Federal lawmakers have begun to discuss numerous pieces of legislation focusing on the evolving automobile industr
y, with legislation addressing consumer data rights, parts and repair, pedestrian safety, driver-assistance technology and even catalytic-converter theft.
In preparation for a hearing Jan. 13, insurance industry trade associations sent letters to the U.S. House Committee on Ene
rgy and Commerce’s subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade with comments on each
of the proposed bills—all of which appear to have initial support of the industry except one regarding the deployment of autonomous vehicles (AVs).
The bill, known as the SELF DRIVE Act, attempts to establish a federal role in the oversight of safety and data regarding autonomous vehicles, and to ensure the U.S. “successfully
compete(s) against communist China,” according to subcommittee chairman Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla.
Bilirakis said China is “seeking to flood the world” with its self-driving technology and, “We cannot let America fall behind.” He said, “AVs are not just a luxury; they can be a lifeline. By re
ducing human error, which causes the vast majority of crashes, we can prevent tra
gedies before they happen. AVs can also empower seniors and people with disabilities to be mobile and regain their independence.”
The bill was first introduced in 2017 and is now written as a discussion draft, sponsored by Rep. Bob Latta, a Republican from Ohio, and Rep. Debbie Dingell, a Democrat from Michi
gan. However, the trade associations are wary of language that may infringe on state insurance requirements or the use of data by some third parties, including insurers.
See more beautiful photo albums Here >>>
The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) told the subcommittee it opposes the bill’s passage “as currently written” because some language in the SELF DRIVE A
ct preempts state laws. The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) said it is hopeful to work with the bill’s sponsors to avoid potential conflict.
“While the bill makes no direct references to insurance, we are very concerned with the vague and broad nature” of a certain section within the measure that would prohibit “any law, rule, r
egulation, requirement, standard, or other provision” that limits automated driving systems so long as the manufacturer satisfies other safety provisions.
“This could infringe on authority around legislation, licensing, operation,
and even insurance requirements that we believe are most appropriately left with the states,” NAMIC said.
While it supports the protection of rights protecting cybersecurity, privacy, and intellectual property, APCIA said these goals “must be balanced with equally important goals of
safety and the insurability of changing risk profiles presented by the technology. Third parties (insurers), need access to vehicle data to meet these goals.”