Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Autonomous Vehicles topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee delays vote on sweeping bill to allow commercial autonomous vehicles after split testimony
Summary
Senators heard hours of testimony for SB670, a wide-ranging bill to permit and regulate commercial autonomous vehicles; proponents said it would align Virginia with other states, while manufacturers, unions and safety groups warned the bill’s arbitration and discovery rules and some new requirements could discourage deployment. The measure was carried over to full committee for further work.
Senator Salem introduced SB670 as a framework to move autonomous vehicles from testing to regulated commercial deployment on Virginia highways, covering DMV certification, cybersecurity, insurance minimums, data retention limits and an expanded stakeholder work group.
The bill’s sponsor said the measure sets a safety‑focused regulatory path for companies seeking autonomous‑vehicle certificates, requires a safety management plan, and establishes a financial responsibility standard (a $1 million coverage floor was cited). “This bill sets the framework to bring autonomous vehicles on the commercial side,” the senator told the subcommittee.
Industry supporters urged passage. Matt Walsh of Whimo, which operates a 24/7 autonomous ride‑hail service, said SB670 would let companies like his operate in Virginia and expand transportation options for people with disabilities. “We are incredibly excited about the opportunity to bring our life‑saving technology here,” Walsh said, adding the company can adapt its software to local work zones and communicate real‑time changes across its fleet.
But major manufacturers, testing organizations, labor and safety advocates urged caution or opposition. Representatives for auto manufacturers and autonomous‑vehicle associations warned that provisions added in recent substitutes — notably limitations on arbitration, broad pre‑trial discovery, and other floor substitutes — could increase litigation exposure and make Virginia an unattractive state for deployment. “This framework, as drafted, will be the worst framework in the country,” a manufacturing representative told the subcommittee.
Labor and SEIU asked for more time for stakeholder work, saying the bill addresses technologies with major workforce impacts and that the work group needs fuller representation before codifying rules. Safety and industry witnesses also flagged specific drafting problems — for example, references that assume vehicle manufacturers control third‑party automated driving systems and a need to refine cybersecurity and discovery language.
The subcommittee heard opposing views from sizable, organized coalitions: proponents argued the bill aligns Virginia with other states that have moved toward commercial operations and would benefit transit‑dependent riders; opponents urged additional work to avoid unintended legal and operational barriers. Given the breadth of concerns and late substitutes, the chair moved the bill to the full committee for additional stakeholder negotiation and technical fixes; the subcommittee took SB670 "by for the day" to give members time to refine the text and return from a more informed posture.
The committee’s action means the bill will be discussed again in full committee after more negotiation between the sponsor, state agencies and stakeholders. No formal vote on the bill’s merits occurred in subcommittee.
