South Dakota House Bill HB1120

South Dakota 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/24/23
• Refer: 1/24/23
• Refer: 1/25/23

Caption

Establish provisions for the operation of automated motor vehicles.

Impact

The introduction of HB1120 could significantly alter South Dakota's transportation laws. By allowing fully autonomous vehicles to operate without a human driver under certain conditions, the bill establishes a regulatory environment conducive to innovation in transportation technology. It also mandates that any automated vehicle must achieve a minimal risk condition in the event of system failures, thereby emphasizing public safety and compliance with standard traffic regulations. This legislation may position South Dakota as a leader in adapting to technological advancements in vehicle operation.

Summary

House Bill 1120 aims to establish specific provisions for the operation of automated motor vehicles in South Dakota. The bill defines critical terms related to automated driving systems and sets the framework for their legal operation on public roads. A notable feature of the bill is its detailed classification of autonomous vehicles, distinguishing between fully autonomous vehicles and those that still require human intervention. The legislation seeks to streamline the integration of these technologies into the existing transportation infrastructure while ensuring compliance with state traffic laws.

Contention

Despite its aims to advance transportation options, HB1120 is not without controversy. Critics may raise concerns about the safety and reliability of fully autonomous vehicles operating on public roads without a human driver. Some may argue that the legislation potentially relaxes essential safety regulations that human operators currently must adhere to. Additionally, the bill’s provision that prohibits local jurisdictions from enacting additional rules regarding autonomous vehicles could lead to tensions over local vs. state control of transportation regulations. Stakeholders in local government and public safety advocacy groups may oppose such preemptions, arguing they undermine locally tailored safety measures.