Tennessee House Bill HB2302

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Refer: 2/5/26
• Refer: 3/10/26
• Refer: 3/17/26
• Chaptered: 5/4/26
• Passed: 5/4/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 55, Chapter 30 and Title 55, Chapter 8, relative to autonomous vehicles.

Summary

HB2302 amends Tennessee traffic law to address how violations committed by autonomous vehicles are handled. The bill adds a definition cross-reference for “automated driving system” and “ADS-operated vehicle” and authorizes state and local law enforcement agencies to adopt policies for enforcing traffic offenses involving autonomous vehicles. Under those policies, if an officer determines an ADS committed a traffic offense, the agency may issue a notice of violation or citation by first-class mail to the registered owner rather than relying on a traditional in-person stop or service. The bill sets procedural requirements for those notices. They must be mailed within 20 business days of the violation, include a Tennessee return address, allow payment within 30 days, and clearly state the fine and any separate fees or court costs. If the citation is not paid, additional penalties generally cannot be imposed unless a second mailed notice is sent and provides another 30 days to pay. The bill also allows the registered owner to pay the fine without contesting the charge, and it permits additional fees or court costs if the matter remains unpaid or is contested and the ADS is found to have committed the offense.

Impact

The bill affects Tennessee Code Annotated Title 55, Chapters 8, 9, 10, and 30 by creating a framework for traffic enforcement involving autonomous vehicles and by tying enforcement procedures to the state’s existing traffic offense laws. It shifts responsibility for citations from a human driver to the registered owner of an ADS-operated vehicle when a law enforcement officer determines the vehicle’s automated driving system committed the violation. It also standardizes notice, mailing, payment, and penalty procedures for these cases.

Sentiment

The available voting history shows strong support for the bill in the House Transportation Subcommittee and the House Transportation Committee, with unanimous or near-unanimous favorable recommendations and no recorded opposition in the provided votes. The absence of committee transcripts limits insight into debate, but the procedural votes suggest the bill was viewed as a practical update to accommodate autonomous vehicle enforcement rather than a controversial policy change.

Contention

The main policy issue is how to fairly and effectively enforce traffic laws when a vehicle is operating under an automated driving system rather than a human driver. The bill addresses concerns about due process and notice by requiring mailed citations, deadlines, and clear statements of fines and costs, while also limiting extra penalties unless a second notice is sent. Potential points of contention could include whether liability should rest with the registered owner, whether mailed notice is sufficient service, and how much discretion local law enforcement should have in adopting enforcement policies, but no specific opposition is reflected in the provided record.