Today, we’re thrilled to sit down with Donald Gainsborough, a political savant and leader at Government Curated, who has been at the forefront of shaping transportation policy and legislation. With autonomous vehicles (AVs) rapidly advancing and lawmakers pushing for a national safety framework in the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization bill, Donald offers unparalleled insight into the intersection of technology, regulation, and public trust. In this conversation, we explore the urgency of federal oversight for self-driving cars, the challenges of balancing innovation with safety, the current state of AV testing, and the broader implications for society as this transformative technology evolves.
What’s driving lawmakers to prioritize a national safety framework for autonomous vehicles in the upcoming transportation bill?
The primary push comes from the need for consistency and public confidence. Right now, AV development is outpacing regulation, with different states setting their own rules. Lawmakers recognize that a patchwork of state laws creates confusion for manufacturers and risks safety gaps. A national framework would standardize safety protocols, design standards, and performance metrics, which are critical for interstate operations. Beyond that, it’s about reassuring the public—people need to know these vehicles are rigorously tested and safe before they’ll accept them on a wide scale.
How do you view the idea of a federal approach compared to the state-level regulations we’ve seen so far?
I’m a strong advocate for a federal approach. State-level regulations have been a necessary starting point, allowing innovation to flourish in places like California and Arizona. But they’re inherently limited. AVs don’t stop at state borders, and differing rules create a logistical nightmare for deployment. A federal framework can provide a unified standard that ensures safety while reducing compliance burdens for companies. It’s not about stifling state innovation but harmonizing it under a broader, cohesive policy.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced an AV framework earlier this year. How would you assess the progress on that initiative so far?
Honestly, progress has been slower than many had hoped. The announcement in April was a promising step, emphasizing safety as a cornerstone, but the follow-through has been lacking. The framework hasn’t yet translated into concrete, enforceable regulations, and that delay frustrates both industry stakeholders and lawmakers. There’s a sense that the window to shape this technology’s future is narrowing, especially with global competitors like China advancing rapidly. We need actionable steps now, not just promises.
Do you think the criticism that the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration has been too slow to establish national rules is fair?
Yes, to an extent, it’s fair. NHTSA has a tough job—balancing safety with innovation is no small feat—but their pace hasn’t matched the urgency of AV deployment. Companies are already testing Level 4 vehicles on public roads, and without clear national guidelines, we’re operating in a gray area. NHTSA needs to prioritize finalizing comprehensive safety standards and cybersecurity protocols. That said, I understand the hesitation; rushing flawed rules could be disastrous. It’s a delicate balance, but the clock is ticking.
With AVs already being tested in areas like the Bay Area, what’s your perspective on the current scope of testing on public roads?
I think the testing is a critical step forward, and places like the Bay Area are natural hubs for it due to their tech ecosystems. It’s exciting to see real-world applications, like self-driving taxis, gaining traction. However, I’m concerned about the uneven safety oversight. While some companies are transparent, others aren’t, and the lack of uniform federal standards means we’re relying on a fragmented system to protect the public. Testing is essential, but it must be paired with robust, consistent safeguards.
How do you feel about the public’s readiness to embrace vehicles without human drivers, especially with Level 4 AVs already in limited operation?
The public is still on the fence, and that’s understandable. Level 4 AVs, which operate without a driver in specific zones, are a big leap from traditional cars. Surveys show a mix of curiosity and skepticism—people are intrigued by the tech but worry about safety and reliability. I think readiness varies by region; urban areas with exposure to testing are more open, while rural communities might feel uneasy. Building trust will take time, transparency, and a track record of safe performance.
What role can companies developing AVs play in addressing public concerns about this technology?
Companies have a huge responsibility here. They need to prioritize transparency—share data on testing, crashes, and system limitations openly. Public education campaigns can also help, explaining how AVs work and why they’re safer in certain scenarios. Beyond that, engaging with communities during testing phases, addressing local concerns, and ensuring customer support for early adopters can ease fears. It’s not just about tech; it’s about building a relationship of trust with the public.
As lawmakers draft a motor vehicle safety title for the transportation bill, what key elements do you hope they’ll include for AVs?
I hope they focus on a few critical areas: first, mandatory safety standards that cover everything from sensor reliability to emergency protocols. Second, cybersecurity must be a priority—AVs are essentially computers on wheels, and hacking risks are real. Third, I’d like to see requirements for data reporting, like miles traveled and incident details, to build a clear picture of performance. These elements aren’t just about safety; they’re about creating a foundation for public confidence and industry accountability.
How important is it to strike a balance between fostering innovation and enforcing strict safety regulations in this legislation?
It’s absolutely crucial. Too much regulation can strangle innovation, pushing companies overseas or slowing progress that could save lives—AVs have the potential to drastically reduce human-error crashes. But too little oversight risks accidents that could derail the entire industry. The sweet spot is setting clear, adaptable standards that ensure safety without micromanaging every aspect of development. It’s a tough line to walk, but if done right, it positions the U.S. as a global leader in AV technology.
Looking at the broader implications, what challenges do you foresee with AVs operating across state lines without a uniform set of rules?
The challenges are significant. Without uniform rules, an AV might be legal in one state but face restrictions or different safety requirements just across the border. This creates operational headaches for companies and potential safety risks if systems aren’t calibrated for varying regulations. It also complicates liability—who’s at fault if an AV crosses state lines and an incident occurs under conflicting rules? A national framework is the only way to address this; otherwise, we’re looking at a fragmented system that undermines the technology’s potential.
What is your forecast for the future of autonomous vehicle regulation in the next few years?
I’m cautiously optimistic. I think we’ll see a national framework take shape within the next two to three years, likely tied to this transportation bill or subsequent legislation. Pressure from industry, public demand for safety, and global competition will force Congress to act. However, I expect bumps along the way—debates over job displacement, privacy, and Senate resistance could slow progress. Ultimately, I believe we’ll land on a balanced approach that prioritizes safety while allowing AVs to scale, paving the way for broader adoption by the end of the decade.
