Warning - non-transportation digression here: Cannot resist lawyerly impulse of entrenched training to cite and provide a full quote. Justice Brandeis actually never used the phrase "laboratory of democracy" in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932), a case arising out of an Oklahoma statute regulating the business of manufacturing ice (at a time before every American owned a freezer), but the actual words are close enough that one may excuse the now traditional misquoting of Brandeis' language. Indeed, like so many memorable words from Supreme Court justices, Brandeis wrote this lovely text in a dissenting opinion.
It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.285 U.S. at 311 (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
As with people, states do not often separate from the herd
But no amount of innovation gets rid of the dual problem that:
(1) the US underinvests in public transportation and pedestrian and bike infrastructure so that we undermine transportation equity, affordability, and safety, as well as public health; and
(2) those very states, communities, and rural and and metropolitan areas overwhelmingly prefer to take federal dollars even with all strings attached. Read a recent Transport Politic post for a long read about transit. (I really like Yonah Freemark's writing on that blog; always thoughtful analysis.)
Exceptional situation for transportation funding and regulation
Autonomous vehicles present the exceptional transportation situation where the federal government - through both regulatory agencies and Congress - has chosen not, or failed to reach consensus on how, to govern the emerging, and still experimental, industry of autonomous vehicles (AVs). No carrots and sticks of federal funding or actual laws are telling the states what to do or strongly suggesting that they select a particular course.
Yes, the following is not breaking news, but I see more and more the states dividing themselves into three categories of AV governance:
- Do what you want; we won't bother you with pesky regulation; we are desperate for a date with industry;
- Trust, but verify; and
- We say we're in the lead, innovative, and all that, but don't bring those newfangled contraptions into our states without a police escort, complicated notifications, or some other requirement that companies will avoid by testing in another state.
Lone Star State
The Texas statute refers to fully automated vehicles, and not at all to partial AV systems, such as the Tesla Autopilot and similar "driver assist" systems. Passed in June of 2017, SB 2205 (enacted 6/15/17), amends parts of the Texas Transportation Code. Without any ifs, ands, or buts, the state law completely preempts counties or municipalities from regulating any aspect of AV equipment and operations any differently than they regulate conventional vehicles.
While the AV owner is considered the operator and he or she is not required to be present in the vehicle while it is actually operating (thus it is at loggerheads with the dictionary and actual colloquial definition), the "automated driving system is considered to be licensed to operate the vehicle." So, does it have to pass a driving test that any 16 year old must pass? No, but it must, like its peers in other states, be "capable of operating in compliance with applicable traffic and motor vehicle laws of this state."
Does anyone test for that? Apparently not under the statute, which has been in effect since Sept. 1, 2017. Other than some normal requirements, such as insurance, that even the most lenient state laws, regulations, or executive orders mandate, that is it. You are good to go to put that AV out on the road without even a wave from a state driving exam employee.
One thing this lenient law does require is a "recording device," defined elsewhere (at §547.615), as a device that records speed, direction, location, steering performance, seat belt use, and brake performance, though there is no requirement that the recording device record for any minimum amount of time prior to or following an incident. The owner "may" inform the state DOT that the vehicle is an AV; I'm curious why the word "may" was chosen.
Not just a welcome mat
The Texas statute is just one part of a strategy that is working to lure autonomous vehicle testing and pilot players to the Lone Star state. Texas also, according to one article in Automotive News, has cities that are coordinating together "to attract pilot projects." The article quotes at length from Tom Bamonte, senior manager for automated vehicles at the North Central Texas Council of Governments.
Texas is developing its own "full package" to draw developers: supportive local governments, an eager private sector, an engaged public and top-tier universities.
"The purpose of these pilot programs and experimentations is to kind of figure out transportation for the rest of the century," Bamonte said. "Responsible risk-taking is encouraged and rewarded. We're willing to venture into the unknown."
O-HI-O to AVs
It's headings like that which show why I'm not in advertising.
Ohio's governor, John Kasich, has issued two AV-related executive orders, one allowing AV testing and one promoting his state for AVs and likewise creating a pathway for his state to promote AVs, which establishes DriveOhio as the "Statewide Center for Smart Mobility." (I am still waiting for the governor or state legislature that dares to name a center for dumb mobility.)
Not a get-out-of-jail-free card
Gov. Kasich is not giving the free pass that fellow Gov. Ducey gave for Arizona. He is making sure that each AV has a (perhaps not unique) licensed human driver monitoring its operation, who will personally report any collisions that occur while the AV is in operation, and be "an employee, contractor, or agent of the company testing autonomous vehicles or is faculty, staff, or a student of a college or university and is actively involved in a partnership with that entity."
Does an AV system or vehicle need to pass a test in Ohio? Nope, but the owner must register with DriveOhio, basically the implementing arm of the other AV-related executive order; disclose the name and contact information for any person who will be monitoring an AV from outside the vehicle - so not the names and contact information of backup drivers who are present in the AVs; and alert the municipalities where the AVs will be testing.
So, Ohio wants to be a leader, but it's a shy state, really, and how do I know this? The executive order, like a concerned parent, wants information and coordination with authorities.
Whenever a company plans on testing without an operator in the vehicle, the company must first inform DriveOhio of the routes or areas where the company will perform such testing and the designated operators that will be monitoring each vehicle. Additionally, where testing without an operator in the vehicle occurs within the jurisdiction and authority of a municipality, the company and DriveOhio will coordinate on providing notification to relevant municipalities where the company will perform such testing.
Not without permission
Ohio municipalities must work with the state before being permitted to host AV testing. I don't know whether there's partisan power dynamics behind that requirement or plain old state-versus-cities tension, but this constitutes a hurdle nonetheless. In any case, the state-level DriveOhio is clearly in the okay-pun-intended driver's seat.
Municipalities that enter into agreements with DriveOhio will be specifically designated by DriveOhio as partners in the Ohio Autonomous Vehicle Pilot Program. DriveOhio will work with and assist each participating municipality in creating an inventory of unique testing attributes (e.g., two-lane or four-lane road; flat or hilly; urban or suburban; roundabouts or intersections) as they pertain to testing autonomous vehicles. DriveOhio will then publish the partner municipality's unique testing attributes to potential industry partners and work to connect the municipality with those industry partners.Kasich also retains for himself the authority to halt testing upon "clear evidence" that a particular technology is unsafe and to demand proof of compliance, to DriveOhio's satisfaction, with the executive order before allowing testing to resume - thus attempting to avoid the PR pickle in which Gov. Ducey found himself with THE Uber crash.
DriveOhio, according to the Smart Mobility executive order, is an entity within ODOT (the Ohio Department of Transportation) established to coordinate with stakeholders, including entities within ODOT, and to establish working groups with industry players and others on such pertinent matters as data, security, infrastructure, policy and regulation, telecommunications, vehicle deployment, and, essentially public relations and education. Privacy is not explicitly mentioned.
Not really; please read the actual text
Articles appeared that Kasich was opening up AV testing on on any public road in Ohio. While technically true in the sense that any road could be approved as a testing site, the executive order places much authority in the state; at the very least the executive order requires AV industry players to jump through some hoops, and it also sets up a government infrastructure for coordination among different state agencies, levels of government, and with companies and academia.
DriveOhio is starting with plans for highway testing and high hopes of first-mile/last-mile connections, though if that pertains to Ohio's relatively poor transit, I would be a bit skeptical on that score. It is probably referring to single-occupancy-vehicle, plain ordinary car commuting.
No comments:
Post a Comment