Monday, October 30, 2017

What About the Dog, Soccer Gear, Luggage, Etc.?

Who's the dog in this scenario Harry? A great movie scene. It has nothing to do with autonomous vehicles (AVs), but it brings up the question of what do we do about the dogs, the soccer gear, the luggage, stroller, and, yes, yes, yes, the wheelchairs on AVs? What do we do when we get in a taxi at an airport and there is no driver to lift the luggage into the trunk?

This post is a rant, but one that raises issues I do not see discussed anywhere. Apologies for the run-on sentences.

Will AVs that are shared be accessible for soccer gear, dogs, luggage, groceries and wheelchairs? Are we building these needs into the shared-use model? Are we paying attention to details so that we actually achieve accessibility and greater equity as our transportation system transforms?

Ladies first

Ladies, do you want to ruin the nice outfit you decided not to change out of before heading to the airport to fly home after your brilliant presentation by lifting your luggage and getting wheel dirt on yourself? There is only one answer: No.

Mothers and young children - dads too

These two groups of people are not just related to who got lifeboat seats on the Titanic. Women continue to do a disproportionately high share of childrearing, but for those men who participate (as my dad and husband did), this is for you as well.

WHAT IDIOT DESIGNED CURRENT CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS SO THAT ONE IS LUCKY TO GET THROUGH THE EXPERIENCE OF RAISING A CHILD TO AGE THREE WITHOUT DEVELOPING A BACK PROBLEM?

Am I right or what? You have to repeatedly transfer a child, who rapidly gains weight (if you are blessed with a healthy child) into position in the rear seat of a car; you have to put all of the heavy kid stuff up to your child's 18-year birthday into the trunk (with some exceptions); AND beyond kids, you have to transfer all groceries twice - into and out of car trunks - instead of just wheeling shopping carts, strollers, and other junk right onto the vehicle.

Again, WHAT IDIOT DESIGNED THE CONVENTIONAL CAR? Not a mom or a dad who does his share or a grandparent or other caregiver who helps out a lot. THE CAR DESIGN WE HAVE IS STUPID. Don Draper was cute in Mad Men, but he epitomized the dad who did little or nothing of the - literally - heavy lifting - involving young children and transportation.

We're all temporarily able bodied - Unfulfilled promise of the ADA

Despite amazing accomplishments since the ADA was passed over 30 years ago, accomplishments that include accessibility of public transit, building access, and sidewalks, there is no disputing the fact that we have far to go, especially in terms of a street network of curb cuts, adequate sidewalk space, intersection signals and design, plus on-demand taxi and ridesourcing transportation that are not fully accessible. And the giant elephant in the room is the auto industry, which is able to escape the ADA by offering expensive retrofits for vehicles, but not true equity, and decades ago successfully transformed the US into an auto paradise.

Auto-oriented communities, which covers most of the US, turn people with disabilities, many seniors, anyone whose license has been suspended or revoked, and people who are unable to afford to purchase and maintain a vehicle, into second class citizens who face huge obstacles to job retention, education, and healthcare access because it is really difficult in most communities to get anywhere without a car.

Bits on timelines 

2018:  Ford testing full AV in 2018 and

2021: Nvidia CEO expects AVs on streets in 2021 and Ford says it will market AV in 2021.

News everywhere: Tesla is behind on its timeline claims, with no word on when promises will be fulfilled.

Thursday, October 26, 2017

What Should Be in Your AV (CV, EV?) Plan?

What is a city, county, or state to do with all of the unknowns in our autonomous vehicle (AV) future? What to do when so many variables reside with private companies and consumer preferences?
Plan as if you can. If you take this route, Mr. or Ms. Government Staffer or Consultant, here are factors to consider.

Beware: Random thoughts ahead.

1. Changes to address

Be warned that the more acronyms thrown into the soup, the less chance the document will be focused. Here are vehicles that could be addressed:
Images from FastCompany.com
  • Autonomous vehicles (AVs) - be specific whether partial or fully AVs or both,
  • Connected vehicles (CVs) - be specific whether V2V, V2I (My opinion: Go for V2V because less money for public sector to pay for stuff to maintain), and
  • Electric vehicles (EVs) and their charging infrastructure and demands.
What about them should be in your plan? That's up to you and perhaps also your state, county, regional, city, non-profit, and private partners.

2. Business model possibilities

Will one business model dominate or will there be a mix and when will all of this happen? No one knows. My suggestion: Take any confident prediction with a giant grain of salt. Two more variables in the mix will be (1) the expansion - or not - of teleworking and (2) rural connectivity, which could mean a resurgence for some small towns and quiet, isolated places. Serving rural areas with AVs is a whole different can of beans than AV options in a city.
  • Shared use AVs - from transit, to pooled rides, to shuttles, to AV equivalent of traditional taxi ride.
  • Personally owned and used AVs - just like today, but you will watch cat videos while going to work.
  • Mobile units that are offices, homes, medical facilities, restaurants, etc. These could be owned or leased/rented.
  • I see a blog post coming: AV issues of soccer, camping, and other gear, not to mention the dog.
Image from the New York Times.
3. Laws and regulations

While we have an idea of what a federal law and regulatory framework will look like, we do not know what incidents will occur that could prompt wholesale changes in the law. Perhaps only a few experts predicted, and most did not, the Sept. 11 attacks, the 2007 economic meltdown, the blossoming of New York City from the vantage point of 1975 - the year of the Daily News headline Ford to City: Drop Dead. While we can likely predict the initial federal framework, views on liability and regulation over the long term are a mystery.

Scenario planning is advisable.

Other unknowns revolve around where tort liability will lie. I can predict all I want, but be warned: I might be wrong. I predict a situation similar to airline liability. We do not have technically strict liability, but in practice, that is exactly what we have. For the sake of public relations, the airlines pay out and say they are sorry. Somehow, this makes people feel that their safety is taken seriously. I'm not sure that anyone feels that way now about the auto industry, its 30,000+ fatalities per year, and self-certification for safety standards.

Industry should heed the lesson of the Triangle Shirt Waist Factory fire. Tragedy can galvanize people, even powerless people.

(Yes, I know my NYC history because I grew up there and we did absorb the lesson that our city, well, actually, our borough of Brooklyn, was the center of the world. And we were taught to be proud of that.)

4. Data collection - fears of cybersecurity breaches and lack of privacy

People already do not like Uber, Lyft, Amazon, and Google knowing so much about them. Wait for AVs: Now your every move, inside or walking beside an AV, will be recorded and archived. What video did you watch or did you nap? Did you play a game with someone in the vehicle? Did you look out the window? Even today, transit systems have video cameras on buses and at stations, but the data collected will be ever more individualized and collated. Anonymity is key, but let's face facts; nothing will be private and everything will be hackable. We're at most a step or two in front of the hackers. Look at Yahoo and Equifax.

5. Who owns or has access to what data?

This will be a battle and scenario planning is advisable. A tug of war and negotiations to come will iron out how much access local, state, and federal government players will have access to valuable data about where people are going, when, how, and with whom.

6. Equity and accessibility

Every plan, policy, and agency assumes life-changing improvements for people with disabilities and for seniors. But pretty much none of them explains whether AVs will be accessible BOTH in terms of physical accessibility for people with wheelchairs and mobility devices and in terms of interface accessibility for people who are blind or have cognitive or sensory disabilities. Assumptions are made even though no laws are requiring more of AVs than conventional cars. Transit-like AV shuttles are already ahead on this, at least as far as people with wheelchairs.


7. What is out of your control?

Answer: Pretty much everything. Between federal and state preemption, and private sector demands and prices, many municipalities will be powerless to regulate anything when the transportation revolution comes. Sorry to be blunt, but you had to hear it. I think you will still have authority over speed limits, parking, and police. Maybe zoning.

8. Intergovernmental coordination and collaboration

Lack of power brings us to coordination and collaboration. If something does not fall within your authority, be nice and influence whoever has the power or the public's ear.

9. Police and emergency services interaction with AVs

You will not be designing the AVs and the software that controls how the vehicles respond to communications from police and emergency responders, such as ambulances. Those AVs will all be talking to each other anyway (I'm guessing).  As long as police and emergency staff are trained and have the right software, we will all be in a better situation. Right now, I can never tell when I am driving where a siren is coming from. Once I didn't even notice for a couple of minutes that an ambulance was directly behind me. Why would I expect an ambulance on the slow, two-lane road?

Local Governments Scream "What do I do now?"

All over the United States, cities and counties, even state governments, are waking up - suddenly, as if an alarm clock just went off, awakening them from a deep sleep - and they are screaming "What are we going to do when autonomous vehicles come? Ahhhhhh!!!!! Oh my g-d, what the f&*ck are AVs? CVs? V2Vs? And gas stations versus EVs?

They don't know what the future holds and how to plan; no one knows, partly because the private sector is calling the shots. Plus, federal legislation will come along to preempt state laws and state laws will preempt local laws.

[Aside: I do believe that in the next year, unless we get totally bogged down with impeachment proceedings or some nightmare major distraction, the US will see the passage of a true bipartisan law in the form of AV legislation. The regulation and on-the-street details will fall to the US Department of Transportation and state departments of transportation. Many states already have some kind of AV advisory council.]

Calling on the quiet kid in the back

Let's take Nashville as an example because its transit plans for bus rapid transit (BRT) and light rail (LRT) are attracting criticism - as ambitious transit projects tend to do in car-oriented places - because of talk that shared AVs will make transit less important or not important at all. Shared AVs, some say, will absorb all of the extra congestion expected in the coming decades from Nashville's growth. So, two giant assumptions here: (1) Nashville's current population trajectory will continue, and (2) residents and workers in Nashville will be traveling in shared-AVs that are shuttle or taxi-like instead of alone in their own AVs.

So, one might say, plan for AVs. BUT no one knows when AVs will be coming, in what form, or what business models will co-exist in particular local and regional markets or which will dominate, or whether to go out now and buy all of the connected technology one can get one's hands on or whether to wait because vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) won't be necessary when every vehicle is connected to every other one.

A question answered - Where?

We do know where AVs are thanks to a cool map from the Initiative on Cities and Autonomous Vehicles (ICAV, funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Aspen Institute). This screenshot is just of the US and Canada, but the Initiative map covers the globe and one can zoom in and click on a colored spot for information about the AV activity in that city AND a link to municipal information about the particular project. Very cool.

Go local

Local is in. Local is farmers markets and quirky restaurants, yarn stores, parks, and murals. But most places are full of strip malls, free parking, and street crossings and pedestrian infrastructure that are ugly and dangerous. AVs challenge the conventional transportation wisdom of free parking and  everyone needing a car. However, that challenge might only be in the minds of planners and others paid to ponder transportation networks. It is possible that we will have an AV in every parking spot and companies aiming to make that goal both affordable and profitable.

Now, cities and counties are wondering how to move forward and they are hosting meetings, writing reports, investing money, and sometimes being completely frank that they are not sure what to do. In no particular order, here are some examples.

Disclaimer: What appears below is not a complete list. In fact, actual city plans are mentioned later. Scroll down if at first you become irritated.

Columbus, Ohio - Winner of the much-hailed and competitive $40 million Smart Cities Challenge (with a matching bonus of another $10 million), Columbus is perceived as having an advantage. Here is a one-year update on the Columbus demos being funded, which include autonomous shuttles and new fare card technology. Do not believe Columbus is ahead, if only because this city is very troubled. Few complete streets, terrible transit, lots of highways, illegal drugs, and big, big problems with poverty. There is so much to fix; this is a city very much tied to the automobile and the Smart Cities plan tries to do too much. Big doubts. - 😬. Columbus' plan links via ICAV.

Lake County, Illinois - Just outside of Cook County, which is mostly Chicago, Lake County is suburban and exurban, with lots of strip malls and big box stores, and some local stuff thrown in. (I've had decent falafel there and lots of good walks.) Great parks and walking trails. This is a place built around the car. Lake County is just beginning to address AVs and the already changing transportation system as it ponders the new popularity of complete streets and cities. So, being smart, nearby experts from Chicago were invited to address the Lake County Transportation Alliance about ways to improve transportation that do not involve extra lanes and more cars - or huge investments of tax dollars.


Atlanta, Georgia - Not even on the ICAV map yet, but Atlanta is promising a hi-tech, connected corridor right by Georgia Tech, with an AV shuttle. Lots of promotion and news stories about the Ponce-City-Market-to-Midtown (home of Georgia Tech) CV corridor and future AV shuttle route. Here's a boring, but informative video that focuses on the CV aspects of the project. (As a mom of a GaTech grad student, not sure the cycling stuff alleviates any concern about my biking offspring on that exact route.)



Portland, Oregon - Home of Portlandia, food trucks, and all things artisnal - way west of Brooklyn, still independent as its own city, and without the snarkiness. Have to include a clip from Portlandia. This is from a classic early episode about whether the organic chicken on the menu had a full life.

Portland's draft policy smartly considers AVs in the context of the city's transportation goals, such as Vision Zero for pedestrian and biking safety, pollution reduction, and reduction in low-occupancy vehicle trips, among others. View the Portland AV policy page for draft policy documents, timeline, and a new acronym - SAVI for Smart Autonomous Vehicles Initiative. Basically, the draft policy is four single-spaced pages stating that AVs should serve the very new urban goals that the city has already identified. That's good, BUT (you knew there would be a but) there is no explanation of who, when, or how these linkages will be made and goals accomplished. Still, this is a saner-than-Brooklyn-almost-paradise (which has had its own problems, such as the recent ethnic-reactionary murder on the streetcar). The policy identifies a rational order of priorities.
Implement a prioritization of modes for people movement by making transportation system decisions according the following ordered list:
1. Walking
2. Bicycling
3. Transit
4. Fleets of electric, fully automated, multiple passenger vehicles
5. Other shared vehicles
6. No or low occupancy vehicles, fossil-fueled non-transit vehicles

Boston, Massachusetts - The Boston Plan incorporates the laudable non-tech goals of “Zero deaths. Zero injuries. Zero disparities. Zero emissions. Zero stress.” Good way to think of technology - as a means to an end, rather than as the end. Boston has articulated definite goals, a brave move because results can be compared against actual performance. One goal even aims for improved transportation for people with disabilities: "Greater Access for Nondrivers. AVs increase the mobility of people who are unable or unwilling to drive, such as the disabled and the elderly."

While the Boston planning document makes major assumptions, it does examine a range of scenarios in terms of ownership, modes, and use of AVs. I like that. BUT this document only looks at a dense, urban area of the city instead of playing with variables for different types of neighborhoods throughout the city. Allston is not Jamaica Plain is not Beacon Hill. The document also foresees improved mobility for older adults and people with disabilities without analyzing at all the pieces that must be in place for those results to occur.

One more like: The Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) type of "digital mobility platform." Here is the image from the document. Interesting that the city is set up as the central governor of the system. Boston rightly envisions itself as part of a public/private ecosystem with which coordination must happen with other city and state bodies.

Toronto, Ontario - This Canadian city has long been on top of AV developments. Thus far, Toronto staff have acknowledged that there are too many unknowns to make firm predictions. A March 2017 document, Implications of Automated Vehicles for TTC, spends most of its pages defining variables and what exists. About two-thirds of the way in, the Toronto document lists the ways in which AVs will likely bring change to traffic, transit fleet management, workforce needs, roadway safety, and the mobility of people with disabilities (without offering any details on that one). It identifies these questions as ones that remain unanswered:
  • What will be the cost of the vehicles, the services needed to support them, the training to work with them, etc.? 
  • Will the software running the system be proprietary, or something independent of the vehicle that can be changed? 
  • How is liability determined between Operators, maintenance, ITS, and the manufacturer? 
  • What would the overall net change in costs be after considering vehicle and software procurement, new infrastructure, and changes in roles and staffing? 
  • How will AVs operate in inclement weather?


Seattle, Washington - Seattle does not so much have a plan as a working let's-look-into-these factors document, which also serves as a teaching document that defines what the heck is actually being discussed. This document nicely summarizes the federal/state/local/judicial division of responsibilities and powers.

Arizona - Just read the other day about Waymo's expansion to the four Arizona cities of Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe and Gilbert. Well, a native New Yorker would not characterize these as cities because walking and transit are not major transportation modes, but Waymo is there and those "cities" are happy. Actually, to be fair, Tempe is a real city, small, but a city.

I have now managed to write a too-long post and insult most cities in the US. At least the dog is sleeping next to me.

Thursday, October 19, 2017

AV Designs - California and England

Sacramento wants autonomous vehicle (AV) demonstrations routes to include the entire city, but there is no concrete plan in place. The owner of the Sacramento Kings professional basketball team had made attempts to ferry attendees of the first home game of the NBA season in AVs, but the arrangement fell through.

The chief innovation officer, an increasingly common business title around the US, for Sacramento says that "plans are still in place however to bring autonomous technology to the area for testing and implementation." This is a priority for the mayor and the city is in discussions with lots of AV companies, though only car companies and others testing AV cars are listed in the Capital Public Radio news piece.

Maybe AVs will help the Kings. Their record so far this season, only one game in, is zero wins and one loss, to the Houston Rockets.

Sleek design

Image from dezeen.com
In AV transit news, a polished design, full of windows, comes from the United Kingdom, well England. Transit designer Jonny Culkin imagines a world with views of city surroundings. "Described by Culkin as 'technology with a friendly face," the conceptual vehicle is designed to offer a more attractive alternative to London's Tube, as well as the city's bus networks.' " Notice the sleek, minimalist interior.

No word on whether this design will be adopted or whether Transport for London or any other UK transit agency is planning on supplementing big red buses - AV or otherwise - with small shuttle vehicles.

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Big Apple Behind Switzerland - Not Just Cheese and Chocolate

New York, my home town, is a navel-gazing city, and this is amply demonstrated with GM's announcement that autonomous Chevy Bolt's will soon be cruising the streets of Manhattan as part of Cruise Automation testing, Cruise being the GM subsidiary startup famously purchased for $1 billion. This story is everywhere. Yes, this is news, but autonomous vehicles (AVs) have been driving around other US cities for a long time now. It's not that big a deal.

In fact, New York, both the state and the city, are lagging far behind other places. Just one example: Switzerland.

Clean, great chocolate, and AV transit

Image from PostBus press release.
What's not to like about Switzerland? Well, for a native New Yorker, plenty. It's too clean and orderly - even with the great chocolate - but anyone can ride on an AV transit bus, a shuttle pod, really. And many people have ridden one 1.5 kilometer route, to the tune of 60,000.

Sion, a city in Switzerland that has had AV shuttle service for almost two years (since Dec. 2015), is expanding its AV service to extend from the Old Town to the train station. There is a concierge, but not a driver, on each shuttle vehicle.

"The organisers now want to test the shuttles in heavier traffic and using traffic lights. The buses will be operational in the morning and afternoon several days a week, the partners said in a statement on Tuesday."

Can't even take an AV shuttle from the Heights into the City, but in chocolate, pretty mountain land ...

Wait, there's not even AV service in New York and the test is limited to Manhattan; it doesn't go into Brooklyn, let alone Queens or the Bronx, and Switzerland is quietly expanding AV transit, and not just in lovely Scion. According to a PostBus press release:
The self-driving shuttles are the fruit of a collaboration between the Sion and Valais authorities, PostBus and Swiss start-up BestMile, founded in 2014 by graduates from Lausanne’s Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL). 
Brooklyn's Wonder Wheel and Cyclone from the beach. Image from CBS News.
Several other autonomous bus services are being tested in Switzerland. Since September 2017, two autonomous shuttle buses have linked the Marly Innovation Center (MIC) to the Fribourg Public Transport (TPF) network over a 1.3-km route.
The capital of Switzerland, Bern, is also experimenting with a pilot in a closed area.

You can still get better pizza, lox, bagels, and even some litter in the City (NYC, of course), but you will only get to look at an AV Chevy Bolt, not ride in one - yet. Go to Switzerland for an AV transit experience and for the chocolate, some cheese, pretty views ...

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Michigan: Shift From Motor City to Transit State

Michigan is truly a leader in the development of autonomous vehicles (AVs). Long known as the state where Detroit, the Motor City, is located - a city with a reputation as a transit desert - a reputation that is beginning to turn around, this was the quintessential state devoted to the motor vehicle. Michigan is changing.

The automobile companies stopped singing the tune a few years ago that drivers will never give up the wheel or their personal vehicles, and that AVs would be decades away. Since then big auto has invested billions in AVs and planning for shared-use transportation services. The Hill reports that total AV investment now exceeds $80 billion and that is only a conservative estimate that for the past three years, with investment growing. This news relies on a Brookings Institution report entitled Gauging Investment in Self-Driving Cars. The report is on my to-read list.

Image from Detroit News.
Universities jump on board

But research and development is not the only area where Michigan is a leader. Recently, Michigan has become a leader in AV pilots. First, the University of Michigan added an AV shuttle this academic year on its North Campus. (This blog covered the pilot news in posts during June and August.) The shuttles arrive every 10 minutes.

More Michigan universities are working on AV development. "Lawrence Tech’s vehicle is known as ACTor, or Autonomous Campus Transport/Taxi, and is expected to be functioning on campus by August."

BUT

The Lawrence Tech vehicle, which is homegrown, created at the college, will NOT be an AV. The vehicle will be, at least to start, only partially autonomous. Still, this will add more Michigan competition and it is likely only a matter of time before a true AV shows up shuttling passengers around the Lawrence Tech campus.

Across the Pond in another university town

Image from Business Weekly UK.
Four-passenger autonomous shuttle pods, called PodZero, are operating in Cambridge, England, as part of RDM Group's effort to "deliver the data, information and experience required to get the fleet of larger, 10-seater autonomous buses on the busway a reality sooner rather than later.” England has long been planning and testing AVs. This Cambridge AV PodZero is operating on a guided busway; plans are already in the works to expand to other locations and to larger transit AVs.

Friday, October 13, 2017

New Hampshire Lives Free, But Not Yet AV Friendly

Legislation has been introduced in the "Live free or die" state of New Hampshire. You might think that such a state motto would mean a welcome wagon for deploying new technology. No.

[Image from https://hips.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/ibmig/cms/image/wcvb/24580534-license-plates-new-hampshire-jpg.jpg.]

The New Hampshire bill, HB 314, would only permit testing - and that only if a human, licensed driver is in the vehicle and ready to take over. Additional regulations may be promulgated that further limit testing. A hearing to discuss this bill will take place next Wednesday, Oct. 18, 2017.

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Ads and Private Roads

Appealing to  people with money, autonomous vehicle (AV) businesses are showing the expectation of massive wealth generation to come. First, the LeBron James ad. A major sports figure who has garnered three professional basketball championships, James does not come cheap; he is popular and credible.

The sponsor of the advertisement is Intel, reports the New York Post.

Way different

On the other hand, the Waymo video takes the slick, but friendly, corporate-speak ad approach. Both ads seek the same result: A message of friendliness, safety, attractiveness, and reliability - without reference to cost, equity, and related aspects of a multimodal transportation network.


Already serving private roads

The AV transportation revolution is happening, but not in the usual places. Not San Francisco, New York, Seattle, London, or elsewhere. Private roads in gated communities and campuses are the new frontier.

I covered the Village last week. In that California gated senior community, app-based, on-demand, shared-use AVs are ferrying older adults around. That news got lots of press attention. Called the Voyage, the two AV sedans operate on private roads within the community.

In the other sunshine state

Across the country, Babcock Ranch, a development I wrote about last year (scroll down), has gone beyond plans, and has AV shuttle service on its private roads. This is a transit-like vehicle and is probably the first of a network of AV options. The development is billed as allowing for a car-free and walk-and-bike-friendly existence for 50,000 people. Transdev is planning a Mobility as a Service (MaaS) network of AV transportation services. The new development is also solar powered.

Don't confuse Babcock Ranch with Bishop Ranch, which is an office park in California that also has an AV shuttle.

Public planning

Not to be outdone, affluent small towns are beginning to plan. Aspen, CO, wants to establish a Mobility Lab. This will mean a transportation demand management (TDM), or mobility management, approach to transportation transformation.

And public streets in California may soon boast AVs being tested without humans on board for that matter. Proposed regulations await the current notice-and-comment period. 

Which Disabilities?

One coalition states that it is glad to see the US House of Representatives and the Senate actively passing and pushing federal legislation to promote autonomous vehicles (AVs), particularly on behalf of people with disabilities.

This is what CFM says about AV transportation for people with disabilities:
Blind people. Older Americans. Veterans. They all deserve more mobility. Self-driving cars will make that possible. Along with more freedom, Autonomous Vehicles can increase ride sharing, which saves money. Money that can be spent living the life they want.
This CFM dream, however, requires accessible vehicles with universal design that work for people of different ability and disability levels. Who is the Coalition for Future Mobility (CFM)? CFM membership includes two organizations that represent people who are blind, a veterans organization, one organization representing seniors, but most of the others are various roadway and auto alliances. And Lyft.

Waymo has also showcased people with visual disabilities. They require accessible interfaces, but not accessible vehicles.

More inclusive?

Another coalition, the Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, also advocates that AVs will be liberating for people with disabilities, but their non-voting members go beyond people with visual disabilities. The powerful MADD - Mothers Against Drunk Drivers is a prominent parter as well.

It should be noted that of the many organizations representing people with disabilities, particularly mobility disabilities, not many are actively advocating on the topic of AVs and most are not listed as members of any AV coalition.

Not all disabilities are created equal and if organizations representing people with disabilities split off into those whose conditions are cheaper and easier for AV manufacturers to serve and those who are more expensive to serve then we will not achieve equitable results.

Senior power

AARP Highly Automated Vehicle Policy - AARP has come out against "the use of partially automated vehicles on non-controlled access roads, such as city streets." AARP points out that one-third of Americans do not drive, including older adults. This organization is advocating that AVs bring with them a more equitable transportation system. [Image is from part of AARP Policy.]

Friday, October 6, 2017

Shared Ride Roundup


Love this: Artist renderings that are much closer to my imaginings of rethinking vehicle design for AVs than we are seeing from the auto companies. Definitely take a look at those! Image #6 is my personal favorite. Images posted here are all from those renderings.

Shared ride options for all getting closer

GM in California - more than doubles fleet of Cruise Automation vehicles. Now at 100 AVs.

Lyft partnerships with car companies to open up AV ridesourcing services.

Waymo full-scale AV ridesourcing operations to start in Phoenix area by early 2018.

AV ridesourcing for affluent older adults happening now in California. Voyage, a startup, is using Ford cars, to do just that in a gated senior community. Lots of opportunities in this market. More on the Voyage pilot.

Public shared-ride AV pilots

Publicly-funded A-Taxi, an AV shuttle ridesourcing pilot, is being planned for Greenville, SC (isn't that a state that does not believe in taxes?) with FHWA funds. The intent is to use these shuttles for commuter transportation for "to improve access to transportation for disadvantaged and mobility-impaired residents." That's why the public dollars. How progressive for South Carolina. Impressive. [Image source: muxxi]

Another publicly-funded experiment with AV shared-ride service will take place in Britain in Greenwich, with Ford and Transport for London (TfL) among a broader partnership. However, this project will only be planning a business model, with the assumption being that one-third of London trips in 2025 will be by AV.

Stuff you can do, but maybe shouldn't, in an AV - if allowed

If you own your AV, you will have more leeway, but if you are a shared-use or transit AV person in the future, I imagine rules against:
  • Drinking too much alcohol - or any - while on board
  • Being obnoxiously drunk on a shared vehicle
  • Sex or even making out (tacky, though fun at the time)
  • Eating
  • Drinking anything but water (our rule in the station wagon when the kids were young)
  • Vomiting - try not to and use a bag
  • Watching or listening to anything without earphones or earbuds
  • Screaming
  • Singing, unless there is a 0-5 year old involved (in which case, I recommend singing Wheels on the Bus)
Stuff that should be allowed to roll right onto AVs when they are universally designed
  • Wheelchairs and other mobility devices
  • Strollers, even double ones
  • Personal shopping carts
  • Luggage
I make this list with the assumption that only the wealthy will have personal attendants and that the rest of us will be in the same sorry position we are in as airline passengers, forced to deal with and lift heavy items instead of receiving personal service. [Image source: Ustwo]

Personal dream

AV tiny house to cruise across the country in style. 💚

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Senate Bill Amendments

The Senate autonomous vehicle (AV) legislation is S. 1885. What follows here is a long, boring post about what is actually in the amendments to the bill. I try to be brief, but sometimes I get opinionated.

There were 26 amendments proposed, yes (a) through (z), but only 20 were accepted. Here are the approved amendments and how they modified the original bill. Please note that I am using the letter designations on a Senate Commerce Committee webpage devoted to the Oct. 4, 2017 markup hearing and not the handwritten numbers on the pdf documents that pop up when you click on the links below.

A as in autonomous, not really

The amendment (a) brings S. 1885 closer to the House bill (discussed here) by throwing in a section about back seat alarms "to address the problem of children left behind in rear designated seating positions."

Valid concern; has nothing to do with AVs.

B is for before

Before granting an exemption renewal, amendment (b) would require that DOT evaluate the exemption and make a safety equivalence finding.

C and D are for never mind - amendments withdrawn.

E is for evaluation report

As part of the SER - safety evaluation report - that HAV (highly automated vehicle) and ADS (automated driving system) manufacturers must submit to DOT, amendment (e) would require data aggregation information about results comparing AV and conventional human-operated vehicle safety.

F is for never mind - amendment withdrawn.

G is for grrrr

Grrrr is for frustration in reading the bill, the amendment, and the statutory change to an existing law. Need a roadmap. Amendment (g) would allow manufacturers to render human-operated vehicle equipment inoperable in legally operated AVs.

H is for handwritten

Yes, boys and girls, our senators went to school in an age when we all learned to use manual writing instruments. Amendment (h) is mostly handwritten and it is intended to ensure that the SAE level - meaning level of automation - of a vehicle is clear and that there are civil monetary penalties if a manufacturer submits a false or misleading SER.

I is for immediately

Amendment (i) will cause someone, maybe a few someones, at DOT to rush to produce an almost immediate report if S. 1885 is enacted: Get, ready, go and produce a report that will cover pretty much everything about AVs and make recommendations. Oh, yes, and that includes convening a panel of "national experts" on everything from MPOs to the environment to staff from national laboratories. The report must be initiated within 60 days and completed within 18 months - when it will be behind the curve by the time it is posted on whatever webpage. Please, this kind of thing is to be expected whenever the word "stakeholders" appears.

J is for jazz - which has nothing whatsoever to do with this amendment

Amendment (j) basically adds the word "programs" to a working group's toolbox of recommendations for consumer education about partially AVs. As in "do not fall asleep, watch movies, or text even though your car is TEMPORARILY driving itself. The car might need you at any moment,"

K is for kids

Remember in olden times when kids took driver education in high school? When it comes to consumer education, the Senate bill will assume that partially AVs are not intuitive and require drivers ed. I hope the senators do not expect anyone to pay attention to drivers ed. I thought that was the class where kids in honors and AP tracks get to meet the athletes and everyone else who is not in their classes. That and gym.

L is for lamb

With crazy people shooting at  crowds from hotel windows, there is one senator thinking expansively about wrongdoing. Amendment (l) inserts "safeguards against misuse" of an AV into the scope of concerns for the HAV Technical Committee.

M and N are for never mind - amendments withdrawn.

O is for oy (This is a G-rated blog.)

Lots of paranoia about cybersecurity. Yes, this is a valid concern, but it seems like terrorists and crazies mostly go the low-tech route for making trouble. Still, here we are with amendment (o), which injects "evaluation of elements of the supply chain to identify and address cybersecurity vulnerabilities."

I hope that the senators are aware of other risks, like automatic weapons, for example.

P is for privacy alert

Amendment (p) has the correct letter as this is a privacy-focused amendment. It would mandate the establishment of an HAV Data Access Advisory Committee within 180 days of enactment. This Committee would report directly to Congress. The amendment would ban any part of the federal government from engaging in rulemaking related to HAV data ownership, control, or access prior to the submission of the Committee's report to Congress.

Membership of the Committee would be comprised of members of particular industries, government institutions, states, transit, law enforcement, consumer groups, fleet managers, and other representatives of interests clearly delineated. No vague "expert" language here. The Senators would want to hear from a broad range of specific players - okay, hate the word - stakeholders.

The deadline for the Committee report would be two years from the Committee's establishment and it may include minority viewpoints. Upon submission of the report, this Committee will dissolve.

Wait! One more study, this time from GAO to determine ways to remove data from used or rented vehicles so that personally identifiable information is washed clean. And GAO should be consulting - oh yes, - stakeholders when conducting the study. The deadline is one year and the study should include recommended legislative action and possible uniform state legislation.

I hope that the Senators are aware that the privacy ship has sailed since all of our web and smartphone activities are tracked, but I like the concern.

Q is for q-onnected (literary license on the spelling)

Amendment (q) seeks input from the HAV Technical Committee envisioned in S. 1885 about vehicle-to-infrastructure  - V2I - technology. I hope that if this provision survives the legislative process and remains in the final bill, that the matter of insufficient maintenance of infrastructure, lane markings, signage, etc. will be addressed when discussing V2I.

R is for Radar, the character from MASH

If you remember the character named Radar, he had an uncanny sixth sense for picking up on things unspoken. Amendment (r) would require the SER - safety evaluation report prepared by manufacturers - to include information about alerting human drivers or operators of partial AVs and HAVs about cyber vulnerabilities.

I imagine we would see the same kind of incomprehensible, long document we see now when we quickly click "I agree" as we avoid reading the privacy policy at every website we visit, you know the agreement where we "agree" to relinquish our privacy.

S is for searchable

Amendment (s), once you scroll past the sections crossed out, would require the creation of a searchable privacy database that would be placed on the NHTSA homepage.  The database would contain a description of personally identifiable and other information collected during the operation of AVs, presumably including where you go, what you're watching, if anything, in the vehicle, or even visual or auditory recordings of what occurs in the vehicles. (You do know that cameras in public streets, buses, and other places already do this type of thing, though they aren't tracking you in quite the same way as your phone or as an AV could.) The SER would have to explain how the information is used, disclosed, "and otherwise handled," as well as the retention period and how the information is destroyed.

Oh yes, the SER should also describe measures taken to protect the information collected, presumably better than Equifax or Yahoo did (but let's be real) and reveal manufacturers' privacy policies (to which we will all click "I agree" without reading).

T is for truly?

Amendment (t) brings the Senate bill closer to the House bill because it inserts a provision requiring DOT to - within three years - promulgate a rule mandating that purchasers - not renters or passengers - of partial AVs or HAVs be furnished with clear, concise (equals comprehensible, presumably) information about the limitations of the machine they are paying for.

Close, but no cigar - The House bill differs slightly in its version of this provision (scroll to "timeline").

So, this is like the pharmaceutical company information that comes with every prescription that says you could die or become an inviting host to some disease or injury, if you take the drug.

U is for ur, are we there yet?

I don't appreciate a long amendment as we near the end of the alphabet. Amendment (u) is three pages long. This amendment tightens up the language in the Senate bill relating to preemption, state authority,  judicial process, and liability. Language about licensing that bans discrimination on the basis of disability is retained.

V is for never mind - amendment withdrawn.

W is for working group

Amendment (w) would slightly change the language about the purview of the working group for consumer education. The amendment would also add to the membership of this working group to include representatives of "cross disability organizations" and "national organizations representing older adults."

X is for xylophone

This is a G-rated blog and really there's a limited number of words that begin with the letter x. Amendment (x) would make clear the makeup of the HAV Technical Committee and add to the required members representatives of national organizations representing people with disabilities and older adults.

Y is for yo, you forgot to include a deadline

Amendment (y) would require the DOT to conduct a study - with no deadline given - and come up with recommendations about ways to encourage manufacturing in the US of ADS and intelligent transportation systems.

Z is for Zzzz

A cure for insomnia has been found and it is reading through 20 amendments to legislation.

Amendment (z) would add a provision mandating that within one year the DOT develop and supply to consumers more cybersecurity information and it would direct manufacturers to point to those resources in vehicle owner's manuals - for the maybe 10 people who read them. I might be overestimating.

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Senate AV Bill - Sensitive and Thoughtful

The Senate's AV START Act is similar, but not identical, to the House of Representative's already passed SELF DRIVE Act. (Summary of here for the House's SELF DRIVE Act, referred to interchangeably as the House version or the SELF DRIVE Act.) I am thrilled to write that the Senate bill displays sensitivity to and awareness of people with disabilities as well as a more organized structure for considering AV topics than the House's SELF DRIVE Act.

Definitions - Both the House and the Senate employ the SAE definitions and terminology for levels of automation.

Preemption - The Senate legislation drafters are looking for easy passage, so the AV START Act contains the same language as the House. Both stay away from commercial vehicles and both would continue the current federal-state division of responsibilities for vehicle safety, licensing, registration, and operation. Both contain the same language that states may not use their authority to unreasonably limit "HAV or automated driving system design, construction, or performance." HAV is highly automated vehicle, which is one capable of fully driving itself. [Image from US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation webpage announcing the legislation.]

Exempt vehicles - Up to 100k or more

The Senate version goes with the same vehicle numbers and increases of numbers as the House version: Up to 100,000 vehicles over a few years. One point of departure is that the Senate version allows for a manufacturer to go above 100,000 exempt vehicles after "the exemption has been in place for 5 years."

People with disabilities

Big differences between the legislative bodies on the topic of people with disabilities. In a departure from the House version, the Senate bill provides that "a State may not issue a motor vehicle operator’s license for the operation or use of a dedicated highly automated vehicle in a manner that discriminates on the basis of disability (as defined in section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102)) [ADA]." This provision in Section 3 of the AV START Act is a halfway point for people with disabilities because it liberates them from the current licensing laws that require the ability to operate a motor vehicle as the ticket to first-class participation in US society.

Get excited, but don't go crazy: Nothing in the Senate version requires that all vehicles manufactured be physically accessible for people with various types of disabilities. BUT - and this is a big but - the Senate version would require human interfaces with the vehicle be accessible. This is a big win for people with disabilities, particularly for people with visual, auditory, and some cognitive impairments.

Highly Automated Vehicles Technical Committee - Knowledgable language

People with disabilities are significant on the short list of concerns expressed in the Senate version of the committee structure provided for. The Senate version provides for a 15-member Highly Automated Vehicles Technical Committee, which would be composed of people with technical expertise and knowledge. Two working groups are mandated; these address (1) people with disabilities and (2) consumer education.

Nice language addresses people with disabilities in particular: "A]ccessibility for people with physical, sensory, or other disabilities, including for those who rely on mobility devices." Someone in or close to the Senators sponsoring this legislation pointed out that not all people with disabilities are exactly the same.

AND

To show that the interest in accessibility is a real concern, the Senate version working group language states:
[T]o develop voluntary best practices regarding highly automated vehicle accessibility for people with physical, sensory, or other disabilities, including for those who rely on mobility devices. Such best practices shall address the physical accessibility of highly automated vehicles and human-machine interface accessibility through visual, auditory, or haptic displays or other methods. The working group shall include representatives from national organizations representing individuals with disabilities. 
Oh my waking heart. Sweet language and I hope it will be taken seriously.

Odd timeline

Like the House version, the Senate's AV START Act has a timeline that is likely to be irrelevant before we reach the end of the five years it refers to. However, the timeline differs from the House's SELF DRIVE Act.

Volpe report and related rulemaking
180 days - The Volpe Center is required to issue a report to identify and craft substitution language for HAV safety, including HAV compliance with objective and practicable test procedures.

90 days after the 180 days - DOT rulemaking to commence to incorporate by reference the Volpe report into safety standards.

1 year after the 90 days after the 180 days - Final rule.

Please note that DOT may issue different rules regarding partial AVs for when they operate in human-driver mode.

Highly Automated Vehicles Technical Committee
180 days - DOT must establish the HAV Technical Committee. It must meet at least four times a year. It may establish working groups and it must establish a working group to address accessibility for people with disabilities. The Senate version encourages interaction between the DOT and the HAV Technical Committee.

180 days after the establishment of the HAV Technical Committee - The Committee shall submit a work plan to the DOT.

5 years after the establishment of the HAV Technical Committee - The Committee shall submit a report to DOT with recommendations. The Committee will dissolve upon submission of the report unless DOT chooses otherwise.

1 year after the 5 years - DOT will decide whether to pursue the recommendations in the HAV Technical Committee report.

Other
2 years - Lifespan of the consumer education working group. This group is required to submit a report to DOT.

3 years - Crash data reporting - DOT is required to incorporate HAV and levels of automation into the "crash investigation data collection system."

Traditional manufacturer/startup equality - The Senate version does not limit HAV testing to established vehicle manufacturers.

Manufacturer requirements

SER - SER stands for Safety Evaluation Report, which may be submitted to DOT, the Senate says, before enactment. An SER is required at least 90 days prior to the introduction into interstate commerce of a Highly Automated Vehicle (HAV) or an Automated Driving System (ADS). It must be updated annually as long as the HAV or ADS continues to be introduced into interstate commerce (sold, leased, etc.).

The SER will include information about the human-machine interface and its use by people with disabilities "through visual, auditory, or haptic displays, or other methods."

Cybersecurity plan - A plan is required from each HAV and ADS manufacturer. As part of the plan, the Senate version asks for information about "voluntary efforts by industry and standards-setting organizations to develop and identify consistent standards and guidelines relating to vehicle cybersecurity ..."

DOT is also authorized to work with manufacturers to adopt "voluntary a coordinated vulnerability disclosure policy and practice in which a security researcher privately discloses information related to a discovered vulnerability to a manufacturer and allows the manufacturer time to confirm and remediate the vulnerability."

The Senate version is quiet about privacy. No privacy plan is required.

Auto dealerships - The Senate uses the same language as the House to stay away from auto dealerships. They can keep their close relationships with the States.\

There's more in the bill. What will be interesting, assuming passage of the AV START Act, will be the compromise between the House and Sentate bills - what will remain and what will disappear. Also interesting will be what will happen when Congress finally addresses trucks and buses.

Monday, October 2, 2017

Senate Committee Considers Self-Driving Trucks - and Driver Jobs

Webcast of Senate Commerce, Science Transportation Committee hearing - Transportation Innovation: Automated Trucks and Our Nation's Highways

I'll admit that I'm taking the easy way out and organizing my tweets written during the hearing yesterday. This is why some of the prose in this post is quite terse. Hastag used was #AVhearing.

Major categories of concern expressed during the hearing were safety, cybersecurity, potential loss of middle class truck driver jobs, and the significant differences between light vehicles - cars and light trucks - and commercial vehicles, which weigh a lot and cause great damage when they crash.

What strikes me as odd is the contradictory impulses expressed that (1) AVs will be safer, but (2) AVs can't be as safe  in sticky situations as vehicles operated by human drivers, such as a West Virginia senator's windy driveway. Really? The huge number of injuries and fatalities say otherwise.

What do you think about new voluntary guidance?

There was some response to the new NHTSA AV voluntary guidance, but not much and these responses were not in agreement. Senator Thune, though looking for "strong federal leadership," is - tweet here - happy to see new NHTSA guidelines. "NHTSA offers a nonregulatory approach to automated vehicle technology safety." Not mentioning the voluntary nature of them. Apparently, Thune's excitement translated into a skepticism of regulation. On the other hand, Sen. Blumenthal calls new NHTSA AV guidelines "anemic." Sen. Blumenthal asks don't we need actual regulation.

Jobs, jobs, jobs

No one talked over the decades of loss of jobs for elevator operators, record store clerks, researchers, people who made alarm clocks, and the many thousands of others who have seen their work taken over by machines and computers and smartphones. But everyone is concerned about truck drivers - taxi and bus drivers are not mentioned much - because there are so many truck drivers and because, for a job that does not require much education, it pays a nice middle class wage. So the trucking industry refuses to state that jobs will be lost and the union representatives (for those truckers who are unionized) seem to be reacting to AVs the same way that the taxi industry responded to Uber - with obstruction and sometimes unrelated arguments.

Scared of cyberattacks and imperfect machines, but ...

Two general fears weaved a theme through the Senate hearing, though no statistics or evidence was discussed. These were cyberattacks and the general opinion that AVs are less safe than human driven trucks. Connected to the fear of cyberattacks is the huge fear of terrorism played out through cyberattacks.

However, balancing all the fears is almost a flirtatious interest in new technology and allowing it to develop unhampered by government restraints.


Tweets in actual order during hearing
@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: 2nd opening stmt: #AVtrucks need separate discussion. Previous hrgs about lightweight AV cars, trucks.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: 2nd opening stmt: Truck and bus driver jobs out front. Which level of automation? Stds?

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Sen. Peters - Highly automated trucks are NOT ripe for bill. Plus, JOBS and cybersecurity.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: That was Sen. Peters of Michigan.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Colonel Scott G Hernandez - Chief, Colorado State Patrol. Safety, safety, safety from AVs.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Hernandez talks about PR Otto trucking test on Colorado hwy to deliver beer. Level 4 truck.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Hernandez says CO used NHTSA and Calif regs for safe Otto test. Talks of lots of prep.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Hernandez says test provided info about cybersecurity, inspections, emergency mgmt of AVs.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Hernandez says time for AV legislation and deployment of tech. Commercial vehicles a big part.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Hernandez says planning is key. Repeat safety theme.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Next witness reading stmt - Mr. Troy Clarke, Chief Executive Officer of Navistar.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Clarke talks of large price of trucks and investment in drivers. Mentions 94% stat on driver error.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Clarke mentions lack of drivers. Sees future drivers more as pilots, w/ more tech.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Clarke wants safety design stds. Talks of clarity, stds, and will always need truck operators.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Over 100 people die every day on US roads. Stmt of Deborah Hersman, CEO, National Safety Council.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Hersman says to get to zero fatalities, need to carefully explore possibilities for prevention.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: 1 in 16 US jobs related to trucking. Stmt of Chris Spear, CEO of American Trucking Associations.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Spear says trucking industry spends $9 BILLION a year on safety. Need automated safety for trucks.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Spear asks for federal regs, not patchwork of conflicting state rules. Wants support for innovation.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Spear asks for V2V technology. 5.9 ghz standard. Look at fed regs accommodating AVs.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Spear says we'll hv to reconsider trucking regs - FMCSA. Gv examples, i.e. driver hours of service.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Ken Hall, General Secretary-Treasurer, International Brotherhood of Teamsters - voice of union drivers.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Hall says need worker participation to incorporate tech. Gv past examples. Must protect wrkrs.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Hall says workers are not guinea pigs. Cookie cutter approach to cars doesn't apply to commercial vehicles.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Hall warns senators that drivers are their constituents and there's lots of them.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Hall points to past vehicle manufacturer safety lapses that have resulted in fatalities, injuries.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Hall says better to get AV done correctly than to get done quickly.
@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Hernandez says need coordination - not leave out commercial vehicles.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Hersman says AV technology can bring great safety improvements. Need stakeholder coordination.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Clarke says commercial - heavy - vehicles very different than lightweight vehicles. Need one fed std.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Clarke says freight crosses state lines each day. Patchwork of state laws won't work.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Spear will only talk driver-assist tech. Doesn't think trucks will be completely driverless.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Spear - not concerned about driver displacement. Need more drivers. #AVtrucks decades away.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Spear - drivers needed for pickup and delivery. Tech is not threat bc increases safety.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Hall on job displacement - warns of 80k vehicle barreling down road w/o driver. Lots to be concerned about.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Hall brings up cyber terrorism threat of truck as weapon if no driver.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Speak mks clear trucking industry doesn't want cyber terrorism threat either. Working on cybersecurity testing.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Speak and Hall agree that there's truck driver shortage. Level 2, 3 still need drivers.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Spear says new driver will work with tech. Wants truck driving to be cool.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Spear likes CV tech and platooning. Seems to me he's not excited about total AV tech.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Clarke talks about importance of CV tech, AI, LIDAR, etc. US has edge.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Indiana senator confirms truck driver shortage, over 35k fatalities in US. AV potential for safety.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Indiana senator talks about great promise for independence for #peoplewithdisabilities. #pwd

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Indiana senator afraid of separately approaching AV light vehicles and commercial vehicles.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Role of truck driver in future. Spear says complicated road navigation. AV can't guarantee safety.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Spear says the model is airplanes. Basically fly by themselves, but have pilots on every plane.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Spear excited about CV platooning. Would mitigate risk.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Sen. Blumenthal calls new NHTSA AV guidelines as "anemic." Leaves enforcement "virtually toothless."

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Sen. Blumenthal asks don't we need actual regulation.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Union guy agrees with concept of regulation. Can't just trust vehicle manufacturers.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: No one willing to say outright that NHTSA AV guidelines are a robust first step.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Spear says NHTSA guidelines are a first step. Doesn't want patchwork of state laws.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Question is the proper regulatory framework Congress shd establish. That's Sen. Gardner.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Sen. Gardner mentions disproportionate share of fatal crashes involve trucks. Hersman confirms.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Hersman agrees w/ Sen. Gardner - hv to include commercial vehicles in AV safety law.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Sen. Markey gets most witnesses to say yes to considering job loss with AV issues. "Computers on wheels."

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Sen. Markey asks union guy about threat of cyberattacks using trucks. Hall says terrifying - need more studies.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Spear says AV legislation being considered wd be remarkable first step. Markey includes cybersecurity bill.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Sen. Markey asks about privacy, selling of personal info. Union guy says yes, we need protection.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: CO state patrol dir says need CV tech to manage congestion. Avoidable secondary crashes kill troopers.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: CO senator says truck drivers = 1 in 20 CO jobs.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Spear talks of agencies that must coordinate on enormous data needed. Need to include labs.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: For commercial vehicles, Spear not seeing driverless. Level 2 & 3 for foreseeable future.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Spear  and union guy wd be happy w/ legislation only addressing driver-assist tech. 

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Lots of concern about worker displacement. Spear and union guy say they can work together. 

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Nevada driverless bus. Tech and CV part of smart cities w/ P3s. Nev. senator supports training workforce. 

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Hersman says other countries have made better strides on safety w/ tech improvements.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Sen. Inhofe asks for witness comments about job displacement. Massive job declines?

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Hernandez from CO says we've had enormous loss of life w/ current tech on vehicles.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Spear says we'll need lots of employees to tend to tech-enabled trucks.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Sen. Masto of NH raises cyber fear. 

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Sen. Masto need more than assumption cybersecurity is being built in. Very concerned we get it right.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Sen. Masto asks about cybersecurity protection for trucks.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Everyone for cybersecurity for all vehicles. Everyone willing to hold hands.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Union guy declares we need strong cybersecurity regulation. Talks of VW scandal.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Sen. Capito points out WVA has spotty connectivity. Is this a barrier?

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Clarke responds that AV doesn't have to be CV.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Clarke says CV enhances safety.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Sen. Capito says she won't use an AV on the windy road to her house. Asks about operation on hwys.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Hersman says speed limit adherence with AVs will help w/ problem of speed alleys on hwys.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Sen. Duckworth points out potential for #peoplewithdisabilities. #pwd

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Clarke says AVs not suitable for some roads.AV must hv ability to pull over, must be in rt lane.

@SenateCommerce #AVhearing: Hersman says lots of agencies shd be involved. Mentions railroad crossings and pedestrians. "All road users."