A patchwork of state laws and voluntary
federal guidelines is attempting
to cover the testing and eventual
deployment of autonomous vehicles in the
U.S. It is a decidedly pro-technology approach
that lacks adequate safeguards to
protect other road users.
The report from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) examines both partially automated vehicles, such ones equipped with Tesla Autopilot, and the vehicle involved in the Uber crash in Arizona, as well as the federal and state-level legal landscape governing - or neglecting to govern - AV testing and deployment.
If you are looking for a good source to quickly educate someone about the regulatory and legal provisions applicable to AVs, this report's final few pages provides an excellent source.
AV passport at state borders?
While there are states that have laid out the welcome mat - nary a question asked - for AVs, others have requirements in place for documentation, permits, and coordination with state agencies, particularly law enforcement. Right now, fully AVs are not crossing borders. They are not coming with a pile of papers for safe crossing of state borders or an AV equivalent of a passport.
The report concisely describes the many state laws that have been passed in the past few years, pointing out that 11 states allow for full AV deployment without requiring the equivalent of a driving test or a pile of documents that establish that a particular vehicle is capable of safe operation.
Federal vacuum creates state laboratories of democracy
The report does not come right out and expressly state that the federal government, specifically the National Highway Safety Transportation Administration (NHTSA), has abdicated its responsibility over vehicle safety of partially or fully AVs, because IIHS is too diplomatic to be so blunt, but it basically finds that NHTSA has taken a very hands-off approach.
The report adequately summarizes the safety-regulation issues thwarting the easy passage of legislation in the Senate and the players who are opposing the lenient, incredibly pro-business bill that is pending there. Just a few Senators currently stand between passage of the bill and reconciling a similar version that passed eons ago in the House of Representatives.
Plain speaking
IIHS is being blunt in expressing its opinion that crash data be shared so that the insurance industry can analyze the data to determine the relative safety of the vehicles involved.
To that end, IIHS strongly advises
NHTSA to create and maintain a nationwide
public database of vehicles with automated
driving systems and those exempt
from safety standards that is indexed and
searchable by vehicle identification number
(VIN). Currently, VINs aren’t required to
encode information about optional crash
avoidance and automation features. ... As it weighs which regulations to amend,
NHTSA also should consider new ones to
ensure that automated driving is safe for all
road users. Recording vehicle data is one
area that needs to be addressed.
I would think that the insurance industry, and IIHS in particular, would be a powerful voice due to its long experience, its profit motive, and its familiarity to political leaders, regulatory agencies, and the public. After all, every safe ride is at least a nickel in an insurance company's pocket. Okay, I have absolutely no data to substantiate that statement. For all I know, it could be $.0001.
Disclaimer: I owned a Ford station wagon for several years. I loved that car; indeed the only car I have ever loved and I have avoided driving and owning a car for much of my life. That station wagon had two great features:
Could be seen from anywhere in any parking lot - The station wagon was an unusual shade of blue and it had weird-shaped side back windows. The odd look of this vehicle was a distinct advantage and every single time I am in a parking lot with a sea of similarly shaped black/dark grey sedans, I think of our former blue beauty;
The station wagon had a large back window with its own windshield wiper. I miss this whenever I have to drive our supposed more luxury car (that my spouse felt was needed when the kids grew up and which I have thus far lobbied unsuccessfully to sell because why do we need a car anyway).
One more for extra: Not a fancy vehicle, so you never felt you had to avoid bringing the dog, eating something, or otherwise relaxing. I even slept in it once during a particularly rainy camping trip. FYI: Never take me on a camping trip because the chance of rain will skyrocket to 90 percent.
Terminology use that I like -
Saying ridehailing instead of ridesourcing or TNCs (transportation network companies),
Saying self-driving, driverless, autonomous vehicle (AV) as referring to only fully AVs.
Using "the term driver-assist
technology to describe features that assist drivers with convenience or safety benefits, but they are not autonomous because they require the human driver
to always remain engaged and available to take control of the vehicle. These features are defined by SAE International as Levels 0-2 of Automation and leverage
technology to augment a human driver but not replace them." The report also states that Ford will not use terms such as "blind spot monitoring, lane keeping assist and adaptive cruise control ... [as] “self-driving” or “autonomous” – and we’ll never refer to them as such – because they require the driver to supervise and maintain control of the vehicle."
Ford going for different business model possibilities - shared use that is fleet-based for human passengers and then otherwise for deliveries.
Ford is touting its street cred on service for people with disabilities, or, at least, for taking such individuals to healthcare appointments. I therefore hope that Ford will lend its support when I draft and start advocating for the All American Accessibility Act that will require every passenger vehicle to be accessible by a date certain (though I have not yet picked the date).
Smiley face on decision not to directly sell to consumers AVs - 😁
You had me at hello
Wow on the way stuff is explained on a for-dummies level without feeling condescending. This person or group should win an award. I am feeling satisfied as a transportation nerd who has a very pro-transit, pro-shared-use, pro-walking-and-biking perspective. Is there a drug coming to me from this report, has Ford learned to talk the talk, and perhaps even learned to walk the walk?
As for the movie Jerry Maguire, from which the clip is taken, I never bought the sudden I love you realization at the end of the movie. Just had to add that. Back to Ford report:
I didn't know that Argo AI is in Cranberry, NJ. Cranberry is quite close to a bunch of gated retirement communities. I am not proud to say that I know people - very nice people - who made the mistake of leaving Brooklyn to live in one of those retirement communities.
ArgoAI is also in Pittsburgh, as the photo shows.
I even got to see one of those AVs recently on a trip to Pittsburgh, which, by the way, is a neat place and rivals Boston with its pretty bridges.
What I don't like
No car company should be talking safety as if it is proud of its record. I am sure that Ford is well represented among the millions of roadway fatalities and injuries over the past several decades. In my opinion, as along as a car company has not capped its products' capability to speed, among other things, it should not engage in the pretense that it has produced a safe machine. I am also sure that Ford advertising has shown its vehicles on the open road operating at high speeds.
I found the human interface section insufficient. Nothing was mentioned about people with disabilities, about varying levels of cognition, people who speak different languages, children or older adults riding alone, or just people who happen to differ. Nothing about people without the ability to see or hear. Nothing about people who might not see or hear because they are watching a movie, listening to a podcast, or are engrossed with binge watching of Elisabeth Moss TV shows. One could be totally fixated on something like Mad Men or the Handmaid's Tale. Just as examples.
One should not brag, or even mention, being part of a project intended to deliver bad pizza to anyone at any time. I would leave out the collaboration with Dominoes. Really Ford, why not pick a great pizza place, like pretty much any neighborhood place in Brooklyn or even some on Long Island or in New Jersey? There's at least one wonderful option in New Haven as well. You buy up such nice startups, you hire smart people, but you are sad when it comes to pizza.
Notes to Ford
Reminder about the pizza and looking for your support for the All American Accessibility Act.
Not everyone speaks English or is able to hear at all. Make sure to embed interfaces for communication with people with different disabilities, different levels of cognition (as in teenagers who hardly look up when they cross a street), and who might be visiting from a place where people do not routinely learn to speak English fluently. There are people as well who are blind or visually impaired and then there are people like me, who do not pay attention or get distracted by the engaging thoughts running through their minds at any particular moment.
Fine, no problem - or might be a problem, but I do not know enough to judge that
Intended for a mass journalism audience that will get a sound byte or two from the report and briefly summarize it, the report is sometimes a bit of an AV-for-dummies publication.
Though the report might be for dummies, since I have no background in or substantive knowledge of software, vehicle design, or safety testing protocols, I will leave it to others to analyze Ford's language about cybersecurity, reaching a minimal risk condition (a/k/a pulling over to the side of the road or the equivalent), safety testing methods and practice, and crashworthiness.
Best sample from report
Most human drivers have a comfort zone. Some prefer to avoid highways and stick to local roads when possible; others would rather not drive at night or in bad conditions, such as during snow or ice storms. These driving routines and decisions can be considered a comfort zone.
The difference between most drivers and Ford’s self-driving vehicles is that our comfort zone is set in code. Our Virtual Driver System only works within its Operational Design Domain (ODD), which prescribes which areas, streets, speeds, weather and time of day our vehicles can safely operate. Emerging from the requirements generated by our System Safety processes, the ODD defines the vehicle’s area of operation. As the capabilities of our vehicles improve, we expect the ODD will expand in size and scope over time.
Our production-intent self-driving vehicles are being designed to operate at typical speeds for urban streets (e.g. boulevards and collector roads) within strictly mapped geo-fenced areas. The vehicles will be equipped with technology designed to detect and respond to static external environments, such as road structures and features (e.g. curbs, lane markings and barriers), roadside objects (e.g. trees and debris), dynamic objects (e.g. cars, trucks, motorcycles and bicycles) as well as pedestrians, first responders and animals. Our vehicles will operate day and night under a variety of light conditions as well as during precipitation capped at light rain.
That is one wonderful explanation. And, one last time, a portal to the actual report.
For anyone with time and interest, I am linking the UK autonomous vehicles (AV) insurance law, officially named the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018. Please be aware that I am not a licensed barrister or solicitor in the UK and I have never received any legal training in that country. I will summarize the law anyway.
The law requires the UK government's secretary of state to compile a list of fully AVs that are permitted on UK roads. This list must be published and updated, though nothing in the law states how frequently the list must be revised.
No required insurance compensation under law if the AV owner/policy holder -
makes his/her own software update that is prohibited under the insurance policy (which, of course, it would be), or
fails to "install safety-critical software updates that an insured person knew, or ought reasonably to have known, were safety-critical."
Nice definition of a vehicle "driving itself," which would be level 4 or 5, where human monitoring and backup are not necessary.
I am merely glancing at the electric vehicle (EV) provisions of the law. Looks to me as if regulations can be promulgated that will compel gas station chains to have EV charging stations. That would, however, require a request by the mayor of a jurisdiction. A list is provided in the law of information that must be "made available" at EV "refueling" stations - why can't they say recharging? - for the public. An interesting provision is the list of data that might be required to be collected at recharging stations.
Truly awful of me to send out a post that is a list with links. Too busy this week to do otherwise and this post is more personal filing of information than entertaining or informative writing for an audience. My apologies.
