommendations that would accelerate the safe and timely deployment of
AV technology and solidify the U.S. as the global leader in this
transformative field. To best support the further development of the AV
industry, Federal AV legislation should:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Securing American Leadership in Autonomous Vehicles,
Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n (Jan. 19, 2025), https://
cdn.prod.website-files.com/67ee365c25e6530594bd40c2/683d8d2fa
60ac22d542b1049_Securing%20American%20Leadership%20in%20Autonomous%20Veh
icles1.pdf.
Require an ``ADS Safety Case.'' As directed by Congress, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (``NHTSA'')
should initiate rulemaking, informed by industry and the work
of existing standards setting bodies, to require that
commercially deployed autonomous driving system (``ADS'')
manufacturers develop, and provide upon request, a detailed
record (often described as a ``safety case'')\9\ of the basis
for the manufacturer's conclusion that the design,
construction, and performance of an ADS protects against an
unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety, as defined in 49
U.S.C. Sec. 30102(a)(9). Safety cases have been used as part of
safety assurance in a number of other fields, including
energy,\10\ aviation,\11\ and defense,\12\ and have been
proposed for use with AI systems.\13\ The ADS safety case would
include: (1) a technical description of the ADS's parts,
capabilities, and integration into the vehicle platform, (2)
explanation of how the ADS performs all elements of the driving
task, (3) engineering methodologies used to design and assess
the ADS's performance and ensure the absence of unreasonable
risk to motor vehicle safety, (4) a description of ADS's safety
performance, (5) evidence supporting the manufacturer's claim
for validating the ADS's performance competencies, and (6) an
explanation of how the ADS detects and responds to crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, e.g., Welcome to Safety Case 101, Aurora (Mar. 8, 2022),
https://aurora.tech/newsroom/welcome-to-safety-case-101.
\10\ See, e.g., What are Safety Cases? A Historical Overview,
Synergenog (Dec. 12, 2024), https://synergenog.com/what-are-safety-
cases-history/ (explaining the history and the safety benefits of using
safety cases when managing high-risk oil and gas energy and industrial
facilities, including onshore processing plants, offshore fixed
platforms, and floating vessels).
\11\ Safety Case Development, Va. Tech, https://maap.ictas.vt.edu/
capabilities/safetycases.html (last visited Feb. 25, 2026) (explaining
the robust development of safety cases for aviation operations).
\12\ DSA 03.OME Part 1: Defence Code of Practice (DCOP) 103, U.K.
Def. Safety Auth. (Aug. 2024), https://
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/689f2414cc5ef8b4c5fc44b4/DSA_03
.OME_Part_1_DCOP_103_-_OME_Safety_and_Environmental_Case_-_SEC.pdf
(describing the extensive requirement to use safety cases for the U.K.
Ministry of Defence).
\13\ Geoffrey Irving, Safety cases at AISI, AI Sec. Inst. (Aug. 23,
2024), https://www.aisi
.gov.uk/blog/safety-cases-at-aisi.
Establish ADS Competencies. Public trust in AVs is essential
to their successful deployment. As part of the required safety
case, ADS manufacturers should explain how their ADS meets a
set of key competencies, including: (1) the ability to perform
the entire dynamic driving task (``DDT'') within its
Operational Design Domain (``ODD'') and to recognize and
appropriately respond to the boundaries of its ODD; (2)
accurately detecting and responding to relevant road users,
including vulnerable road users and emergency vehicles and
personnel; (3) transferring control back to human driver when
necessary for Level 3 systems; (4) achieving a ``minimal risk
condition'' as defined by SAE J3016 for Level 4 and 5 systems,
when necessary; and (5) complying with applicable local traffic
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
laws and laws relevant to the performance of the DDT.
Establish a National AV Safety Data Repository. As directed
by Congress, NHTSA should establish, implement, and maintain a
National AV Safety Data Repository, to collect safety-relevant
data about AV incidents and expand AV data reporting to include
state-level location of AVs. This repository would provide
timely information to the public and regulators to promote AV
transparency and accountability. The database should include
only material and relevant data and specify a meaningful
minimum damage threshold for reportable crashes. NHTSA should
further ensure that all information shared in the repository is
subject to strict confidential business information
protections.
Clarify and Modernize the FMVSS. Whether by legislation or
through congressionally directed action by NHTSA (by
interpretation and/or regulatory changes) it should be
clarified that the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(``FMVSS'') requirements for manually operated driving controls
and certain indicators and telltales are not applicable to
Level 4 or Level 5 ADS-dedicated vehicles, since they are
intended for an in-vehicle human driver only. Such action would
support AV innovation by avoiding imposing requirements that do
not advance safety and hamper the opportunity to re-imagine
what motor vehicles look like and how they are designed, paving
the way for greater accessibility, safety, and societal
utility.
Revise the ``Make Inoperative'' Prohibition. Existing
Federal law prevents manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and
repair businesses from disabling any safety-related device or
design element required by an FMVSS in a vehicle for any
purpose after its first sale. To ensure that innovative safety
and technical features can be adopted, AV legislation should
clarify that making a vehicle's manual controls inaccessible or
altering their functionality for safety reasons during
autonomous operation does not run afoul of the ``make
inoperative'' provision of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49
U.S.C. Sec. 30122).
Expand the FAST Act Testing Exception. An exemption included
in the FAST Act (49 U.S.C. Sec. 30112(b)(10)) permits only
qualifying original equipment manufacturers to test and
evaluate vehicles that do not conform to the FMVSS. AV
legislation should further include a means for AV developers to
conduct commercial operations, including the carrying of
members of the public as passengers and transporting freight as
part of that testing or evaluation.
Move Forward with an AV Demonstration Program. Congress
should direct NHTSA to move forward with a voluntary AV
demonstration program that offers uniform Federal rules that
provide oversight for the safe design, construction, and
deployment on public roads for ADS-equipped vehicles
manufactured and operated by participants admitted into the
program. Such a program would benefit AV developers seeking to
demonstrate innovative vehicle designs while also providing
NHTSA with additional data on AV operations beyond the safety
data collected under the National AV Safety Data Repository
proposed above.
Advance AV Cybersecurity and Privacy. Congress should
include in its comprehensive AV legislation language requiring
AV manufacturers to develop cybersecurity and privacy plans for
their technologies. Cybersecurity plans should include a
written cybersecurity policy describing the manufacturer's
practices for detecting and responding to cyberattacks,
unauthorized intrusions, and false and spurious messages or
vehicle control commands. For privacy, AV manufacturers should
be required to develop a plan with respect to the collection,
use, sharing, and storage of personal information collected by
an AV and a method for providing notice to vehicle owners or
occupants about the privacy policy.
Promote AV Accessibility. Congress should support access to
AVs for people with disabilities by passing the AV
Accessibility Act.\14\ The Act would prohibit states from
issuing motor vehicle operator licenses in a manner that
prevents people with disabilities, or other individuals without
a driver's license, from riding as a passenger in an ADS-
equipped vehicle. This Act also requires the Secretary of
Transportation, in collaboration with the National Academies of
Science, to conduct an accessible infrastructure study to
determine the best practices for public transportation to
improve the ability of Americans with blindness and other
disabilities to find, access, and use ride-hail autonomous
vehicles, including during pickup and drop off.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Autonomous Vehicle Accessibility Act, H.R. 7126, 118th Cong.
(2024).
Support the Wider Deployment of ADS-Equipped Commercial
Motor Vehicles. To ensure uniform, national rules for operating
autonomous commercial motor vehicles (``CMVs'') in interstate
commerce, AVIA recommends codifying the USDOT's 2018
interpretation that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (``FMCSRs'') do not assume that a CMV driver is
always a human or that a human is necessarily present onboard a
CMV, and that when a CMV does not require a human operator,
none of the human-specific FMCSRs (i.e., drug testing, hours-
of-service, commercial driver's licenses, and physical
qualification requirements) apply.\15\ Further, to reduce
barriers to interstate commerce, AV legislation should include
a provision that when operating in interstate commerce, a CMV
equipped with a Level 4 or Level 5 ADS is expressly allowed to
operate without a human driver on board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Preparing for the Future of
Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0 (AV 3.0) 9 (2018), https://
www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/policy-initiatives/
automated-vehicles/320711/preparing-future-transportation-automated-
vehicle-30.pdf.
Streamline and Update Regulations to Accommodate the
Integration of ADS into CMVs. This includes updating vehicle
width limits to provide flexibility for the placement of
sensors and other key safety technologies. This also includes
updating regulations to allow for the use of cab-mounted
beacons as a warning device, which would update antiquated
regulations and improve safety for both autonomous CMVs and
human drivers. In October 2025, the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration issued a waiver that allows ADS-equipped
CMVs to use cab-mounted beacons on their vehicles rather than
physically place warning devices on the roadway.\16\ That
waiver should be codified to ensure its benefits are available
permanently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Letter from Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin. To Aurora
Operations, Inc. (Oct. 10, 2025), https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/
fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2025-10/Letter%20to%20Aurora%20
Operations%2C%20Inc.%20-
Waiver%20of%20Warning%20Device%20Requirements%20Terms%20
and%20Conditions.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester to
Jeff Farrah
Federal Safety Standards for Autonomous Vehicles:
Question 1. As one of the key regulators for Federal roadway
safety, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has
emphasized the importance of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS) and their role in ensuring all vehicles on our Nation's
roadways meet the proper requirements. However, cars equipped with
various levels of automated driving systems (ADS), for which there are
no FMVSS, have been involved in serious crashes.
Answer. It is critical to underscore that all motor vehicles sold
or imported into the United States must be FMVSS compliant. Autonomous
vehicles (``AVs'') are certainly no different. This means, other than a
select subset of AVs that have received exemptions from NHTSA, the
vehicles being used in AV fleets today are built to meet all applicable
FMVSS. It is the case that there are currently no FMVSS that apply
directly to the design or performance of an ADS. AVIA supports a
Federal framework for AV policy that would address this issue and
establish FMVSS that directly address considerations for a vehicle's
ADS, as laid out in my written testimony and in Securing American
Leadership in Autonomous Vehicles.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Securing American Leadership in Autonomous Vehicles,
Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n (Jan. 19, 2025), https://
cdn.prod.website-files.com/67ee365c25e6530594bd40c2/683d8d2f
a60ac22d542b1049_Securing%20American%20Leadership%20in%20Autonomous%20Ve
hicles1
.pdf.
a. Should a Federal autonomous vehicle framework include FMVSS that
address safety concerns that have already been observed with AVs?
Answer. AVIA has long advocated for updates to the FMVSS that
specifically address the needs of AVs, as laid out in Securing American
Leadership in Autonomous Vehicles,\18\ and discussed above and in my
written testimony. Congress has the opportunity to create a Federal AV
policy framework that instructs NHTSA to undertake updates to existing
FMVSS and create new standards where needed, while also giving the
agency any additional resources it may need to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id.
b. If not, what assurances can the public and regulators have that
AVs will address relevant safety concerns and operate with the highest
safety standards?
Answer. N/A
Question 2. As vehicles become more software-driven and connected,
cybersecurity failures can quickly turn into real-world safety risks,
from remote exploitation to compromised over-the-air updates and unsafe
interactions with vehicle-to-everything (V2X) systems. While the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration sets baseline safety
expectations through the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, there
is still no clear, enforceable Federal cybersecurity standard tailored
to automated vehicles and advanced driver assistance systems.
a. Should a Federal autonomous vehicle framework include
enforceable cybersecurity requirements (for example: secure software
development, vulnerability testing, patch timelines, incident
reporting, and supply-chain controls) as a condition of deployment?
Answer. AVIA supports the creation of a Federal policy framework
for AVs that includes a requirement for AV manufacturers to develop
cybersecurity and privacy plans for their technologies. These
cybersecurity plans should include a written cybersecurity policy
describing the manufacturer's practices for detecting and responding to
cyberattacks, unauthorized intrusions, and false and spurious messages
or vehicle control commands. We would be pleased to discuss with your
office how AVs should fit into broader cybersecurity regulations.
b. If not, what specific, verifiable protections should the Federal
government require to ensure that AV cybersecurity risks are addressed
before deployment, and that companies remain accountable as threats
evolve over a vehicle's lifetime?
Answer. N/A
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tim Sheehy to
Jeff Farrah
Question 1. Montana's leadership in photonics and autonomous
systems is driving innovation in autonomous vehicles. In Bozeman,
Aurora's FirstLight gives vehicles the ability to detect obstacles at
long distances, providing crucial reaction time. How can surface
transportation reauthorization support these advancements and encourage
continued innovation in technologies like those being developed in
Bozeman?
Answer. Aurora's FirstLight is an example of how the benefits of
autonomous vehicles (``AVs'') can flow to communities across the
country--not only by increasing access to transportation, but also by
helping grow innovative new companies that can bring jobs to cities and
towns nationwide. This year's surface transportation reauthorization
presents an important opportunity for the Congress to advance a Federal
policy framework on AVs and we encourage this Committee to seize that
opportunity. In January 2025, AVIA released Securing American
Leadership in Autonomous Vehicles,\19\ which details a comprehensive
set of Federal policy recommendations that would accelerate the safe
and timely deployment of AV technology and solidify the U.S. as the
global leader in this transformative field. To best support the further
development of the AV industry, Federal AV legislation should:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Securing American Leadership in Autonomous Vehicles,
Autonomous Vehicle Indus. Ass'n (Jan. 19, 2025), https://
cdn.prod.website-files.com/67ee365c25e6530594bd40c2/683d8d2f
a60ac22d542b1049_Securing%20American%20Leadership%20in%20Autonomous%20Ve
hicles1
.pdf.
Require an ``ADS Safety Case.'' As directed by Congress, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (``NHTSA'')
should initiate rulemaking, informed by industry and the work
of existing standards setting bodies, to require that
commercially deployed autonomous driving system (``ADS'')
manufacturers develop, and provide upon request, a detailed
record (often described as a ``safety case'')\20\ of the basis
for the manufacturer's conclusion that the design,
construction, and performance of an ADS protects against an
unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety, as defined in 49
U.S.C. Sec. 30102(a)(9). Safety cases have been used as part of
safety assurance in a number of other fields, including
energy,\21\ aviation,\22\ and defense,\23\ and have been
proposed for use with AI systems.\24\ The ADS safety case would
include: (1) a technical description of the ADS's parts,
capabilities, and integration into the vehicle platform, (2)
explanation of how the ADS performs all elements of the driving
task, (3) engineering methodologies used to design and assess
the ADS's performance and ensure the absence of unreasonable
risk to motor vehicle safety, (4) a description of ADS's safety
performance, (5) evidence supporting the manufacturer's claim
for validating the ADS's performance competencies, and (6) an
explanation of how the ADS detects and responds to crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See, e.g., Welcome to Safety Case 101, Aurora (Mar. 8, 2022),
https://aurora.tech/newsroom/welcome-to-safety-case-101.
\21\ See, e.g., What are Safety Cases? A Historical Overview,
Synergenog (Dec. 12, 2024), https://synergenog.com/what-are-safety-
cases-history/ (explaining the history and the safety benefits of using
safety cases when managing high-risk oil and gas energy and industrial
facilities, including onshore processing plants, offshore fixed
platforms, and floating vessels).
\22\ Safety Case Development, Va. Tech, https://maap.ictas.vt.edu/
capabilities/safetycases
.html (last visited Feb. 2, 2026) (explaining the robust development of
safety cases for aviation operations).
\23\ DSA 03.OME Part 1: Defence Code of Practice (DCOP) 103, U.K.
Def. Safety Auth. (Aug. 2024), https://
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/689f2414cc5ef8b4c5fc44b4/DSA_03
.OME_Part_1_DCOP_103_-_OME_Safety_and_Environmental_Case_-_SEC.pdf
(describing the extensive requirement to use safety cases for the U.K.
Ministry of Defence).
\24\ Geoffrey Irving, Safety cases at AISI, AI Sec. Inst. (Aug. 23,
2024), https://www.aisi
.gov.uk/blog/safety-cases-at-aisi.
Establish ADS Competencies. Public trust in AVs is essential
to their successful deployment. As part of the required safety
case, ADS manufacturers should explain how their ADS meets a
set of key competencies, including: (1) the ability to perform
the entire dynamic driving task (``DDT'') within its
Operational Design Domain (``ODD'') and to recognize and
appropriately respond to the boundaries of its ODD; (2)
accurately detecting and responding to relevant road users,
including vulnerable road users and emergency vehicles and
personnel; (3) transferring control back to human driver when
necessary for Level 3 systems; (4) achieving a ``minimal risk
condition'' as defined by SAE J3016 for Level 4 and 5 systems,
when necessary; and (5) complying with applicable local traffic
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
laws and laws relevant to the performance of the DDT.
Establish a National AV Safety Data Repository. As directed
by Congress, NHTSA should establish, implement, and maintain a
National AV Safety Data Repository, to collect safety-relevant
data about AV incidents and expand AV data reporting to include
state-level location of AVs. This repository would provide
timely information to the public and regulators to promote AV
transparency and accountability. The database should include
only material and relevant data and specify a meaningful
minimum damage threshold for reportable crashes. NHTSA should
further ensure that all information shared in the repository is
subject to strict confidential business information
protections.
Clarify and Modernize the FMVSS. Whether by legislation or
through congressionally directed action by NHTSA (by
interpretation and/or regulatory changes) it should be
clarified that the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard's
(``FMVSS'') requirements for manually operated driving controls
and certain indicators and telltales are not applicable to
Level 4 or Level 5 ADS-dedicated vehicles, since they are
intended for an in-vehicle human driver only. Such action would
support AV innovation by avoiding imposing requirements that do
not advance safety and hamper the opportunity to re-imagine
what motor vehicles look like and how they are designed, paving
the way for greater accessibility, safety, and societal
utility.
Revise the ``Make Inoperative'' Prohibition. Existing
Federal law prevents manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and
repair businesses from disabling any safety-related device or
design element required by an FMVSS in a vehicle for any
purpose after its first sale. To ensure that innovative safety
and technical features can be adopted, AV legislation should
clarify that making a vehicle's manual controls inaccessible or
altering their functionality for safety reasons during
autonomous operation does not run afoul of the ``make
inoperative'' provision of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49
U.S.C. Sec. 30122).
Expand the FAST Act Testing Exception. An exemption included
in the FAST Act (49 U.S.C. Sec. 30112(b)(10)) permits only
qualifying original equipment manufacturers to test and
evaluate vehicles that do not conform to the FMVSS. AV
legislation should further include a means for AV developers to
conduct commercial operations, including the carrying of
members of the public as passengers and transporting freight as
part of that testing or evaluation.
Move Forward with an AV Demonstration Program. Congress
should direct NHTSA to move forward with a voluntary AV
demonstration program that offers uniform Federal rules that
provide oversight for the safe design, construction, and
deployment on public roads for ADS-equipped vehicles
manufactured and operated by participants admitted into the
program. Such a program would benefit AV developers seeking to
demonstrate innovative vehicle designs while also providing
NHTSA with additional data on AV operations beyond the safety
data collected under the National AV Safety Data Repository
proposed above.
Advance AV Cybersecurity and Privacy. Congress should
include in its comprehensive AV legislation language requiring
AV manufacturers to develop cybersecurity and privacy plans for
their technologies. Cybersecurity plans should include a
written cybersecurity policy describing the manufacturer's
practices for detecting and responding to cyberattacks,
unauthorized intrusions, and false and spurious messages or
vehicle control commands. For privacy, AV manufacturers should
be required to develop a plan with respect to the collection,
use, sharing, and storage of personal information collected by
an AV and a method for providing notice to vehicle owners or
occupants about the privacy policy.
Promote AV Accessibility. Congress should support access to
AVs for people with disabilities by passing the AV
Accessibility Act.\25\ The Act would prohibit states from
issuing motor vehicle operator licenses in a manner that
prevents people with disabilities, or other individuals without
a driver's license, from riding as a passenger in an ADS-
equipped vehicle. This Act also requires the Secretary of
Transportation, in collaboration with the National Academies of
Science, to conduct an accessible infrastructure study to
determine the best practices for public transportation to
improve the ability of Americans with blindness and other
disabilities to find, access, and use ride-hail autonomous
vehicles, including during pickup and drop off.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Autonomous Vehicle Accessibility Act, H.R. 7126, 118th Cong.
(2024).
Support the Wider Deployment of ADS-Equipped Commercial
Motor Vehicles. To ensure uniform, national rules for operating
autonomous commercial motor vehicles (``CMVs'') in interstate
commerce, AVIA recommends codifying the USDOT's 2018
interpretation that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (``FMCSRs'') do not assume that a CMV driver is
always a human or that a human is necessarily present onboard a
CMV, and that when a CMV does not require a human operator,
none of the human-specific FMCSRs (i.e., drug testing, hours-
of-service, commercial driver's licenses, and physical
qualification requirements) apply.\26\ Further, to reduce
barriers to interstate commerce, AV legislation should include
a provision that when operating in interstate commerce, a CMV
equipped with a Level 4 or Level 5 ADS is expressly allowed to
operate without a human driver on board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ U.S. Dep't of Transp., Preparing for the Future of
Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0 (AV 3.0) 9 (2018), https://
www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/policy-initiatives/
automated-vehicles/320711/preparing-future-transportation-automated-
vehicle-30.pdf.
Streamline and Update Regulations to Accommodate the
Integration of ADS into CMVs. This includes updating vehicle
width limits to provide flexibility for the placement of
sensors and other key safety technologies. This also includes
updating regulations to allow for the use of cab-mounted
beacons as a warning device, which would update antiquated
regulations and improve safety for both autonomous CMVs and
human drivers. In October 2025, the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration issued a waiver that allows ADS-equipped
CMVs to use cab-mounted beacons on their vehicles rather than
physically place warning devices on the roadway.\27\ That
waiver should be codified to ensure its benefits are available
permanently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Letter from Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin. To Aurora
Operations, Inc. (Oct. 10, 2025), https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/
fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2025-10/Letter%20to%20Aurora%
20Operations%2C%20Inc.%20-
Waiver%20of%20Warning%20Device%20Requirements%20Terms%
20and%20Conditions.pdf; see also OFF. of Sci. & Tech. Policy, White
House, Trump Administration Science & Technology Highlights: Year One
48 (2026), https://www.white
house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/WHOSTP-2025-Wins.pdf.
A Federal framework that includes the above elements is needed to
support continued U.S. leadership in AV technologies and should be a
core element of the surface transportation reauthorization. AVIA is
ready to work with Sen. Sheehy and others to bring such a framework
into fruition.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Democratic Senators to
Dr. Bryant Walker Smith
Dear Senator Klobuchar, Senator Duckworth, and Senator Blunt Rochester,
Thank you for your thoughtful questions about automated driving. I
would like to introduce my answers with three overarching points.
First, the age of the automobile involved an enormous social
experiment: What happens when hundreds of millions of ordinary humans
propel themselves in two-ton machines at speeds that would have been
unthinkable only a century prior? We must still deal with the results,
we must learn from our mistakes, and we must do better. And so, as the
age of AI ushers in a new set of enormous social experiments, we must
not pretend that the status quo is acceptable. Far from it: Today
alone, one hundred people will die on U.S. roads. Many other
countries--Canada! Australia! Much of Europe!--have chosen to save
lives that every day we choose to sacrifice.
Second, it is important to conceive of safety in a broad sense.\1\
Traffic safety is freedom from death, whether caused by a crash or by
transportation pollution. It is freedom from physical injuries and from
the devastating emotional injuries attendant to losing a loved one. It
is freedom to travel without experiencing violence or harassment,
including at the hands of government. It is freedom to easily move by
foot or the equivalent, to cultivate community, and to access the
people, products, services, and activities necessary for a full and
meaningful life. And it is freedom of future generations to enjoy the
same. When we consider automated driving, we must not ignore that our
country's transportation policy choices play a large role in melting
our ice caps, acidifying our oceans, and destroying our homes. To be
clear: The Earth will be fine; the people we love may not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Road Traffic Safety, Law of the Newly Possible (updated Sept.
26, 2022), https://newly
possible.org/wiki/Road_traffic_safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, while much of the focus of automated driving is about the
roles of humans and machines, we should also pay attention to
orthogonal questions about the concentration and distribution of power.
If done right, automated driving could empower individuals, including
those with disabilities, who are poorly served by our current system of
transportation and land use. But it could also make us more vulnerable
to the actions of malicious individuals who use cars and computers as
their weapons of choice. And if done right, automated driving could
protect people by ensuring consistent compliance with rules of the
road. But it could also give vast power over our everyday lives to a
handful of companies--or to the governments whose favor those companies
are courting.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For more on enforcement, see Bryant Walker Smith et al., Ideal
Enforcement: How Do We Achieve Optimal Enforcement of Traffic Law as
Ubiquitous Enforcement Becomes Technologically Conceivable?, (Feb. 4,
2022), https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=5034907. For more on ensuring
fair competition among robotaxi providers specifically, see Bryant
Walker Smith & Matthew Wansley, Regulating Robotaxis, 99 S. Cal. L.
Rev. (forthcoming 2026), https://ssrn.com/abstract=5595951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my view, automated vehicles are operated by the companies that
develop and deploy them.\3\ These companies act through some
combination of their machine agents (including the hardware and
software that engineers call an ``automated driving system'') and their
human agents (including the remote human assistants who communicate
with vehicles, passengers, and first responders). In the answers that
follow, I therefore treat these companies as the ``drivers'' of their
automated vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Bryant Walker Smith, The Trustworthy Company, 115 Geo. L.J.
(forthcoming 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Senator Klobuchar, you asked about vehicle data, first responders, and
preemption.
1. Vehicle Data. Autonomous vehicles are constantly producing and
logging data. These data logs are the main eyewitness when an
autonomous vehicle is involved in a collision. It's important that law
enforcement and victims can access this data and independently review
it when an accident occurs. Why is ensuring victims' access to vehicle
data--and the prevention of data manipulation--important for the safe
deployment of autonomous vehicle technology?
Answer. Because directly establishing the safety of any given
automated driving system requires literally millions of miles of real-
world experience, regulators need a realistic way to reasonably predict
this performance. I believe that our best proxy for the safety of a
particular technology is the trustworthiness of the companies behind
it.
``A trustworthy company shares its safety philosophy by explaining
what it is doing, why it believes that to be reasonably safe, and why
the public can believe it.'' \4\ Making its case to the public--
truthfully and compellingly--requires credible data. To be credible,
these data must be available and verifiable. Moreover, they must
capture not only successes but also failures. After all, ``The first
step in solving a problem is recognizing there is one.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id.
\5\ The Newsroom, We Just Decided To, Season 1, Episode 1 (HBO
MAX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a simple word for intentionally concealing, manipulating,
and misrepresenting information: Lying. Lying about safety-relevant
data is a fundamental betrayal of individual victims, of an industry
collectively building its reputation, of the public at large, and of
the very trust upon which a society depends. Dishonest companies do not
belong on our roads.
While it may be prudent to ``never attribute to malice that which
is adequately explained by stupidity,'' \6\ the public is unlikely to
be so generous. And unfortunately, some companies in this field have
been, at best, sloppy with their safety-critical data. Consider two
examples:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Hanlon's Razor, Wikipedia (last updated Feb. 13, 2026), https:/
/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon percent27s_razor. (I cite Wikipedia when
it is useful.)
Cruise was an automated driving company that operated
robotaxis until a 2023 incident seriously injured a pedestrian.
In response, the company quickly shared a video with regulators
and some journalists to show that a hit-and-run human driver
had first struck the pedestrian. But the company did not show,
and did not mention, that its own robotaxi had subsequently
dragged the victim about 20 feet. Cruise settled with her, but
the terms were kept from the public. It also paid a criminal
fine.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Press Release, Cruise Admits to Submitting a False Report to
Influence a Federal Investigation and Agrees to Pay $500,000, U.S.
Att'y's Off. N. Dist. Cal. (Nov. 14, 2024), https://www.justice.gov/
usao-ndca/pr/cruise-admits-submitting-false-report-influence-federal-
investigation-and-agrees-pay.
Tesla is an automaker that has deployed a driver assistance
system that it hopes will eventually be capable of automated
driving.\8\ In 2019, a human driver relying on this driver
assistance system drove through a stop sign and hit two people
on the other side, killing one and seriously injuring the
other. The victims were able to sue only because they were not
Tesla customers and therefore were not contractually compelled
to arbitrate. For years, Tesla insisted it did not have key
data about that crash. Only after an independent computer
expert recovered those data from a vehicle module did Tesla
acknowledge also having this ``collision snapshot'' on its
company servers. A jury returned a verdict that included $200
million in punitive damages against Tesla, and the judge
recently concluded that the trial evidence ``more than
supports'' that verdict.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See generally, Bryant Walker Smith, ``Self-Driving'' Means
Self-Driving, 74 Drake L. Rev. (forthcoming 2026), https://ssrn.com/
abstract=5631391.
\9\ Trisha Thadani & Faiz Siddiqui, Tesla Said It Didn't Have Key
Data in a Fatal Crash. Then a Hacker Found It., Wash. Post (updated
Aug. 29, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/08/29/
tesla-autopilot-crashes-evidence-testimony-wrongful-death/; Jonathan
Stempel, US Judge Upholds $243 Million Verdict Against Tesla over Fatal
Autopilot Crash, Reuters (Feb. 20, 2026), https://www.reuters.com/
world/us-judge-upholds-243-million-verdict-against-tesla-over-fatal-
autopilot-crash-2026-02-20/.
The U.S. Department of Transportation's Transforming Transportation
Advisory Committee (TTAC) made specific recommendations on the topic of
automated driving and data.\10\ I support these recommendations, which
reflect the best advice of a diverse group of experts and stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ TTAC Transforming Transp. Advisory Comm., Formal
Recommendations of the Transforming Transportation Advisory Committee
to the U.S. Department of Transportation on Artificial Intelligence,
Automated Driving, Project Delivery, and Innovation for Safety 54-59
(Dec. 13, 2024), https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/
2025-01/TTAC%202024%20Report.pdf; see also Walker Smith & Wansley,
supra note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both data collection and data protection should advance the twin
goals of human autonomy and human community. We humans have always
learned and innovated by sharing information, and I hope we continue
along this path. Knowledge is power.\11\ But we must be cognizant of
who wields that power, and how. Companies allow our governments to
obtain information about individuals and groups that would otherwise
require judicial warrants. And while automated driving companies have
publicly stated that they do not automatically accede to governmental
requests for information, this is a matter of corporate policy when it
should instead be universal public policy.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Scientia Potentia Est, Wikipedia (updated Feb. 25, 2026),
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientia_potentia_est.
\12\ Walker Smith et al., supra note 2; Walker Smith & Wansley,
supra note 2.
2. First Responders. Firefighters, police, and EMTs are often
unsure how to interact with autonomous vehicles during emergencies. How
do you recommend companies and policymakers ensure first responders are
prepared for autonomous vehicle deployment--and that AVs are trained
for interactions with first responders?
Answer. The U.S. Department of Transportation's Transforming
Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC) recommended developing and
implementing a workplan for automated vehicle (AV) interactions with
first responders.\13\ Experts and stakeholders who experienced the
problems you described wrote this detailed recommendation, and I fully
support it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ TTAC, supra note 10, at 54-59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First responders understand that every emergency is unique. To
respond effectively, they integrate their systematic training with
their human creativity. But automated vehicles may struggle in the edge
cases in which first responders can excel. AVs may stop when they
should move or move when they should stop. They may respond in ways
that are counterintuitive to any human, or they may not respond at all.
Given this, AVs should be as recognizable, consistent, predictable,
and controllable as possible for first responders. Emergency guides are
necessary, but they are not sufficient. This is because first
responders may not have time to find and consult each developer's
bespoke instructions. Consider that, for electric vehicles, NHTSA
maintains a growing database of 636 different emergency response
guides.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Emergency Response Guides, NHTSA, https://www.nhtsa.gov/
emergency-response-guides (last visited Feb. 25, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, remote agents need positional authority, situational
awareness, relevant training, and technical means to effectively assist
first responders. Even then, remote agents are not a panacea:
Firefighters often wear bulky gloves that may prevent them from using
cell phones, and the noise of an emergency scene may prevent them from
hearing an AV's remote human agent through the AV's speakers.
Accordingly, it is also important that remote assistants be able,
with appropriate safeguards, to access primary or supplemental manual
controls that would allow them to operate an AV directly. And yet a
bill under consideration in the House would prohibit states from
requiring backup physical controls of some kind.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The SELF DRIVE Act under consideration in the House could
prevent states from requiring these AVs to have some kind of manual
controls for emergencies. H.R. 7390, 119th Cong. 2d Sess. (2026),
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7390; see also
infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More broadly, AV developers need to be proactive and imaginative.
After the Cruise incident that I described above, I assumed that every
company would redesign its systems to be able to directly or indirectly
see and hear under their vehicles. And yet Waymo recently killed a cat
and then a dog under circumstances that suggest I was wrong. Next time,
those beloved pets could be human children. Or they could be bombs in
the undercarriage.
Another example illustrates this lack of imagination in the context
of emergencies. In December 2025, Waymo's AVs contributed to gridlock
in San Francisco because the company's remote agents were overwhelmed
by requests for assistance at intersections with nonfunctional traffic
signals. And yet, a full year earlier, TTAC had warned about AVs
``[f]ailing to navigate intersections effectively where traffic signals
are not functioning properly and making unexpected stops in hazardous
locations where a power outage or high cellular demand has slowed
communications between driverless AVs and human advisors.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ TTAC, supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waymo, to its credit, publicly responded to the December incident
with an explanation of what happened and the steps it was taking in
response. It had designed for individualized signal failures, hadn't
considered the effect of somewhat wider failures, and was now doing
so.\17\ But in describing a power outage that affected only one part of
one city in which only a couple thousand AVs were operating, the
company used phrases such as ``widespread PG&E outage,'' ``scale and
sheer number of disabled traffic lights,'' ``situation was severe
enough that,'' and ``an event of this magnitude.'' A regional power
outage, regional cell outage, large earthquake, mass evacuation, or
combination of these events would be many orders of magnitude worse.
And it could happen at a time when AVs are much more common on our
roads and much more essential in our daily lives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The Waymo Team, Autonomously Navigating the Real World:
Lessons from the PG&E Outage, Waypoint (Dec. 23, 2025), https://
waymo.com/blog/2025/12/autonomously-navigating-the-real-world; see also
Bryant Walker Smith, On Waymo's Traffic Jams, CIS Ctr. Internet & Soc'y
(Dec. 21, 2025), https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/on-waymos-traffic-jams/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be credible, an automated driving developer's safety case must
realistically plan for a wide range of failures, disasters, attacks,
and other emergencies.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ For more, see Walker Smith & Wansley, supra note 2.
3. Preemption. Without a Federal framework to meaningfully regulate
AI and autonomous vehicles, states across the country have stepped up
to protect people. What are the risks of Federal preemption of state
laws, particularly while almost no Federal guardrails on autonomous
vehicles are in place?
Answer. Preempting state laws with respect to automated driving is
at best premature and at worst dangerously counterproductive. We must
empower, not disempower, our communities. As I noted in my written
testimony:
Preempting state and local authority would be profoundly short-
sighted--and I say this as someone who believes in the
potential of automated driving.
Many states very much want the Federal government to lead on AV
policy. But great leaders lead. They actually do the work. They
don't just order others to stop working. Telling U.S. DOT what
to do (and providing the resources needed to do it) would be
far more helpful than telling states what not to do.
Preemption would not necessarily create certainty. Rather, it
could lead to years of litigation over what the relevant
statutory language means and therefore what states can still do
and therefore what companies can actually do. Over the years, I
have read many versions of potential preemption language. In
every case, the preemptive effect and even the preemptive
intent of that language have been unclear to me.
Preemption would not necessarily improve safety. Again: It is
states that can order unsafe vehicles and unsafe drivers--human
or otherwise--off the roads. And it is states whose juries tell
manufacturers to keep up with new technologies when Federal
standards fall behind. Automakers don't like to be sued. But
they know how to manage, and the best ones take seriously their
responsibility to fairly compensate victims.
Preemption would not necessarily improve global
competitiveness. Our AV industry is flourishing today because
of the foundational research that the Federal government
supported decades ago. And while Brand America does have a
serious credibility problem abroad, this has nothing to do with
our commitment to federalism at home.
In fact, this federalism offers choice to U.S. and foreign
companies. Some companies have embraced California for the
certainty they believe it offers, and some have embraced Texas
for the flexibility they believe it offers. Waymo has done both
and now has activity in multiple states and even countries.
Finally, there is a fundamental issue that discussions about
preemption often seem to overlook.
We find ourselves in a time of profound change. Change often
involves a loss of control, whether actual or perceived. That
can be scary and destabilizing both for individuals and for
societies.
The ability of communities to set their own rules--and yes,
even restrictions--on AVs acts as a steam release valve on a
boiler. It keeps pressure from building up, and that in turn
reduces the risk of catastrophic explosion.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Written Testimony of Professor Bryant Walker Smith for the
U.S. Senate Commerce Committee's Hearing on Automated Driving (Feb. 4,
2026), https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/05C131FA-5011-
406D-A9A1-C64BE8E81CE4; see also Bryant Walker Smith, Opening Statement
of Professor Bryant Walker Smith for the U.S. Senate Commerce
Committee's Hearing on Automated Driving, CIS Ctr. Internet & Soc'y
(Feb. 4, 2026), https://cyberlaw.stanford
.edu/blog/2026/02/opening-statement-of-professor-bryant-walker-smith-
for-the-u-s-senate-commerce-committees-hearing-on-automated-driving-
february-4-2026-2/ [hereinafter Walker Smith, Opening Statement].
In case this letter reaches readers beyond the capable senators to
whom it is addressed, I should pause to introduce the incredibly
complex topic of Federal preemption of state law.
The U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause says that when a valid
Federal law fights with a state law (including local law), the Federal
law wins. This is called preemption:
Express preemption occurs when Federal law explicitly tells
states what they cannot do.
Implied preemption is more nuanced. Comprehensive Federal
law in a particular field may indicate an intent to displace
all state law in the same field. Federal law may conflict with
state law in a way that makes complying with both impossible.
Or, even if compliance is possible, following state law may
nonetheless frustrate Federal law.
Congress can use a ``savings clause'' to specify that it
does not intend to preempt state law in whole or in part.
Preemption can set a floor or a ceiling for state action. For
example, Federal law may permit states to set higher but not lower
standards--or to set lower but not higher standards. Because state law
is generally what allows individuals to sue companies for injuring
them, Federal preemption may also limit the discretion of judges and
juries in deciding whether a company's relevant conduct or product was
reasonably safe.
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966--a
monumental safety accomplishment--illustrates all of this:
Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are an
example of express preemption, because Federal law says that,
in general, a state ``may prescribe or continue in effect a
standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the [state]
standard is identical to the FMVSS.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30103(b)(1).
The Act includes a savings clause specifying that state or
local government may set a higher standard for the vehicles it
purchases for its own use.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Id.
The Act includes another savings clause specifying that a
manufacturer can be held liable for an injury caused by its
product even if that product met all FMVSS.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30103(e).
The U.S. Supreme Court has nonetheless held that this
savings clause does not prevent all implied preemption. In one
case, the Supreme Court decided that a crash victim could not
win a lawsuit against an automaker for not having an airbag
when the FMVSS offered automakers a choice between an airbag or
an automatic seatbelt.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
And yet, in another case, the Supreme Court decided that a
crash victim could win a lawsuit against an automaker for not
having a lap-and-shoulder belt when the FMVSS offered
automakers a choice between lap-only belts and lap-and-shoulder
belts.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Williamson v. Mazda Motor of Am., 562 U.S. 323 (2011).
This is all really complicated--even though the preemption
provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act seem,
on their face, to be straightforward. And yet it still took decades for
courts to find (or arguably invent) many of the devils in the
details.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is not even
the only Federal law relevant to a discussion of preemption in the
context of motor vehicle safety. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly
interpreted the Federal Arbitration Act to preempt state law--even a
state's determination that a class-action waiver was unenforceable for
being ``unconscionable.'' See AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S.
333 (2011); see also infra (discussing forced arbitration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adding even more preemption to this picture will not bring clarity.
Instead, it will bring more complexity, more uncertainty, and more
litigation. To see what I mean, consider the lengthy preemption
language in the SELF DRIVE Act of 2026 currently under consideration in
the U.S. House of Representatives.\26\ Here are just some of the
genuine questions that it raises:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ SELF DRIVE Act of 2026, H.R. 7390, 119th Cong. (2026), https:/
/www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7390. If enacted, the
section on ``FEDERAL PREEMPTION FOR AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS AND ADS-
EQUIPPED VEHICLES'' would presumably be codified as 49 U.S.C.
Sec. 30103(b)(3).
1. The bill focuses almost entirely on ``manufacturers of automated
driving systems and manufacturers of ADS-equipped vehicles.''
But which companies would be manufacturers, and which would
not?\27\ If the term is interpreted narrowly, then AVs could
conceivably reach public roads without ever having a
``manufacturer'' subject to the bill's framework. But if the
term is interpreted broadly, then the bill could preempt state
authority over many actors associated with AV development and
deployment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30102(a)(6) defines ``manufacturer'' as ``a
person (A) manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle
equipment; or (B) importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment
for resale.'' But this definition is much less clear in the new and
potentially diverse world of automated driving.
2. States generally have authority over driving licenses. One
approach to regulating automated vehicles is to require
automated driving companies, their automated driving systems,
or their vehicles to have the equivalent of a driving license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would that approach be preempted?
3. Could a state require that every vehicle operated on public
roads be constantly supervised by an attentive human driver as
subsection (C)(i) seems to suggest?
4. In some states, a vehicle that is not roadworthy cannot be
registered, cannot be passed during a safety inspection, or
cannot be lawfully operated on public roads. Could a state
restrict entire makes or models of AVs on any of these bases as
subsection (C) seems to suggest?
5. Some states require automakers to register with the state (for
the purpose of legal service). Is this a ``generally applicable
consumer protection law''? What if a state specifically
required companies that are developing or deploying AVs to
register?
6. It appears that proposed section 30130(c) could prohibit NHTSA
from requiring a ``manufacturer'' of an ADS-dedicated vehicle
(e.g., a robotaxi) to have even basic manual controls that
would allow a first responder to carefully move the vehicle
when it is disabled. Could a city or state nonetheless require
such controls?
7. If a ``manufacturer'' seeks to operate its own robotaxi or
delivery service with its own vehicles, does the state have any
regulatory authority? State regulation of ridehailing, for
example, could ``prohibit[] in whole or in part a manufacturer
from . . . introducing . . . into interstate commerce'' its
robotaxis.
8. How is subsection (A) (``a State . . . may not . . . prohibit[]
. . . a manufacturer from . . . offering [an AV] for sale. . .
.'') to be reconciled with subsection (D) (``Nothing in this
paragraph may be construed to prohibit a State . . . from . . .
enforcing . . . any law . . . relating to the sale . . . of
[AVs]'')?
9. Why is there no explicit reference to regulation of an AV's
``operation''? Is this within or beyond the initial scope of
preemption (``introducing or delivering for introduction into
interstate commerce'')? If so, is this within or beyond the
scope of the carve-outs?
10. Would the general preemption provision prevent states from
requiring that robotaxi vehicles or services be accessible to
persons with disabilities--particularly when the absence of a
human driver adds accessibility challenges?
11. Why does the savings clause about ``liability at common law''
reference compliance with proposed section 30130(b)(1)(B), with
which only the U.S. Department of Transportation can comply?
And, by referencing only some provisions in existing and
proposed law, does it imply that compliance with other
provisions could exempt a company from this liability?
12. Federal motor vehicle safety standards generally apply to the
sale of ``new'' (or newly imported) motor vehicles and
equipment. The language about safety cases could be similarly
interpreted to refer only to what a manufacturer must
demonstrate at that time zero. How does the framework that this
bill envisions work after a year or ten years? Are states
precluded from requiring that ``manufacturers'' (or other
companies) update their safety cases?
I'll stop at a dozen. Again, these are just some of the questions
raised just by this bill's preemption language. If the bill becomes
law, many additional questions will arise as automated driving expands
and diversifies.\28\ Moreover, even if the drafters understand what
their language means and even if they succeed in explaining their
understanding to others, courts faced with interpreting this sprawling
text might well reach very different understandings.\29\ And I doubt
that Congress will be eager to attempt a sequel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ This field will almost certainly continue to see novel
``technologies, applications of those technologies, business cases for
those applications, and participants in those business cases.'' Unif.
L. Comm'n, Uniform Automated Operation of Vehicles Act (2019), https://
www.uniformlaws.org/viewdocument/final-act-29.
\29\ To wit: The Federal Arbitration Act, which I discuss below,
``was intended to narrowly apply to disputes between merchants, not
between a business and its consumers or workers''--and yet, decades
later, ``the Supreme Court drastically expanded'' its application ``to
arbitration clauses in everyday contracts.'' H.R. Rep. No. 117-234
(2022), https://www.congress.gov/117/crpt/hrpt234/CRPT-117hrpt234.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point, legislation to preemptively preempt state authority
over automated driving is a problem in search of a problem. The far
better approach is simply for Congress to provide direction and
resources for the Federal government to carefully, holistically, and
proactively regulate automated driving in a way that gives states and
cities confidence. Many of these other governments will happily defer.
Others may fill in the gaps. Their approaches may evolve, especially as
new issues invariably arise down the road. We can embrace technical
innovation on our roads as well as regulatory innovation in our
``laboratories of democracy.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Laboratories of Democracy, Wikipedia (last updated Dec. 20,
2025), https://en.wikipedia
.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, because your question is about preemption, please allow me
an aside: I did not understand why, during the relevant Senate hearing,
preemption was discussed by others in connection with the People's
Republic of China. While Congress can preempt some U.S. state law, it
cannot preempt the domestic law of China or, for that matter, any other
sovereign country. And under current Chinese law, a company must
negotiate with each individual city in which it seeks to deploy
automated vehicles without a safety driver.
______
Senator Duckworth, you asked about accessibility.
Question 1. Would you be concerned about Federal legislation
preempting State and local laws adopting accessibility requirements for
the benefit of people with disabilities?
Answer. I am very concerned about this possibility. Even if
preemption language is not intended to interfere with state and local
efforts toward accessibility, that could nonetheless be the effect. I
discuss preemption more extensively in my answer to Senator Klobuchar
above.
Question 2. What would be the effect of forced arbitration
agreements imposed on AV users on mobility and safety for the disabled
community?
Answer. In my view, a ``trustworthy company might still arbitrate--
but in a way that is accessible, transparent, voluntary, reviewable,
and genuinely remedial. An untrustworthy company designs and implements
a system that undermines these very principles.'' \31\ Forced
arbitration is the quintessential example of the latter. It is a
betrayal of the public's trust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Walker Smith, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forced arbitration privileges the powerful over the powerless. It
is not a serious remedy, and it therefore denies the seriousness of the
rights and harms subject to it. Because clauses mandating arbitration
are so ubiquitous in ordinary consumer contracts, individuals have no
real power to avoid it. And because of how the Federal Arbitration Act
is interpreted, states have no real power to protect their own
residents from it.
When used by powerful providers of mobility services (including
ridesharing as well as robotaxis), forced arbitration can be especially
pernicious for people with disabilities.
Forcing arbitration on people with disabilities may mean coercing
those with the fewest alternatives. If I don't like a ridehailing
company's terms of service, I can choose to drive myself in my used
car.\32\ But someone who is blind or otherwise cannot drive does not
have this same choice. In other words, those for whom automated driving
is supposed to offer the most freedom are also the ones most captive to
the companies promising that freedom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ While my car was manufactured by a company that has no
contractual relationship with me, forced arbitration is also a problem
in the automotive context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional ridehailing shows how people already experience this
vulnerability. Ridehailing drivers routinely strand blind passengers
with guide dogs at the curb--speeding away without a word, locking
their doors, or shouting ``no dogs allowed.'' \33\ In one survey of the
blind and low-vision community, 60 percent of those who primarily used
ridehailing reported discrimination in these services.\34\ A wheelchair
user denied a ride faces a similar predicament--often unable to drive
or reach another mode of transit and dependent on the next driver who
may refuse to serve them as well. And nearly 40 percent of rideshare
passengers who use wheelchairs have reported ridehailing service
denial.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Sylvia A. Brady et al., Transportation, Ride-Hailing and
Discrimination Among the Blind and Low Vision Community, 36 Transp.
Rsch. Interdisc. Persp. 101837, at 6 (2026), https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590198226000023.
\34\ Id.
\35\ Mahtot Gebresselassie, Wheelchair Users' Perspective on
Transportation Service Hailed Through Uber and Lyft Apps, 2677 Transp.
Rsch. Rec. 1164 (2023), https://journals.sagepub
.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/03611981221140369.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disability-based discrimination is often systemic, and the
Americans with Disabilities Act was designed to create systemic
accountability. And yet forced arbitration is intentionally designed to
prevent systemic claims. Arbitration clauses often include class-action
waivers, and the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Federal
Arbitration Act to preempt states from prohibiting these waivers.\36\
The result is systemic failures atomized into individual disputes too
small to pursue or lacking the pattern evidence that may be necessary
to win.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011); see also
supra note 25.
\37\ See, e.g., supra (discussing vehicle-level and fleet-level
approaches to accessibility).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In these ways, forced arbitration can also prevent the public from
learning about pervasive problems with a product, service, company, or
industry. It makes victims invisible. It conflates good companies with
bad companies. And it wrests from judges and juries their important
role in expressing community values. Forced arbitration on individuals
is like preemptive preemption on states: They each silence the voices
we most need to hear at the times we most need to hear them.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Please see my discussion of preemption, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress can correct how the Federal Arbitration Act is interpreted
and thereby return to states that power to protect their own residents.
Congress can also protect people directly:
In 2022, it overwhelmingly passed the Ending Forced Arbitration of
Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act to let victims of sexual
assault and harassment turn to the courts.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual
Harassment Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 117-90, 136 Stat. 26 (2022)
(codified at 9 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 401-402), https://www.congress.gov/
bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4445/text. The Act passed the House 335-
97 and the Senate by voice vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A final note: In writing this answer, I was reminded of how, in
1838, one judge described the tremendous potential of railroads. Their
promise of ``such noble ends,'' he continued, was the very reason why
``we must engraft the railroad system in the affections, as well as the
interest of the people; and the parents of so much enterprise, wealth,
and national good, must not be justified wrong, else they might become
the tyrants of the day.'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ State v. Tupper, 23 S.C.L. 135, 141 (S.C. App. L. 1838).
Question 3. Are there unique safety and operational considerations
with respect to AVs and people with disabilities that policymakers
should take into account as we consider AV legislation?
Answer. Yes. It is important that innovation and inclusion go hand
in hand. As the U.S. Department of Transportation's Transforming
Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC) wrote:
[I]nnovation is about more than just new technologies. It's
also about new approaches, policies, and frameworks. The Safe
System Approach embraces redundancy so that death is not the
inevitable result of failure. The Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) boldly envisions a society just as open to those with
mobility issues and other disabilities as to those without. Of
course, we are still far from these goals. And yet every day,
to take just one example, hundreds of millions of ADA-required
curb cuts provide equal access to people in wheelchairs--and
benefit parents who are pushing strollers, travelers who are
pulling suitcases, and people who might otherwise stumble on a
step.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ TTAC, supra note 10.
But as you correctly caution, the relationship between technology
and accessibility is complex. Automated driving could improve quality
of life for many people who cannot drive today or who may be unable to
drive tomorrow. It could offer better options for travel as well as
better alternatives to that travel. At the same time, automated driving
could create technological challenges for people who currently rely on
the assistance that human drivers provide. And it could shift some
transportation services away from a conventional transit model and
thereby potentially away from some associated federal, state, and local
requirements for accessibility.
Congress should first do no harm. But, as I described above,
preemption that is broad or even just clumsy could disempower the state
and local governments that may seek to prioritize accessibility. This
would be harmful.
Beyond that, Congress should reinvigorate, direct, and support
prior accessibility initiatives at the Federal level, including an
advisory committee on transportation equity,\42\ NHTSA's report to
Congress on AV accessibility,\43\ USDOT's Inclusive Design
Challenge,\44\ and the U.S. Access Board's work on AVs.\45\ These
efforts should also draw on outside expertise, including relevant work
by the Consortium for Constituents with Disabilities (CCD)
Transportation Task Force,\46\ the American Association of People with
Disabilities,\47\ SAE International,\48\ and others.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Transportation Equity Act, H.R. 2167, 119th Cong. 2d Sess.
(2026), https://www.congress
.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2167.
\43\ NHTSA, Research on the Accessibility of Automated Vehicles
Report (Dec. 2022), https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-
12/Report-to-Congress-Research-on-the-Accessibility-of-Automated-
Vehicles-tag_0.pdf.
\44\ Inclusive Design Challenge, U.S. Dep't of Transp. (last
updated Apr. 25, 2024), https://www.transportation.gov/accessibility/
inclusivedesign.
\45\ Inclusive Design of Autonomous Vehicles, U.S. Access Bd. (July
2021), https://www.access-board.gov/av/.
\46\ Letter from Consortium for Constituents with Disabilities
Transp. Task Force to Ted Cruz, Chairman, & Maria Cantwell, Ranking
Member, S. Comm. on Com., Sci. & Transp. (Feb. 4, 2026), https://
dredf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/2026.02.04-Commerce-AV-Hearing-
Disability-Letter-for-the-Record-Access-Pass.pdf.
\47\ We Will Ride, AAPD (2022), https://www.aapd.com/we-will-ride.
\48\ SAE International (formerly the Society of Automotive
Engineers) has developed several standards on vehicle accessibility,
including two on robotaxis specifically. See Vehicle Accessibility, SAE
Int'l, https://www.sae.org/taxonomies/vehicle-accessibility (last
visited Feb. 26, 2026); SAE J3171: Identifying Automated Driving
Systems-Dedicated Vehicles (ADS-DVs) Passenger Issues for Persons with
Disabilities, SAE Int'l (Sept. 24, 2025), https://www.sae.org/
standards/j3171_202509-identifying-automated-driving-systems-dedicated-
vehicles-ads-dvs-passenger-issues-persons-disabilities; SAE J3261:
Resources for Accommodating the Needs of Persons with Disabilities
Using ADS-DVs, SAE Int'l (forthcoming 2026), https://www.sae.org/
standards/j3261-resources-accommodating-needs-persons-disabilities-
using-ads-dvs. J3261 acknowledges that the document itself is not
accessible to persons using screen readers. I hope and expect that this
will be remedied in the next version.
\49\ See, e.g., Fahimeh Golbabaei et al., Enabling Mobility and
Inclusion: Designing Accessible Autonomous Vehicles for People with
Disabilities, 154 Cities 105333 (Nov. 2024), https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026427512400547X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Congress passes legislation to specifically and explicitly
regulate automated driving, it could:
Direct NHTSA to prioritize FMVSS exemption requests for
vehicles that incorporate inclusive design.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Walker Smith & Wansley, supra note 2. Some past bills would
have increased the number of vehicles per manufacturer per year that
NHTSA can exempt from a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. But
while NHTSA is limited in its ability to grant exemptions to those
standards, the agency has the authority to change those standards in a
way that obviates the need for those exemptions. See Bryant Walker
Smith, Here's Where Federal Automated Driving Law Stands Near the End
of the Biden Administration, CIS Ctr. Internet & Soc'y (Nov. 18, 2024),
https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2024/11/heres-where-federal-
automated-driving-law-stands-near-the-end-of-the-biden-administration.
Specify that an automated driving company required to
develop a safety case must address interaction with and access
for persons with disabilities.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ The current draft of the SELF DRIVE Act of 2026 under
consideration in the U.S. House would require ``manufacturers'' to
develop safety cases but does not explicitly include accessibility in
them. See supra note 27. To reiterate what I emphasized in my opening
statement at the hearing: ``Safety is a marriage, not a wedding. Safety
is a lifelong commitment that continues as long as an AV is on the
road. It's not just a one-time test or certification or checklist. A
credible safety case must be a living document that is clearly
supported, robustly interrogated, and routinely updated. Vehicles
placed on our roads stay there for decades and therefore need oversight
for decades.'' Walker Smith, Opening Statement, supra note 19.
Clarify how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
applies to the various companies involved in the provision of
on-demand rides (regardless of whether those rides are in
conventional or automated vehicles).\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ For an analysis of the disputed status of companies such as
Uber and Lyft under the ADA, see Maeve Moynihan & Jill L. Bezyak, Rapid
Rsch. Rep., What Do Riders and Drivers Need to Understand Regarding the
ADA Before Riding with or Driving for a Rideshare Company? (2025),
https://rockymountainada.org/sites/default/files/2025-07/
Rideshare%20and
%20the%20ADA_Final.pdf.
Unfortunately, the accessibility of automated vehicles and services
is a contentious issue--even more so at a time when the rights of
people with disabilities are under attack. I can at most offer a few
thoughts:
First, it is important to regulate automated driving in a way that
does not unfairly advantage conventional driving, and it is important
to regulate shared vehicles in a way that does not unfairly advantage
personal vehicles.\53\ But if travel shifts from either personal
vehicles or conventional public transit to robotaxis, then specifically
ensuring the accessibility of these robotaxis will become essential.
(So too for local delivery robots.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See TTAC, supra note 10, at 91-92; Bryant Walker Smith, Ethics
of Artificial Intelligence in Transport, in The Oxford Handbook of
Ethics of AI (Markus D. Dubber et al., eds., 2020), https://ssrn.com/
abstract=3463827; Walker Smith & Wansley, supra note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, it is often said that automated driving blurs the
distinction between driver and vehicle. This matters for the regulation
of both safety and accessibility. Whether officially or unofficially,
professional drivers often provide specific assistance to riders with
disabilities, such as securing a rider's wheelchair.\54\ Automating the
``dynamic driving task'' does not necessarily mean automating these
other tasks and, absent regulation, might therefore mean simply not
performing them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Walker Smith & Wansley, supra note 2. Of course, some
professional drivers do not provide this assistance. See, e.g.,
Golbabaei et al., supra note 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, there is significant disagreement--both in policy and in
law--about whether and what kinds of accessibility should be at the
vehicle level or the fleet level.\55\ In the context of conventional
transportation, unfortunately, a fleet-level approach rarely provides
anything close to the ``equivalent service'' described by the ADA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See, e.g., Golbabaei et al., supra note 49; Moynihan & Bezyak,
supra note 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, a hybrid between the vehicle and fleet levels might be
necessary to account for the wide range of accessibility needs. Some
attributes of accessibility, such as audible and visual communications,
should be universal as a basic part of safe design. Other attributes,
particularly those for which automation is still no match for humans,
may require a fleet approach. And here a model analogous to the
corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards and associated credits
might create more of a market for accessible services.
Fifth, California already collects a fee of five cents per Uber and
Lyft trip to fund its TNC Access for All Fund, which in turn supports
``businesses or nonprofits that provide transportation to people with
disabilities, especially people who require'' wheelchair-accessible
vehicles.\56\ This is laudable. But it also brings me back to my first
point: Funding adequate accessibility should be the responsibility of
all taxpayers or at least all road users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Walker Smith & Wansley, supra note 2; see Cal. Pub. Util. Code
Sec. 5440.5(a)(1); Transportation Network Company (TNC) Access for All
Program, Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm'n (2024), https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/
media/cpuc-website/divisions/consumer-protection-and-enforcement-
division/documents/tlab/accessforall/tnc-access-for-all_factsheet_2024-
final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to see Congress go further than this, especially at a
time when our growing senior population is helping to highlight the
substantial unmet mobility needs of people with disabilities. The
Federal Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities
Program already directs some money from the Highway Trust Fund to
specialized public transportation.\57\ I would supplement this with a
``Cent for Seniors''--an increase in the Federal fuel excise tax of a
penny per gallon directed toward accessible mobility, including viable
automated services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ 49 U.S.C. Sec. 5310; see also William J. Mallett, Cong. Rsch.
Serv., R47002, Federal Public Transportation Program: In Brief (Apr.
18, 2025), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Senator Blunt Rochester, you asked about accessibility, American
competitiveness, and our workforce.
1. Accessibility. Autonomous vehicles (AV) have the potential to
improve accessibility and mobility for individuals with disabilities.
As proponents of Federal AV legislation consider potential preemption
of state and local laws, I want to ensure the Federal legislation
doesn't undermine existing benefits for individuals with disabilities.
What should Congress consider in federal AV legislation to ensure the
needs of individuals with disabilities are taken into account?
Answer. Please see my answer to Senator Duckworth's question above.
2. American Competitiveness. The U.S. is in a global race to
develop and deploy emerging technologies, including AVs. To do so
successfully, we must have a robust Federal workforce to ensure these
technologies are developed responsibly. However, in the wake of the
Trump administration's Federal workforce cuts, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the regulatory body for AV
deployment, was significantly reduced in size. How will these cuts
impact America's ability to compete on a global scale?
Answer. NHTSA is a tiny agency. Its total headcount is roughly
equivalent to that of a single Amazon warehouse, and its automated
driving team would be easily outnumbered by the workers in a single
McDonald's restaurant. The inexplicable cuts to this automation team
were particularly devastating in terms of capacity, expertise,
institutional knowledge, and morale. These circumstances are also
likely to make future recruitment more challenging.
Even before these cuts, NHTSA was struggling. European roads are
far safer than American roads,\58\ in part because new vehicles in the
European Union must meet many important safety requirements that new
vehicles in the United States need not.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Int'l Transp. Forum, Road Safety Annual Report 2025 (2025),
https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/irtad-road-safety-
annual-report-2025.pdf; U.N. Econ. Comm'n for Eur., Statistics of Road
Traffic Accidents in Europe and North America, vol. LVII (2023),
https://w3.unece.org/roadsafety/2023; Angie Schmitt, Why the U.S. Leads
the Developed World on Traffic Deaths, Streetsblog USA (Dec. 13, 2018),
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/12/13/why-the-u-s-trails-the-
developed-world-on-traffic-deaths.
\59\ See Eur. Transp. Safety Council, Comparative Overview EU-US
Vehicle Standards (Nov. 20, 2025), https://etsc.eu/comparative-
overview-eu-us-vehicle-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For years, NHTSA has routinely missed Congressional deadlines for
progress on critical safety standards\60\ and declined to implement
safety recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB). NTSB's chair has said that NHTSA's inaction ``tells me you're
not serious about safety,'' \61\ and NHTSA's former deputy has
described the agency as ``chronically underfunded and over-
politicized.'' \62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See, 3e.g., U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-22-104635,
Traffic Safety: Implementing Leading Practices Could Improve Management
of Mandated Rulemakings and Reports (Apr. 2022), https://www.gao.gov/
assets/gao-22-104635.pdf; Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin.,
Rulemaking Status Report (Dec. 2024), https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/
nhtsa.gov/files/2024-12/report-congress-status-rulemakings-december-
2024.pdf; Letter from Rep. Debbie Dingell & Sen. Ben Ray Lujan to
Jonathan Morrison, Adm'r, NHTSA (Sept. 19, 2025), https://debbie
dingell.house.gov/uploadedfiles/9.19.2025_dingell-
lujan_letter_to_nhtsa_on_halt_act.pdf; Press Release, Sen. Edward J.
Markey, Senators Markey, Blumenthal Urge NHTSA to Quickly Implement
Life-Saving Traffic Safety Provisions (Nov. 20, 2024), https://
www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senators-markey-blumenthal-
urge-nhtsa-to-quickly-implement-life-saving-traffic-safety-provisions;
Press Release, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, On Anniversary of Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, Van Hollen, Markey, Blumenthal, Colleagues Call on
NHTSA to Implement Critical Safety Provisions (Nov. 15, 2022), https://
www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/on-anniversary-of-
bipartisan-infrastructure-law-van-hollen-markey-blumenthal-
colleagues_call-on-nhtsa-to-implement-critical-safety-provisions; Press
Release, Sen. Edward J. Markey, Senators Markey and Blumenthal Urge
NHTSA to Finalize Vehicle Safety Rulemakings Required by Law (Apr. 12,
2018), https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senators-
markey-and-blumenthal-urge-nhtsa-to-finalize-vehicle-safety-
rulemakings-required-by-law.
\61\ Katie Krupnik, NHTSA Is over 5 Months Late in Meeting Deadline
to Strengthen Car Seats, CBS News (Apr. 3, 2024), https://
www.cbsnews.com/news/nhtsa-is-over-five-months-late-in-meeting-
deadline-to-strengthen-car-seats.
\62\ Myron Levin & Eli Wolfe, In Battle Against `the Highway
Disease,' NHTSA Attacked as Being Asleep at the Wheel, Md. Matters
(Dec. 31, 2020), https://marylandmatters.org/2020/12/31/in-battle-
against-the-highway-disease-nhtsa-attacked-as-being-asleep-at-the-
wheel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our dangerous roads are a direct threat to our competitiveness.
Every year, crashes cause some $340 billion in economic costs\63\--
money that could otherwise be used to invest, innovate, and compete.
Quality-of-life harm amounts to some $1 trillion--an extraordinary
number that still fails to capture the lifelong or even
multigenerational effect of losing a partner, parent, or child. We are
spending our national wealth on funerals instead of futures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Lawrence Blincoe et al., Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin.,
DOT HS 813 403, The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle
Crashes, 2019 (rev. Feb. 2023), https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/
Public/ViewPublication/813403.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rest of the world sees that we are not doing well. I spent most
of 2025 in Asia and Europe, and I watched as attitudes toward the
United States changed. To be blunt: We went from a leader to a bully.
In the process, we undermined our own institutions, companies, and
technologies. We taught the world to look elsewhere. And when trust no
longer tips the scales, you might as well choose the Chinese car that
is cheaper, cleaner, and cooler.
3. Workforce. With the rollout of new technologies like AVs, we
have seen their integration into commercial industries, like trucking.
While I anticipate that some new jobs could be created, including
terminal operators and specialized maintenance positions, I am
concerned that these new job opportunities will pale in quantity to the
jobs lost due to these new technologies. Can these new positions
sustain the potential job losses in these industries? What should we do
now to prepare for these changes to the affected industries?
Answer. Your concern is justified, and I don't have good answers.
In understanding this issue, I start with four premises:
1. The AI revolution might be merely the latest iteration of
creative destruction; new jobs will replace old jobs.
2. The AI revolution might instead be an unprecedented shift to a
state in which labor and capital are fully interchangeable; new
jobs will not replace old jobs.
3. We don't know which of these two predictions will prove more
accurate (or when).
4. Regardless, we do know that the transition, like those of past
industrial revolutions, will be painful to the individuals and
communities who are negatively impacted.
There is valuable work on these issues, especially by the National
Academies.\64\ The U.S. Department of Transportation's Transforming
Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC) made several key
recommendations on automated driving specifically while also
recognizing ``that disruptive technologies will not be limited to ADS
and that workforce implications will not be limited to professional
drivers.'' \65\ I support these recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Nat'l Acads. of Scis., Eng'g, & Med., Artificial Intelligence
and the Future of Work (2025), https://doi.org/10.17226/27644.
\65\ TTAC, supra note 10, at 59-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would particularly stress the importance of ``creating and
maintaining early-warning systems and feedback loops that involve these
diverse stakeholders, state governments, other Federal agencies, and
other potential sources of near-real-time workforce information.'' \66\
This is because effective policy will require accurate and timely
understanding of changes in real-world conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would further suggest that, in developing this policy, our
leaders consider a few key points: First, everyone in the United States
should share in the wealth they are helping to create.
We are all contributing data and, in many cases, valuable
intellectual property for the development of AI systems. Many human
employees are currently training their computer replacements, whether
they realize it or not. And many ordinary people are subsidizing these
systems through the externalities--including resource depletion and
many forms of pollution--that they are bearing, again whether they
realize it or not. And while this broad sharing of wealth is ultimately
in the interests of those who seek to directly profit from these
technologies, collective action problems mean that it is unlikely to
happen without government action.
Second, there is and will likely continue to be a tremendous need
for human services of all kinds. But market failures mean that there is
not a commensurate economic demand for many of these services.
Childrearing, eldercare, civic participation, community engagement,
friendship, mentoring, good neighborliness, emotional support, cultural
development, learning, teaching, reconciliation, pro bono
representation, and many other tasks are vital to our humanity--and in
many cases should not be performed exclusively by computers. And yet
they are often undercompensated or even uncompensated and hence
underperformed. Automation and financialization may shift even more
tasks onto individuals or else abdicate them entirely. It is therefore
imperative that any discussion of the workforce start with a holistic
and comprehensive conception of work--and look for ways to create space
and even compensation for work that has true social value.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See generally Bryant Walker Smith & Ying Wang, Role-and Task-
Based Approaches to Responsible Automation (working paper).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, workforce policy should promote human flourishing. Some
jobs--or at least job tasks--should disappear. Jobs should not be
dangerous, dreary, depressing, exploitative, or oppressive. They should
be livelihoods that give the people who hold them an opportunity for
control, community, and contribution. This will mean different things
to different people, as it should. Both employment and automation
should be tools in our individual and collective ``pursuit of
happiness.'' \68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Bryant Walker Smith, For Humankind, Keynote Remarks at the
Inauguration of the Joint Academy on Future Humanity (June 28, 2025),
https://newlypossible.org/files/presentations/2025-06-
28_FutureHumanitySpeech_BryantWalkerSmith.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, we should try to cultivate employment opportunities through
perpetual research and development. Significant Federal research
decades ago led to the automated driving industry we have today. And at
least so far, this industry has created far more jobs than it has
eliminated. These include highly paid researchers as well as all the
other professionals who support them, from janitors to cooks to
therapists. By the time automated driving significantly impacts truck
and taxi drivers, we should ideally be well on our way to our next set
of incredible innovations. But this requires foundational research:
basic science that often requires enormous investments of time and
money, fails to produce the desired results, and has few if any obvious
paths to commercialization. Only governments are in the position to
fund this research. The Chinese government is doing so. Ours,
increasingly, is not.
Fifth, law has long created structures to manage scarcity,
exclusivity, and control. These include early property rights (think
fences), more recent intellectual property rights (think patents),
concessions, common carriers, and corporations generally. The AI
revolution may require similar innovations to help individuals capture
the economic value of not only their labor but also their ideas and
their information. Courts will be (and in some cases already are)
involved in these conversations, but so too should governments more
broadly.
Sixth, it will also be important to conceive and empower new and
existing collectives beyond governments and companies. Trade and labor
unions are a classic example. In the future, agentic AI might even help
individuals create a more level playing field with companies by
automatically identifying and coordinating the collective market power
of people with shared needs and values.
Seventh, international cooperation will be imperative. A race to
the bottom helps no one. People around the world share many of the same
hopes and fears, even if we express them differently. And increasingly,
we really are all in this together.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Much of my work seeks to foster international collaboration.
See, e.g., Bryant Walker Smith & Sven Beiker, We Rode in Dozens of
Driverless Robotaxis in China. Here's What We Saw--And Our Advice for
Other Curious Travelers, Bus. Insider (Jan. 31, 2026), https://
www.businessinsider.com/the-ultimate-guide-for-taking-a-robotaxi-in-
china-2026-2; Bryant Walker Smith, Initial Thoughts on ``Road Safety
Challenges Posed by the Use of Automated Vehicles in Traffic That an
International Legal Instrument Could Adequately Address'', GE.3-03-02,
Global Forum for Road Traffic Safety (May 2022); Bryant Walker Smith et
al., A Path for Cooperation Between Law Schools in China and the United
States, 11 Penn. St. J.L. & Int'l Aff. 142 (2023), https://
insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/jlia/vol11/iss2/7. Additional publications
are available at https://newlypossible.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To conclude:
I hope my spoken testimony showed a brevity that is admittedly
lacking in these written answers--particularly since I'm also annexing
two additional relevant documents. The first is my opening statement at
the hearing. The second is the final report of the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Transforming Transportation Advisory Committee.
I appreciate that you have read this far and, more importantly,
that you are approaching these important issues so thoughtfully. Please
reach out if I can be of any assistance.
Sincerely,
Bryant Walker Smith.
Annex 1: My opening statement at the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation's Hearing on the Future of Self-Driving
Cars.
Annex 2: The 2024 report of the U.S. Department of Transportation's
Transforming Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC).
[all]