I was there on April 8. Not glamorous, just a federal agency building with tighter security than any airport - with the exception of getting into Israel. A decent number of attendees showed up, about 75. The panelists, on their dais, listening all day, mostly appeared bored, but they perked up at times. I suspect that NHTSA already knows what it wants to do; now it is figuring out who will be on what side and what possible public ranting will go on.
Who was there?
A big surprise was the outsize presence of the disability community and the call for equitable - and universally designed - transportation choices and interfaces for people with all kinds of disabilities. The representatives of the disability community were the most enthusiastic supporters of driverless vehicles and government support, or at least avoiding government from getting in the way of technology development and deployment.
In fact, the only speakers who contemplated the possibilities of driverless and the complete remake of how vehicles are designed were speakers from the disability community.
This was a different crowd than I usually see at DOT events because I don't do anything professional related to cars. There were lots of car people, specifically representatives of auto makers, both domestic and Honda, as well as auto-related association folks and safety people. A very early Mad Men crowd - overwhelmingly white, older, in suits. Mostly male. Not the look of a Bernie gathering.
We all agree that ...
Technology neutral was a given, much mentioned, and without any argument or debate. No wants guidance or regulation that is only good for today's gizmos and software.
However US regulation is accomplished, let it be consistent across the country. No one wants a patchwork of state laws, regulations, and policies. BUT - the question of whether guidance, voluntary standards, or regulations should be used is a different story. There were a couple of people who spoke who did not exactly trust that guidance or voluntary standards are sufficient to achieve safety. One speaker was a NHTSA administrator during the Carter Administration. She did not seem to trust DOT coziness with auto or tech companies at all.
Lots of people saying ...
Words like "incremental," "AV may be decades away," and "for the foreseeable future ... we want driver controls," passed many lips. It's as if none of these people have driven with either a teenager or a person in his or her 80s who can't believe it's time to give up the car keys. They all seem to think that a human is the safety valve.
Some of the calls for incrementalism came from companies that are not ready to go driverless themselves, but even Consumer Watchdog is all in a dither about how Google cars are not 100 percent perfect. Seems like its driverless accidents have been pretty minor compared to humans behind the wheel.
Some suggested, but did not go so far as to state outright, that driverless vehicles should be completely safe before we allow people to ride in them, purchase them, or otherwise routinely use them.
What news do these people read?
I'm not getting this attachment to the human driver. HELLO! Humans are the ones causing 95 percent of all crashes, remember the ones killing 30,000-plus people a year and injuring hundreds of thousands a year just in the US? Millions of people across the world are harmed each year simply because they are walking across a street, biking on a country road, or rushing down a highway to get somewhere on time. If driverless technology can do better, and I suspect it already can, then throw those lethal keys to the ignition away. Get a life. Watch a movie. Read a book. Irritate your fellow passengers by having a long phone conversation. Listen to a podcast. Stare out the window. Nap. Why drive?
Lots of paranoia
There was a lot said about fear of privacy violations and hacking. One person went on and on about terrorists taking over driverless vehicles. Excuse me, but don't they do that now? Terrorists have the capability and currently inflict lots of damage without any need for advanced technology. Those Boston marathon murderers did well, so to speak, without any fancy hardware or software.
What I said
I spoke on behalf of the Community Transportation Association of America, my employer, about universal design and access, specifically about vehicle design and interfaces with software. I also called for attention to access to shared-use driverless modes where people will arrive by foot or bike to meeting points, thus requiring safe pedestrian and bike infrastructure.
I spoke on behalf of myself when I asked that partially autonomous vehicles be studied in terms of this assumption that drivers will be immediately capable of taking over a vehicle during a nap, while reading, or while on the 100th trip on the same boring road.
Let unsaid
What I left unsaid was a dedication of my remarks and my work to the memory of 24-year-old Alex Federman, who perished late last spring in yet another car crash. The grief that Alex's family has and continues to experience is a needless tragedy in itself.
Next NHTSA hearing on Apr. 27 at Stanford University.
No comments:
Post a Comment