School-bus “stop-arm” laws exist for one reason: children are most vulnerable when they are stepping into the roadway. In late 2025 and early 2026, that long-standing safety rule collided with a new reality, autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles operating on public streets, after reports that robotaxis were repeatedly recorded passing stopped school buses with their stop arms extended.
We’ve explained what stop-arm laws are before, but this article will cover how liability can work when an autonomous vehicle is involved, and the regulatory direction the U.S. is moving toward as more states adopt or refine autonomous-vehicle rules and enforcement tools.
What is a school-bus stop-arm violation?
A stop-arm violation occurs when a driver passes a school bus that is stopped with its stop arm extended and warning signals activated for student loading/unloading. These violations are treated seriously because the risk is not theoretical – children can cross in front of or behind the bus, and drivers often have limited sight lines around the bus body. These violations are also not city ordinances local to Houston or Austin; Texas state law defines stop-arm violations under TRANSP § 545.066. State law sets out fines between $500 and $2,000 depending on the number o offences, and makes it a potential felony if the offender injures another due to the stop-arm violation twice. Importantly, state law does not prevent a victim from receiving damages as a result of the other driver’s negligence.
Increasingly, districts use stop-arm camera systems to capture violations and mail citations to the registered owner when permitted by state law. In Texas, SB 744 created an enforcement pathway using recorded image-based evidence from school bus infraction detection systems, with an effective date of September 1, 2025.
Robotaxis and stop-arm violations in Austin
Recent reporting out of Austin describes school-district concerns and parent complaints after autonomous vehicles were repeatedly captured passing stopped school buses during pickup/drop-off. Fox 7 reported in January that Austin ISD has issued more than 7,000 violations to vehicles passing school buses. Of those, 24 were for Waymo vehicles.
“I think it’s important to point out that, based on the statistics that we run of everybody that received or was issued, a stop arm violation for the first semester, approximately 98% of people who received one did not receive a second one,” Austin ISD PD Assistant Chief Travis Pickford was quoted as saying.
The point that Pickford is making is that automous vehicles will not change their behavior simply because they receive a traffic violation – it is up to the companies that develop their software to make those changes.
How Liability Works When an Autonomous Vehicle is Involved
Even when “the car drives itself,” injury claims still come down to duty, breach, causation, and damages. The difficult part here is identifying the correct defendants. These can include:
1. The vehicle owner/operator (fleet or rideshare entity)
Stop-arm citations are often mailed to the registered owner. But in a civil injury case, the operator may face claims for negligent operation, negligent supervision/monitoring, or failure to implement known safety fixes if incidents recur. The prevailing logic in many states is that, so long as the driver is in the vehicle, he or she is responsible for how the car drives (with some very rare exceptions).
2. The autonomous driving developer (software and system design)
If the system fails to recognize a stopped bus, misclassifies the stop arm, or proceeds despite visual cues and injures a child or parent, the defendent may pursue product-liability theories (design defect, failure to warn) depending on facts and state law.
3. Remote assistance / safety operations
Many deployments include remote support and operational controls. If a human-in-the-loop contributed (or failed to intervene), that can shift the analysis from purely product-based claims to operational negligence.
Evidence that matters in a stop-arm injury or near-miss involving an autonomous vehicle
If a crash or near-miss happens near a stopped school bus, the most valuable evidence is time-sensitive:
- Stop-arm camera footage (district or vendor)
- Dashcams
- Bus driver incident report and route logs
- 911 calls, CAD logs, and responding officer report
- Nearby business/home surveillance (doorbell cameras)
- Vehicle event data (autonomy system logs, braking/steering events, timestamps)
- Fleet operator records (dispatch, remote-assist actions, maintenance/software version)
Because autonomous systems generate extensive logs, one of the first steps for in these cases is a preservation/spoliation letter.
The regulatory direction: more deployment rules, more reporting, more enforcement tools
Federal: crash-reporting obligations for automated systems
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has a Standing General Order requiring reporting of certain crashes involving Automated Driving Systems (ADS) and Level 2 ADAS. It exists specifically to improve transparency and allow investigations/enforcement when safety concerns arise.
NHTSA also issued amendments to that order, reflecting evolving oversight of ADS/ADAS crash data reporting.
Statwide
States continue to pass and refine autonomous-vehicle deployment statutes (who can operate, whether a human driver must be present, insurance requirements, law-enforcement interaction rules, etc.). For more information on the status of automomous-vehicle deployment statutes, visit the NCSL website.
One new framework taking effect soon is in Washington. The new legislation, SB6243, is still in its early stages but has been described as establishing a comprehensive framework for autonomous motor vehicles with an effective date in October 2026.
Practical guidance: What to do After an Accident Involving an Autonomous Vehicle
- Get medical evaluation immediately if a child (or any person) was struck or nearly struck.
- Report the incident (911 if immediate danger; otherwise local police/school district).
- Request preservation of video from the bus district/vendor right away, if the accident occurred near a bus.
- Document the scene: location, time, bus number/route if known, vehicle description, and witness contact info.
- Avoid informal statements to insurers or fleet operators before you understand what data exists and who controls it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a stop-arm violation help prove fault in a civil injury case?
Yes. A documented stop-arm violation can be compelling evidence that the vehicle failed to follow a basic safety rule designed to protect children during loading/unloading.
If the vehicle was “driverless,” who gets sued?
Often more than one party: the fleet/operator, the autonomy developer, and sometimes other entities involved in operations or maintenance – depending on the facts.
Are states changing the law because of autonomous vehicles?
Many states are updating AV deployment rules and enforcement tools; the overall direction is more formal frameworks and more data/reporting requirements.
Contact a Houston Autonomous Vehicle Injury Attorney Today
Stop-arm incidents involving autonomous vehicles can create a fast-moving evidence problem. Video may be overwritten, vehicle logs are controlled by the operator, and multiple companies may share responsibility – from the fleet running the ride to the developers behind the driving system. If you or your child was injured near a stopped school bus, a rapid investigation can make the difference between clear proof and missing proof.
The Law Offices of Hilda Sibrian have served the Houston community for over 20 years. We can help evaluate fault, preserve key evidence, and pursue claims against every liable party. Hilda Sibrian serves the Houston metropolitan area, including Sugar Land, Missouri City, La Porte, Beaumont, Pasadena, The Woodlands, The Heights, Bellaire, Kingwood, Baytown and of course Houston proper. Call our office today or fill out our online contact form for a free consultation.
