Letter in Opposition to NV Senate Bill 395: “Revises provisions relating to autonomous vehicles.”

May 29, 2025

The Honorable Steve Yeager
Assembly Speaker
Nevada Legislature
401 S. Carson St.
Carson City, Nevada 89701

RE: The R Street Institute OPPOSES Senate Bill 395: “Revises provisions relating to autonomous vehicles.”

Dear Speaker Yeager,

My name is Steven Greenhut, and I am Western region director at the R Street Institute, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public-policy organization. Our mission is to promote freer markets and limited, effective government in a variety of policy areas, including those related to technology and innovation. It is for this reason that SB 395 carries considerable importance for us.

Like efforts in several other states, the legislation forbids the testing or operation of autonomous vehicles with a vehicle weight rating above 26,000 pounds without a human operator. Requiring a human operator undermines the entire purpose of autonomous vehicles, so the legislation is a transparent effort to shut down this industry in its infancy. If Nevada approves this bill, it would be the first state in the nation to impose such a far-reaching ban.^[1]

Typically, supporters of such legislation raise ominous safety concerns. This bill itself makes reference to that argument, as it requires a human operator “capable of taking over immediate manual control of the autonomous vehicle in the event of a failure of the automated driving system or other emergency.” But that argument is a smokescreen for the real goal, which is to protect trucking jobs by squelching a promising new industry that can improve road safety and reduce costs for consumers. Furthermore, research shows that the potential impact of AVs on trucking jobs is overblown.

But let’s start with the safety issues. There’s little question that the United States continues to face a serious problem regarding motor-vehicle accidents. As the U.S. Department of Transportation explains, motor-vehicle fatalities had been on a downward trajectory for 30 years, but began an uptick over the last decade. Fatality rates spiked in 2020-2021, but have fallen slightly since then. Still, the National Safety Council estimates more than 44,000 traffic fatalities in 2024—the highest motor-vehicle death rate among wealthy countries.^[2] In 2024, Nevada experienced its fourth-deadliest year on record, with 412 traffic-related deaths—with around 10 percent of those involving large trucks.^[3] Although fatalities in large-truck-related accidents declined nationwide in 2024, there still were more than 4,400 such fatalities that year.^[4]

Federal data show that in 87 percent of fatal large-truck crashes, driver error was to blame.^[5] The causes are no surprise: human error, drunken driving, aggressive driving and distracted driving. Automated vehicles pose some challenges, but AVs are not susceptible to most of these problems. A study from the global reinsurance giant, Swiss Re, reinforces an important point: AVs are much safer than vehicles piloted by human drivers. The report compared insurance claims of Waymo self-driving vehicles and “observed an 88 percent reduction in property damage claims (0.36 vs 3.08 claims per million miles) and a 92 percent reduction in bodily injury claims (0.08 vs 1.04 claims per million miles) compared to the overall driving population.”^[6]

We’re no longer dealing with the theoretical realm. This is insurance-claim data based on a technology that is operating in the real world, albeit mainly for urban transportation rather than cross-country shipping. “After an initial transition phase, AVs will ultimately mean safer roads,” the Swiss Re Institute concludes. “Like any automated technology, they will not be risk free; they will still need insurance. However, on average they are expected to be safer than human drivers. And from an insurance and a societal perspective, that is a development we can only welcome.”^[7]

It would be a shame to negate these potential safety benefits based on misguided concerns about job losses. In its legislative statement on its website, the Teamsters Local 631 in Las Vegas makes no mention of any potential safety problems. It instead focuses on the job-protection aspects. “We’re talking about protecting good-paying jobs,” said one Teamster quoted in the statement.^[8] We don’t believe it to be the proper role of government to use its power to stop the development of new technologies as a way to protect existing industries.

It’s worth noting the vast nationwide shortage in trucking, which threatens the free movement of goods that we all depend upon. The American Transportation Research Institute points to a shortage of 160,000 trucking jobs by 2030.^[9] AVs can help fill that gap. A 2019 report in Harvard Business Review^[10] debunked the idea that AVs pose a serious a threat to trucking jobs: “Truck drivers perform all kinds of tasks, from checking vehicles and securing cargo, to maintaining logs and providing customer service. Many of these tasks are nowhere close to being automatable. For example, there is currently no technology available (or being widely tested) to automate the loading or unloading of trucks.”

Even my home state of California, which is known for its heavy-handed approach to regulation, rejected as too radical the approach under consideration in SB 395. In his veto statement of a similar bill last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom made the following point: “Recognizing that our workforce is the foundation of our economic success, California leads the nation with some of the strongest worker protection laws. Our state also is renowned globally as a leader in technological innovation. We reject that one aim must yield to the other, and our success disproves this false binary. But advancing both priorities requires creativity, collaboration and a willingness to work together to identify pragmatic solutions.”^[11]

The Nevada Legislature should seek out pragmatic solutions to any specific problems raised by automated vehicles, rather than putting the kibosh on a technology that can save lives and bolster the economy. I urge your opposition to SB 395.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Steven Greenhut
Western Region Director and Senior Fellow
R Street Institute
sgreenhut@rstreet.org