A collection of interesting news as I try to work my way through work crunch time. Stuff is too exciting to ignore, though I will let others cover the neat US developments this week in both the House and the Senate. It's quite jarring, actually, to see bipartisan consensus on any issue. Watch out - Samantha Bee's brain might explode. Consensus is here, though details are not set on legislation and job-loss ramifications of driverless transportation have yet to hit the inner sanctum of Donald Administration.
Subaru gets driverless permit in California. Unknown when exactly the company plans to put self-driving vehicles on the road.
Following up on Super Bowl mobility ad
Ford is spending $1 BILLION for Argo to proceed with driverless AI. Investing in same musical chairs game, same kind of AI partner as GM/Cruise deal. This rounds out Ford's perfect choice to go for MaaS - Mobility as a Service - with investment in Chariot, a micro-transit service that started in San Fransisco. That was a mere $65 million acquisition. Chump change apparently. More here on Ford/Argo deal.
Drive.AI video from Mountain View: Driving in the rain at night - no problem. Don't they believe in pedestrians? Walking? Warning: Very annoying music. Credit to TechCrunch for a good article and the video.
Singapore, which is already hosting a driverless pilot, is moving ahead in the legal realm as well. A new law in Singapore will allow for testing of autonomous vehicles on public roads. This paves the way, no pun intended, for the Land Transport Authority (quite roughly translated as a department of transportation) to regulate the where, when, design, and required data, among other aspects, of testing initiatives. Companies doing the testing - and the humans inside the testing vehicles - would be exempt from the road safety law that applies to conventional vehicles and their human drivers. The new law will remain in effect for five years to reflect the reality that the fast pace of this emerging industry will require legal changes. Though the law contemplates the possibility of no human being present in the vehicle, if and only if certain ducks are lined up in a row, until then violation-free, licensed humans must be on board to monitor and take over control if necessary. Elsewhere in Asia Okay, presume my knowledge of geography is limited to the five boroughs of New York City and then sketchy for the US, Canada, and Western Europe. It's not quite there for Asia at all. So, elsewhere in Asia, this time in South Korea (the Korea without the crazy person at the helm) there is a new law applicable to driverless vehicles testing. The Korea Automobile Management Act permits testing on public roads and does away with the two-human requirement for vehicles being tested. "Safety zones" are exempt. I'm wondering if that's analogous to the US drug-free and reduced speed limits near schools, but I have not one iota of South Korean legal knowledge except for this bit of information. (The linked article from Forbes goes into much more detail about driverless developments in this country.)
No need for person with a license ...
and US regulatory options to ponder
I read what turned out to be somewhat old article - a few months in the past - about California's revised draft regulation that self-driving vehicles deemed sufficiently capable and safe (licensed?) by the federal government - through NHTSA? - will not require the presence of a human licensed driver when these vehicles are operating on public roads. Despite the timing of the article, it offers a thoughtful exploration of the need for uniformity among US states and the possibility of federal preemption.
For all of you who are not constitutional scholars and who have not attended law school, preemption refers to those matters on which the US Constitution allows for national law to govern and even to, shall I say it, trump (overrule) state laws. Interstate commerce is the most prominent subject of preemption in action, but often, instead of preemption, we see state cooperation in the adoption of uniform laws, the most famous of which is the Uniform Commercial Code. Translation: There is more than one regulatory option for achieving a seamless national driverless transportation network.
Commercial interruption: Driverless Chevy Bolt called Albatross on streets of San Fransisco. No Michael Douglas or Karl Malden and that's a weird name for a car. Yes, here is the opening for the 70s TV show.
Georgia on my mind
A Georgia legislator has introduced a bill that would govern autonomous vehicles and would not require the presence of a human driver. HR 248 (click further for full text) considers the "manufacturer" to be the driver when the vehicle is in automated mode. It also contemplates vehicles being in self-driving mode or being operated at times by a human person - as opposed to US Supreme Court decisions that define "person" to include corporations.
The Georgia bill assumes a leading role, as other state laws do, for NHTSA (the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) for submission of equipment and software documentation. Automated vehicle testing in Georgia would be allowed, but manufacturers would be required to submit an annual report about crashes and vehicle failures. When crashes or failures occur, systems are required that would automatically generate a report to a local police department. There would be no obligation for the automated vehicle itself to communicate with the owner of another vehicle or damaged property. Local police will use forms generated at the state Department of Transportation for crash and failure reporting.
Automated car = automated crash reporting
What does this mean? Georgia would require that automated vehicles be equipped with crash reporting technology and a data recording system. Oh, and if you are driving a vehicle made before 1965, you do not have to wear a seatbelt in Georgia. I'll tell my parents to get back their red '57 Chevy. (Yes, they actually had one and drove it for 11 years. We were the only family with such an old car.) Occupants of automated vehicles will be required to wear seat belts.
For a passenger, and, presumably, for an employee of the company testing the vehicle, there would be a waiver of the right to privacy in data generated. Towns, cities, counties, or other jurisdictions below the Georgia state level would not be empowered to impose fees or restrictions on testing or testing companies relating to testing in their jurisdictions. The Georgia bill also contains a bunch of provisions meant to decrease distracted driving - by humans - and to penalize driving away without paying for gas.
This article explains the considerations at play in the Peach State and why legislators are acting quickly.
Florida tries to say ahead on law
A state legislator in Florida introduced HB 725, a driverless bill, this week. The bill would deem the "autonomous technology" to be the vehicle operator and a human would not be required to be physically present in a vehicle or to be licensed in connection with the operation of an autonomous vehicle. In contrast to Georgia, in terms of reporting any crashes or other incidents, Florida puts the responsibility in human hands for reporting. Georgia is assuming that technology can and will take care of that task.
Florida's legislation would require the vehicle technology to alert humans, licensed or not, that failure is imminent and the bill would mandate that the vehicle safely be be equipped to travel to a safe spot where it will shut off. However, the bill also contemplates that a licensed human could take over operation in the situation of such a failure. The bill's text has details.
Tennessee bill introduced
Another piece of proposed legislation in a US state that contemplates vehicles without any licensed humans, or any humans, aboard. The legislation, HB 1131, was introduced this week in Tennessee. Like bills in other states, compliance with vehicle safety laws and some kind of getting-out-of-trouble mode would be required so that the driverless vehicle would quietly transport itself to a safe space before wreaking havoc in the middle of a road. Similar to Florida, when in automated mode, the autonomous technology will be deemed the driver. As you can see, when it comes to legislation, plagarism is allowed and desirable so that one can cross state lines without problems.
To protect the automotive industry, the bill would exempt car companies from liability if vehicles were retrofitted with equipment and software that transforms it into a self-driving vehicle. Therefore, even if the company knows or should know that people are right and left dramatically altering their conventional vehicles, the auto manufacturers would win a lawsuit automatically.
Likewise for software manufacturers whose code is edited by anyone other than the company without its consent.
New Zealand ambition for driverless transit
From the land where the Lord of the Rings trilogy was filmed comes an ambitious local representative on a regional council who sees the transformative power of driverless public transit for Tauranga, a city down in New Zealand. Transit there is not currently attracting much ridership, but Andrew von Dadelszen is pushing his region to plan now for the inevitable transportation revolution. There is a cost-conscious angle at work here: von Dadelszen sees driverless buses as being a cheap and effective alternative to light rail, which takes years of planning and lots of money to put into place.
Driverless candy Uber and others are investing in flying driverless commuter transportation. Just hired for the ride hailing behemoth - still waiting to make a profit - is a former NASA aircraft engineer. The trips envisioned are distances of 50 to 100 miles. So, in New York terms, think longer than Greenwich, CT, and more in the neighborhood of Southampton, Long Island to the City. This luxury will, presumably, not help the commutes of babysitters, nurse's aides, or fast food workers. Not only cars and aircraft will be driverless, there will be massive autonomous container ships with no one at the helm. That's a Rolls Royce venture.
The cute transit-like driverless shuttle in the video is autonomous, as in there is no human operator or need for a human driver on board. There is no driver to say hello, goodbye, or thank you, or supply directions (not that you need any because why would you ever ask a person such a question when you have your phone). This is a completely driverless Navya shuttle being tested - and actually in operation elsewhere - at Heathrow Airport as promotion of a first-mile/last-mile solution.
Not all vehicles that are called driverless, self-driving, or autonomous actually are. News organizations, or should I say "media," every darn day confuse semi-autonomous, which are most cars being sold that take over particular driving tasks or part of the trip and actual, completely driverless vehicles. I would be a rich woman if I had a dollar for every instance of mislabeling or confusion. A Tesla with autopilot and similar contraptions being sold by mainstream automakers are NOT, repeat NOT, driverless; they are partially driverless, semi-autonomous vehicles that require a human on board, licensed, in the driver's seat, attentive, and ready to take over the driving function. Who cares? You should care because some idiot in the driver's seat next to you in the right lane might not really believe that his or her car only sometimes drives itself and it might, without much warning, need some attention NOW. Oh yes, warnings are given, but on the 89th drive to work in that car when the "driver" has become accustomed to watching videos or closing eyes during the podcast, are you sure that "driver" is paying any attention to the road? You know, the road your kids or your mom or your sweetheart are on. Rant over. Uber-Volvo vs. Uber-Mercedes is like a one-night stand compared with meeting the parents and talking about moving in together Uber's deal with Volvo involves Uber driverless technology on Volvos. There is no commitment to stay together or for anything permanent. Uber's deal with Daimler, which owns Mercedes-Benz, mixes the driverless technology developed or acquired by both companies. I have been searching and there's not too many details. This sounds much more complicated and integrated than the Volvo deal. It will also, if it lasts, involve manufacturing, which is something Uber would need help with.
