The states have and could again adopt uniform legal codes relating to driverless vehicles and technology. Such laws exist for commercial paper, evidence, probate, among others. There is even a Uniform Law Commission that promotes such laws. The full name of the Commission being the National Conference of Commissioners on State Uniform Laws.
Beware: An identically-worded statute in all 50 states and the District of Columbia does not necessarily mean that the judges in those states will interpret those laws in identical ways. Click here for more legal discussion of uniform laws.
Uniform state laws avoid a Congress divided in unusual ways on this issue. Remember that even a substantial difference of interpretation in the state courts does NOT go to the US Supreme Court for resolution; the differences of opinion simply remain unresolved.
Who is liable and responsible?
"The draft uniform law continues to answer the question “who drives an automated vehicle?” with “the automated driving provider.” The provider of the automation is legally responsible for the operation of the AV.
An automated driving provider is liable for a failure to comply with [this state’s rules of the road] during the automated operation of an associated automated vehicle as a human driver or operator would be if the vehicle were not under automated operation.
Here is the heart of the Commission's reasoning:
Similar to how drivers are licensed and subject to obligations under state vehicle codes, the
automated driving provider would register and be subject to many of these same obligations.
More fundamentally, the automated driving provider would be the legal entity that vouches for
automated operation—and that thereby makes an explicit promise to the state and its public.
... But regardless of ownership, the continued
safety of automated operation is likely to require the ongoing involvement of a technically
competent entity that facilitates data transfers, software updates, and technical support. [Emphasis added.]
I believe the public and smart eyes in the professional safety community will like this. The "automated driving provider" (ADP) is the centerpiece of the uniform legislation and the HAV Committee adopts a California-like approach in requiring that ADPs submit documentation before putting vehicles on the road.
Who can be an ADP?
First, this is not a franchise or any-guy-on-the-street situation. The ADP must "participate in a substantial manner in the development of an automated driving system" - a term to be defined in individual state courts. And "submit to the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration a safety self-assessment or equivalent report for the automated driving system. " There's more, but these seemed to both give a good idea of what is required and the thinking of the HAV Committee.
Very user comprehensible legal text
This law is short, sweet and not completely simple, though it is simple in the following respects.
Minimum safe driving distance laws and regulations.
There is no need for a licensed driver or a person to be in the vehicle when it is operating.
Same liability provisions as for conventional, human-operated vehicles.
Feel free to use smartphones, tablets, laptops or whatever. "A restriction under [this state’s vehicle code] on the use of an in-vehicle electronic device, other than a device used to evade law enforcement, does not apply during the automated operation of an automated vehicle."
AV can be left without a person when it's in operation.
Laws covering unattended children, incapacitated people, and pets still apply.
I am not a motor vehicle law expert, but this seems to continue whatever currently applies: "An automated vehicle may not be operated on a [road open to the public] if the vehicle is not properly maintained, not insured in accordance with applicable law, not compliant with a registration requirement, or otherwise not fit to be operated."
Time will tell on power balance
So, the question remains: Will states adopt this uniform legislation and thereby create, without Congress, a consistent legal framework across the country for registration, liability, and operation of AVs? The federal government would retain its current role with NHTSA, FHWA, and FTA.
Showing the successful adoption of 20 Is Plenty in Portland, OR
Another transit bus for Australia - Australia has embraced AV transit service, with Perth having the oldest continuous AV transit route in the world. Australia also has a large city, Liverpool (no kidding), that is planning for an AV bus rapid transit route, with a dedicated lane, to an airport.
Now Australia can boast the fastest AV shuttle in the world. It goes a whopping 30 km per hour, which is just about 18 mph for you Americans and English. Actually, for the 20 Is Plenty crowd, this is perfect. (20 Is Plenty is a strategy for complete streets and vision zero to decrease road speed to a level that is safer for pedestrians in terms of drivers noticing them and in terms of reducing fatalities and lessening levels of injury when pedestrians are hit.) By the way, the vehicle is capable of reaching speeds up to 40 km per hour.
Members of the public can book a ride on the electric shuttle bus this week, which will initially provide ‘first mile–last mile’ services between Adelaide’s Clovelly Park Train Station and Tonsley Innovation District Main Assembly Building (MAB). It will then continue to bus stops on the main South Road and businesses within the Tonsley precinct.
The AV shuttle bus is from Navya. Not to be outdone, New South Wales (NSW) is putting more money on the table to allow for AV pilots.
Russia Wants In
Putin, basically the decider in chief for all of Russia, has turned his attention to AV transit. Quite the scary guy, he seems to get what he wants. Now he wants AV buses. Though cautious and not willing to allow AV transit in mixed traffic, the buses were used near some of the World Soccer games. "The buses traveled just 2,132 feet (650 meters) from Kazan’s “fan zone” meeting point, along a dedicated road empty of other traffic and surrounded by a light fence to keep away pedestrians and animals. It stopped well before the Kazan Arena, leaving fans to walk the rest of the way." Notable is that the AV bus was loaded with 5G capability.
You spend a week away and tons of autonomous vehicle (AV) stories come out, by which I exclude the "here's how the world will change, IMHO" pieces and the "world will end with AV transportation" stuff. My favorites of those genres are the "we'll all be having sex in AVs" and the "we'll all be nauseous with carsickness in AVs," which, if you consider those together for a second, is not an attractive combination.
I will only mention actual news.
United States
Still waiting - We are sitting by our laptops and phones in anticipation of the next iteration of the NHTSA AV guidance, due in July. I personally expect the guidance to be released after mid-July or, perhaps, I'm just hoping not to sit inside on July 4th reading it. I think it will continue along the trajectory of the "let's get out of the way of private sector innovation" 2.0 guidance released last time around. This is not to judge Sec. Chao's USDOT in particular because the Obama Administration took pretty much the same position.
The levels of driving automation are defined by reference to the specific role played by each of the three primary actors in performance of the DDT [dynamic driving task] and/or DDT fallback. “Role” in this context refers to the expected role of a given primary actor, based on the design of the driving automation system in question and not necessarily to the actual performance of a given primary actor. For example, a driver who fails to monitor the roadway during engagement of a level 1 adaptive cruise control (ACC) system still has the role of driver, even while s/he is neglecting it.
Active safety systems, such as electronic stability control and automated emergency braking, and certain types of driver assistance systems, such as lane keeping assistance, are excluded from the scope of this driving automation taxonomy because they do not perform part or all of the DDT on a sustained basis and, rather, merely provide momentary intervention during potentially hazardous situations. Due to the momentary nature of the actions of active safety systems, their intervention does not change or eliminate the role of the driver in performing part or all of the DDT, and thus are not considered to be driving automation.
Senators hear both sides of debate - The June 13 hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works (like roads) Committee featured witnesses on both sides of the AV START Act debate, meaning those favoring more versus less regulation and control over AVs. A stark comparison can be made, for example, between the testimony of Shailen P. Bhatt, President and CEO of ITS America (the former Colorado Secretary of Transportation who allowed the spectacle of the staged AV truck delivery of Coors beer), who recommended that tech and auto companies get free reign, and the testimony of Shaun Kildare, Director of Research at Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, who pointed out how untested AVs are and how we don't maintain roads now, so how can we expect anything different with roads full of connected vehicle technology. Apologies for the awful run-on sentence.
Is concern in the Senate part of the reason for the birth of the Partnership for Transportation Innovation and Opportunity (PTIO)? Though PTIO is touted as a labor-focused enterprise to deal with upcoming loss of jobs, the initial descriptions - here's the website - show a concerted effort to deal with public relations problems that the AV industry has been and will encounter. PTIO includes some big players - Lyft, Uber, Waymo, FedEx, Ford, Toyota, Daimler, and the American Trucking Associations. Interesting that none of the cute AV shuttle companies are in the group. Probably have not been asked to join the team. Right now, it looks like PTIO will only have a presence in DC.
Pittsburgh mayor is pissed - Love this because Mayor Peduto is fighting the battle for every city in the country to control its streets and not be completed preempted by sometimes faraway and antagonistic state capitals. So what is Peduto angry about? The state transportation department of Pennsylvania, PennDOT, will be meeting separately with each of the major AV players in the state - meaning Pittsburgh, where they are all testing and developing technology - instead of hosting a public meeting. Basically, the people of Pittsburgh, whose streets are the testing ground, and Mayor Peduto have been locked out of the process.
At first, after the Uber crash in Arizona, PennDOT appeared to be changing course and steering toward a California-like regulatory/voluntary approach. Peduto seemed to be on board or, at least, ready to talk. But then, like many matches made through dating apps, radio silence. This whole debacle demonstrates that inclusion and taking the time to invest stakeholders (such a DC word), such as major cities, works far better than effectively saying "screw you, not interested in your input." In an instantly viral world, PennDOT should be careful; Mayor Peduto is a charming and passionate adversary if that is what the agency turns him into.
Commercial interruption for Waymo video. Arizona riders love Waymo AVs.
Wicked* AVs in Beantown - Watch out Jamaica Plain, Beacon Hill, Roxbury, and Alston: Every Boston neighborhood could soon see AVs zipping around. Boston is now permitting AVs to be tested throughout the city. So far, that means nuTonomy, which has been testing for a long time at the seaport. nuTonomy is beaming, stating the company is:
[P]roud to be the first and only company authorized to operate autonomous vehicles on public roads citywide in Boston. Being recognized by the City for our exceptional safety record is an important milestone for the entire nuTonomy and Aptiv team.
My message to nuTonomy is to watch out. Those Boston drivers can be aggressive; as a pedestrian, I used to wait for three cars to go through the intersection as the light changed before I felt safe to walk.
*By the way, translate the word "wicked," when used in Boston (or anywhere in the Red Sox Nation states of New England) as "fabulous." Wicked all over Massachusetts - So far, the states that have passed AV laws have either preempted their municipalities out of any say-so for control of where AVs may test or the state laws call for onerous requirements, hoops that would have to jumped through with each municipality. The latter demonstrate part of the reason that a state like Arizona has attracted testing. It's easier to operate when there is one state rule.
Massachusetts has possibly arrived at a beautiful angle of repose for balancing state-city relationships in relation to AV testing. "the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and 14 towns and cities in the Greater Boston area signed a Memorandum of Understanding that will open up their roads to autonomous vehicle testing." Massachusetts, unlike some other states with councils established to study AV testing, continued to meet even after testing commenced in the state. Usually those councils precede and end with a report.
The new MOU streamlines and standardizes the process for companies seeking to test Autonomous Vehicles on Massachusetts roadways. Following the signing of this MOU, MassDOT and the participating communities will finalize a universal application for companies to use when seeking to test Autonomous Vehicles and the participating municipalities will identify locations and roadways suitable for Autonomous Vehicle testing.
The municipalities signing the MOU today include Arlington, Boston, Braintree, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Malden, Medford, Melrose, Newton, Revere, Somerville, Weymouth, Winthrop, and Worcester. In addition, the Department of Conservation and Recreation is joining the MOU in order to make Commonwealth-owned parkways available for the testing of Autonomous Vehicles.
Basically, this area covers the Boston T and commuter-rail universe. Nice.
Nebraska slows down - Despite a lenient, come-on-in-to-test new law and despite plans for testing on public roads in Lincoln, Nebraska will not be seeing AVs too soon on public roads. No reports are explaining the details of why an ambitious pilot for testing in Lincoln has slowed way down, but now the word is that the University of Nebraska will host a pilot on the private roadway of the campus.
Officials in Lincoln had initially planned to launch a driverless shuttle service to carry passengers between downtown Lincoln, the Haymarket District and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s main campus, but a city spokeswoman said the project was delayed and won’t arrive in Lincoln for at least another few weeks. City officials now expect to run smaller-scale tests on the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Innovation Campus to work out any possible kinks.
*In Brooklyn, NY, there is Lincoln High School, Lincoln Gardens cooperative apartment building community, and Lincoln Garden Cleaners. All of you alumni of P.S. 209 and Avenue Z Jewish Center (plus the million nearby churches) know what I'm talking about. And tons of famous Lincoln alumni, including Mel Brooks, Arthur Miller, Neil Sedaka, and Stephan Marbury.
Back to Nebraska, the law is lenient for AVs. Neb. Revised Staututes from 60-3301 to 60-3311 are the pertinent state code sections; 60-3308 is the preemption provision.
Even Toledo - The Toledo in Ohio (not Spain) has a plan for AVs; the "[u]se of smaller, autonomous vehicles is a key element of MoveToledo, a strategic plan TARTA [Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority]." Last week, TARTA's general manager "announced his agency has received a $1.8 million federal grant to develop an experimental automated public transit route. The three-year pilot, Mr. Gee said, most likely will use small vehicles similar to a 15-passenger, electric shuttle." The pilot is scheduled to be on the street by summer of next year. Details have yet to be determined and these AV transit pilots take a while to arrange due to the programming of the vehicles and the need for accessibility, which is an odd add-on for foreign manufacturers.
Cross-border cooperation - On the state/province level, there is collaboration on AV planning. This is in the Pacific Northwest and cross-border counterparts in Canada. The states of Oregon and Washington, and the province of British Columbia have set up an AV working group called the Automated, Connected, Electric, and Shared (ACES) Northwest Network, an organization focused on moving people and goods throughout the Puget Sound. ACES is not an official government endeavor for either the American or the Canadian participants, but, according to it press release, will include visionaries, researchers and other experts. (I have the same instinctive response to the word "visionaries" that I have to the word "passion," which is that these words are being employed awkwardly outside of their central zones of application.)
What is wrong with this picture? This is a multiple answer, multiple choice question. Hint: The NTSB preliminary report about a recent Tesla crash - and driver fatality - paints a picture that is wrong on many fronts.
Tesla's Autopilot system allows for automated driving operations that exceed the posted speed limit on highways.
There was no warning to the driver to take over driving in the seconds prior to the crash. It probably would not have made a difference even if the driver had been alerted in the two or three seconds before the crash because human beings do not jump to attention that quickly.
The Tesla Autopilot system did not "see" the barrier that the car crashed into.
The Tesla driver was not paying attention because people don't whenever they have an excuse not to. In fact, many people allow themselves to be distracted even whey they drive conventional vehicles that have little or no automated technology.
The Tesla driver was not the only person injured, although he was the only fatality. One other driver was injured as well. However, the possibility in a crash involving a vehicle operating at over 70 mph that speeds right into a concrete barrier is that many people could be seriously injured or killed - people who have not assumed the risk of driving or riding in a vehicle with a less-than-omniscient, partially automated driving system.
All of the above.
Photo from NTSB Preliminary Report
Upsetting NTSB preliminary findings show that in the seconds leading up to the fatal crash the Tesla was speeding on Autopilot at 75 mph on cruise control. The driver, now deceased, did not have his hands on the steering wheel. The Autopilot system did not alert the driver to take over the wheel.
Wait, it gets better - or, actually, worse. "At 3 seconds prior to the crash and up to the time of impact with the crash attenuator,
the Tesla’s speed increased from 62 to 70.8 mph, with no precrash braking or evasive
steering movement detected."
Yup, nada. AND the "lithium-ion battery was breached," which means - and I don't have to consult my materials scientist phd student on this (a battery specialist, by the way) - fire is coming. Yes, it started and blazed after the crash, though bystanders risked their own lives to extricate the driver and rescue him before the flames, while he still lived.
And the battery reignited five days later. I mention that for no other reason than to harp on the oy-vey nature of this preliminary report.
Prelude: Thus far, and for the near future, this blog exists in some respect as my personal filing cabinet of topics I follow about autonomous vehicle (AV) business development, models of future service and arrangements, and legal and regulatory issues. At the moment I do not have the time and resources to cover and catalogue these issues as thoroughly and in ways I would like to. Not sure when that will change, but I do feel torn because I want to follow through on my ideas for better resources than currently exist.
That's my reason for why the following is a list and not an analysis or complete coverage of what follows. PLUS - This is not up-to-the-moment. 😦
Read below while considering the "cities-first" approach of an AV planning partnership from the Bloomberg Philanthropies AV Cities project and the National League of Cities. In an American governance framework where cities are often preempted from regulating their street use due to federal or state laws and regulations, it will be interesting to see the planning coming out of the project. So far, these two organizations say there has been a 30 percent jump in cities incorporating AV transportation into their planning.
There's more than a yellow rose in Texas
Texas is growing as far as AV pilot programs. There is Arlington, where the Dallas Cowboys and the Texas Rangers play, which has an AV shuttle operating on game days and around other events. But now:
Houston - An AV shuttle will be operating on campus at Texas Southern University (TSU) shuttle. "The small shuttles, called “university circulators,” will be limited to a mile-long campus pathway and will run at average speeds ranging from 8 to 12 miles per hour."
Frisco, a suburb of Dallas - According to a Dallas News article, Drive.ai will be testing and doing a six-month pilot of an AV ridehailing service that is planned to commence in July. "The service is made possible through a unique public-private partnership among California-based Drive.ai, the city of Frisco, the Denton County Transportation Authority and the private developments for Hall Park, The Star and Frisco Station. They are all part of the newly formed Frisco Transportation Management Association."
The Frisco AV shuttle will serve the general public at an office park near where the Arlington, TX, AV shuttle operates.
Commercial interruption
Florida
Two states with strong conservative tendencies have attracted plenty of AV testing, Arizona and now Florida. Florida, which is a little far from California and does not have that dry heat, has also rolled out the red carpet of no regulation for AV testing, pilots, and operations.
Gainseville, below the Florida Panhandle, but not at all on the water, is getting a cute AV shuttle route for a transit pilot. EasyMile will be supplying four shuttle AVs. Service is expected to begin for regular riders by the fall.
Tampa already has a shuttle and Babcock Ranch, a real estate development creation of a town, has a pilot that is expected to turn public. The town, Babcock Ranch, announced in 2016 as an eco-friendly soon-to-be-developed town the size of Manhattan, is being true to the word of the developers and an AV shuttle is on its streets being tested since January. Some houses are already built.
Viva Las Vegas
Coming this summer to the streets of Vegas to join the cute AV shuttle there will be Lyft AV ridehailing - BUT to run on fixed routes. This partnership of Lyft and Aptiv will build on the January pilot that provided rides during the CES conference in January 2018. Aptiv's Chief Technology Officer says, "Aptiv will work closely with the city to design future mobility solutions, which benefit public transportation and help with urban congestion challenges. The findings in the Las Vegas test run will be deployed in other cities across the world."
While in the Midwest:
FINALLY the University of Michigan MCity AV shuttle makes its debut, after over a year in the works. Ferrying students on North Campus is a cute shuttle vehicle from Navya. Students, staff, and eligible guests are invited to ride for free. Hours are limited to daytime and the shuttle ceases service at 3 pm.
Watch the cool video from Ford about enabling people with visual disabilities to "see" or at least to experience the visual landscape.
The long-running AV shuttle operating in Sion, Switzerland is being taught to cross busy streets and communicate with traffic signals. There will also be testing for making its route more complex with roundabouts as well.
