NHTSA Voluntary Guidance: Sponsored by the Word "Encourage"

Total fluff. In a nutshell, the new NHTSA Voluntary Guidance for Automated Driving Systems, which refers to autonomous vehicle levels 3-5 can be described with an analogy to educating three to five year olds: Less demanding than pre-school, where encouragement is used, but there are also actual rules. Brought to you by the word "encourage," with a good try by the word "should," the VOLUNTARY guidance has a vision of safety, cybersecurity, educated consumers, etc., but it is up to the innovators, be they startups or billion-dollar corporations, to decide whether to deliver on that vision.

We should all feel better that safety, for example, is not completely optional. Without regulation - because encouragement does not equal tech-neutral regulation - we can alway sue in the courts after the death or substantial injury. That works so well - dripping sarcasm here - with our current vehicle standards and self-certification and 30,000-plus deaths and many more injuries EVERY single year.

Yes, let's be technology neutral, but shouldn't we do more than encourage crash prevention for example? Similarly, there is no requirement to report "cyber vulnerabilities" discovered via "incidents, exploits, threats and vulnerabilities from internal testing, consumer reporting, or external security research." But such reporting is - repeat after me - encouraged.

Vague encouragement

Here's the list of encouraged areas of attention and documentation:

1. System safety
2. Operational design domain 
3. Object and event detection and response 
4. Fallback for "transitioning to a minimal risk condition" - like pulling over to the side of the road in the case of a malfunction
5. Validation methods
6. Human machine interface - leaving unmentioned the diverse needs of people with disabilities
7. Cybersecurity - including industry sharing and related standards
8. Crashworthiness
9. Post-crash vehicle behavior
10. Data recording 
11. Consumer education and training

No AV federal requirements, sorry ADS requirements

Documentation, performance standards, cooperation - all should be accomplished; they are expressly encouraged. That sponsorship word is used 41 times in 16 pages of recommendations, well encouragement. And what "should" be done with the activities and documentation?

Entities engaged in ADS testing and deployment may demonstrate how they address – via industry best practices, their own best practices, or other appropriate methods – the safety elements contained in the Voluntary Guidance by publishing a Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment.  

...   ...   ... 

Entities are not required to submit a Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment, nor is there any mechanism to compel entities to do so. While these assessments are encouraged prior to testing and deployment, NHTSA does not require that entities provide submissions nor are they required to delay testing or deployment. Assessments are not subject to Federal approval. [Emphasis added.]

More encouragement - asking states to "consider" doing stuff - all 50 (plus territories and DC) separately

Yes, NHTSA has limited authority over states under current law. But it does have the power to strongly word recommendations to states, especially because we are still waiting for the enactment of federal preemption statute that establishes a framework for federal AV regulation. There are ways to have what is essentially national standards even where there is little or no federal regulation, but the NHTSA very Voluntary Guidance does not get that ball rolling at all.

The Voluntary Guidance is a remarkable retreat from the Obama Administration's leadership, which offered a template for uniform state legislation, which this Administration merely mentions as an option, but without reference to the statutory language supplied in the previous guidelines or another concrete method of uniformly ensuring that state lines do not impinge on research, development, testing or deployment of AV technology and vehicles.

It's as if the Voluntary Guidance is declaring, "here's vaguely what we want to see, but do what you want." Not leadership for establishing a structure for tech-neutral standards or documentation for advancement that compel results for safety, cybersecurity, privacy, or anything else. The entire document reads as if the speaker will end by saying, "no pressure."

Pet peeve: Automated Driving Systems or ADS - do we really need a new acronym here? We already have AV, HAV, CV, etc.