#9 Comments in Response to NHTSA ANPRM - One Institute, One Engineer

A little bragging - The Washington Post published my letter to the editor on Friday, Feb. 19, 2021. Just including it in case anyone is in need of a transportation rant about safer roads.

Acronyms for today

ADS - Automated Driver System (sometimes referred to as ADAS for Advanced Driver Assistance System), which requires a human driver to monitor and at points take over operation of the vehicle

ANPRM - Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making

AV - Autonomous Vehicle

GAO - Government Accountability Office

GAO is a legislative branch government agency that provides auditing, evaluation, and investigative services for the United States Congress. It is the supreme audit institution of the federal government of the United States.

NCAP - New Car Assessment Program

NCSL - National Conference of State Legislatures

NHTSA - National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (an agency within the US Department of Transportation)

NTSB - National Transportation Safety Board

SUV - Sport Utility Vehicle

USDOT - US Department of Transportation

Comments tally

Disclaimer/Explanation: Please note that anonymous comments and ones where the author's background is undeclared or not easily discovered are counted as "regular people" unless it becomes apparent that the commenter has professional expertise, which then shifts the comment into that category. Also note that the comments tally includes those comments summarized below in this blog post. All categorizations are my own and might seem random or wrong to someone else.  I am not an engineer, an automotive geek, or a software expert.

Comments are due by Feb. 1, 2021. 

Total comments to the Framework for Automated Driving System Safety (Framework) Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) issued by NHTSA that I have studied - 18 

Total comments as of Feb. 15, 2021 - 649 - The math comes to a difference of 631 unread comments. 🤯😲 😨😱

This is a tally of those comments I have read. Needless to say, I have a year or more of reading ahead or I can forget this. What keeps needling me, though, is the thought that no one but a bored, overworked, government functionary is reading these. I am respecting those who have submitted comments by giving them a thoughtful read and summarizing them.  

Anonymous - 2

Companies or Organizations - 8

Individuals with professional expertise - 6

Cybersecurity -2  

Regular people - 6 

Regular people who want increased safety - 5

Regular people who do not believe AVs will be safer than human drivers - 1

Regular people who do not want regulation to constrain innovation - 1

Spam comments - 1

Instructions for submitting comments can be found in the ANPRM.

Please note that these comments are not necessarily representative of the opinions of the US population; rather they come from corporate or non-profit entities or professionals with an interest in AVs, or people with the time, energy, and space in their lives attend public meetings - in this case to devote attention to Federal Register notices. The regulation-making process is, if not hidden, then placed out of the way in the bowels of federal agencies, and is oft forgotten when we vote or choose where we participate in our democracy.  

David DeVeau - Comments

I will get a guest blogger for this one. This guy is obviously an engineer who only writes in engineer speak. It does seem like he has something valuable to say.  I will ask around.

Humanetics - Comments

Humanetics is the leading crash dummies manufacturer, at least according to itself. I will be frank that the whole point of an AV, in terms of safety, is to avoid a crash, leaving the crash dummies to ride along and check their fake smartphones and drink their pretend lattes. That said, there's no reason to get rid of the crash dummies. 

Humanetics requests that we retain the particular FMVSS regulatory frameworks and certain equirements, such as gender-based crash dummy tests. 

Humanetics encourages the agency to implement a regulatory framework soon. It is not too soon and would not inhibit the advancement of technology. There are clearly certain basic driving scenarios which are anticipated to be very common, and all manufacturers would recognize these as critical and it is not too soon to implement a regulatory framework. As previously mentioned, these regulatory protocols could be supplemented with voluntary measures to control and manage a broader range of driving / test scenarios. Those voluntary scenarios / tests should remain fluid as the technology evolves.

Though Humanetics favors employment of the FMVSS, it does suggest an avenue for using alternative protocols. It envisions "a parallel path with regulatory testing with an option for a manufacturer to provide evidence supporting an alternate test protocol based on their technology is appropriate. Both the regulatory protocol and any alternate path should both utilize physical testing to ensure the performance of the  vehicle."

Now only 629 comments, give or take, to read. Why does that song 100 Bottles of Beer on the Wall, sung on every middle school trip, come to mind?

Write-In Campaign

Love this! We have a write-in campaign from members of the League of American Bicyclists. Identical comments, very brief, from avid bikers. Nice. I am going to collate all of these later in one post. Two of these are already included in the tally. Maybe there are more among the 600-plus comments left for me to read. Why do I complain about insomnia when there is a cure if I keep my laptop beside the bed?

Comment from Mollie D'Agostino on behalf of the UC Davis Policy Institute for Energy, Environment, and the Economy

This comment is submitted by Mollie, D'Agostino, whom I know personally, but not well. She submits this comment on behalf of the UC Davis Policy Institute for Energy, Environment, and the Economy (Policy Institute). DAgostino is the Policy Director of the 3 Revolutions Future Mobility Program at the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis. This is a well-thought out comment that turns the safety framework on its head by essentially asking what is safety and is it more than preventing crashes or reducing their harm.

The narrow scoping of this ANPRM may be counter to a more comprehensive AV framework that might holistically address safety in such a way that it also tackles other DOT priorities, including climate resilience, mobility for underserved individuals and communities, and accessibility for all, including people with physical or cognitive disabilities. A narrow AV or ADS framework may obscure or even impinge on the Department’s broader transportation, mobility and sustainability objectives. 

The Policy Institute points to the state of California as an example of AV leadership from a government that has chosen to prioritize safety, environmental sustainability, equity, and accessibility.  And to make it better, the California goals include data collection to ensure we can judge where the state and the industry are in terms of reaching the goals.

Specific requests in this comment include:

• Clarify terminology - The Policy Institute asks NHTSA what safety means exactly and does it include security, shared-use vehicles, as noted examples. 
• Consider the possible safety benefits of fleet-based, shared-use AV transportation service. The comment posits that reliable maintenance might increase reliable performance and safety. 
• Establish a continuous monitoring system through data collection - The comment states that there are examples at the USDOT, specifically the DOT Secure Data Commons, and in the private sector.
• Set required performance standards - "Binding (rather than voluntary) performance-based ADS safety standards within the FMVSS will likely result in more consistent and improved safety outcomes. Performance-based standards, rather than design-based standards, such as safety benchmarks, will be more flexible and allow the industry to evolve in a manner that preserves safety and consistency."
• Research to ensure business models that increase safety - The comment states, "more research is needed to assess safety outcomes for these different business models and to understand the expanded role of AV manufacturers in ensuring reliable ongoing performance of the ADS and vehicles whether they are operated by individuals or fleets."
• Research to identify or set standards for emergency communications, a "panic button."
• Collaborate with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) - The Policy Institute includes passenger interfaces in this request. "NHTSA should work with FTA to consider how public transit applications will impact safety, and whether AVs for transit use will meet requirements under the Americans With Disability Act [(ADA)]. ... Both safety and security performance standards could be considered for shared AVs to encourage consistency among commercial service operators, so passengers can become familiar with security practices."
• Define safety and test for it to include people with disabilities, whom are, the comment points out, 17 percent of the population. Even now, testing performed reflects average sizes . The comment offers a list of examples of specific metrics that might ensure AV safety for people with disabilities. These include physical access, such as wheelchair ramps and securement, as well as communications access. For a petite woman and an advocate for accessible transportation for people with disabilities, this comment is very significant. In my opinion, this deserves a long quote from the comment: 

The AV Safety Framework should consider the safety considerations for passengers with disabilities, including those who may use wheelchairs for personal mobility, or whom currently require aids or drivers to assist them with many aspects of travel. Care must also be taken to consider the needs of riders with other disabilities who are not in wheelchairs. More information is needed to build a concrete and qualitative understanding of the needs of people with all types of disabilities, and DOT should convene NHTSA, FHWA, FTA, and other relevant agencies to consider how a proposed AV safety framework might improve mobility for disabled passengers. 

In this vein the comment requests that we consider everyone, not merely those affluent or able enough to own a vehicle and maintain it. The comment integrates into its requests for research that we examine ramifications for people of color, people with disabilities, and people who bike and walk (pedestrians, yes). 

#2 Comments on Draft Strategic Accessible Transportation Plan

Comment of Cure SMA looks to overcome barriers for wheelchair users

Because many people with SMA utilize a wheelchair or other device for mobility, it is imperative that all existing and future modes of transportation are accessible and operate to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities. Unfortunately, transportation barriers remain prevalent in transportation modes despite the mandate of and the progress since the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

This is a quote from the three-page comment of Cure SMA. First, about SMA and why people with that medical condition and their families would be very interested in the Draft Strategic Plan on Accessible Transportation.

Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a group of hereditary diseases that progressively destroys motor neurons—nerve cells in the brain stem and spinal cord that control essential skeletal muscle activity such as speaking, walking, breathing, and swallowing, leading to muscle weakness and atrophy.

Hand lettering drawing of Dr. Suess
 quotation: "Unless someone like you cares
a whole lot, nothing is going to get better,
it's not.

Cure SMA is requesting that USDOT identify a point person - a disability czar, perhaps - who would be responsible for tracking performance toward achieving the goals of the draft strategic accessibility plan. The comment expresses concern that the lofty goals of the document actually receive USDOT attention and serious effort. This group is concerned about a beautiful plan sitting on a shelf. Cure SMA's specific issues revolve around: (1) Air travel problems regarding wheelchair storage, (3) driver licensing for people with disabilities, and (3) the high cost of retrofitting vehicles to allow for accessible driving.

In regard to AVs, "Cure SMA strongly supports the DOT’s efforts to ensure automated vehicles and other new technologies are designed with the needs of people with disabilities in mind." Accessibility of emerging transportation technologies is included in Cure SMA's 2021 priorities.

Comment of a graduate student addresses transportation for people with dementia

Here we have a brief, but thoughtful comment from a graduate student in community planning. The comment of Jonathon Katz specifically discusses the difficulties of a lack of transportation for people with dementia and those who care for them. The comment requests that the draft strategic accessibility plan provide a goal to expanding transportation access for this group, and, among other language in the comment that shows an educated vantage point about this issue, calls for more door-to-door transportation service for this frail population, while acknowledging the efforts of both the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the Department of Health and Human Service's Administration for Community Living's programs.

Hand lettering drawing: African-American
Man - Essential 

This comment also points to specific pedestrian safety programs in New York City and Oregon that, if implemented across the country, would substantially help seniors feel safe to walk in their own communities. Mr. Katz asks for separated bike lanes as a means of increasing the safety and comfort of older pedestrians whose pedestrian networks include mixed bike/ped infrastructure. One other request is  "I think more attention to community planning curricula, through the American Planning Association and the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, would be highly beneficial as well. "More information about Mr. Katz is available from his graduate school at the University of Maryland. He writes knowledgeably about transportation, disability, and food.

Mostly complaints - USDOT Draft Strategic Plan on Accessible Transportation

The Draft Strategic Plan on Accessible Transportation is a can't-miss comment opportunity for disability activists, advocacy groups, and their counterparts in the aging world and in transportation. This is an easy way to begin engaging with the new leaders at the US Department of Transportation (USDOT). Keep your federal representatives informed by sending them a copy of what you submit to the USDOT. Submit comments; the deadline is Feb. 16, 2021.

In my opinion, the 25-page draft strategic plan and the comments that will be submitted are a gift to the incoming team at the USDOT to hear from stakeholders, yes, but also from regular people who grapple every day with transportation barriers. 

I have already covered, in a previous post, all of the comments submitted thus far to the draft strategic plan and I will continue to monitor the response submissions. 

I again thank former Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao for using every opportunity to raise the issue of accessibility for people with disabilities and older adults. While I may disagree with her faith in the market to achieve this goal and the extent to which government should assist, encourage, and mandate, I appreciate how Sec. Chao faithfully highlighted this issue. In statement of scope in the draft strategic plan, this document issued under Ms. Chao's name honestly acknowledges the current reality: "lack of ramps, poor customer service, or chronic under-maintenance of equipment such as elevators may affect the ability of people with mobility impairments to use certain stops and stations." That description focuses right in on the daily frustrations and barriers that people with disabilities confront - where there is transit service. 

Remember, however, that in many communities there is little to no public transportation available. No federal law requires any public transportation. 

Apologies in advance: This post is full of complaints. Maybe COVID winter is making me cranky.

Let's get to the root of the problem.

Show me the money

A knowledgable basketball fan will tell you to watch the belly button area of a player to consider where that player is heading on the court, and, for AV development, I am watching where the money is flowing.

I'll be honest that, in terms of putting money where one's mouth is, as a society, we are putting billions into AV systems and prototypes for private vehicles and delivery fleets - all with the intent of enriching corporations. That is fine, but there are only millions being invested in accessible AVs, not to mention AV transit vehicles, and equity when we enter the AV age. In my opinion, we are not yet on the road to improving our transportation system writ large; we are merely on a path to replacing what we have and perpetuating the barriers to travel that we already have.

In the US, we simply have not demonstrated the same commitment to accessibility and equity as we have to serving profit-generating customers. 

Encouragement, research, and experiments more than a plan

Keeping in mind the lopsided amounts of money being invested, here is what the draft strategic plan describes about what the USDOT is already doing and what it suggests and for improving  accessibility in transportation. 

It is critical that new vehicle types and operating models are designed with the diverse needs of people with disabilities in mind. The [USDOT] plans to complement industry efforts by conducting and funding research to enhance the accessibility of personal vehicle travel...

...          ...          ...

Research is also investigating how automated vehicles in rural areas can provide transportation options for people who are not able to drive.

...          ...          ...

The [USDOT] recognizes the importance of providing effective and accessible mechanisms for public participation so that travelers with disabilities can have a hand in shaping transportation systems that work for all.

...          ...          ...

[USDOT] seeks to advance implementation of multimodal innovation, network connectivity, and emerging mobility technologies to accommodate people with disabilities.

Note to self: Calm down. Look at another cat photo. Nothing so mesmerizing as one's own pet.

Nice goal, but where's the beef?

While the goals expressed are very American as apple pie, totally non-controversial, there is sometimes a lack of commitment to those goals and sometimes a lack of employing easy answers, instead choosing more convoluted and less comprehensive strategies. For example, 30 years after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), is it really acceptable that we still have in our future this goal?

For fixed route services (including actual and virtual flag-stop service), all vehicles will be ADA accessible; demand-responsive service must ensure equivalent service to persons with disabilities, including wheelchair users, according to established criteria.

This kind of language makes me skeptical when it comes to the articulated goals in the draft strategic plan of removing accessibility obstacles to multimodal options, micromobility, rights of way, and transit. The goals are laudable, but without the funding available at the USDOT or at agencies across the country to achieve these goals, the words alone are insufficient.  

One important detail

Details are supplied in the draft strategic plan about specific projects and research that the USDOT is  funding. Again, to be repetitive, we're talking huge disparities between public and private dollars and where their basketball belly buttons - to use a weird metaphor - are pointing. 

One specific goal is to establish a common set of data specifications:

FTA will work to promote data specifications for demand response transit and interactions among software systems owned by different transit providers.

...          ...          ...

DOT will encourage other common data specifications, such as ... GTFS, that can help riders more easily access route, schedule, fare, and arrival time information.

Pay attention to the specific words, such as "promote" and "encourage," which do not exactly ring with leadership. This is an area where stakeholder organizations, coalitions of volunteer and non-profit-provided transportation, as well as transit agencies, should be pushing FTA and alerting their representatives in the House and Senate that data specifications are important to the coordination of transportation services. Click here to learn about the work that AARP has done in this field.

What I don't see

I am not seeing common sense, relatively inexpensive programs or simple suggestions that would make a big difference to achieving particular goals. For example, under the umbrella of the complete trip goal, the draft strategic plan declares that the USDOT will collaborate with the Access Board and the Department of Justice (which has authority to file ADA lawsuits), as well as with the disability community, to consider wayfinding technology standards that can be rapidly and easily incorporated into transit facilities and systems and pedestrian connections. 

A big yes to wayfinding technology, an area of exciting technological developments in the last few years. But, no new technology or collaborative advisory groups are needed to provide bus stop benches, shelters, and complete streets infrastructure, including painted crosswalks, stop signs, and traffic signals, to make walking safe. These would do a lot for accessible transit access. 

One more example from the draft strategic plan: NHTSA's evaluation of "a High Visibility Enforcement program aimed at modifying the behavior of motorists passing bicyclists in two localities with a large number of bicycle crashes." Why not safer road and vehicle designs? Design determines behavior. 

Let's not be so mesmerized by technology that we don't invest in proven strategies. I need another cat photo. Deep breath.

I am inappropriately mixing apples and oranges

True, true, I am willy nilly mixing together areas that are separated by law and regulation into distinct federal, state, and local responsibilities, but imagine yourself unable to safely cross the street to the bus stop because of inadequate snow removal, or unable to stand for 10 minutes if there is no bench, or needing to run across six lanes of 45-mph-traffic to reach the bus stop - oh and the bus comes once every 45 minutes or an hour. That is the reality for millions of Americans. That's the reality of putting cars first.

I would like to see an accessible transportation plan from the USDOT that speaks to the persistent challenges confronting people, the challenges that cause them to just stay home, to not be able to hold a job, and to have to buy a car in the first place. - Oh if they are able to drive. 

That money thing again

"FMCSA has 18 Field staff trained to conduct ADA investigations." That's for whole US intercity bus industry. At least the draft strategic plan is honest. There's at least 10 people working in a road maintenance crew for a year at one 1/4 mile stretch in DC. 🤨  

I guess it's true. Show me the budget and you'll discover the true priorities. USDOT agencies are full of competent staff devoted to safe transportation, but local, state and federal budgets demonstrate a commitment to motor vehicles, not to full access for people with disabilities, let alone seniors and low-income communities. I would bet we spend plenty of public money to build and maintain airports, which middle and upper-class people use, but how much money do we devote to intercity bus transportation and facilities, or to Amtrak, in comparison?

One question

As I finish this curmudgeonly post, I have to raise a point of incomprehension, my own. Maybe it's just that the car companies have a century under their belt of a way to make good money, but, please, why don't OEMs and techies have the imagination to realize that there's plenty of money in accessibility? We already have accessible vehicles, so they don't have to recreate the wheel to invent those vehicles. 

We still would have the problem of equity, true, but accessibility is a pot of gold waiting at the end of the rainbow for companies willing to take a risk to serve a big market.

#1 Comments on Draft Strategic Plan on Accessible Transportation

This post reviews the comments submitted thus far in response to the US Department of Transportation Draft Strategic Plan on Accessible Transportation. Only one comment, thus far, from Julie Withers, discusses anything about the accessibility of autonomous vehicles (AVs). All of the comments summarized below are brief, sometimes briefer than my mix of summary and remarks.

Reading these comments is a privilege. People write in with private thoughts, ones not captured in a polling booth or in polished statements of advocacy organizations, about how government policy matters very personally to them. Even, and, sometimes especially, the comments that are clearly from individuals unfamiliar with government agencies and how they operate are the most moving. Somehow these people have discovered a relevant agency notice and they are sharing with the seemingly anonymous bureaucratic-sphere their unvarnished thoughts.

Comment from John Brown

Comment does not address the strategic plan; it remarks on a particular transit service in Texas.

Comment from Ross Temple

Mr. Temple says in his comment that he has been in a wheelchair for 27 years, after being injured in the first Gulf War. He has suggestions for how to better retrofit vehicles so that people with particular physical disabilities can use them. "Basically I’m asking to help. I understand the limitations people in wheelchairs have. I understand what is needed for the very wide rang of injuries. I have understanding of the different lifts and their limitations as well. I have been exposed to all the new and old techniques used in Accessibility. The wildest one was a friend of mine who had barely any use of his arms and drove by joystick. It’s amazing what the US can do when we put our minds to it."

Comment from Florida Massacre

Despite the name given, this is not a completely offensive comment and not violently threatening. What the comment does convey beyond anger is frustration with federal efforts to expand accessibility.

Repeat: I cannot call myself an outdoor cat when I
refuse to go out in the snow.

"'Quarterly webinars" as the "innovative" solution to fix the problem is a joke. We know the answers of how to build safe, accessible roadways for a wide range of users - use your powers to properly define and demand them from DOTs.

While USDOT employees sit at their desks or telework from kitchen tables, it is helpful for them to remember that accessibility is a real-life issue for many people, and that the lack of access is extremely unfair and frustrating, creating a huge barrier to living a normal life. But what the angry commenter does not realize is that the authority of the USDOT to affect change is limited to the powers that Congress has granted. So now I have spent more words than Florida person used.

Comment from Eddie Hager

When someone starts discussing the mechanics and implications of local matching fund requirements, this is someone who might know how the federal administrative sausage is made, but then the commenter proceeds to call for a requirement that states supply matching local funds for "sidewalks, cross walks, safe to school routes etc along State and Federal Roadways." Mr. Hager's state, Indiana, is remiss in this regard, he states. However, this comment does not discuss accessibility or the USDOT draft strategic plan.

Also, it would be up to the state, rather than the federal government, to decide whether the state will contribute those matching funds. My advice is to start talking to your state legislators and get others to do so as well.

Comment from Britt Berner

This brief comment focuses on the lack of requirements or even discussion in the USDOT draft strategic plan regarding service animals. The comment requests additional regulation to ensure that regulation fully enables this type of accessibility aide to provide assistance to those who need it. The commenter is concerned with those who "fake" their animals as service animals. 

Comment from Julie Withers 

This comment presumes the continued dominance of the privately-owned vehicle well into the AV age, as well as their less well-known and more expensive counterparts for people with disabilities, the retrofitted vehicle. That said, this comment is about lack of choice, and within car culture, people with disabilities have severely limited choices, IF they are able to drive or have someone available to drive. 

Off topic: People with disabilities and older adults are the foundation, sometimes the only ridership, of many, many small transit systems that barely provide what one in a major city would consider transit - sometimes only demand-response and not even a fixed-route service. Those transit or non-profit services often require reservations at least a day in advance. To be a person with a disability in small city, small town, or rural America is to be a second-class citizen.

Back to comment: This comment makes design suggestions for accessible AVs that come out of the lived experience of a customer who happens to have a disability and is longing for an alternative in accessible vehicle design that existed 40 to 50 years ago, she maintains. The lingering sad sentiment of this comment stays with me because it shows how desperate it is to be someone whose preferences are ignored in the marketplace. "The car seat should extend closer to the door for easier transfer for a person who cannot stand. The height of the car seat should be approximately 21" from the ground up. Having to lift body weight either up or down can be difficult. Thank you for paying attention to these issues."