Goals & Resources

Safe Autonomous Vehicles Everywhere in the United States (SAVE-US) is a road safety organization that seeks to create a unified set of responsible, commonsense regulatory guidelines around autonomous vehicles across the United States.

Jump to…


Autonomous driving technology is advancing and expanding rapidly. Tesla reports over 10 billion miles driven with their Autopilot and Full Self-Driving driver assistance systems, while Waymo reports more than 100 million miles driven with their fully autonomous vehicles. Most major automakers have already incorporated driver assistance systems into their vehicles, and many are rushing to develop their own autonomous vehicles.

We need responsible safeguards to ensure companies don’t put underdeveloped and unsafe technology in our cars and on our roads.

Our Campaign Goals

Goal 1

Establish California-Style AV Regulations in More States

California is the leader in both AV development and testing/ deployment regulations. More states should use California’s safety regulations to allow the safe development and testing of autonomous vehicles while preventing the rushed deployment of them on our streets.
READ MORE
DOWNLOAD OUR MODEL BILL
Goal 2

Taxi & Sensor Safety Regulations

Different sensor technologies have different advantages and disadvantages. Other transportation sectors, such as commercial aviation, require a mix of different sensors to maximize safety. Autonomous vehicles (expecially taxis) should also be required to use a comprehensive mix of sensors, such as cameras, radar, and lidar.
READ MORE
DOWNLOAD OUR MODEL BILL
Goal 3

Establish Manufacturer Crash Liability and Mandatory Crash Reporting​

Driver assistance systems are involved in hundreds of crashes per year but are subject to virtually no state-level oversight. States should create a public database of these crashes and ensure that vehicle manufacturers are held liable when their systems break traffic laws and cause collisions.
READ MORE
DOWNLOAD OUR MODEL BILL
Goal 4

Close the Level 2+ Loophole​

Some companies try to boost sales by marketing their driver assistance systems (Levels 1 and 2 autonomy) as if they were fully autonomous driving systems (Levels 3, 4, and 5 autonomy). When drivers mistakenly believe their cars are fully self-driving, they pay less attention to the road, leading to crashes that the human driver is held legally liable for. States should stop this dangerous practice by legally defining the difference between these two kinds of systems and by passing strong truth-in-advertising laws.
READ MORE
DOWNLOAD OUR MODEL BILL

Levels of Autonomous Driving

There are two basic categories of computer-controlled driving systems, which can be further classified into 
five levels according to the Society 
of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 
J3016 Standard.

+ Enlarge

Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) ​

(SAE Levels 1 and 2)
The human driver is responsible for driving the vehicle while an ADAS system is in operation. Under current law, human drivers are liable for any traffic citation or collision, even if the ADAS system is not working correctly. ADAS systems support the human driver, but the human driver must be monitoring the road at all times. ADAS systems can include features like automatic lane centering, automatic emergency braking, and adaptive cruise control.

Automated Driving
Systems (ADS)

(SAE Levels 3, 4, and 5)
The computer is responsible for driving the vehicle while an ADS system is in operation. The vehicle manufacturer is liable for any traffic citation or collision. ADS systems turn vehicles into true self-driving cars, which do not require any human input or road monitoring.

Level 2+ Systems​

A loophole in the SAE J3016 standard is being exploited by some vehicle manufacturers to maximize sales while minimizing their own legal risks.
So-called Level 2+ or Level 2.5 driver assistance systems are designed to autonomously perform complex driving tasks; they can change lanes, get on and off highways, and go through intersections all without any human input. However, human drivers are still expected to monitor the road at all times, and under current law are still liable for any traffic violation or vehicle collisions. Because these systems are often marketed as if they can fully drive the vehicle, human drivers often treat the vehicle as truly autonomous and do not stay attentive to the road. Tragically, these systems have been linked to dozens of deaths and thousands of collisions in recent years. We can close this Level 2+ loophole by passing new marketing and liability laws so companies can no longer blur the line between driver assistance and true automated driving systems (see Campaign Goal 4)

Operational Driver Domain​

All ADAS and ADS systems are developed for use in specific geographical areas and specific lighting and weather conditions, which together are referred to as the “operational design domain” (ODD). The conditions found in the ODD are what defines the system: only once you understand the roads, conditions, and scenarios the system will encounter can you know which sensors and software will be necessary to safely navigate them. 
Currently, many ADAS systems can be operated outside their ODD. For instance, some ADAS systems are designed for use on highways but can still be activated on city streets or in rural areas, which endangers everyone on the road. This can be fixed via new legislation requiring companies to only allow ADAS systems to be enabled when the ODD is met (see Campaign Goal 3 and 4).

Stay Updated

Sign up for our newsletter to get updates delivered 
straight to your inbox.

Goal 4

Close the Level 2+
Loophole

According to the Society of Automotive Engineers J3016 Standard, the human driver is considered to be in control of a vehicle using a driver assistance system (Levels 1 and 2 ADAS systems), while the computer driver is responsible for fully autonomous systems (Levels 3, 4 and 5 ADS systems).  

Unfortunately, a loophole in J3016 allows car companies to blur this distinction with so-called Level 2+ systems. These systems allow the computer driver to perform complex driving tasks, even completing entire trips without any human intervention, but in the event of a collision the vehicle manufacturer can pin the liability on the human driver.

Campaign Goal 4 is to close this Level 2+ loophole by addressing several issues:

  • Redefine Level 2+ as an ADS System: Legally define any automated driving system that is capable of departing a marked lane of travel as an ADS system. Require it to go through AV testing permitting process. (Similar legislation is currently being considered in California [CA SB 511]).
  • Level 2+ Liability: Assign criminal fines and civil liability to manufacturers of Level 2+ vehicles for any traffic law violations.
  • Truth In Advertising: Ban advertising and brand names of ADAS systems that falsely imply that the vehicles are fully autonomous.

Goal 3

Establish Manufacturer Crash Liability and Mandatory Crash Reporting​

Advanced driver assistance systems (Level 2 ADAS systems) currently operate with essentially no state-level regulations.

Unfortunately, civil and criminal liability law has not kept up with the proliferation of ADAS systems, and human drivers (not vehicle manufacturers) are almost always held liable for crashes involving the use of ADAS systems. Further, states do not currently require vehicle manufacturers to report ADAS crashes or crash data to state agencies. Companies are only required to report ADAS crashes to federal agencies, but this requirement was significantly reduced in 2025.

Campaign Goal 3 is to establish clear legal liability laws that protect the rights of human drivers while using ADAS systems and to require all companies to report all crashes and crash data involving ADAS systems to the state.

Specific legislative goals include:

  • Driver Monitoring: Assigns criminal fines and civil liability to manufacturers of Level 2 vehicles for any traffic law violations if the human driver was not engaged.
  • Operational Design Domain (ODD): Subjects manufacturers of Level 2 vehicles to civil penalties and a private right of action if their Level 2 system is able to operate outside of the ODD and if the manufacturer has not defined the ODD as the conditions in which the vehicle can operate safely.
  • Collision Reporting: Require vehicle manufacturers to report any ADAS collision to the state DMV within five days (similar legislation is currently being considered in California [CA SB 572]).
  • Data Deletion: Set a civil penalty of $10 million for vehicle manufacturers that destroy or hide “black box” data relevant to a crash investigation.

Goal 2

Taxi & Sensor Safety Regulations

Most autonomous vehicles in development today are guided by a diverse mix of sensors, including cameras, radar, and lidar (see “How AVs Work” for more details). Unfortunately, some companies are pursuing single-sensor (i.e., camera-only) designs to minimize vehicle costs.

Taxis have to operate in complex urban environments, with frequent road surprises like vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians unexpectedly entering the vehicle path. Driver assistance systems cause drivers to pay less attention to the road, increasing the risk of collisions. Self-driving cars require a mix of sensors to maximize their ability to detect and avoid road hazards.   

Campaign Goal 2 is to make sure all autonomous vehicles use a mix of sensor technologies to ensure maximum vehicle safety.

The following regulations can be implemented via local taxi regulators and municipal legislation in addition to state legislation.

  • Taxi Licensing – Single-Sensor Regulations: Prohibit vehicles used as licensed taxis from activating single-sensor ADAS and ADS systems. Require a mix of sensors, including lidar.
  • Geofencing: Place restrictions on the operation of single-sensor ADAS and ADS taxis, including the operation of vehicles near school zones and work zones, in adverse driving conditions, and outside that vehicle’s pre-established operational design domain.
  • Municipally Owned Vehicles: Municipalities can commit to not purchasing vehicles equipped with single-sensor ADAS and ADS systems.

Video: An ADAS-equipped vehicle with no lidar sensor fails to avoid an overturned truck. No one was hurt in this collision.

Goal 1

Establish California-Style AV Regulations in 
More States

California leads the nation in both the development and regulation of fully autonomous vehicles (Levels 3, 4 and 5 ADS systems). California-based AV companies like Waymo, Nuro, and Zoox have developed their technology while complying with the rigorous regulations imposed by the state.

Around 30 states allow the testing and/or deployment of fully autonomous vehicles, with a wide range of data reporting requirements, testing permit processes, and liability definitions. Major states such as Illinois and New York do not presently have state laws authorizing the testing of ADS systems.

Campaign Goal 1 is to pass California-style AV regulations in many additional states to establish rigorous safety standards across the nation.

Important features of the California regulations include:

  • Three stages of development permits: testing with a driver in the vehicle; testing without a driver in the vehicle; and full deployment.
  • Required definition of the operational design domain (the geographic areas and weather conditions in which the vehicle will be operated).
  • Regular crash and safety data reporting to the state DMV.
  • A ban on misleading advertising of the safety and capabilities of AVs.

 

These regulations ensure that vehicles are thoroughly tested and shown to be safe before they can be used in a robotaxi service or as a personal autonomous vehicle.

These regulations are available online through the California DMV.