1. Governor’s Advisory Council on Connected and Automated Vehicles Traffic Regulations & Subcommittee Col. Matt Langer, Liaison

2. Subcommittee Goal
To develop recommendations for changes to statutes, rules and policies in the areas of traffic regulation, law enforcement and safety for the Governor’s Advisory Council on Connected and Automated Vehicles, and assist other Advisory Council subcommittees as needed.

3. General Themes Safety Vulnerable road users/situations Crash reporting
Licensing/driver training
Education
Platooning
Insurance
Continue work groups & conversations
Data
Testing
Public education and demonstrations
Mobility

4. Considerations
Distinguish between Levels 3-5. Regulations will depend on level of vehicle. Need to distinguish between Level 3, 4, and 5.
Technology advancements. These recommendations will change with advancement of automation.
Generational differences. Need future conversations on how differently generations understand ownership and how they may – or may not – adopt CAV.
Training. Who is responsible for training on technology?
Balance regulation with innovation. The State should regulate and embrace CAV without impeding industry interest in serving our citizens.
Uniformity. Support uniformity and enforceability across various jurisdictions.
Reciprocity. Recognize other state’s existing or proposed rules, licenses.
Ownership questions. Who “owns” a CAV? Will this vary by urban or rural differences?

5. Recommendation 1
Data: Minnesota needs to determine what, if any, data should be collected specific to CAV.
Crash data and reporting. Need to capture CAV crash data and CAV information.
Failure to report. Some institutions are not reporting crashes. Need to policy to encourage collection of crash data.
MnCrash could be updated and programmed to show level of vehicle.
Training. Need to train peace officers to enter crash data.
VMT. Need to begin capturing number of vehicle miles travelled (VMT) for each CAV. How do we get odometer readings?
AV used during crash? Need to know what systems were operating in the CAV before, during, and after a crash.
Need NHTSA leadership. Currently there is no national leadership on CAV crash data collection. State could work with NHTSA which should take a leadership role in crash reporting.
Crash investigations for human driver and CAV. Peace officers have to plug bale into CAV to capture crash data. Should also ask human driver/occupant their recollection of occurred on sight.
New models/software challenges. Enforcement faces challenges in having to get new cables for new car models every year. Cables are used to plug into vehicles after collision to obtain data.
State has to decide what, if any, data it wants to collect.
Data can help educate public to accept technology.

6. Recommendation 2
Training and Education: Minnesota should study, review, and revise whether any training for CAV is required.
Training and education. Minnesota should study, review, and revise whether any training for CAV is required.
Trainers and clinics. Need trainers and technology clinics.
Use existing programs. Could use CarFit (for older adults) and child safety passenger clinics as models.
Auto manufacturers currently not responsible for training.
Insurance incentives. Could work with insurance industry to offer insurance discounts if individuals attend CAV training/safety clinics.
Driver’s Ed Manual. Currently silent on CAV. Need to work with DPS Driver and Vehicle Services to reformat the content.

7. Minnesota needs public education to build public trust on CAV.
Recommendation 3
Minnesota needs public education to build public trust on CAV.
Risk. Need to learn how to talk about risk. The level of public trust in CAV decreases with crashes.
Leverage our knowledge. How do we use our knowledge of CAV to help people understand and accept this technology?
Surveys. Could have regular public surveys to gauge understanding of CAV.
Public demonstrations. Engage with the public through testing and demonstrations. They need to see and feel these vehicles.
Data can help educate public to accept technology.

8. Recommendation 4
CAV technology is going to be helpful for all drivers, and especially vulnerable road users.
Policies that support vulnerable road users and situations. Support drivers to safe mobile mobility, especially in areas where driving conditions are difficult. Need to be aware of disadvantaged drivers, including
Elderly and aging drivers. With population demographics, the State will se increasingly older drivers.
Truck drivers and challenges with stopping time. Average age of truckers is 55 so this overlaps with aging population.
Work zones;
Transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Need technology that can help both human drivers and machine vision.
Dynamic/smart traffic signs could intervene/provide guidance to road users.

9. Recommendation 5
Establish a workgroup to research all laws and regulations related to these issues to determine what, if anything, needs to change.
Work group needed to evaluate MN statutes and rules (e.g., platooning and following distances).
Platooning and AV testing. Testing in closed systems. Promote seasonal testing.
Following distance needs to be define.

10. Minnesota State Patrol
Thank you
Colonel Matt Langer
Minnesota State Patrol