Natural person required to be present when a commercial motor vehicle is operated by an automated driving system, and criminal penalties established.
HF3810 would regulate the use of automated driving systems in commercial motor vehicles in Minnesota. The bill defines “automated driving system” and “dynamic driving task” by reference to SAE automation levels 4 and 5 and by describing the operational and tactical functions of driving, such as steering, braking, lane changes, signaling, and responding to roadway events. It then creates a new section of law requiring that, when an automated driving system is used to perform the dynamic driving task in a commercial motor vehicle, a natural person must be physically present, seated in the driver’s seat, properly licensed, monitoring the vehicle, and ready to intervene if needed.
The bill also establishes criminal penalties for violations. The owner or lessor of a commercial motor vehicle operated in violation of the section would be guilty of a misdemeanor for a first offense and a gross misdemeanor for subsequent offenses, with a $2,000 penalty for the second conviction and doubling penalties for each later conviction. In effect, the bill would limit fully driverless operation of commercial motor vehicles on Minnesota roads by requiring human oversight in the cab.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to add new definitions to Minnesota Statutes section 169.011 and create a new section in chapter 169 governing automated driving systems in commercial motor vehicles. It would affect commercial vehicle owners, lessors, fleet operators, and any businesses testing or deploying autonomous trucking technology in Minnesota by imposing a human-in-the-cab requirement and criminal liability for noncompliance.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the general sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call history. Based on the bill text and caption alone, the measure appears precautionary and regulatory, reflecting concern about safety and accountability in commercial autonomous vehicle operations rather than support for unrestricted deployment.
The main point of contention likely concerns whether Minnesota should allow driverless commercial trucks to operate without a human present. Supporters would likely emphasize roadway safety, immediate intervention capability, and clearer accountability, while opponents or industry stakeholders may argue the bill restricts innovation, delays autonomous freight deployment, and conflicts with emerging federal or interstate autonomous trucking practices.
HF3810 would amend Minnesota’s motor vehicle statutes by adding definitions for “automated driving system” and “dynamic driving task” and by creating a new prohibition on using automated driving systems to perform the driving task in commercial motor vehicles unless a licensed natural person is physically present in the driver’s seat and monitoring the vehicle. It would also create misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor penalties, including escalating fines, for owners or lessors who allow violations. The bill would directly affect commercial trucking operators, vehicle owners, lessors, and autonomous vehicle developers by limiting driverless commercial operation in Minnesota.
No committee discussion or vote data is provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize from debate or roll call history. From the bill language, the measure appears to reflect a cautious, safety-oriented approach to autonomous commercial vehicles, prioritizing human oversight and enforcement over broader deployment of driverless trucking technology.
The likely central controversy is whether a human driver should be required in the cab whenever an automated driving system is operating a commercial motor vehicle. Supporters would likely view the requirement as necessary for safety, oversight, and accountability, especially given the size and risk profile of commercial trucks. Opponents would likely argue that the bill is overly restrictive, may hinder innovation and investment in autonomous freight systems, and could place Minnesota at a disadvantage relative to jurisdictions with more permissive rules. The criminal penalties for owners and lessors may also be a point of concern for fleet operators and industry stakeholders.