The Trump Administration Waives Obscure Safety Rule Blocking Driverless Trucks
Federal safety regulators have granted driverless truck company Aurora's requested waiver of the warning triangle rule that had acted as a de facto requirement for human drivers in autonomous trucks.
Amid the ongoing shutdown drama, federal transportation officials quietly relaxed an obscure safety regulation that has been stymying the rollout of driverless trucks.
On October 9, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) granted driverless trucking company Aurora's request for a waiver to the federal government's safety triangle rule, which requires that roadside safety placards be placed around disabled trucks.
This seemingly simple rule has acted as a de facto ban on autonomous trucking operations, as a human is needed to place those warning triangles on the road.
The FMCSA's waiver gives Aurora permission to instead use cab-mounted warning beacons to alert passing drivers to disabled trucks on the road.
While a limited and temporary measure, the autonomous vehicle industry is celebrating the waiver as a major step forward for the nascent industry.
"This obscure federal regulation is something I think most people in this industry had never heard of until they found out it potentially poses a problem for their new driverless trucks," says Marc Scribner, a transportation policy researcher at the Reason Foundation (which publishes this website). "This is following the appropriate course of action. These waivers in order to allow new technologies and practices that may not meet legacy requirements."
The fight over the warning triangle rule stretches back two years and has pitted the autonomous vehicle industry against unionized transportation workers who oppose the rollout of driverless vehicles.
Aurora, alongside Waymo's driverless trucking division, first requested a waiver from the rule from the Biden administration in 2023, citing their own studies showing that drivers were just as apt to slow down for cab-mounted warning beacons.
That provoked fierce opposition from unions, who cast doubt on the companies' studies and objected to the very idea of driverless trucks on America's roads.
On the state level, the Teamster union has proposed a number of failed bills that would require "human safety operators" in larger commercial vehicles.
This was enough to convince the Biden administration's FMCSA, which rejected Aurora and Waymo's waiver requests on the grounds that the companies had failed to prove that cab-mounted beacons would be as safe as road-placed warning triangles.
"The reason for denying Aurora and Waymo's petition was that they didn't have any evidence that it would be an equivalent level of safety or better. But then they say the existing standard doesn't have any evidence to support it," said Scribner to Reason back in September.
This irony was not lost on Aurora and Waymo, which sued the Biden administration in January on the grounds that the data they provided in favor of cab-mounted beacons was far more comprehensive than anything the administration could offer to support the superiority of warning triangles.
To the disappointment of some within the autonomous vehicle industry, the Trump administration continued to fight those lawsuits and refused to grant the requested waivers. This raised some fears that the Trump administration, too, would end up siding with unionized truck drivers over the autonomous vehicle industry.
In early October, the Trump administration's nominee to head FMCSA, Derek Barrs, was finally confirmed by the Senate.
The following week, Barrs' FMCSA granted Aurora its requested waiver. The company has since moved to dismiss its lawsuit against the administration.
Aurora's waiver is temporary and will need to be reapproved every three months. It also requires the company to collect data on the efficacy of cab-mounted warning beacons.
The terms of the waiver also provide for other companies to receive their own waivers, provided they abide by the same terms.
This additional data could provide the evidence that Congress needs to more permanently amend the safety triangle rule when it considers a surface transportation reauthorization bill next year.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Can’t wait for the first of these to get hacked by some foreign power where they get to play GTA on real roads.
No waivers should be given. If indeed cab mounted beacons are just as good then the entire rule should be scrapped via the proper processes. If cab mounted beacons are not good enough, then the rule should remain. My feeling is that truck mounted warning lights would work just fine, if not better.
Oh oh, I'm in agreement, sort of. It should be possible to challenge the rule just for having no evidence to justifying it in the first place.
And ^ that too!
This.
This has been the rule for decades, is not obscure and in fact is part of the CDL test. "What type of fire extinguisher are you required to carry"? "What distance in front and behind the vehicle are triangles to be placed" is part of every test. All trucks must carry triangles/flares/fusios and fire extinguishers. Period. Every trucking company and driver knows this. The argument is that in the case of an emergency breakdown the law requires triangles or flares to be placed in front and behind the vehicle and a driverless truck can't do that. This is why Aurora is asking for a temporary waiver to the rule.
There should be a rule that requires trucking companies to hire only English speaking Americans and not ILLEGAL ALIENS who can't read or speak English.
Oklahoma just recently arrested 91 ILLEGAL ALIENS with bogus CDLs out of California and New York. The truck were seized and impounded.
Now go after the companies that hired them and the lackeys who issued the bogus CDLs.
No, it is not a de factor ban on autonomous trucking. It's a minor hassle for Aurora to figure out a solution. Here. I'll help.
The rule does not, in fact, require that a human place the warning triangles. It mentions the driver, but nothing in the rule requires that the driver be human either.
So what is Aurora's problem aside from a lack of imagination?
Aurora came up with a solution to a different problem, a shortage of drivers' hours, and their solution was fucking drones (i.e. autonomous freight trucks). It seems to me that drones are Aurora's natural solution to the Emergency Warning Devices rule(s).
Three little drones, part of an "Automated Emergency Warning System" (AEWS), could easily be deployed by the software "driver" of the vehicle that navigate to the determined three locations and deploy on-board, approved signaling devices. Hell, I'd even over-engineer the AEWS to automatically update Waze (and any other similar navigation devices/apps), (regulations permitting) broadcast a warning on a preset CB channel every five or ten minutes, and report the stopped vehicle to local traffic authorities.
Don't give Aurora special exceptions because Aurora can't fucking figure out how to drone.
Good points but pretty much every vehicle on the road is already equipped with emergency flashers and I think every state has move over laws. I drove a semi for 15 years and, now retired, I drove 1600 miles last weekend in a four wheeler. A vehicle on the shoulder is no surprise to anyone and the flashers should be all that's required. The triangle rule has been around since before vehicles had emergency flashers. Just abolish the rule and everyone will be better off.
No argument there.
I'm just annoyed at the fallacious, disingenuous even(?), assertion that a human is required to comply with the rule and that Aurora -- what amounts to a drone company -- isn't smart enough to already have a drone solution that makes the entire thing moot.
Yeah the mystery is that apparently the driverless truck manufacturers didn't know that this ancient rule existed.
That's ridiculous. The triangles and distance in front and behind of the broken down commercial vehicle are there in case the truck breaks down on a hill, curved road etc. You can put the triangles out far enough away to give warning to oncoming traffic.
That's an interesting point. I think it's assumed the driver will not be someones pet dog or gerbil but human. It doesn't say that, though so if Aurora can figure out how to place triangles a few hundred feet away from a truck without a human involved I guess they are ok. I'd like to see that.
This rule is not obscure to human drivers. Every commercial semi truck has to carry triangles and a driver that can't produce them during a roadside inspection will be cited for a violation. But the genius EV truck designers are shocked when they realize that FMCSA actually has rules. And unions represent a tiny fraction of truck drivers. You really have to get this Teamster thing out of your head. They haven't been relevant since Jimmy Hoffa. I'm fully in favor of eliminating the triangle rule but this looks like a carve out for well heeled investors. Will the rule be abolished for human drivers? If so what will it cost to retrofit the millions of trucks out there with beacons? Will they get a waiver? I seriously doubt that this rule will actually go away and drivers will be dodging 4 wheelers running at 80 mph while walking 200 feet down the interstate for a long time to come. But yeah driverless trucks are far more important so carry on.
I would like to doubt that the existing rule would go away, suddenly forcing every trucking company to retrofit their carriers to whatever the new requirements might be. It would be trivial to amend the rule to allow for alternatives in addition to, or in lieu of, the existing standard.
However much I would like to doubt it, though, bureaucracy rarely does the smart thing.
Well the rule probably made sense in the 1950s but it is at best superfluous with the high tech advent of emergency flashers. But yes. Trump in his first term was wildly popular with truck drivers because of driver friendly deregulation. He's got a lot on his plate but I suspect that FMCSA will allow both options, retrofits or compliance with the existing rules. Better to just get rid of the triangle rule but that's probably too much to hope for.
Really? They required every driver use electronic logs which required a substantial investment. They mandated automatic slack adjusters on all trucks if they are equipped with air brakes.
Every truck driver knows that you must have 3 safety triangles in your truck along with a fire extinguisher. It's part of the pre and post trip inspections and is one of the first things any DOT asks about in an inspection. This is not "obscure" and has been the law for decades. There are even guidelines on what distance the triangles are placed from the truck. When the first sentence is so uninformed and misleading you can safely disregard the rest of the story.
The unions primary concerns are the same as the rest of the general public. First, driverless trucks will put a bunch of people out of business. Second, do you really want an 80,000 lb vehicle rolling down the road without anyone in it?
OMG! De-Regulating! .......... What a fascist authoritarian dictator! /s
Putin made him do it!
Hey stupid. This was a temporary waiver with conditions attached. There was no deregulation. The regulation is still on the books, and it still applies to everyone else. Others can apply for a temporary waiver, and if they jump through some hoops and kiss some asses they just might get it.
I repeat, the regulation is still on the books and is still being enforced.
That is not deregulation, fucking dumbass.
What happened didn't happen! /sarc.
Next BS excuse.
Is the regulation still on the books? Yes.
Is the regulation still being enforced? Yes.
Were the waivers temporary? Yes.
Are the waivers conditional? Yes.
Can the rules be changed at any time resulting in the waivers being revoked? Yes.
Where is the "OMG! De-Regulating!"
Where is it?
What happened didn't happen...
...because the De-Regulation was temporary, conditional & can-be revoked! /sarc.
It's amazing how 'what didn't happen' can do all those things.
Remember that agency rule that couldn't be conditional or revoked? /s
Next BS excuse.
You are correct and others attacking you are wrong. All trucks are required to have triangles/flares and a fire extinguisher. It is the law and DOT checks for them in all safety inspections. A waiver is needed because it's the law, is temporary and can be revoked at any time.
Temporary De-Regulation doesn't count so it didn't happen! /s
"Aurora expands self-driving trucks route to El Paso"
October 28, 2025
https://techcrunch.com/2025/10/28/aurora-expands-self-driving-trucks-route-to-el-paso/
Listen, I'll get on board with autonomous trucks so long as we round up every foreigner - legal or illegal - with a CDL (especially one issued in California or New York) and subject them to a English literacy test, an individually supervised CDL test, and a minimum of 120 hours of supervised ridealong.
When every single one of them fails, you'll have all the argument you need for autonomous trucks.
Some of these comments are uninformed and plain stupid. 49 CFR 392.22 and more specifically 49 CFR 393.95 deal with this question. All commercial motor vehicles governed by FMCSA must carry 3 warning triangles or 3 flares and a fire extinguisher. Flares can not be used in any truck carrying Hazard Materials so most companies carry triangles. The triangle location in front and behind the truck if a it breaks down is also specified and you must put them out. The union is arguing that an autonomous truck can't do that, obviously, as there is no driver, so Aurora is asking for a waiver to this rule.
This has been the law for decades and is not "obscure". It is part of the Federal Pre Trip and Post Trip Inspection and one of the first things any DOT Officer asks about during a roadside inspection or inspection at a scale. If you don't have 3 triangles and the proper fire extinguisher (5 B:C or greater, 2 4 B:C or greater with a truck carrying Hazardous Materials required to carry one 10 B:C which is the most common for everyone) you will be fined. The fire extingusher location in the truck is not specified but it must be secured. You can't just have it lying on the floor or tossed in the sidebox.
If the author had gone here https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/392.22 he could have read it for himself or he could have called up any trucking company, asked to speak to the safety department, told them he was doing a story on this and they would have filled him in on the law.
People that write misleading articles about the transportation industry and it's rules knowing nothing about the industry are just as if not more annoying than people writing articles about firearms when they know nothing and have never shot a firearm
Autonomous trucks should not be an issue at the moment. The real issue are ILLEGAL ALIENs with bogus CDLS issued to them by crooked government employees. These illegal drivers are a menace to everyone on the road, They can't read or speak English, use drugs and don't care what happens even when they kill people.
Time to make America safe again.