Comments to NHTSA Guidelines Start with Ben Ross

Comment ID NHTSA-2016-0036-0079

This first comment in response to the NHTSA Guidelines (my summary) is submitted by Benjamin Ross. I am guessing this is the same Ben Ross who headed Action Committee for Transit (ACT) for many years. ACT advocates for transit and a supportive street network in Montgomery County, Maryland outside of Washington, DC. Ross writes wonderful pieces, including for Greater, Greater Washington, and he has had a long career advocating for and supporting transit. Here's another sample of Ross' knowledgable writing. 

I don't know any other Ben Ross in transportation, so I think this is a good guess. Full disclosure: I have been and I think I continue to be a member of ACT. 

Not buying safety of partially driverless vehicles

Ross notes the human propensity to ignore speed limits or to use them as a benchmark for speed rather than an actual restriction. In fact, normally law-abiding people violate the law every single day by driving at speeds over posted speed limits. 

Ross points out that partially autonomous vehicles, SAE level 2, such as the Tesla, allow people to keep speeding and ignoring laws that support pedestrian safety (i.e. crosswalk laws), whereas level 3 and above vehicles are programmed to comply with speed limits and laws contributing to pedestrian safety. He believes that a poor incentive is thus established.

The guidance offers car buyers a choice between a Level 3 vehicle that obeys speed limits and yields to pedestrians in unmarked crosswalks, and a Level 2 vehicle that lets them freely ignore these and other laws. Human drivers vary in their compliance with traffic laws. Those drivers who feel least constrained by laws and regulations and least concerned about safety will have a strong incentive to buy a Level 2 vehicle rather than a Level 3 vehicle so that they can continue to speed, drive through crosswalks, etc.

Incentives for speed and distraction

Ross is correct that a driver in a level 2 vehicle is responsible legally as the vehicle operator - and is obligated to monitor the road. In a level 3 vehicle, the driver can hand over operation to the vehicle itself, or actually to the software that allows for hands-free operation.

I'll quote Ross again because of his excellent prose and his insight about where legal responsibility should be placed.

By freeing manufacturers of lower-level vehicles from responsibility for compliance with the laws, the guidance creates a incentive that will promote distracted driving. To eliminate this perverse incentive, manufacturers of Level 2 vehicles should be required to ensure compliance with the laws to the extent their devices are capable. In particular, Level 2 vehicles should be designed to ensure full compliance with speed limits at all times -- something easily accomplished with present-day technology.

I thank Ross for his contribution to the discussion and for explaining that  incentives are an important element in the future of driverless technology.