The most interesting aspect of this type of public hearing is not generally what people say, but who shows up in the first place. The NHTSA hearing in California, held yesterday at Stanford University, attracted many of the same players as the Apr. 8 hearing held in DC., with quite a few additional speakers. Representatives of people with disabilities were out in force and remain amongst the most enthusiastic supporters of driverless vehicles, with the proviso that those vehicles be designed for full accessibility. Other participants included Google's Chris Urmson, David Strickland of the new Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, and a representative of MADD - Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.
General themes
A general theme for the day and the one point on which there is complete consensus is that the US should adopt a national framework - whether through a uniform set of state laws or via federal laws and regulations - for the operation of driverless vehicles so that manufacturers, safety advocates, and others do not have to operate with a maze of different, and sometimes conflicting, legal provisions. State-by-state air quality standards were raised as one example where that is the case.
An aspect of this call for national standards was something heard as well at the Apr. 8 NHTSA hearing, a plea for technology-neutral standards to allow for flexibility in the development of new technology. One speaker, who was from VQuest and does work for the Department of Defense, used the term "platform agnostic." No one seemed to want driverless vehicles to be tied to any particular technology without ease to advance or change.
The VQuest speaker made a related point that we do not want to punish failure; we want to create incentives to experiment and thereby learn from failures. Only if we do so will we promote a willingness to share data and innovate.
One more point of consensus is the idea of required black boxes, similar to what is on airplanes, to provide data when crashes occur. Some guy also mentioned white boxes, but I did not catch exactly what that was. I admit that I am willing to spend only so much time on this; not willing to go back to the video of the hearing.
A last theme, or, perhaps, more of a common refrain, was the recitation of how everyone, including existing manufacturers of currently non-accessible vehicles, is looking forward to a rosy and accessible future for people with disabilities. A less common refrain, though pretty common, was the mention of benefits to the environment. (FYI: If anyone is looking for a brilliant materials science engineer to work on batteries, I have a daughter who fits the bill. She'll be starting a PhD program in the fall. So proud.)
Some safety advocates have selective goggles on - for good and bad
Some from the so-called consumer safety community continue to drone on about the need for a human driver as though they never received the mountains of news reports over the last one hundred years that drivers have caused over 90 percent of all motor vehicle crashes, the ones that have killed hundreds of thousands and injured millions more - in the US alone, with many millions affected the world over. One of those casualties last year was someone I knew, a fact that scares me each time one of my daughters drives.
What the safety advocates make good points about are needs for (1) real federal standards and not just voluntary compacts among the car companies; 2) required transparency of data about operations of vehicles, interfaces, and crashes and near-crashes; and (3) mandatory alerts for car owners and used car owners, in particular, about vehicle recalls and defects. These advocates paint a picture of traditional car companies manipulating a cushy regulatory environment with lax oversight.
Neat speaker shows West Coast vibe
One biker dude showed up. I admit that I did not catch his name. He was the only speaker who mentioned something important beyond the actual vehicles, which is the people on streets who will not be inside vehicles, autonomous or otherwise. The biker dude expressed concern that self-driving vehicles be designed to decrease worries on the part of, and actual collisions with, bikers and pedestrians.
The MADD representative reminded the panel about human drivers who operate vehicles when they are in no condition to drive. MADD, of course, is most concerned about driving under the influence of alcohol and other inebriating substances, and the representative spouted the scary number 80, which is the average number of times a driver drives drunk before an arrest. The advocacy group looks forward to the day when it no longer has to spout such numbers and be concerned about innocent people harmed because a human in a drunken stupor, or just tired after a drink or two (those are my words), gets behind the wheel.
NHTSA panel gets star speakers
Two rather prominent individuals in the driverless world appeared at the podium to speak at the NHTSA hearing, Chris Urmson of Google and David Strickland, a former NHTSA Administrator, and now counsel and spokesperson for the newly founded Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets. (That name, of course, not suggesting that the coalition has no one behind its metaphoric wheel.) A third speaker with some glamour was the representative of Beverly Hills, California (yes, 90210), Dr. Julian Gold, a member of the city council and former mayor.
Urmson is about as relaxed a public speaker as I have ever seen. Unlike the other corporate
types at the hearing, Urmson seemed frank and conversational. I also like what he said. It's as if he's been listening to me rant on about driverless vehicles. I'd accuse him of eavesdropping at my office and at my kitchen table, but he has no need. He already knows way more about the technology than I do.
Urmson pointed out that we already have unsafe roadways with many, many deaths and injuries. There's no reason, he said, to go slowly and incrementally. He succinctly stated that while everyone agrees that the US needs national standards, there is significant disagreement about the speed of implementing the technology and how to develop it.
Testing, Urmson reminded the panel, cannot only be performed on testing courses (and fake roads), but must be done on real roads. He talked about the successful experiences of Google's test vehicles and he rightly stated that accidents involving those vehicles have been minor. He also warned the panel that if the US does not act to provide a national regulatory framework that allows for innovation, testing, and deployment, other countries will pass us by.
Coalition talks - Reminding me of the old EF Hutton commercial
Strickland announced his new role on behalf of the new Self-Driving Coalition, made similar remarks to others about safety for all and access for people with disabilities, and then progressed to appropriately calling driverless a "safety game changer" and asking for a broad spectrum of stakeholders. Definitely a DC guy. Anyone outside of DC gets the kooties just hearing that word. But Strickland is correct because that is the way Washington, DC, operates best, with coalitions that represent the full range of - ooh, yes I'm using the word - stakeholders.
Strickland, as you can tell, spoke in big tent language, and matter of factly told the panel that driverless operations are "years, not decades, away." Even though anyone with a bit of knowledge knows this, the panel needs to hear it from people like Strickland, who have clout and gravitas. He is about as far from a hipster dude as one can be. Suited, serious, and with credentials that precede him, there is no question that the NHTSA panel took his presence there and his words seriously.
Confession: I have been in DC long enough that I hardly wince when I hear the "s" word. That's what you get for spending lots of time in an office two blocks from the White House.
Town of palm trees and movie star houses wants driverless transit
Beverly Hills is actually the City of Beverly Hills, though it is small and feels more like a neighborhood in the LA area. It is very pretty and wealthy. But it recently pushed itself to the forefront of progressive urbanism by passing a resolution in favor of a plan for driverless transit. Dr. Julian Gold, a former mayor and current council member, talked to the NHTSA panel about first and last-mile challenges once transit rail lines are built and in operation nearby. There will be no new parking garages, so the city is realistically considering options and a driverless transit system seems like a good one. The city plans to host a forum soon as it explores how to go about making this dream a reality. (I can see a logo on the vehicle with nice green and pink hues from the Beverly Hills hotel and a white overlay of a tall palm tree. I'm willing to design it.)
Gold also envisions driverless for seniors and people with disabilities who live in his city. He reminded the panel that parking spaces cost about $40,000 a pop. They are not free. Gold was practical in raising issues such as whether children will be allowed to ride with adults (they do on subways and there's no driver or other official in every car), and what roadway and vehicle specifications, if any, will need to be in place. Gold brought the local government perspective, which is an important one in transportation. Local and state governments are responsible for transit and for road maintenance. He informed the panel that these questions need to be answered ASAP.
And his city wants the full monty of level five, fully autonomous vehicles.
The federal-state division of responsibilities may need to be revisited wholesale instead of globbing on a new layer of regulation onto the old. The Nvidia spokesperson suggested as much in his comments. Truth be told, however, globbing is a traditional DC strategy in a town where consensus is the name of the game.
Award for most effective speaker
The representative of Self-Driving MN (Minnesota) at yesterday's NHTSA hearing spoke from the heart as he described the hi-jinks of family members and a mix of family and public transportation that provide transportation to work for his brother who is disabled. He spoke eloquently when he wondered aloud how someone with a disability who does not have family close by is able to get to work and to otherwise take care of oneself. The intimate scene that this gentleman allowed everyone watching the hearing to share painted a before and after picture that demonstrated the freedom and equality that autonomous vehicles will represent for many people with disabilities.
Another representative of the disability community reminded panel members that blindness and visual impairments are not the only class of disability that will require accessibility to driverless vehicles, a point emphasized in more ways at the Apr. 8 hearing in DC. However, that same speaker, whose name I did not jot down, aptly uttered the mantra of the disability community - nothing about us without us - when calling for universal design to be incorporated in and interfacing with these new vehicles at the outset.
Award for speaker who probably knows a thing or two about microbreweries
The Zoox speaker was by far the coolest dude in the room, with a sense of humor and a let's-figure-this-out-over-a-beer vibe. He also had on a nice hat and told the story of how his company got started just a stone's throw away from where the NHTSA hearing was taking place. It made me smile. He got to the heart of the matter at hand for NHTSA, which is how to have technology experts and government regulators, who approach their lines of work very differently, to come together for the common good. And he used the word traumatized to describe the experiences of families around the globe who have lost loved ones.
A big thank you to the tweeter, Mark Harris (@meharris, published in the Economist, among others), who pointed out that I was wrong with my spelling of Zoox. I was thinking in terms of rhymes with cukes.
Usual suspects
Traditional car companies showed up as well, including Ford, Honda, Toyota, and GM. No surprises there. No news - with one exception. Toyota is pushing for a transitional period, which, when translated, means, in my opinion, that the company is not ready for prime time on driverless and it does not want anyone else getting out of the gate on this any time soon. Likewise for the speaker from Subaru. (Okay, can we really trust a car company with a dweeb advertising campaign that it's cars are made with love? I thought they were made with robots and non-union labor.)
Best corporate speaker award
This prize definitely goes to the Volvo speaker, who right off the bat mentioned that she has three children and who managed to humanize the Volvo corporate goals of zero deaths by 2020 and its acceptance of full responsibility - meaning liability - for any crashes involving its driverless vehicles, which, by the way, will be on London roads soon, and, of course, Swedish ones. (Trust me, London can compete with New York for crazy driving, though I believe that New Yorkers are less about following rules and definitely more about shouting out the window in an endless loud back and forth with pedestrians, except above Mitdtown, where there is less and less traffic.)
If you would like to watch the Apr. 8 hearing, here is the video. I suspect the video of the Apr. 27 hearing will be available soon.
In case anyone wants more of a say, NHTSA will be accepting public comments until May 9, the day after Mother's Day.
No comments:
Post a Comment