Trades Advocate for Central Role of Safety and State Involvement in AV Regulation

Industry trade associations are advocating for caution to ensure that regulations surrounding autonomous vehicles (AVs) prioritize safety as these vehicles share the road with traditional automobiles.

The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) and the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) have both submitted statements to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in anticipation of its February 4 hearing on the future of self-driving vehicles.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who chairs the committee, emphasized that AVs are already operational and hold promise for enhancing safety and traffic flow. However, he noted that Congress has yet to establish a clear federal framework for the deployment of AVs. “That inaction is no longer neutral—it is unsafe,” Cruz remarked during his opening statements. He warned that without federal oversight, the nation risks a fragmented patchwork of state laws that could undermine safety, innovation, and American competitiveness. Cruz stressed the urgency for Congress to create a national standard for AVs.

Jimi Grande, senior vice president of federal and political affairs for NAMIC, articulated in submitted testimony that “AVs need to prove they’re safe before we’ll take our hands off the wheel.” He emphasized the necessity for rigorous oversight and proper validation of safety and data to instill public confidence in AVs. While safety remains a top priority for insurers, Grande noted that regulators should review existing rules without encroaching on areas where states have authority.

NAMIC asserts that states should retain authority over the registration, licensing, and operation of AVs, as well as the determination of insurance regulations and liability issues under state law. They advocate for a collaborative relationship with federal partners to clarify data security and privacy requirements.

“There will still be crashes, especially in the immediate future where AVs share the road with human drivers,” Grande warned. “A crash involving any combination of AVs and human drivers will likely involve multiple insurance policies, raising complex liability questions. States and localities are best positioned to define and address these liability issues based on their unique road conditions and legal frameworks.”

In its statement, APCIA urged federal lawmakers to “focus on vehicle and roadway safety; support the continued primacy of state regulation of insurance and liability issues; and ensure that vehicle owners have control over vehicle-generated data.”

“Consumers deserve clear safety standards, strong state-based insurance protections, and confidence that crash-related data will be available when needed to determine what happened,” stated Sam Whitfield, APCIA’s senior vice president of federal government relations and political engagement. “Innovation must go hand in hand with accountability, transparency, and a regulatory framework that prioritizes public safety.”

APCIA also emphasized that federal law should not preempt or conflict with state insurance requirements or limit states’ ability to identify automated driving system-equipped vehicles in registration or titling. They believe that the responsibility for determining liability should remain with the states.

In a statement to the committee, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) expressed skepticism about the promises of automated vehicles leading to zero deaths. They highlighted real-world instances where automation has failed, calling for mandatory transparency from manufacturers to support education for lawmakers and regulators. OOIDA also raised concerns about the cybersecurity vulnerabilities of AVs, particularly in the context of threats from foreign adversaries.

“Congress must protect national security and personal privacy by ensuring that AVs are not susceptible to cyberattacks from malicious actors,” OOIDA stated, cautioning against applying the same regulatory approach to both passenger and trucking AVs due to their differing safety challenges.

Topics
Legislation

Industry trade associations are advocating for caution to ensure that regulations surrounding autonomous vehicles (AVs) prioritize safety as these vehicles share the road with traditional automobiles.

The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) and the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) have both submitted statements to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in anticipation of its February 4 hearing on the future of self-driving vehicles.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who chairs the committee, emphasized that AVs are already operational and hold promise for enhancing safety and traffic flow. However, he noted that Congress has yet to establish a clear federal framework for the deployment of AVs. “That inaction is no longer neutral—it is unsafe,” Cruz remarked during his opening statements. He warned that without federal oversight, the nation risks a fragmented patchwork of state laws that could undermine safety, innovation, and American competitiveness. Cruz stressed the urgency for Congress to create a national standard for AVs.

Jimi Grande, senior vice president of federal and political affairs for NAMIC, articulated in submitted testimony that “AVs need to prove they’re safe before we’ll take our hands off the wheel.” He emphasized the necessity for rigorous oversight and proper validation of safety and data to instill public confidence in AVs. While safety remains a top priority for insurers, Grande noted that regulators should review existing rules without encroaching on areas where states have authority.

NAMIC asserts that states should retain authority over the registration, licensing, and operation of AVs, as well as the determination of insurance regulations and liability issues under state law. They advocate for a collaborative relationship with federal partners to clarify data security and privacy requirements.

“There will still be crashes, especially in the immediate future where AVs share the road with human drivers,” Grande warned. “A crash involving any combination of AVs and human drivers will likely involve multiple insurance policies, raising complex liability questions. States and localities are best positioned to define and address these liability issues based on their unique road conditions and legal frameworks.”

In its statement, APCIA urged federal lawmakers to “focus on vehicle and roadway safety; support the continued primacy of state regulation of insurance and liability issues; and ensure that vehicle owners have control over vehicle-generated data.”

“Consumers deserve clear safety standards, strong state-based insurance protections, and confidence that crash-related data will be available when needed to determine what happened,” stated Sam Whitfield, APCIA’s senior vice president of federal government relations and political engagement. “Innovation must go hand in hand with accountability, transparency, and a regulatory framework that prioritizes public safety.”

APCIA also emphasized that federal law should not preempt or conflict with state insurance requirements or limit states’ ability to identify automated driving system-equipped vehicles in registration or titling. They believe that the responsibility for determining liability should remain with the states.

In a statement to the committee, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) expressed skepticism about the promises of automated vehicles leading to zero deaths. They highlighted real-world instances where automation has failed, calling for mandatory transparency from manufacturers to support education for lawmakers and regulators. OOIDA also raised concerns about the cybersecurity vulnerabilities of AVs, particularly in the context of threats from foreign adversaries.

“Congress must protect national security and personal privacy by ensuring that AVs are not susceptible to cyberattacks from malicious actors,” OOIDA stated, cautioning against applying the same regulatory approach to both passenger and trucking AVs due to their differing safety challenges.

Topics
Legislation