No Steering Wheel Legislation in California and Tennessee

California

AB 1592 - This proposed legislation will not satisfy Google, but it does expressly permit a planned pilot of driverless transit by the Contra Costa Transit Authority, presumably the one planned at the Bishop Ranch office park. The bill would permit for a Contra Costa transit vehicle to operate without a steering wheel or brakes.

Tennessee

HB 1564/SB 1561 - The proposed bill conceives of both ORAVs and NORAVs. ORAVs are operator-required autonomous vehicles, meaning that a human driver is present and the machinery (i.e. steering wheel, brakes) is in place to allow for a person to take over the operation of the vehicle. The legislation is specific about when testing of these vehicles is permitted and mirrors the current laws in the few other states that allow for driverless testing.

NORAVs are no-operator-required autonomous vehicles. For NORAVs, the legislation pretty much kicks the can down the road. 

[T]his bill requires the department of safety, in consultation with the department of transportation, to promulgate rules for the testing, sale or leasing, and operation of NORAVs. The rules must establish standards for equipment used in autonomous systems and for the performance of a NORAV that are necessary to ensure the safe operation of such vehicles on the streets and highways of this state.

If passed, the Tennessee law would not become effective for almost a year, until Jan. 1, 2017. There is no deadline provided for NORAV regulations to be promulgated and to become effective.

California in the Back Mirror for Google Car?

No a surprise at all that Google is threatening to leave California and take its driverless testing and business elsewhere due to the state's draft regulations for autonomous vehicles. The draft regs read like they could have been written in the 1950s. 

But where should Google go?

Google (or rather Alphabet, which, we all know, is Google) driverless could leave the U.S. There's a driverless shuttle transit service already being tested - on public roads - with passengers - at slow speeds - in the Netherlands.

If Google would prefer being in an English-speaking country, there is the United Kingdom, which is about to start three driverless pod pilot programs, also on local roads. In 2016, travel to England and hop on for an exciting ride before even getting to a plane at Heathrow airport.

With all of the driverless pilot shuttles and tests going on, Google staff might be in their Mountain View bathrooms and screaming ...

Shoot, we're already behind!

Google is correct to be freaked out. Driverless competition is not only coming from overseas, but from its own American backyard. A small Cambridge company, nuTonomy is right on its heels, as well as every conventional car company and Uber. nuTonomy is promising a more human-driver-like experience. I hope that does not mean more crashes and fatalities.

GM is reported to be stepping up its driverless game with a team that will be going beyond research into actual product development. And now they have Lyft on board as well.

States are begging

Michigan sorely wants to remain the center of automotive technology and manufacturing, even if that means driverless taxi pods and shared shuttles. Ann Arbor is reported to be one of the places Google is either considering or actually going. This story is everywhere and maybe it's just a head fake to freak out California. No one knows at this point, but Google would like its cars to experience rain and snow.

Other states are making noises about wanting driverless. Some seem pretty desperate. That will be Part Two of this post if I get to Part Two.

Lawmakers need to step up to the plate

Like it or not, developers and sellers of driverless vehicles will have to account for a legal system that governs what is permitted on the roads of states and countries. That's just a fact, according to former Google-employee and now Baidu-employee Andrew Ng.

In my opinion, the setback for driverless in the US is that our states independently govern their own roadways, with responsibility often at the city and county levels. A hodgepodge of conflicting laws would be the worst situation. In the next year or two, we need either federal legislation to pass, which is unlikely, or a meeting of the minds for a uniform code of driverless laws among the states. The uniform code approach works well in many areas of the law, including many aspects of commercial law. It would also allow the states and state judiciaries to retain their authority over regulation and litigation concerning driverless vehicles.

Goodbye California, Hello Massachusetts

Dear California,

I told you so. So did many other people. Those driverless regulations are just proposed, not even adopted, and they are already spurring other states into action. Well, liberal, over-regulated, snobby, over-educated Boston tech types and universities have convinced the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Bay State, to put up a welcome banner for driverless vehicle development.

I can see those cute pods in Cambridge, Somerville, and Alston. Frustrated with the Red Line? Feel like coming home in style at two in the morning? Mom and dad of college student might feel more comfortable with the driverless door-to-door service than with junior trying to catch the last train before the T closes.

Sorry, California. You're nicer; you have year-round good weather; and there's the whole Hollywood glam thing (even as far north as Silicon Valley), but you want an actual driver behind the wheel. Oh so retro. Soon, we'll only be seeing those in the movies.

We have beaches too,
Bay State

Dear Michigan,

We counted you out for a long time. You even have one university with serious research buzz and smart people. Now you have MCity. Stupid name, but there's actual work going on. But you are making the mistake that the government's billion or two will save you. Maybe. But here in Boston and Cambridge, especially Cambridge, we're smarter than everyone - and not ashamed to let you know it. Don't come here and try to engage a waiter or waitress in conversation. No Midwestern smiling and chatting. Oh no, our wait staffs will tell you about their Ph, D. theses, their extensive reading and travel. So you can imagine how smart and ambitious actual university people are.

We've got you this time. We're determined to have driverless emerge here in the land of the Pilgrims and the REAL tea party into the big time, so we can finally get recognition from regular people for our superiority. And stop giving us those smiles; it's so irritating.

Passing you on the left,
Massachusetts

Data on Safety Is NOT In

Despite conventional - and my own - opinion that driverless vehicles will be safer than today's human-operated ones, and despite a recent report paid for by Google, the jury is still out on whether and how much safer driverless vehicles will actually be.

Why do I say this when a university prepared the Google report?

All driverless vehicle performance thus far has been:

• At low speeds (Google cars at 25 mph),
• In good weather conditions, 
• Under test conditions (Ford's recent MCity snowy-day experiments), or
• On highways (Audi cross-country trip).

There are some limited shuttles in campus or campus-like settings and there is the recent Chinese Baidu 18-mile trip, but again, these provide scant data of normal speeds in mixed traffic or with pedestrians and cyclists nearby. 

Looks good so far

Though the Google cars and others have been on roads for a while and have good safety records - with no serious injuries or fatalities - and there are reasons, in theory, why a rational machine with better eyesight and judgment than humans, plus an inability to get bored, will be better at driving than we humans are, the real-world data is just not there yet to reach conclusions. I say this even as I am willing to hop aboard a driverless vehicle as quickly as I would walk onto an elevator or a subway. (With the snowstorm coming this weekend to DC, I will hesitate to get into my car for at least a week.)

The article I linked to above, discussing a January 2015 insurance report, did say something intriguing. The insurance report reportedly stated that driverless vehicles will operate at about the same safety level as middle-aged, sober, good human drivers. Assuming that is true and assuming we do not get an 80-90 percent reduction in crashes, that improvement alone (plus that I will read or watch movies and TV while en route) alone will be a huge improvement over our current record of 30,000-plus deaths each year in the US alone.

Alex

This past year, a sweet 24-year-old young man named Alex, the son of a dear friend, died in a car crash. His parents and his brother grieve anew with each holiday, each birthday, each season that is a first without him. Everyday the memories bombard them and I see his mother questioning how she will go on. And this is the experience of more than 30,000 families a year - the equivalent of an airplane crash each day. 

Even though I believe the data is not yet conclusive and even though I believe we will not eliminate injuries and fatalities, I urge on all of those who are working to make driverless vehicles a reality because they will be safer than the vehicles we have today. And I haven't even mentioned the huge ramifications for energy independence and efficiency.

Dancing Together on the Road to Driverless

China - Baidu and a car company BYD to team up to further driverless mapping technology

Great Britain - British insurers team up to figure out changing paradigm for vehicle insurance when driverless becomes commonplace. 

United States - US tech and other driverless developers are energized by US Department of Transportation enthusiasm and regulatory plans for driverless.

Snow Ready and US DOT Ready for Prime Time

A significant accomplishment for driverless vehicles - prepared to confront snow-covered roads and snowflakes falling down.

Ford is tackling the snow problem, likely because of its Michigan base and driverless testing facility, the company is well aware that major markets exist in places that some winters get lots of snow. Think Midwest generally, Chicago, specifically, and the Northeast, particularly Boston, not to mention a bunch of medium-sized markets.

DOT likes the safety possibilities

DOT is likely celebrating with the President what is a big win: Getting the driverless players to all agree to discussing a framework for safety regulation and allowing driverless vehicles to operate on the roads. All of this is just starting, but that fact that this effort is happening now is an achievement. The companies investing in driverless technology and vehicles want certainty, they want to avoid accidents, and they want credibility with the public.

DOT and the Obama Administration want to appear on top of emerging industries and in control of protecting the public.

This is a win win. It also gives the public a sense of security that someone objective is watching over what has been a bit of a race to the finish line. Thankfully, Google, the leader thus far, has chosen to proceed quite cautiously.

Driverless Day One - Thousands of Pods/Vans on the Roads

Instead of the "normal" consumer product roll out of expensive product-to-less-expensive with consumer purchasing and word of mouth leading to widespread use, it is looking more and more like the roll out of driverless vehicles will be a splashy display of product and product delivery chutzpah with lots and lots of the product available on day one.

The widespread introduction will not only familiarize the public with a new type of vehicle - one that is completely driverless - BUT also with a vehicle that is largely only available to the public via ride hailing services such as Uber and Lyft/GM. Ford is another car company that is seeing the future this way.

Of course, if you happen to be wealthy and either an early adopter and/or a conspicuous consumer, you might want to purchase a personal driverless vehicle, but for the rest of us, the freedom from car maintenance, gassing up, car payments, car depreciation, and car shopping - not to mention converting garages into studies, extra bedrooms, or family rooms - will be a welcome lifting of burdens.

So instead of showrooms with a few of the new fancy cars, and only a relatively few consumers affluent enough to purchase them, we will see lots of the these driverless taxi/ride hailing pods available, maybe at first only in a few cities, on day one of the launch.

All we will have to do is pay.

GM agrees with me

I am sure that Uber agrees with me, but now the Mr. America of conventional car companies, is seeing the light. GM is reported to be considering/excitedly predicting that the ride hailing model will be the way to go.

I know there are those who disagree, those who say Americans will not relinquish their steering wheels. 

They are wrong.

Right now, what Americans, especially young ones, do not want to relinquish is time with their personal screens - smartphones, especially. Add to them the seniors who would rather not or should not be driving. Suddenly there's a big market that, in my opinion, will only grow.

Race Is On: Tesla vs. Ford/Google vs. GM/Lyft etc

Elon Musk is pushing up his timeline, now saying that a completely driverless Tesla will be available in two years. Apparently, Musk does not want to be outdone by Google or Uber. Maybe Musk was alarmed by the early rumors of the Ford/Google coupling.

The Ford/Google rumored marriage will be an immediate powerhouse coupling of technology and automobile manufacturing. Ford has been making quite progressive statements and moves of late. The company is applying for patents right and left, particularly relating to driverless technology and connected vehicles. What better spouse could Google desire as it readies itself to progress from testing to sales, taxi pods, and other strategies for selling the driverless dream?

A menage a trois? 

Ford has announced that it will work with Amazon to use the delivery/warehouse/online-retailer's personal assistant software in Ford's driverless vehicles. The software will enable a person to remotely control or monitor the vehicle. Call the car, check it's oil, crash a KGB agent - oh wait, I'm too immersed in watching The Americans.

Yes, yes, I've been busy with other stuff, what with baking and actual office work and real life. But driverless developments literally never sleep.

And another entrant into the race

Everyone - and I mean every auto company - is at least attempting to compete in this race. Here's a rundown of recent activity. It is not complete. For example, I've left out anyone currently saying they are aiming for a 2030 rollout of a completely driverless vehicle. 


GM and Lyft's partnership has gotten lots of buzz. Here's two articles.

1. GM/Lyft partnership looks like a giant "We're out to beat Uber" quest - and GM happens to include in its plans a driverless component as part of it's Michigan campus activities.

2. A different view perceives the GM/Lyft partnership as the first step into a networked foray into the driverless-shared-vehicle-universe.

A European/Asian alliance and more

Renault/Nissan partnership to sell driverless cars by 2020.

Mercedes procures driverless license in Nevada, but the car is only partially autonomous.

Volvo banking on AI software and will be testing it in the carmaker's hometown.

Watch the movie on the way to school

Volvo is also working on media streaming for driverless cars. Apparently, the Swedish car company believes we are all screen addicts. Let's face it, many people are.

And late to the party

Nashville's mayor and Tennessee's legislature are making noises about encouraging driverless testing and travel. Nothing happening yet.

California Draft Regs : Driverless Revolution Unwelcome

California's draft driverless regulations have correctly been described as a step backward for those already testing their vehicles there and for those, like Ford, unpacking their bags in the golden state. Here are some of the gorey details.

How progressive is California if its draft regulations mention ... ?

Use of the term "driver's seat." Isn't the whole point of driverless NOT to have a driver, which would mean there would be no need for a designated seat.

No driverless big trucks and no self-driving interstate buses and no autonomous vehicle that is designed without human driver equipment, such as, presumably, a steering wheel, brakes, and a gas pedal. No futurama designs on California roads.

The devil is also in other details. The regulation leaves open-ended the amount that a manufacturer will be responsible to pay to the state of California for review of an application to go to post-testing use of driverless vehicles, otherwise known as normal use. Really? Does California think these uncertainties will attract driverless research, testing, operations, and manufacturing?

Questionable drivers are welcome, but let's strangle driverless by preventing every conceivable bad outcome

Since licensed drivers are currently free to drive no matter how impaired mentally or physically (unless there's a breathalyzer or other testing device before the ignition can be started), it is interesting that driverless vehicles are required to be equipped with fail-safe mechanisms in the unlikely event of a cyber-attack. So, to summarize: Leave the gun, take the cannoli - okay. Lone brilliant hacker madman who graduated with advanced software manipulation skills - not okay. The first we can litigate in criminal and civil courts, no matter how many people are killed (remember all the times drivers have accidentally or maliciously driven onto a sidewalk full of people); the second is a reason to keep a whole category of vehicles off the road. 

Who's in charge?

What will be the third-party testing organizations? These will be the gatekeepers to any driverless activity beyond testing. They are set to make some money IF driverless manufacturers do not first decide to flee the state for more business-friendly jurisdictions. That is a big if. Right now, the qualifications to be a third-party testing organization read like objectively fair qualifications that the author penned with an actual organization in mind. That's my snarky side coming out.

Lots of record-keeping required, which is probably not an onerous obligation as long as the data can be submitted without being completely reconfigured. Maybe it's obvious here that I am not a data person.

Driverless access as a civil right? Not yet in California

The regulations post a discriminatory definition of an "operator" of a driverless motor vehicle. The definition is limited to those physically and mentally capable of obtaining and keeping a drivers license. And the current draft regulations definitely exclude people with visual impairments.There's also a subtext of access to DMV facilities that are difficult or impossible to access by transit. So forget those too poor to get to a DMV.  

Good ideas

There are some good ideas in the draft regulations. 

1. A motor vehicle equivalent of flight data recorder must be on board every driverless vehicle - good way to reduce litigation, enable early settlements, collect data, and accomplish evidence-based safety improvements.

2. All driverless vehicles should be registered as such.

3. A driverless vehicle may be sold to a museum without a permit, thus ensuring that next to the Julia Child kitchen in the Smithsonian, we will all be able to visit a very early driverless car as well.

4. No beyond-testing use of a driverless vehicle without sufficient insurance coverage for accidents, including serious ones. That goes in the "does that have to be spelled out?" category. Presumably, adequate liability coverage rules apply to every vehicle even the ones we have now. But no harm done in including this.