Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 69 6.6 Lack of or Delayed State-led C/ADS Working Group The lack of any state working group is a barrier to even beginning to assess what laws or regulations need to be modified. Implementing a working group is one of the overarching recommendations of this Assessment, and one way to address this barrier. 6.7 Overstated Automation Capabilities There is some concern that manufacturers are overstating C/ADS capabilities. This, coupled with a lack of state technical support or expertise, is a barrier to willingness to move forward with modifications to laws and regulations. Approaching research institutions as well as external resources with expertise in C/ADSs can help states address this barrier in the short term. Building up state resources for this generation of transportation is a desirable longer-term approach. 6.8 Lack of Best Practices Perhaps the greatest barrier to legislative and regulatory modifications is the lack of model guidelines, minimum guidelines, best practices, or model language for states. States considering modifications can use existing legislative modifications (as implemented by those states presented within as Category 1 and 2 states) as an overall baseline for advancing their own legislative language. Additionally, continued consultation with AAMVA is recommended.
NCHRP Web-Only Document 253, Vol. 3: Legal Modification Prioritization and Harmonization Analysis 70 Conclusions In this Prioritization Assessment and Harmonization Analysis, we have identified the areas that merit the most attention in the short-, mid-, and long-terms as C/ADSs are deployed in all domains. The eventual deployment of C/ADSs will require a regulatory structure that will work across state lines. In some cases, this will require that states work together to harmonize their motor vehicle codes in advance to enable the operation of this new technology as it develops. Addressing these recommended modifications and harmonization needs will take coordination with state legislatures, sister state agencies, and a close alliance with industry. States are encouraged to use the priorities outlined in this Assessment to put a strategic framework in place to assess, engage, and act as they consider modifications to state motor vehicle codes. Further, the role of AAMVA and AASHTO in this effort cannot be overemphasized. AAMVAâs expert staff and its Automated Vehicles Best Practices Working Group and Law Enforcement Standing Committee, consisting of DMV and law enforcement practitioners on the front lines, are valuable resources, and AAMVA continues to be a leader in the area of C/ADS deployment. Similarly, AASHTO staff is a valuable resource for DOT administrators. The prioritization and harmonization summary tables presented in Chapter 5 illustrate that 2018â2020 is an important timeframe for states to begin legislation and regulation changes (Table 8, Table 9, and Table 10). States can choose to make these modifications earlier, but should also closely monitor the marketplace and any federal oversight direction. Just as importantly, any modifications suggested should be in a form that allows for flexible updating and ease of change. Regulations (unless they can be completed rapidly) are most likely not the best choice for modifications. 7.1 Next Steps Figure 16 highlights the input that informed this Prioritization Assessment and Harmonization Analysis. These inputs will lead to additional practical components of the Autonomous Vehicle Action Plan (AVAP) that will provide states with additional resources.
