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 20-102(07) Interim Report 111 Conclusion Rather than simply reacting to the changes presented by C/ADSs as they arise, performing an audit of existing laws allows states to better prepare for changes to come. Indeed, without this legal background, states may find it difficult to react quickly and effectively to the challenges C/ADSs present. With a greater understanding of legal landscape and the timeline for integrating these changes (see Connected and Automated Driving Systems Legal and Regulatory Prioritization Assessment and Harmonization Analysis341), there is less risk that legislative gaps will develop. This approach will help make the integration of C/ADSs less cumbersome for users and state regulators alike. To that end, our legal audit of 15 states identifies a number of important provisions in need of clarification and revision. This view of the legal landscape is intended to provide analysts and lawmakers with an overall understanding of these rapidly changing challenges. States will still need to be reactive at times, but through this and other ongoing legal mapping work, it is our hope that states will also be better prepared to proactively address some of the more systematic issues related to C/ADSsâ integration into the transportation network. 341 Serian, et al. (2018). Connected and automated driving systems legal and regulatory prioritization assessment and harmonization analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.
