Self-Driving Cars Have New Rules in the U.S. Here’s Why That Matters
New rules that trim crash reporting requirements and widen testing access for U.S. robotaxis are hailed as an innovation edge and criticized for eroding safety oversight
On April 24, with a brief video and a few dozen pages, the U.S.’s driverless car rulebook got a reboot. In the video, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy, appearing in a crisp jacket, invokes the Wright brothers and the Apollo moon landing and declares that “America is in the middle of an innovation race with China, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.” The new rules reduce the crash data that companies must send to regulators and seek to help U.S.-built robo taxis compete with those from foreign companies.
The order for the rule change, also dated to April 24, was released by the National Highway Transportation Security Administration (NHTSA) and will take effect on June 16. It will affect four vehicle automation levels (listed at the bottom of this article): Level 2, which requires driver intervention, and Levels 3 to 5, which use an automated driving system (ADS) that require little or no such intervention. The order preserves previous rules that manufacturers and operators using Levels 2 to 5 have five days to report crashes that involve any fatality, hospital transport, strike on a pedestrian or cyclist, or air-bag deployment. For ADS vehicles, tow-aways must also be reported within five days. Reports are still required within a month for accidents in which the vehicle strikes another vehicle, property or a stationary object (such as a guardrail) and for any incident with damage exceeding $1,000. For Level 2 systems, minor property damage incidents—including door dings, curb kisses and garden-variety fender benders—will now generally be excluded from reporting requirements. Level 2 systems, such as Tesla’s Full Self-Driving and Ford’s BlueCruise, constitute the vast majority of such systems that are in use.
According to the order, this will trim the “unnecessary burdens” on companies, reducing expenses while keeping “safety benefits.” But critics argue that an engineer’s paperwork reduction can be an analyst’s blind spot—and that when you strip away the small stuff, you lose the breadcrumbs that let researchers spot patterns early on. “Transparency and accountability about the performance of these vehicles on public roadways is essential,” says Cathy Chase, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.
On supporting science journalism
If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
The order describes its next change as protecting “confidential business information.” This change allows manufacturers to request the shielding of three data points about a crash that were previously disclosed: the answer to the question of whether the car had been driven in conditions in which it was designed to operate; a plain-language description of the circumstances of the crash; and the version of automated self-driving software that was in use. (Versions of such software are regularly updated.) Safety researchers have called this information one of the few windows the public has into the real-world performance of autonomous tech, helping independent researchers or local officials find emerging patterns.
The order’s final change intends to make American manufactures more competitive. Though vehicles on American roads must comply with rules that cover lighting, brakes, mirrors, seatbelts, and so on, a legal carve out lets foreign manufacturers import small numbers of noncompliant vehicles—those that lack mirrors or pedals or that use experimental features—for testing on public streets. Domestic factories fell outside that import program because their vehicles were assumed to be headed for sale. They could request a different waiver, but the process could take years. This has often resulted in U.S. companies building experimental robo cars overseas and then shipping them back, a process that can be onerous for start-ups without hefty budgets. A memo included with the April 24 order states that giving homegrown prototypes the same exemption pathway will cultivate “automotive innovation.” It may also create domestic jobs and fast-track Tesla’s Cybercab and similar robo taxis.
Supporters of the new rules frame them as an accelerator that will mean less low-signal data to process, faster iteration for safety fixes and equal footing for American factories. The exemption pathway remains limited to research and demonstration, so commercial fleets will face a fuller review later. In a statement in support of the new changes, John Bozzella, CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, blamed the previous lack of a regulatory framework for the inability “of [autonomous vehicle] developers, investors, automakers and consumers to reach their full potential.” Skeptics have countered that dropping routine crash data will blunt an early-warning system and that broad confidentiality requests could wall off crucial context when something goes wrong. They also worry that a scaled-up exemption pipeline could stretch NHTSA resources after recent budget cuts and layoffs, especially if hundreds of robo taxis hit the roads at once.
The bet behind the rule change is that fewer reporting requirements and more design latitude will help domestic firms win the driverless future. Though Democrats generally favor stronger reporting standards, the order does address a bipartisan interest in what the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association has called “a clear federal framework” rather than a patchwork of state laws. Duffy frames these changes as a move toward a national standard to bring about “the golden age of transportation.” What remains deeply felt in his video is that China looms in the rearview—with the country possessing a vast manufacturing machine that dominates the electric car market and is now aimed at mastering autonomous vehicles—and that the U.S. cannot lift its foot off the accelerator.
The Levels of Automated Driving
Level 1: Driver Assistance. The vehicle can maintain speed or stay in a lane but not both. You keep your hands on the wheel.
Level 2: Partial Automation. The vehicle can steer and control speed on marked roads as you supervise.
Level 3: Conditional Automation. The vehicle handles most of the driving but may ask you to take over.
Level 4: High Automation. The vehicle drives itself in certain mapped zones while you relax.
Level 5: Full Automation. The vehicle drives anywhere in any weather. You are only a passenger.
