House Status:
Senate Status:
Senate Status:
Minutes for SB379 - Committee on Transportation
Short Title
Providing for the use and regulation of autonomous motor vehicles.
Minutes Content for Tue, Feb 8, 2022
Chairperson Petersen called the meeting to order and, noting the previous meeting's hearing on SB379 with proponent testimony, announced today's continuation of the hearing with neutral and opponent testimony.
Assistant Revisor Adam Siebers reviewed the tenets of the bill; he said the bill regulates the use of autonomous motor vehicles. He outlined the prohibitions in the bill (city or county ordinances or resolutions) and specified in what ways said vehicles must comply with current law (Attachment 1).
Julie Lorenz, Secretary, Kansas Department of Transportation, presented neutral testimony (Attachment 2). She noted that the bill allows Kansas to be involved in advancing autonomous-vehicle (AV) technology; she then offered several recommendations to supplement the intent of the bill:
- Page 1, line 25, cross out the words "related actions" and insert "driving functions related to K.S.A. 8 article 15, and amendments";
- Page 2, line 14, after "railroad crossings," add "and all roadway features";
- Establish partnerships and advisory principals to provide oversight; and
- Require a report to the Legislature and the Governor on the progress of the program.
Secretary Lorenz responded to members' questions, replied that a twelve-month pilot program with a safety driver in the vehicle should be required in order to enable citizens to become accustomed to the seeing driverless trucks.
Ed Klumpp, Kansas Association of Peace Officers, Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police, Kansas Sheriffs Association, acknowledged the need to recognize the burgeoning AV technology, but questioned the timing of the bill (Attachment 3). He stated that the bill offers no contingencies or alternative if the initiative becomes untenable. He cited specific language in the bill that is unclear, undefined, or has more than one interpretation. He also noted the gaps in accountability by questioning to whom a traffic violation would be presented and whether such violation is considered under the civil or criminal code. He concluded by saying that the bill presents many problems for law enforcement.
The following presented written-only neutral testimony:
- Colonel Herman Jones, Kansas Highway Patrol (Attachment 4)
- Jay Hall, Deputy Director, Kansas Association of Counties (Attachment 5)
Nicholas Gleason, Union Steward, Teamsters Local 696, spoke in opposition to the bill (Attachment 6). As a truck driver himself, he listed all the variables that a human driver can accommodate and adapt to, and he questioned whether a machine can be taught to respond safely to the multiplicity of circumstances presented on Kansas roadways. He expressed concern about the possibility of hackers taking control of an autonomous vehicle, and he referenced serious accidents from Tesla and Uber vehicles.
Wendy Stark, Research Associate, Kansas League of Municipalities, testified as an opponent because of the language of Section 2 restricting action by cities and counties to issue a traffic citation (Attachment 7). She encouraged members, if they choose to go forward with the bill, to amend it to clarify the "middle mile," to identify more clearly the term owner, and to recognize the authority of cities and counties.
Tony Reinhart, State and Local Government Affairs, Ford Motor Company, speaking as an opponent, stated that the bill is inconsistent with the AV industry and will narrow the opportunities for various other competitive industries (Attachment 8). He explained that, since the AV offers to improve the quality of life nationally, a patchwork of state regulations will only interfere with developing consistent and innovative standards; federal leadership will provide better continuity. If members move forward with the bill, he offered to help provide language that will make Kansas a technology-friendly state while laying out a basic AV framework.
Michael DeKort, former systems engineer, Lockheed Martin, reviewing his work with Lockheed and his present affiliation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, stated that the bill is untenable at this time; more testing needs to be done and data gathered in order to establish safe protocols for autonomous vehicles. He also offered rebuttal to proponent Gatik's assertions regarding their safety record (Attachment 9).
Leighton Yeats, Alliance for Automotive Innovation, testified as an opponent. He commented that the bill will establish policy that is inconsistent with that of neighboring states and will narrow opportunities for other companies in a competitive market. He said that the bill's definitions need to be clarified and expanded, and, in lieu of state laws, he recommended federal guidelines and policies. He also offered the resources of his agency to make the bill's language more applicable to a national approach (Attachment 10).
Due to time constraints, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 9:23 a.m. and stated that further opposition testimony would be announced at a later time. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 9, 2022.
