Find Bill
Find Your Legislator
Legislative Deadlines
March 29, 2024
RSS Feed Permanent URL -A +A

Minutes for SB546 - Committee on Transportation

Short Title

Providing for the use and regulation of autonomous motor vehicles and establishing the autonomous vehicle advisory committee.

Minutes Content for Thu, Mar 10, 2022

Chairperson Petersen called the meeting to order at 8:33 a.m. and opened the hearing on SB546.

Assistant Revisor Adam Siebers briefed the Committee on the bill (Attachment 1).  He summarized the bill by saying it authorizes driverless-capable vehicles the right to operate without a human driver if the vehicle meets a variety of specific requirements:  e.g., be registered in Kansas, be insured, follow all traffic laws.  He noted certain stipulations:  A driverless vehicle must have a human driver for the first year of operation;  the vehicle would be subject to all Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) regulations; the owner must submit a report to an advisory committee.

Mr.Siebers responded to members' questions:

  • An extended list of officials make up the advisory committee.
  • The bill does not establish a weight limit for a vehicle, nor does it limit the number of companies who might deploy autonomous vehicles (AV).
  • KDOT is given general oversight but no specific control mechanism.
  • Each company must submit a plan to KDOT to deploy AVs, but there is no process established for any approval after the plan is submitted.

Sandy Braden, representing Leighton Yates, Director of State Affairs, Alliance for Automotive Innovation, testified as a proponent (Attachment 2).  She referenced a previous AV bill (SB379) and expressed appreciation for the clarifications, emendations, and additions provided by the new bill, such as the addition of an advisory committee and further definitions.

Mike O'Neal, Walmart, speaking as a proponent, also expressed gratitude for the additional work to improve the bill (Attachment 3).  He commented that passage of the bill will enable Kansas to join 43 other states in providing legislative authorization for AVs.  Noting the Gatik company's success with AVs in Louisiana and Arkansas, he stated that the objective for the bill is to establish uniform guidelines for the future.

Richard Steiner, Head of Policy, Gatik, via Web-ex testified as a proponent (Attachment 4).  He reviewed the company's 100% safety record and listed the benefits that the company's use of Avs would bring to Kansas: job creation, reduction in costs, and alleviating the supply-chain choke-points, and driver shortages.

Ariel Wolf, General Counsel, Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association, via Web-ex spoke in favor of the bill (Attachment 5).  He also expressed appreciation for the collaboration that has improved the bill; it is now a holistic approach that will position Kansas as an AV leader and will provide economic benefits for Kansans.

Conferees responded to members' questions:

  • The bill would allow the introduction of driverless passenger/taxi service.  (Mr. Siebers)
  • There may be a few passenger services opened by the bill.  (Mr.Wolf)
  • The advisory committee will address issues such as an individual Tesla owner using his vehicle for intermittent passenger service.  (Senator Petersen)
  • Depending on the company, passage of the bill could allow a company to deploy AVs immediately, but historically a time lapse of two years is typical.  (Mr.Wolf)
  •  Gatik has developed a high level of performance-rating standards as reflected in their exemplary safety record.  (Mr. Steiner)
  • With the current shortage of available truck drivers, the bill would more likely result in job creation. (Mr. Steiner)

 

Wendi Stark, Research Associate, League of Kansas Municipalities, via Web-ex offered testimony in opposition to the bill (Attachment 6).  She commented that the bill needs further clarity: it does not make clear what traffic laws apply, does not clearly identify who is responsible in the event of a violation or accident, and the statute that requires a driver's license for a human driver does not seem to apply to an AV.  She recommended amending the bill to bring further clarity.

Matthew Hall, Political Coordinator, Teamsters Joint Council 56, provided testimony as an opponent (Attachment 7).  He said that the bill opens Kansas roads to a premature experiment and exposes citizens as test subjects for a new technology.  He stated that in Kansas there is no shortage of truck drivers, and he considered the bill too expansive and without proper restricting parameters. 

Daniel Hinkle, Kansas Trial Lawyers Association, via Web-ex spoke as an opponent (Attachment 8). He reported that his research indicates that only 17 states have legislation similar to what the bill proposes, a statistic that diminishes credence for the bill's proponents.  Further, he said a key issue in the bill is that it does not identify a driver and therefore leaves the vehicle controlled by a computer system without any designated responsible person; Kansas statutes define a driver as a person.  He then recommended that the manufacturer be identified as the one responsible for the operation of the vehicle.

Blake Shuart, Hutton and Hutton Law Firm in Wichita, testified as an opponent (Attachment 9). He recommended that the Committee refer the bill to a special committee for interim study, since in its current form it allows any company to test its autonomous system on Kansas roads, provides inadequate insurance coverage, and does not identify a responsible person in the event of an accident.  He explained that the term owner does not clearly identify a person; the owner could be a foreign company beyond the reach of state or federal jurisdiction.

Two written-only testimonies were submitted:

The hearing on SB546 was suspended due to time constraints.  The Chair announced that the neutral testimony would be heard at the next meeting on Monday, March 14, 2022.  The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 a.m.