Portland’s 2026 AV Draft Rule: What the Redlined Proposal Says About Insurance and Passenger Safety

Key Takeaways

• Public comments are open through 5 p.m. Friday, April 10, 2026: PBOT is taking comments on proposed updates to Portland Administrative Rule TRN-14.34 at pbotpolicycomments@portlandoregon.gov. (Portland.gov)
• The draft appears intended to create two AV permit tracks: Testing and For-Hire AV, while revising Portland’s earlier testing-focused framework for SAE Level 3 and above vehicles. (Portland.gov)
• PBOT is trying to move beyond the city”s 2018 framework: PBOT says the current rule was adopted in 2018 to regulate testing and limit commercial deployment, while the 2026 proposal is intended to address both testing and for-hire commercial operations. (Portland.gov)
• Passenger safety is addressed directly: the draft would require a Passenger Safety Plan covering crash instructions, safe entry and exit, in-ride contact, complaint handling, and prevention and response steps for assault and harassment in shared rides.
• Insurance language matters: the draft requires substantial insurance, but Oregon statutes and Portland”s existing taxi and TNC rules use more explicit PIP and UM/UIM language for passenger-service settings. (OregonLaws, OregonLaws, Portland.gov, Portland.gov)

PBOT’s posted February 2026 AV PDF is a redlined draft, with extensive strikeouts and insertions rather than a clean final text. Read that way, the proposal appears intended to add a for-hire AV framework, keep substantial insurance and reporting requirements, and revise Portland’s older testing-focused rule, while not expressly using the same PIP and UM/UIM language found in Oregon law and Portland’s taxi and TNC rules.

Important note: This article is educational information only and not legal advice. The final rule may change, and any real-world insurance dispute will depend on the exact policy language, facts, and applicable law.

What Is Portland’s 2026 AV Rule and When Does the Comment Period End?

PBOT has extended the public comment period on proposed updates to Administrative Rule TRN-14.34 through 5 p.m. Friday, April 10, 2026. Comments may be submitted to pbotpolicycomments@portlandoregon.gov. (Portland.gov)

According to PBOT, the current rule was adopted in 2018 to regulate automated-vehicle testing and limit commercial deployment on Portland streets. PBOT says the 2026 update is intended to create a framework for both testing and commercial operation of for-hire AVs in Portland. PBOT also notes that AVs are already active in more than a dozen U.S. cities, with companies announcing plans for at least 20 more cities in the coming year. (Portland.gov)

Portland is not starting from zero on regulation. The city”s private for-hire transportation code states that Portland has authority delegated by ORS 221.495 to regulate privately owned vehicles for hire, and that Chapter 16.40 is intended to provide safe, fair, and efficient private for-hire transportation service. (Portland.gov) That broader transportation and negligence backdrop overlaps with the issues discussed on our Oregon car accidents page.

How the Draft Would Expand Portland’s AV Rules

The proposal applies to SAE Level 3 and above automated vehicles and creates two permit tracks:

• A Testing permit
• A For-Hire AV permit for deployment and commercial operations

That split is important. A rule for limited testing addresses one set of risks; a rule for carrying paying passengers addresses another. PBOT’s draft tries to do both.

Because the posted PDF is a redline, some older testing-only wording appears to remain in the document even as new for-hire concepts are added. That makes it more accurate to read the file as a working revision of Portland’s existing rule rather than as a polished final version.

The draft also ties Portland’s process to Oregon’s current state-level posture. Oregon does not currently regulate AV testing through a mandatory statewide testing permit. Instead, ODOT says it uses a voluntary testing notification form and serves as the lead state agency on AV policy under HB 4063 (2018). The PBOT draft would require a signed attestation that the applicant submitted that ODOT voluntary notification form. (Oregon)

When an AV Company Can Move From Testing to For-Hire Service

The draft sets real thresholds for a For-Hire AV permit. An applicant must either:

• Complete 500,000 miles across its fleet under a Portland AV testing permit without major crashes leading to suspension or revocation, or
• Show testing or deployment in at least five other U.S. cities plus 500,000 U.S. miles without an onboard test driver and without permit suspension or termination in the last three years

In practical terms, PBOT appears to be requiring a meaningful operating record before a company can offer driverless rides for hire in Portland.

What the Draft Requires for Passenger Safety

One of the more important parts of the draft is the required Passenger Safety Plan for for-hire AV permits. The plan must address:

• Risks to passengers in a driverless vehicle
• Prevention and response steps for assaults and harassment in shared rides
• Passenger education on what to do in a crash
• Safe entry and exit procedures
• Ride-time contact with the company
• Complaint handling

These requirements matter because a driverless ride changes what a passenger can rely on in the moment. Without a human driver present, clear instructions, live contact options, safe pickup and exit procedures, and incident-response planning become central parts of passenger safety.

The draft also requires for-hire AV operators to provide reasonable accommodations to passengers with disabilities and submit an annual Accessible and Equitable Service Plan to PBOT.

What Insurance and Crash Reporting the Draft Requires

The draft would require a permit holder, after a crash, to comply with federal, state, and local requirements. It also requires the entity to provide PBOT with copies of all NHTSA Standing General Order collision reports for reportable collisions involving a permitted AV within 24 hours after providing those reports to NHTSA.

That reporting requirement ties into NHTSA”s broader federal regime. NHTSA says its Standing General Order requires identified manufacturers and operators to report certain crashes involving vehicles equipped with automated driving systems.

On insurance, Section 18 of the draft applies to both Testing and For-Hire permits and requires continuous minimum coverage, including:

• Commercial General Liability: $5 million per occurrence / $10 million aggregate
• Workers” compensation-level coverage
• $5 million cyber-liability coverage
• $5 million technology errors and omissions coverage
• Coverage for bodily injury and property damage stemming from AV testing and operation

Those are substantial requirements. The main question is not whether the draft requires insurance at all. It does. The narrower question is whether it expressly spells out passenger-oriented coverage protections in the same way Oregon law and Portland’s existing taxi and TNC rules do.

Does Portland’s Draft AV Rule Address PIP or UM/UIM?

The key issue is not whether AV operators would have insurance at all. The issue is whether the rule says, clearly and specifically, how passenger-related coverage works. Oregon statutes and Portland’s current taxi and TNC rules use direct language about protections such as PIP and UM/UIM coverage, while PBOT’s AV draft uses broader insurance requirements.

Here is the comparison:

• Oregon’s PIP statute says that during passenger service, required PIP benefits for affiliated taxi and TNC drivers must cover the driver, passengers in the vehicle, and pedestrians struck by the vehicle. (OregonLaws)
• Portland’s existing TNC code expressly requires $1 million in combined single-limit under/uninsured motorist coverage during passenger-service periods. (Portland.gov)
• The AV draft does not appear to expressly use that same PIP or UM/UIM language.

By contrast, the 2026 AV draft does not appear to expressly reference “PIP,” “uninsured,” “underinsured,” “742.520,” or “742.502.”

That does not prove a coverage gap in every situation. It does show that the draft is less explicit on those subjects than the statutory and code language many Portland riders are already used to seeing in taxi and rideshare regulation.

For riders, that difference could matter after a crash when questions arise about which policy responds, who qualifies as an insured, and how quickly benefits become available.

Readers who want background on existing rideshare insurance structures may also find this related post useful: Rideshare Accidents: Who’s Liable When Uber or Lyft Hits You in Oregon?. Our insurance claims guide explains how to document coverage disputes and claim communications.

How Oregon State Law Could Affect Portland’s AV Rule

There is also a state-level backdrop. The introduced 2026 bill HB 4085 would have made AVs and automated driving systems governed exclusively by state law in many respects, while limiting local AV-specific regulation. OregonLive’s legislative tracker shows the bill had a public hearing on February 9, 2026 and was listed as in committee upon adjournment on March 6, 2026, with no floor votes. (OLIS)

Why Portland Riders Should Pay Attention to the Draft Rule

If driverless for-hire service expands in Portland, the legal questions after a crash will sound familiar even if the technology does not:

• What coverage applies first after a crash?
• Are passengers clearly covered for immediate medical benefits?
• What happens when another uninsured or underinsured vehicle is involved?
• How quickly can riders identify the responsible insurer and obtain policy information?
• What records will exist about the vehicle”s operation, remote assistance, and collision reporting?

Those are practical questions worth addressing clearly before commercial deployment expands.

For now, the cleanest source-backed takeaway is this: PBOT’s draft contains meaningful safety, accessibility, reporting, and insurance requirements, but it does not appear to use the same express PIP and UM/UIM language that already appears in Oregon law and Portland’s taxi and TNC rules. After a crash, that kind of clarity can affect which insurer pays first, whether passengers qualify for immediate benefits, and how quickly coverage disputes get resolved.

Sources

• PBOT news release extending the public comment period: Portland.gov
• PBOT automated-vehicles overview page: Portland.gov
• Portland Code Chapter 16.40 private for-hire transportation regulations: Portland.gov
• ODOT automated vehicles page: Oregon
• ORS 742.520 (PIP): OregonLaws
• ORS 742.502 (UM/UIM): OregonLaws
• Portland taxi insurance code: Portland.gov
• Portland TNC insurance code: Portland.gov
• Oregon legislative materials for HB 4085: OLIS