A Tesla Cybertruck parked in a residential neighborhood of Washington, D.C. Teslas are not autonomous but have automated features. (Photo by Darrell Ehrlick of the Daily Montanan)
What if a driverless car encounters a cow on the highway? What if there’s a patch of ice?
“(Montana is) quite different than any other state with our weather conditions, with our livestock, with our animals on the highway,” said Sen. Denley Loge, R-St.Regis.
In another attempt to put some guardrails around autonomous — or driverless — vehicles, Loge pitched Senate Bill 67, similar to legislation he’s proposed before.
The idea is to get stakeholders together: Those from insurance, auto manufacturers, and the legal community, to craft guidelines to protect people on the road, Loge said.
Currently, he said, Montana has no regulations at all for vehicles that are “totally driverless,” and the bill aims to address those and ones that allow a driver to step in but can operate on their own.
“It’s not meant to stop the progress, but it’s to make sure we have a little handle on it so we do have safety for all our Montanans,” Loge said.
Since 2012, 41 states have considered legislation related to autonomous vehicles, and 29 states have laws in place, according to the National Conference on State Legislatures.
In Montana, opponents pushed back hard on the idea in a hearing before the Senate Energy, Technology and Federal Relations committee earlier this week.
Thursday, however, Loge said he was open to amendments, and he would still try to maneuver the bill around the hurdles the bill’s detractors pointed out.
In the committee, Charles Denowh, representing Tesla, said Loge has included stakeholders in discussions, which he appreciates, but the bill still contains “a few small problems,” and it’s not in a form the company on the forefront of driverless technology can support.
Thomas Jodin, with the Montana League of Cities and Towns, said his organization appreciates the effort to get ahead of any challenges, but he couldn’t support it just yet either.
Jodin said city streets are classified differently than routes managed by the state Department of Transportation.
“(We) do still have concerns with vagueness on the authority of cities and towns to manage their streets with regard to autonomous vehicles,” Jodin said.
John Fisher, with the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, asked that definitions in the bill align with industry standards for the different classes of vehicles. Fisher also said a person in the driver’s seat in the future might not need a license, contrary to a requirement in the draft bill.
“Folks with vision impairments or other disabilities do stand to benefit greatly from automated vehicles, and we just don’t want to create any unnecessary requirements which may impact their ability to use the technology,” Fisher said.
The Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association also opposed the bill, and the Teamster’s Local 2 in Butte and Local 190 in Billings raised safety concerns.
The Montana Department of Transportation’s Larry Flynn said it’s a good bill, but it needs work, and his agency’s interest is on the commercial vehicle side, which he said needs a definition.
Flynn advocated that an effective date be January 2026 to give time to put rules in place and said passenger vehicles are more of an issue for the Department of Justice.
Although the bill didn’t draw supporters, John MacDonald, with the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, said it has progressed in the last three or four sessions.
“I think every year we get a little bit closer,” MacDonald said.
Despite the roadblocks, Loge said at the hearing he’s committed to continue working on the idea, including aligning definitions with industry standards. He asked the committee to work on it too and said the issue wasn’t going away.
“Until we get everybody at the same table at the same time, we’re going to run into this two years down the road, four years down the road, and we’ll still have possibly vehicles driving around without the driver and without any controls,” Loge said.