Contrasting Approaches Advance

We are not even a week out from the Baidu announcement of its open source partnership with 50 companies in the autonomous vehicle (AV) world, when now we learn that Microsoft is joining that team. Microsoft continues its work on AVs by contributing to AI development and to connected vehicle (CV) research. Microsoft is playing to its traditional strengths to establish a beachhead in the AV market, rather than take the Google - now Waymo - all-in approach.

The technology under development is mode-agnostic, if you will. It can be employed in transit vehicles, in private ride hailing, micro-transit, or shuttles as well as for freight trucking and conventional individually-owned and operated cars and light trucks. There's a hedge-your-bets wisdom to concentrating on the technology side and ignoring business models and vehicle design.

Don't count out regular cars, just with AV

There are many who believe we will replace our current pattern of vehicle use with similar individually-owned AVs. Depending on price, this could be the future. News from Torc Robotics supports that prediction with an AV system for cars. The company is declaring that it has solved the weather problem and that it is partnering with auto companies to bring the system to market.

Not California or Singapore, but Dubai

Lots of US government investment is being made in CV research, but Dubai, which has been out in front in the adoption of AV transportation and pilots, will be testing CV - or rather V2I - traffic signals. (V2I meaning vehicle to infrastructure, in case any non-nerds are reading.) I hope that, unlike the DC area, there are no power outages there.

Another cute shuttle vehicle is born

EasyMile has much of the shuttle market the world over, but now a new player has emerged with its own adorable shuttle. "AirBridgeCargo has transported a prototype autonomous vehicle from the Netherlands to Singapore." The shuttle is supposed to be a new mode, or at least a new acronym - GRT, which stands for Group Rapid Transit. I wonder if GRT is a dig at EasyMile, which has concentrated on slow shuttles that are quickly easing regular people, in contrast to transportation nerds, into the idea of AV as normal.

What Do a New Connecticut Law and London Grocery Delivery Have in Common?

You guessed it - both involve autonomous vehicles.

Right now, only residents in a particular gated community in London may receive groceries - only nonperishable food and other products - via a bot-like, adorable autonomous vehicle. A driver must be present, for now, due to current UK law. From a New York City supermarket and even an Italian grocer in Brooklyn, you can get any fruit or vegetable delivered too. But those bots will soon be bringing blueberries and peaches.

The Constitution State

Only one of several state nicknames for Connecticut, with one of the others being the nutmeg state, the Constitution State was chosen as a nickname even though Connecticut was not the first state to ratify the United States Constitution. Lawmakers decided on the nickname in 1959 because they believed that the federal Constitution derived from an early set of Connecticut laws.

On January 14, 1639 (in the old Julian calendar), the residents of three Connecticut towns approved a list of rules for running local government called the Fundamental Orders. Most historians agree the Fundamental Orders are significant, but the state of Connecticut decided in 1959 to call itself the Constitution State based on the premise that the Fundamental Orders were the first constitution in North America.

Though the nature of the these laws as a constitution is debatable, according to one of the websites I looked at, they do constitute a charter and bear a close resemblance to a constitution in terms of establishing a local democratically-controlled, republic of a jurisdiction.


No longer making news

It may be that Connecticut's governance structure and democracy was out in front during the winter of 1639, but its foray into regulation and encouragement of autonomous vehicle operations with Public Act 17-69 is quite timid and oh so bureaucratic.

Up to four municipalities will be permitted to have pilots conducted on their streets.

Municipalities shall apply to the Secretary of the Office of Policy Management in the manner and form directed by the secretary for inclusion in the pilot program. The secretary shall select at least one municipality with a population of at least one hundred twenty thousand, but not more than one hundred twenty-four thousand, and one municipality with a population of at least one hundred thousand, as enumerated in the 2010 federal decennial census.

It gets worse. Lest there be a runaway botcar, everything about location, routes, hours of operations and what the testing human present will be eating - just joking on the last one - must be noted in an agreement between the municipality and the company testing its vehicles.

Human in a human seat

Ah Connecticut lawmakers, how quaint you are to include language like "driver's seat." Here are the requirements for human operators of testing vehicles.

(1) The operator is: (A) Seated in the driver's seat of the fully autonomous vehicle; (B) monitoring the operation of such fully autonomous vehicle; (C) capable of taking immediate manual control of such fully autonomous vehicle; (D) an employee, independent contractor or other person designated and trained by the autonomous vehicle tester concerning the capabilities and limitations of such fully autonomous vehicle; and (E) a holder of an operator's license;

Connecticut has banned autonomous vehicles from its highways. And, in the fashion of states that really do not wish to be in the forefront:

Hear, hear a study must be done

The state of Connecticut wants an interim study by New Year's Day 2018 and a final report by July 1, 2018. Really? With all of the information and studies already available, why not get something this month? OMG.

The study will examine state and federal laws and regulations and testing programs. It will offer recommendations for how Connecticut should proceed. By then, we will have a national law with direction for federal regulation. Really not sure why Connecticut even bothered.