Understanding the Global Regulatory Progress for Autonomous Vehicles

The UN's Working Party on Automated/Autonomous and Connected Vehicles (GRVA) has been doing rigorous work in coordinating international efforts. In their recent proposals, they've laid out a vision for worldwide harmonized safety standards through two key instruments:

The Global Technical Regulation (GTR) serves as an international framework that countries worldwide can adopt and adapt to their local contexts. Think of it as a shared blueprint that ensures basic safety principles are consistent, whether you're in Tokyo, Berlin, or New York.

The UN Regulation provides more detailed technical requirements for countries that are part of the 1958 Agreement (primarily European and Asian nations).

What makes this approach genuinely innovative is that rather than prescribing specific technical solutions, the UN framework is performance-based and technology-neutral. They are telling manufacturers what their vehicles need to achieve (safe driving that matches or exceeds a competent human driver), not exactly how to build them. This is exactly the kind of regulatory approach we need; one that allows for innovation and continuous improvement while maintaining clear safety objectives.

The UN's vision recognizes that you can't validate AV safety through traditional testing alone. Instead, they've created a "multi-pillar" validation approach:

1. Virtual Testing: Using sophisticated simulations to test scenarios that would be too dangerous or impractical to recreate in the real world
2. Track Testing: Controlled environments where specific capabilities can be rigorously evaluated
3. Real-World Testing: Actual public road testing in real traffic conditions
4. Audit and Assessment: Verification that manufacturers have robust safety management systems throughout the vehicle's entire lifecycle

This approach recognizes the complexity of validating AV technology while providing manufacturers the flexibility to demonstrate safety through multiple complementary methods. It's a far more sophisticated framework than the binary pass/fail tests of the past, and it acknowledges the diverse applications and operational design domains that different AV systems will serve.

Meanwhile, in Washington, Congress has introduced H.R. 7390, the "Safely Ensuring Lives Future Deployment and Research In Vehicle Evolution Act" (or SELF DRIVE Act) in February 2026. This bill represents a critical step toward establishing clear federal oversight of autonomous vehicles, something the industry has been calling for to replace the current patchwork of state regulations.

Key provisions include:

• Granting NHTSA (the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) clear authority to regulate vehicles with automated driving systems
• Establishing a National Automated Vehicle Safety Data Repository where manufacturers must report significant crashes, providing transparency while enabling data-driven policy improvements
• Requiring robust cybersecurity measures to protect against vehicle hacking and malicious control commands
• Modernizing safety standards to allow vehicles without manual controls (no steering wheel or pedals) when they meet safety requirements
• Mandating manufacturers maintain incident response plans and monitoring systems

This federal framework is essential. Regulating at the state level would be a mistake, and would create enormous barriers to deployment and potentially fragment the U.S. market just as global competitors are accelerating their own AV programs.

Who Has to Comply? Understanding the Scope

Both the UN regulations and the US legislation apply to manufacturers of automated driving systems and ADS-equipped vehicles. This means:

• Traditional automakers like Ford, Toyota, and Volkswagen
• Tech companies developing AV systems like Waymo and Cruise
• New electric vehicle manufacturers like Tesla and Rivian
• Any company that wants to sell vehicles with Level 3 automation or higher in these markets

For the UN regulations, manufacturers must declare which countries they've assessed their systems for, accounting for local traffic rules and conditions. This flexibility recognizes that while safety principles should be universal, implementation details may vary based on local driving environments and infrastructure.

These regulatory developments represent exactly the kind of progress we need, and they're coming at a critical moment.

The global coordination happening through the UN is unprecedented in automotive regulation. The fact that Canada, China, the European Commission, Japan, the UK, and the US are working together to develop these standards demonstrates genuine international cooperation on a technology with profound implications for global mobility and safety.

The SELF DRIVE Act provides the federal clarity that's been missing. After years of regulatory uncertainty and state-by-state fragmentation, we finally have a path toward a coherent national framework. This is essential not just for industry; but, it's essential for Americans who deserve access to this life-changing technology.

However, as we build on this foundation, we must maintain a balanced approach that serves three critical objectives:

1. Enabling Innovation and U.S. Competitiveness

We're in a global race for technological leadership. China is investing heavily in autonomous vehicle development as part of its broader strategy to dominate future transportation markets. Other nations are moving quickly to establish themselves as AV leaders.

The regulatory frameworks we're developing must enable rather than impede innovation. This means:

• Performance-based standards that don't lock in specific technical approaches
• Streamlined approval processes that keep pace with technological advancement
• Federal preemption where appropriate to avoid regulatory fragmentation
• Clear pathways to market for new entrants and innovative approaches
• Recognition that perfect is the enemy of good. Waiting for absolute certainty means missing the opportunity to save lives now

The UN's technology-neutral approach and the SELF DRIVE Act's federal framework both support these objectives. We need to preserve this balanced approach as regulations evolve.

2. Maintaining Robust Safety Standards

Innovation without safety is reckless. But we also need to recognize that AVs don't need to be perfect. They need to be demonstrably safer than the status quo.

Human drivers cause over 40,000 deaths annually in the United States alone. We're setting the bar against a benchmark that's actually quite dangerous. The "competent and careful human driver" standard in the UN framework is reasonable because it recognizes that AVs that match or exceed human performance will save lives, even if edge cases remain.

Areas where focused attention will strengthen safety without impeding deployment:

Cybersecurity Standards with Clarity: The frameworks acknowledge cybersecurity risks, which is good. As these regulations are implemented, providing manufacturers with clear, actionable guidance, rather than vague requirements, will enable them to build robust protections without unnecessary ambiguity. Industry often leads on security practices; regulations should support and validate these efforts rather than creating compliance overhead.

Safety Case Transparency: The safety case approach is innovative and appropriate for complex AV systems. To build public trust, we need clear guidance on what constitutes an adequate safety case. This isn't about being prescriptive. It's about providing manufacturers and regulators with a shared understanding of expectations so the approval process is efficient and consistent.

Data-Driven Monitoring: The SELF DRIVE Act's safety data repository is excellent. As this system is implemented, ensuring data flows efficiently and informs continuous improvement, without creating burdensome reporting that diverts resources from actual safety work, will be key. The goal is insight, not paperwork.

3. Fostering Public Trust Through Transparency

For AVs to achieve their potential, people need to trust them. Regulatory frameworks play a crucial role in building that trust. Not through excessive requirements, but through transparency and accountability.

The multi-pillar validation approach provides multiple forms of evidence that systems work. The safety data repository ensures incidents are tracked and learned from. The requirement for manufacturers to demonstrate their safety cases creates accountability.

This transparency shouldn't be weaponized to create unrealistic expectations. Every new technology faces scrutiny, and AVs will be held to standards that human drivers never face. That's fine, but we should be honest about the comparison. An AV that has one incident per million miles is performing better than the human average of one crash per 500,000 miles.

Success in AV regulation means achieving three outcomes simultaneously:

1. Americans Get Access to Life-Changing Technology

• People with disabilities gain mobility independence
• Elderly individuals maintain their freedom as they age
• Rural communities get transportation options where none existed
• Supply chains become more resilient through autonomous trucking

2. U.S. Companies Lead Global Markets

• American innovation isn't handicapped by domestic regulatory barriers
• Companies can scale efficiently across markets
• Investment flows to U.S. AV development
• High-skill jobs are created and retained domestically

3. Safety Improves Measurably

• Traffic fatalities decline as AV adoption increases
• Incidents are tracked, analyzed, and addressed systematically
• Continuous improvement is embedded in the system
• Public confidence grows through demonstrated results

The frameworks being established now can achieve all three objectives if we implement them wisely.

What I'd Like to See as These Frameworks Are Implemented

As these regulations move from paper to practice, here are the principles I hope guide implementation:

Regulatory Efficiency: Approval processes should be thorough but not glacial. Manufacturers who demonstrate robust safety cases should get timely decisions. Multi-year approval timelines help no one.

Harmonization in Practice: The UN framework enables global harmonization, but only if countries actually implement it consistently. Contracting parties need to resist the temptation to add layers of unique national requirements that fragment the market.

Continuous Learning: Both the UN and U.S. frameworks acknowledge that AV technology will evolve. The regulations must evolve with it through regular review and updating - not waiting for years between revisions.

Clear Federal-State Roles: In the U.S., federal standards should address vehicle safety and performance, while states handle licensing, registration, and traffic laws. Clarity on these boundaries prevents conflict and redundancy.

Support for Diverse Business Models: Regulations should accommodate different deployment approaches. Robotaxis, autonomous trucks, personal vehicles, delivery services without favoring one model over others.

The Stakes Are Real

This isn't just about regulatory frameworks, it's about lives, jobs, and America's position in the global economy.

Every year we delay AV deployment is another year of preventable traffic deaths. It's another year that people with disabilities lack mobility options. It's another year of supply chain inefficiencies and lost economic productivity.

But rushing forward without adequate safety frameworks would be equally irresponsible. A high-profile AV incident caused by inadequate oversight could set the entire industry back by years and erode public trust.

That's why getting this balance right matters so much.

The UN's Global Technical Regulation and the SELF DRIVE Act represent the kind of balanced, thoughtful approach we need. They establish clear safety expectations while preserving the flexibility manufacturers need to innovate. They create accountability without creating paralysis.

The Bottom Line

We're witnessing a pivotal moment in transportation regulation. The frameworks being developed now will determine whether the United States leads in autonomous vehicle technology or watches from the sidelines as other nations capture the economic and safety benefits.

The good news? We're on the right track. The UN's international coordination and the SELF DRIVE Act's federal framework provide the foundation we need. These aren't perfect documents, no first-generation regulation ever is, but they're solid starting points that can evolve as we learn more.

The key now is implementation with wisdom. We need regulators who understand that their role is enabling safe innovation, not preventing all possible risks. We need manufacturers who take safety responsibilities seriously and engage constructively with oversight. We need policymakers who resist the temptation to add layers of requirements that provide the illusion of safety without the substance.

Most importantly, we need to maintain focus on the ultimate goal: deploying autonomous vehicles that save lives, improve mobility, and maintain American technological leadership. Every decision, from technical standards to approval timelines, should be evaluated against these objectives.

The regulatory road ahead will require constant calibration, balancing safety with innovation, and global coordination with national interests. But with the frameworks now in place, we have the tools to navigate it successfully.

The future of transportation depends on getting this right and I'm optimistic that with continued collaboration between industry, regulators, and policymakers, we will.