Autonomous technology companies say that driverless trucks are safe. However, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association said the public deserves more assurance than a company’s word.

In a letter sent on Monday, March 9, to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, OOIDA voiced its opposition to the Safety Ensuring Lives Future Deployment and Research in Vehicle Evolution Act, which would create a national framework for regulating autonomous vehicles.

OOIDA said that the SELF DRIVE Act, or HR7390, fails to ensure the safe operation of driverless trucks or provide adequate transparency about the vehicles’ performance.

“HR7390 would permit the operation of 80,000-pound trucks based on unverified assertions of companies with a vested financial interest in their deployment,” OOIDA President Todd Spencer wrote. “While companies would be required to develop a ‘safety case’ describing how the vehicle would operate safely, there is no requirement that the federal government verify these plans. In fact, companies would not need to provide these cases to the government before deployment, or possibly even at all.”

OOIDA also called out the SELF DRIVE Act for not taking the proper steps regarding cybersecurity.

“HR7390 includes no requirement for public disclosure of cyber intrusions, nor any mandate that companies suspend operations or take vehicles offline in the event of a cyber incident,” OOIDA wrote. “As written, the legislation grants manufacturers significant discretion while offering the public little transparency or assurance that cybersecurity threats are being addressed promptly or appropriately.”

Rep. Bob Latta, R-Ohio, introduced the SELF DRIVE Act on Feb. 5, saying that “autonomous vehicle technology has the potential to protect millions of Americans from traffic accidents and fatalities, while making our communities safer and more accessible.” As of March 9, HR7390 had only two co-sponsors.

During a House subcommittee hearing in February, Rep. Kevin Mullin, D-Calif., called out the SELF DRIVE Act for a lack of transparency requirements.

“I hope one day that they lead to a dramatic decrease in traffic deaths, but we are not there yet,” Mullin said during the hearing. “And to know if we’re getting there, we need the data. That’s why for two years I’ve been calling on NHTSA to require more data from AV operators. Unfortunately, this bill includes no meaningful data-recording requirements beyond what NHTSA is already collecting about collisions, which I believe is insufficient.”

And while there is a lack of required transparency, we have anecdotal evidence of dangerous incidents involving driverless vehicles.

Earlier this month, multiple media outlets reported that a Waymo robotaxi blocked emergency personnel who were responding to a mass shooting in Austin, Texas. Similar incidents have occurred in San Francisco in recent years.

OOIDA noted that the stakes are even higher when dealing with 80,000-pound trucks than with passenger vehicles.

“We urge the committee to reject HR7390 and instead pursue a framework that prioritizes adherence to proven safety requirements, independent validation and full transparency before allowing driverless heavy-duty trucks onto our nation’s roads,” OOIDA wrote. “Small-business truckers and professional drivers have a direct stake in the outcomes of these decisions, and they deserve policies rooted in rigorous oversight, not assumptions or unverified assurances from industry.” LL