Establishes certain requirements relating to the operation of autonomous vehicles
Summary
HB3034 repeals and replaces Missouri’s existing section 304.012 governing the operation of motor vehicles on state roads and highways. The bill keeps the core duty to drive carefully and prudently, at a speed that does not endanger people or property, and to exercise the highest degree of care. It also adds a new requirement that every motor vehicle on Missouri roads have an appropriately endorsed driver present in the vehicle who holds a valid driver’s license and can actively control the vehicle at all times.
The bill further prohibits stunt driving, incorporating the definition already found in section 304.145. A violation of the section would remain a criminal offense, classified as a class B misdemeanor, but would be elevated to a class A misdemeanor if an accident is involved. Although the bill is captioned as relating to autonomous vehicles, its text primarily tightens the general rule that a licensed human driver must be present and able to take control, which would affect autonomous and highly automated vehicle operation in Missouri.
Impact
HB3034 would amend Missouri traffic law by replacing section 304.012 and adding explicit language that a licensed, properly endorsed human driver must be physically present and capable of active control in any motor vehicle operating on public roads and highways. This would limit or condition the operation of autonomous vehicles under current law, while also preserving existing careless-driving standards and adding a specific ban on stunt driving. The bill would create misdemeanor penalties for violations, with enhanced penalties when an accident occurs, affecting drivers, vehicle operators, and potentially manufacturers or users of automated driving systems to the extent they rely on vehicles operating without a continuously capable human driver.
Sentiment
Based on the bill’s caption and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears neutral to supportive of regulating autonomous vehicle operation through clearer safety and driver-control requirements. The bill’s structure suggests a public-safety focus rather than a broad policy expansion, and there is no evidence in the supplied record of organized opposition or amendment controversy. However, the requirement for a present, actively controlling licensed driver indicates a cautious approach that may be viewed as restrictive by proponents of autonomous vehicle deployment.
Contention
The main point of contention likely concerns the bill’s treatment of autonomous vehicles: while the caption suggests it is intended to establish requirements for their operation, the text requires a licensed driver to be present and able to actively control the vehicle at all times. Supporters of stricter roadway safety standards may favor this limitation, while advocates for autonomous vehicle testing and deployment may see it as undermining true driverless operation. A secondary issue is the criminal penalty structure, including the escalation from a class B to a class A misdemeanor when an accident is involved, which could be viewed as a strong enforcement mechanism.