Blog

Tell Your Senators to Vote “NO” on Bill 1885: The AV START Act

By Benjamin Harris

With Autonomous vehicles becoming a reality across the country, the auto industry and Silicon Valley are pushing lawmakers to free them from state safety standards. Sponsors of Senate Bill 1885 the AV START ACT, also known as the Automated Vehicle Bill which is currently being pushed through the Senate, are mostly from automotive states like Michigan and Ohio, who are looking to bring the automated vehicle industry to their regions. They’re citing implementations in China and India, and warn of the US falling behind.

The concerns, however, begin with both the AV START Act pending in the Senate and also a House bill passed last fall, streamline regulations and would prevent states from imposing tougher safety and performance standards.

Consumer advocates are concerned that the bill in its current state does not offer enough safety protections. The AV START Act has the ability to fill our roads with relatively unproven driverless vehicles that fail to meet federal safety rules.

It’s questionable at best whether the technology is in fact ready to be implemented to a larger scale. There are indications that Automated Vehicles have difficulty detected and reacting to smaller moving objects, such as:

  • Bicyclists
  • Pedestrians
  • Wheelchairs
  • First Responders
  • Road Construction and Maintenance Workers
  • Animals

Automated vehicles do a great job monitoring other cars, and while there have been some improvements with identifying pedestrians and animals, bicycles continue to be a challenge. In fact, UC Berkeley research engineer Steven Shladover says “bicycles are probably the most difficult detection problem that autonomous vehicle systems face.”

The bill only requires automated vehicles have a “sense of objects, motorcyclists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and animals in or crossing the path of travel through the automated driving system.”  This vague language does not persuade or encourage advances in protecting vulnerable road users.

Readers of this blog will remember that an automated vehicle killed a person in Tempe, Arizona, walking a bicycle.

As we noted then, “very little is known, or is being reported, about the technology that presumably failed in the death of [traffic victim] Herzberg. What we do know is that the car did not stop, swerve or slow down to avoid Herzberg the way a human being might’ve. It seems to have not registered the human being walking on the side of the road.”

If this bill is not passed by the end of the year, it will expire, which will present a great opportunity for improvement.

However it appears the Senate may be preparing to vote on this bill as early as this week.

We urge members and safety advocates to contact their Senators and ask them to vote NO on the AV START Act. The League of American Bicyclists has already begun a campaign to help advocates reach out to their senators, asking them to vote NO on the AV START Act. 


Through advocacy and education, the Bicycle Coalition leads the movement to make bicycling a safe and fun way to get around for anyone in Greater Philadelphia. We’re a member-funded organization, and we can’t advocate for building out the region’s bicycle network without your support. Join or donate today to partner with us and make your ride better.

2,077 total views, 2 views today

Topics: Action Center, Biking in Philly, Featured, Uncategorized, Vision Zero

2 comments on “Tell Your Senators to Vote “NO” on Bill 1885: The AV START Act

  1. James R Kahn

    I have no connection to the automated vehicle industry. But I do believe that automated vehicles will be far safer than human drivers and that we should be reluctant to stop progress toward use of automated vehicles. Nothing indicates how this law allows vehicles to fail to meet safety rules, and I can’t imagine what provision in the law would make these companies more reluctant than they already must be to have their vehicles in accidents with cyclists or pedestrians. And nothing tells us what regulatory provisions are needed and how they would help. I’m all for sensible regulation, but the opposition here appears knee-jerk, and, worse, making the perfect the enemy of the good.

    As far as the Tempe fatality, the vehicle video shows a cyclist with no lights or reflective material walking across a busy highway between intersections where there are no streetlights. If you view the video, it leaves the impression that no human driver could have avoided the accident. Hardly a reason to impede development of machine replacements for drivers who talk, text and are distracted by so many things, and sometimes by their antipathy for cyclists. I assume no machine will be programmed like that.

    I would be pleased to learn more but this posting does not convince me. As a cyclist on the road every day, I would welcome better guided vehicles.

  2. paul hoyer

    Self driving needs to be as safe as the average driver. This includes those texting, on the phone, eating, tired etc. Demanding more than this results in more people being killed, injured and inconvienced..
    The expensive part of a taxi is the driver. Many people can’t drive (too old, too young, impaired, intoxicated, to far away from the city). Self driving vehicles are a boon to them.Be thoughtful and reasonable in objections to self driving.The law does not relieve the vehicle owner/operator from of responsiblity. Perfection is not found in real people or in machines.

Comments are closed.

Search the Blog

Browse the Archives

Stay Connected:

Get our blog
sent to your inbox