Here’s what truckers are saying about driverless truck tech company’s ask for exemption from warning triangle rule

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is currently accepting public comments on an exemption application from driverless truck technology company Aurora Operations Inc.

FMCSA recently requested comments on an application from Aurora requesting a five-year exemption that would allow commercial motor vehicles equipped with a Level 4 automated driving system (ADS) to use a set of cab-mounted warning beacons instead of placing reflective warning triangles or fusees around the stopped vehicle. 

If granted, the exemption would apply not just to Aurora, but to other motor carriers operating Level 4 ADS-equipped CMVs that notify FMCSA in writing prior to operating under the exemption.

The FMCSA is accepting public comment on the exemption request through May 15, 2026.

You can follow this link if you’d like to leave an online comment.

As of April 27, FMCSA received 183 public comments on Aurora’s request for regulatory relief. Many of the commenters raised safety concerns, pointing to scenarios in which triangles may be safer than the warning beacons. Others said that the higher-mounted beacon lighting would be easier for other drivers to see than triangles placed on the ground.

Take a look below for some of the public comments on the exemption request.

• “Granting an exemption for external warning devices would be dangerous for other road users. There is no plan for warning drivers when broken down close to a curve in the road. Other drivers will not be given adequate warning, even when the equipment is fully functioning. That is not a suitable replacement for triangles or flares, because it does not cover all the required scenarios. Exemptions for safety equipment should not be for convenience and should involve a comprehensive alternative.”
• “I strongly support Aurora’s request to use roof-mounted flashing beacons instead of reflective triangles. It’s common sense: high-mounted lights are much easier for drivers to see than small triangles on the ground, which can be knocked over, blocked, or take too long to set up. There is a reason emergency and construction crews already use beacons—they work better. Concerns about “blind corners” are based on unlikely “what-if” scenarios that don’t account for how Aurora’s trucks actually work. Their systems use redundant sensors and remote monitoring to ensure the truck stays safe even in a breakdown. We should be encouraging companies that use real-world data to improve safety. I urge the FMCSA to grant this exemption and let American innovation make our roads safer.”
• “I am submitting this comment in opposition to the requested exemption allowing the use of cab-mounted warning beacons in place of federally required roadside warning triangles for stopped commercial motor vehicles. While I recognize the importance of improving driver safety—particularly the risks associated with exiting a vehicle to place warning devices—the proposed alternative does not provide an equivalent level of protection to the motoring public. The core safety function of warning triangles is not simply visibility, but advance warning distance. Properly placed triangles extend hundreds of feet behind a stopped truck, giving approaching drivers critical time to perceive, react, and safely maneuver. At highway speeds, even a difference of a few seconds in reaction time can determine whether a crash is avoided or becomes a severe rear-end collision. A cab-mounted beacon, regardless of brightness, is fixed to the vehicle and does not extend the warning zone upstream. Its effectiveness is inherently limited in real-world conditions such as hills, curves, inclement weather, and nighttime glare. In these scenarios, drivers may not recognize a stopped vehicle until they are dangerously close, significantly increasing crash risk.”
• “On behalf of Texas Trucking Association (TXTA), we would like to express support of the exemption application filed by Aurora Operations, Inc as published in the Federal Register on April 15, 2026. 
  TXTA believes the in-cab beacons are as effective if not more than the current options in CFR 393.95(f)(1-3). By granting the exception for Level 4 ADS-equipped CMVs FMCSA could monitor their effectiveness and look at this being on option for all CMVs at some point.  By granting the proposed exemption, FMCSA would authorize the use of an alternative method for warning motorists of the presence of a stopped commercial motor vehicle that achieves the underlying warning device regulation’s safety purpose. TXTA urges FMCSA to grant this petition as a step toward improving roadway safety for trucks and other road users.”
• “I am against this exemption due to the various road conditions. Hills and curves are a great example of a dangerous situation where you cant set out flares far enough for a warning with AV vehicles.”
• “I’m writing against this exception. The flares/triangles serve more than one purpose. They alert motorists of a disabled vehicle AND when properly deployed, act as a traffic control device. Beacons can’t do the second part. Reading through a few of the comments so far, I would note that while bright strobe lights are used by many vehicles and even different colors/patterns for different kinds of vehicles, even first responders deploy flares/triangles for emergency traffic control and separation.  Commercial vehicles must be held to a higher standard across the board and when interacting with the general public, we shouldn’t just exempt for the sake of progress. This isn’t a controlled environment like a warehouse. Again, every beaconed emergency or commercial vehicle on the road today uses flare/triangles for emergency traffic control for a reason, normally deployed before anyone else gets on the scene.”
• “I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed exemption in Docket FMCSA-2026-0958. As the owner of a small, three-truck tri-axle dump truck fleet, I know firsthand that road safety isn’t a theoretical exercise—it’s a daily reality for my drivers. Granting a waiver that allows driverless trucks to bypass the requirement for reflective triangles (49 CFR 392.22) in favor of cab-mounted beacons ignores practical “on-the-ground” dangers. Physical warning devices are a fail-safe; they don’t require power and remain visible even if a vehicle suffers a total electrical failure. I stand with the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) in their concern that the public should not have to take a tech company’s word for it when it comes to safety; we need independent, third-party validation before removing proven safety redundancies.
  Furthermore, granting this exemption creates a dangerous regulatory double standard. Small-business owners like myself are held to the highest safety standards, and we are required to follow every line of the FMCSA regulations to protect the public. Carving out special rules for well-funded tech companies is a slap in the face to professional drivers. As OOIDA has consistently argued, if human drivers are required to manually place triangles to ensure the safety of a stopped vehicle, autonomous systems should be held to an even higher standard of redundancy, not given a pass because it is “inconvenient” for their business model. Finally, we cannot ignore the “edge cases” common in vocational trucking. In environments with heavy dust, fog, or complex terrain, a roof-mounted light can easily be lost in the background, whereas ground-level triangles provide a clear, standardized signal to approaching motorists. Without a level playing field for all carriers and a commitment to data transparency, this exemption puts every driver on the road at risk. I urge the FMCSA to deny this request and maintain the proven safety requirements that protect my drivers and my community.”

Earlier this year, FMCSA announced it would move ahead with a study examining the effectiveness of commercial vehicle drivers deploying warning devices like triangles on overall roadway safety.