Proposed 2025 legislation would have mandated human oversight, safety tests, and insurance for self-driving cars
Nevada SB395 entered the 2025 legislative session as a direct response to the rise of autonomous vehicles across the state. As AV testing picked up speed in Las Vegas and Reno, lawmakers voiced growing concerns about safety and legal responsibility. Drivers and pedestrians faced real risks from self-driving technology that operated with few guardrails. To address these issues, the bill introduced clear requirements. These included mandatory human oversight, structured safety testing, and minimum insurance coverage for AV companies. Lawmakers aimed to stop preventable accidents and hold tech developers accountable before fully driverless cars became the norm.
Although the Senate approved SB395, the Assembly declined to move it forward. Legislators shelved the proposal after internal debate and industry pressure. As the National Law Review explained, the bill sought to slow rapid AV expansion until Nevada could implement responsible regulations. At Phoong Law, we see how tech-driven accidents impact real lives. If someone suffers injuries in a vehicle collision, a fall-related injury, or a dog attack, they deserve legal protection. We believe legislation like SB395 plays an important role in shaping safer streets and a more accountable future.
Why Nevada SB395 Was Introduced
Lawmakers introduced Nevada SB395 in direct response to the rising deployment of autonomous vehicles on public roads. As self-driving cars became more common in cities like Las Vegas and Reno, both residents and legal experts raised concerns. Without proper regulation, AVs created gaps in liability, safety enforcement, and accident response. Many questioned who should be held responsible when a driverless car causes a crash. Was it the manufacturer, the software developer, or the person in the vehicle? These unanswered questions prompted a push for legislation that could keep pace with fast-moving transportation technology.
SB395 aimed to close these legal and safety gaps before driverless vehicles became fully integrated into everyday traffic. The bill called for clear accountability measures to prevent future legal confusion and public harm. By requiring human oversight, pre-deployment safety testing, and insurance standards, the law would have placed the burden of risk where it belonged—with the companies creating and deploying these systems. Our team at Phoong Law Corp regularly helps clients recover after devastating auto accidents and motorcycle crashes. When negligence causes harm, we believe the law should clearly protect victims and hold the right parties accountable.
What SB395 Proposed
Nevada SB395 outlined a clear framework to regulate how autonomous vehicles could operate within the state. The bill proposed four core requirements designed to enhance public safety and clarify legal responsibility. These provisions focused on placing stricter limits on how AVs are deployed and ensuring that companies developing or using the technology could not bypass accountability. By targeting operational safety, insurance coverage, and system transparency, the legislation aimed to create a safer environment for everyone sharing the road.
Human Operator Requirement
The bill would have required a human operator to remain inside any autonomous vehicle while it was active on public roads. This provision responded directly to concerns about fully driverless cars operating without oversight. By requiring a person capable of taking control at any time, SB395 aimed to reduce the risk of system failures leading to collisions. At Phoong Law, we’ve worked with victims of truck and commercial vehicle crashes where delayed human response worsened the damage. This rule would have introduced a safeguard during emergencies or software errors.
Safety Testing and Certification
Before launching AVs on Nevada roads, companies would have needed to complete state-approved safety testing. The bill proposed clear certification standards to evaluate the vehicle’s software, emergency systems, and reaction capabilities in real-world conditions. These requirements addressed fears that some manufacturers might rush their products to market without adequate vetting. We’ve seen firsthand how improperly tested technologies can lead to serious injuries—and why rigorous testing is critical when public safety is on the line.
Insurance and Legal Liability
SB395 required companies operating AVs to carry insurance specifically tailored to cover damages related to autonomous driving. This mandate helped clarify who would bear financial responsibility if a vehicle caused harm. Rather than placing the burden on passengers or victims, the bill placed it where it belonged: with manufacturers and technology developers. This step would have protected people injured in fatal crashes or complex AV-related incidents.
Data Logging and Reporting
To maintain transparency, the bill also required AV operators to log performance data and report safety issues to Nevada regulatory agencies. Companies would need to share information on system disengagements, collisions, and near-misses. These reports would help state officials identify patterns and enforce compliance. Just as our firm uses timely evidence to support injury claims, regulators need real-time data to assess risk and refine safety laws.
What Happened to SB395?
Despite passing in the Nevada Senate, SB395 failed to reach a final vote in the Assembly. Lawmakers placed the bill on hold in May 2025 under Joint Standing Rule No. 14.3.4, a procedural move often used to table legislation without formal rejection. Although the bill received initial support, it stalled amid political hesitation and industry lobbying. Some lawmakers expressed concern that stricter AV laws might discourage tech investment or slow innovation. Others wanted more input from local agencies and the public before committing to broad regulatory change.
As the National Law Review noted, SB395 represented one of Nevada’s most assertive efforts to rein in driverless technology before it became widespread. But without full legislative backing, the bill remains inactive—leaving AV companies to operate under outdated or inconsistent standards. For injury victims and their families, that means greater uncertainty in determining liability when an autonomous vehicle is involved. At Phoong Law, we’ve seen how hard it is to hold the right party accountable when no clear laws apply. Whether the case involves a wrongful death or a nonfatal motorcycle crash, our team works to build strong claims—even when legal frameworks fall behind technology.
What Happened to SB395?
Despite passing in the Nevada Senate, SB395 failed to reach a final vote in the Assembly. Lawmakers placed the bill on hold in May 2025 under Joint Standing Rule No. 14.3.4, a procedural move often used to table legislation without formal rejection. Although the bill received initial support, it stalled amid political hesitation and industry lobbying. Some lawmakers expressed concern that stricter AV laws might discourage tech investment or slow innovation. Others wanted more input from local agencies and the public before committing to broad regulatory change.
As the National Law Review noted, SB395 represented one of Nevada’s most assertive efforts to rein in driverless technology before it became widespread. But without full legislative backing, the bill remains inactive—leaving AV companies to operate under outdated or inconsistent standards. For injury victims and their families, that means greater uncertainty in determining liability when an autonomous vehicle is involved. At Phoong Law, we’ve seen how hard it is to hold the right party accountable when no clear laws apply. Whether the case involves a wrongful death or a nonfatal motorcycle crash, our team works to build strong claims—even when legal frameworks fall behind technology.
What’s Next for AV Regulation in Nevada?
Although SB395 didn’t pass, the conversation around autonomous vehicle regulation in Nevada is far from over. Lawmakers, safety advocates, and legal professionals expect similar proposals to re-emerge in upcoming legislative sessions. Future versions of the bill may adjust language to ease concerns about overregulation while still prioritizing public safety. These efforts could include more collaboration with AV developers, local agencies, and transportation experts. The goal will remain the same: to create laws that keep pace with fast-moving technology without ignoring the risks.
For Nevada drivers, the next few years will be critical. As AV use grows in places like Las Vegas and Reno, legal protections must evolve to match the threat. People injured by autonomous vehicles shouldn’t face confusing claims processes or uncertain liability. At Phoong Law, we’ll continue to monitor AV legislation and hold negligent parties accountable—whether they’re drivers, manufacturers, or corporations. If you’re navigating the aftermath of a car crash or medical injury caused by failed technology or poor oversight, we’re here to help you protect your rights.
Conclusion
Nevada SB395 was more than a piece of proposed legislation—it was a signal that the state is starting to grapple with the real-world impact of autonomous vehicles. Although the bill didn’t pass, its goals remain urgent. As AV technology continues to roll out in Las Vegas, Reno, and beyond, residents need protection, transparency, and accountability. SB395 attempted to provide just that through common-sense safeguards like human oversight, safety testing, and insurance coverage.
At Phoong Law Corp, we support any effort that helps injury victims receive fair treatment under the law. Whether you’ve been hurt in a car accident, a dog attack, or a slip and fall, our team fights to get you the compensation you deserve. We’ll continue tracking developments in AV regulation and standing up for injured Nevadans in the courtroom and at the policy level. For compassionate, experienced help after an injury, contact us today for a free consultation.