Auto Alliance AV Regulatory Recommendations: Exploring the Details

The AV Roadmap: A Four-Year Plan to Revolutionize Transportation is a set of recommendations that the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, the association of major automobile manufacturers and their tech counterparts, have issued as their wish list for the next four years. The Alliance's membership includes all of the big, established players - with the notable exception of Tesla. 

Four-Year Plan, But No Dates or Details

Though the Alliance is touting this document as a four-year plan, it is not a plan, but rather a set of recommendations that would enable them to maintain dominance and discourage regulation. Though no one could disagree with the final statement of this plan - "If we work together to get it right, we will reap the benefits of a safer, cleaner, and smarter transportation system." - it is difficult, given the history of the corporate players involved, to leave the driving to them, so to speak. 

Background - We're Not Tesla

Tesla's success and high-profile crashes are seen as muddying the waters for the 100+ year-old auto companies and their start-up partners: First, the press conflates partial automation with full self-driving capability. Therefore the public and Congress confuse the safety of the former with the latter. Second, with a growing number of partially automated vehicles on the road (SAE Levels 1-2), especially Teslas, and the tendency of drivers not to pay attention to the road - as they should be and are responsible for doing - there is an increasing sense that the public is being exploited as guinea pigs. A public turning against AVs, conflating Teslas with every other partially or fully automated vehicle, is not something that the traditional automakers want.

Most of the state autonomous vehicle (AV) laws that actually regulate AVs - in contrast to merely defining terms,  establishing a study, or allowing for some level of platooning - refer to highly automated vehicles (Levels 4 and 5). The division between partially automated vehicles (SAE Levels 1-3) and AVs is that line where a human driver becomes unnecessary.

And now for the Alliance's recommendations:

Roadmap recommendation #1 - Create a New Vehicle Class for AVs

This recommendation for NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) to create a new class of vehicles with its own regulations outside of some of the FMVSS (federal motor vehicle safety standards) seems to lump together partially and fully automated vehicles because the document refers to both as AVs. In my opinion these two different types of technologies deserve different types of regulatory treatment as the former requires both a driver who acts responsibly and reliably, whereas the latter does not depend on human intervention. 

As an alternative, the Alliance asks that NHTSA complete its automation-related FMVSS work as soon as possible. During the Obama and Trump Administrations, NHTSA stuck to a hands-off approach on AV development, regulation, and standards. The image of AVs has shifted over that time, so it is unknown whether the Biden Administration will pursue a different path.

Roadmap recommendation #2 - Clarify Applicability of "Make Inoperative" Prohibition

Basically, this recommendation seeks to formalize the legality of partial vehicle automation that allows for a driver to select either human operation or automated operation, and to shift between those. Whether such vehicles are inherently unsafe, or unsafe without better design or without a great deal of driver education are certainly issues that Alliance members wish to avoid entirely.

Roadmap recommendation #3 - Establish a National AV Pilot Program

This recommendation for the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) to establish what the Alliance calls a "robust" program is vague, to say the least. The Alliance obviously is talking money and more of it because there is already money going into AV pilot programs and testing. I would guess that the Alliance refers to more than low-speed shuttles and freight trucking pilots. Is partial automation a part of this recommendation? Totally unclear.

Roadmap recommendation #4 - Improve the Exemption Petition Process

A recommendation to streamline or standardize - in order to speed up - the exemption process is not a bad idea. The Alliance also requests that "DOT should issue guidance that specifies what data is required as part of the exemption application." 

I would ask that as part of the anticipated exemptions for such AV exemptions that NHTSA - with the full backing of the USDOT - make its own requirements, such as accessibility of AVs, programming that prevents AV operation over posted speed limits, and technology that can recognize pedestrians, bikers, and other road users. After all, we keep hearing about how AVs will bring safety improvements and independence for people with disabilities. Let's have the exemption process advance those goals.

Roadmap recommendation #5 - Raise the Cap on Exemptions for AVs

This recommendation to allow a much great number of exempt AVs has long been sought through legislation from the Alliance and its members. The thought process here is that more AVs equals more data equals advances in the technology.

At least let's be thankful that these companies are willing to work with a government agency instead of throwing a product on the market without any notion of its safety. Oh wait, NHTSA has basically allowed Tesla to do that for years by refusing to regulate partial automation.

Roadmap recommendation #6 - Embrace Innovative Regulatory Approaches

Adjectives such as traditional, legacy, old, new or innovative do not say anything about quality. The question is not whether a regulatory approach is innovative, but whether it achieves the goal of regulation. So before we lock ourselves in a giant bear hug of innovation, we have to actually decide on the regulatory goals. Just saying "safety" is not enough. Safety for whom? There will be errors and crashes; nothing is perfectly safe. I think we can all agree that the FMVSS and regulatory processes as a whole are slow; so perhaps the word the Alliance should use is not innovative, but quicker. Is there a way to regulate well while doing it faster?

There is a request here for "virtual testing with validated simulators." Instead of offering a knee-jerk, uneducated reaction, I defer to actual engineers for input on this matter. I would guess that simulation can be quite good or it can be garbage-in, garbage out. From what I have read - and, again, I am not an engineer - perhaps this is a matter for collaboration among stakeholders and government about where the sweet spot is between simulated testing and testing on public roads.

Roadmap recommendation #7 - Maintain Traditional Federal and State Roles

For some reason, absolutely no one wants to upset this particular applecart. With AVs comes the conflating of the role of driver, traditionally regulated at the state level through licensing, insurance, inspections, and vehicle operation codes (such as speed limit violation punishments) versus regulation of the vehicle, provided for at the federal level. That is not entirely true due to the Bible-like level of deference given to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), drafted at the federal level, that proscribes standards for roadway design, speed, signage and signal placement. [Note: The MUTCD link above goes to the webpage of the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) that explains the MUTCD, its history, and the current draft revision, which is open for comments until May 14, 2021.]

Basically, no one wants to be a bad guy by suggesting to take away state control even if any uniform standards for roads and connectivity for AVs will accomplish just that. 

Roadmap recommendation #8 - Coordinate State AV Policies

I find myself asking how the Alliance can keep a straight face by genuflecting in Recommendation #7 to retaining the traditional federal-state division of regulation (tradition being considered something to respect on this matter, though not necessarily elsewhere), while in the next breath asking for uniform state AV regulation or, at least, regional groupings of states with uniform policies. Uniformity and federal funding to encourage it are recommended. Innovation is not welcome here; no laboratories of democracy.

Roadmap recommendation #9 - Align State Traffic Laws

In keeping with Recommendation #8, the Alliance seeks uniformity. Only when the companies do not want to be hemmed in are they for innovation, but when states experiment with different models of regulating AV operations, that's another story. States should all allow AV operations on public roads, the Alliance recommends. But the Alliance claims that human drivers and AV developers would benefit from uniformity.

Uniformity of state traffic laws and regulations would provide benefits not only to AV developers, but also to any road user who crosses state lines. At a minimum, a single resource of state traffic laws and real-time updates to those laws that is accessible to AV developers should be created.

There is nothing inherently wrong in what the Alliance recommends, but I don't see a request for lower speed limits or better designed roads. From a hunch and a two-minute search, I see that there is already a great deal of uniformity, but, like with any US uniform code that many states adopt, there are usually minor tweaks made. I don't see any drivers stopping by the side of the road at state lines to prepare themselves for operating a car in another state. But the recommendation for real-time updates, at the least, makes a lot of sense.

Roadmap recommendation #10 - Lead in International Forums

The Alliance recommends engagement at the international level on standards for testing and deployment. Certainly, the US should be actively part of such discussions and learning. AVs are an international quest and there are bedfellows that operate in different countries. There is also an outsize fear of the US being left behind, even though so much groundbreaking work is being done here. The threat of some other country, usually China is mentioned, taking the lead is often cited as a primary reason for passing lax AV legislation.

Roadmap recommendation #11 - Promote Industry Standards

The Alliance supports industry standards, but is silent on the role of government, particularly NHTSA, assuming leadership. I would say that the Alliance's words sound rational, but the auto industry has a terrible record of being dragged into integrating safety equipment on vehicles. It was only decades of research, advocacy, and regulation that has brought greater safety - to vehicle occupants and not to other road users. The automakers could have incorporated safer design in the 1930s and 40s, and certainly by the 60s, but they did not. Dr. William Haddon Jr. and James L. Goddard, both public health physicians, argued in an early 60s report about auto crash injuries that energy-absorbing safety design should not be made dependent on public demand. Haddon went on to become the first administrator of NHTSA and afterward led the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). 

Read more at Safety Sells: Market Forces and Regulation in the Development of Airbags (2005), an IIHS report authored by Martin Albaum, who served as a member of the Board of Directors of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety for eighteen years (I am in the middle of reading this wonderful report right now.)

Just today, I am reading an opinion piece in Governing about Vision Zero, a movement now years old that the automakers could embrace, but do not. The author, T. Bella Dinh-Zarr, trained as a public health scientist and served as the vice chairman, acting chairman and board member of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) from 2015 to 2019.

There are practical, proven actions we can take, right now, to save lives. For instance, we can ensure that all new cars, not only the most expensive ones, have the in-vehicle technology, including automated emergency braking, advanced impaired-driving-prevention systems and pedestrian-protective exteriors, outlined by the Global New Car Assessment Programme. We can help states adopt sensible laws such as the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety’s 2021 Roadmap of State Highway Safety Laws. We can support state policymakers’ efforts to enact .05-percent blood alcohol concentration laws to reduce drunk driving. We can reduce speed limits where drivers interact with pedestrians and cyclists.

Any day of the week, any automaker alone or along with its peers is perfectly able to step up and pledge to incorporate Vision-Zero-recommended in-vehicle technology in every new vehicle and to advocate for safer road design and lower speed limits. Until such time as safety is truly embraced as an industry goal, when I see the auto industry looking for standards, I will continue to believe that these major corporate players are actually seeking a level playing field for marketing and profit.

Roadmap recommendation #12 - Build Knowledge for a Safety Assurance Framework

The Alliance here is recommending that the USDOT take the lead in encouraging research and convening industry players in developing a framework. The industry is not, of course, advocating rethinking of our transportation system and modal availability in a way that promotes public health through active transportation. Though I come to this with a snarky attitude of bias against these companies, I do agree with the recommendation that USDOT provide leadership and develop its own expertise in automated vehicle technologies.

Roadmap recommendation #13 - Prepare Roadway Infrastructure for AVs

The automakers were brilliant in their encouragement and lobbying to create a transportation system in the US that became a self-perpetuating one that prioritized their products - even at the high cost of thousands of deaths per year and a significant negative affect on public health. Though I agree that the US and its state and local governments should be preparing to install infrastructure that will allow for the safe operation of AVs, I think that we should not be deferring to the auto companies, which continue to seek their own profit and not necessarily improve communities and advance public health.

I agree with the innocuous recommendation here:

DOT should revise the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to include items that will support and facilitate AV deployment. States should be encouraged and even incentivized to update their infrastructure consistent with any AV-related MUTCD update.

BUT I think that we need to revise the MUTCD with the broader goals of supporting public health, ensuring safety for active transportation and vulnerable road users, and promoting better environmental results in terms of emissions, mining, etc. Again, we have an MUTCD that has perpetuated a motor vehicle industry rather than giving people choices for safe, attractive ways to get around.  

The MUTCD is being reconsidered and May 14 is the deadline for submitting comments. Please refer to the template comments of America Walks and the National Association of City Transportation Officials. Copy these, add to them, and support the rights of those who do not drive - by preference, lack of a license, disability, or simply not having enough money - to travel around and participate as equals in our communities. It should not be a death defying activity to walk to a bus stop or a supermarket. 

Roadmap recommendation #14 - Support US Leadership on AVs

Finally, here at the last recommendation we raise the flag and insist on US remaining first as the priority. It sounds patriotic and it helps the profitability of the automakers and the tech industry. They want tax incentives, research and, especially, a free hand - "Finally, restrictions on the ability of developers to commercialize AV technologies should be avoided or eliminated." Why regulate? According to the Alliance and its members, regulation is the enemy of innovation. The subtext is that history should not be heeded.

What people care about in reality

When using a roadway to walk, bike, ride on a bus, or in a vehicle what people care about is safety, convenience and attractiveness. I don't care where my toaster, my laptop, or my phone is made - as long as it works well. 

When the car companies can agree with and use their efforts to support the following ideas from the opinion piece in Governing about Vision Zero, quoted above, then I will lower my level of suspicion when they release a 14-point plan that is merely a set of vague recommendations.

At the NTSB, I learned that we should not tolerate even one death, regardless of the mode of transportation. And I learned that we could implement proven methods to prevent deaths and injuries. Vision Zero isn’t just a good idea, it’s a proven strategy to eliminate traffic deaths. It’s time to call on the Biden administration, along with state and local policymakers, to take action and commit to #ZeroTrafficDeaths.

It's also time for the car companies and their partners in the tech industry to be good citizens. 

#10 Comments in Response to NHTSA ANPRM - Campaign of Cyclist Organization

Write-In Campaign

Love this! We have a write-in campaign from the League of American Bicyclists. Identical comments, very brief, from avid bikers. Nice. This is a wonderful exercise in participatory democracy available to any organization whose membership or constituency has a minimum of computer skills, a minute of free time, and a device to post with. Comment after comment is the same - a brief message with a link that allows for easy posting on the webpage for the Framework for Automated Driving System Safety  announcement of proposed rule making (ANPRM).

Photo of turtles in the sun.

Any organization can do this, but for this ANPRM only the League took the time to ask its members to sign on to the generic support of the League's full comment and to thus push for a shift in direction of the great big ship of federal transportation policy on which autonomous vehicle (AV) policy will be based. The generic comment basically states that the comment submitter agrees with the League's position about the ANPRM. No details, no engineering-talk, just an indication of support for an organization they trust and one with a simple goal.

The generic comment reads as follows: 

I am writing to support the comments of the League of American Bicyclists' on NHTSA's Proposed Rule for a Framework for Automated Driving System (ADS) Safety.

 
In the last 15 years people biking and walking have made up an increasing portion of traffic deaths and currently make up 20% of all traffic deaths. It is critical that NHTSA's Framework for ADS Safety prioritize the safety of people biking and walking to stop this increase and realize the potential of ADS for all people.

Through a "vision test," robust public testing of existing automated safety technologies, and research NHTSA can lead the way to safer roadways for all. Now is the time to make the safety of people outside of vehicles a priority in ADS safety.

So far, I have looked at over 200 of these identical comments from League members and a mere handful from individuals who added some text to emphasize their hope that we can protect users of other transportation modes, particularly pedestrians, but also transit.

I have not gotten to the bottom of the pile from League members and surely there will also be more comments from organizations as I reach the comments submitted at or near the deadline.

Why no one else?

Hand lettering of "contemplation."

I could list at least 10 organizations off the top of my head that provides or promotes a transportation option other than private vehicles, or that represents a transportation-challenged population - but none of these has enlisted its share of the public to inform NHTSA of their priorities regarding AV safety and regulation. Think of the possibilities for an explosion of public sentiment from older adults, people of color, transit riders, pedestrians, and people with disabilities.

At some point, I will tally these up and post the numbers. I am sure that the League did this as well with the opportunity to comment on the draft Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD). So far, over 900 comments have been submitted in response to that draft and the deadline is not until May 14, 2021. America Walks and others have enlisted their constituencies to comment on that very important document.

Arizona Passes AV Law - Here's the Deep Dive

The Arizona bill, which passed unanimously,  HB 2813 has been signed by Gov. Ducey. The new law firmly keeps Arizona in the "welcome mat" category of US state autonomous vehicle (AV) statutes. Surprisingly, the statute also covers vehicles with a significant level of partial automation as well as fully AVs.

Partial automation - Think SAE levels 2-3 Tesla and Tesla-ish driver assist systems

The Arizona law requires a human driver is o be present in a vehicle that does not have the capability to reach a minimal risk condition on its own or with remote service. The law also provides for vehicle requests from a partially automated vehicle for a human driver to take over operation. Wake up! It's time to instantly become aware of your surroundings and operate heavy machinery in a complex environment. All I can think of is the wake-up, take-your-eyes-off-the-TV-show-or-video-game alert should vary by type of person. Some of us need more time than others. 

Photo of a Delaware beach. 

In the irksome category, the law uses the word "accident" instead of "crash," which is itself problematic, given the auto-oriented roadways in even the largest Arizona cities, let alone its small towns. Have you ever spent a weekend in downtown Phoenix? Nothing happening; a ghost town with some cars going through. 

Usual and unusual AV law stuff

The law requires the fully autonomous vehicle (AV) to be capable of stopping at the scene of a crash, which means recognizing that a crash has occurred.

AVs may operate without a human driver ready to take over operation of the vehicle if the person - never defined, but presumably responsible - for the AV submits a "law enforcement interaction plan to the department of transportation and the department of public safety that is consistent with and addresses all of the elements in the law enforcement protocol that was issued by the department of public safety on May 14, 2018." This looks a like a law that assumes a fleet-based model of AV business for the foreseeable future.

The law anticipates passage of federal legislation and compliance with its dictates. It also anticipates AV ridehailing - a/k/a robotaxi - fleets. In fact, AV ridehailing pickups and drop-offs are totally fine. For whatever a paid driver did, you are on your own. The AV will not be lifting your luggage unless it's an accessible AV, in which case you will be provided with a ramp and relief from back pain. That little digression, of course, is true of all AVs and gets to my belief that vehicle manufacturers, if they choose, have much profit to gain by manufacturing accessible vehicles, particularly AVs.

Hand lettering of "Moving in public."

Commercial AVs are permitted to operate as well in Arizona.

Local and municipal preemption.

The Department of Transportation and the Department of Public Safety are the only state agencies that may implement or enforce this chapter, except that neither agency may prescribe procedures or rules that are unreasonable or unduly burdensome.

Pretty standard stuff. 

Arkansas AV Bill Seems Sure to Pass

Arkansas autonomous vehicle (AV) legislation has flown through the state's House and Senate, awaiting the governor's signature, and sure of passage. HB 1562 would delete the word "pilot" and permit permanent operation of an allowed AV on Arkansas roads. I do not disagree with this approach, though I find the attitude in the bill to be much more pro-business than pro-safety, any regulation of which is left to the state highway department. 

Another approach means vibrant experimentation

Pilots are generally well-funded, but temporary, projects that have been a favorite for the last few years in the AV shuttle world especially. For trucks and other AVs, testing has represented most AV operations. This doesn't mean that these are the only options and one can question whether a temporary fabulous service - sometimes only operating on particular days and for quite limited hours - can really prompt ridership demand or change how people travel. What most, but not all, pilots aim for is an unambitious introduction of AVs in a way that closely mirrors a quaint amusement park ride more than an actual transit or on-demand taxi-type service. 

This is not to say that there are not exceptions and the trend is toward transit-like or microtransit AV pilots. There is a place for permanent integration of well-designed AVs into our transportation networks. This is basically the course that Waymo has chosen in suburban Phoenix - located in AV-friendly Arizona.

The Arkansas bill could change this pilot/testing rubric in a major way in the Land of Opportunity State, though there is so much flexibility left to the State Highway Commission that the execution of such a statute would not necessarily result in wider latitude for industry. The presumption, however, is that corporate latitude - with as little regulation as possible - is the legislative purpose.

Name dropping without vision

There is no pathway to popularity laid out in the Arkansas AV bill for on-demand robotaxis or public transit, because the bill merely allows these AV services without mentioning how, why, or whether to regulate them, let alone prompting an explosion of zero-or-low emission modes or transit. 

Pre-COVID, Fayettville reported the following mode shares:

Fayetteville is host to about 44,000 workers aged 16 years or older. Of these workers, nearly 25% travel less than 3 miles to work, and nearly 50% of workers travel less than 7 miles to work. The private vehicle is the most used mode for commute trips in the city, with a share of 86%. About 6% walk for their daily commute, 2% ride a bicycle, 1% use public transportation, and less than 1% used a taxicab or motorcycle. About 4% of workers reported working from home. 

[Fayettville Mobility Plan, 2018. ] Please note that public transportation in Fayettville is fixed-route bus service with a minimum of 30-minute headways and a majority of routes having scheduled 60-minute headways. The service is fare free and the state university operates its own transit system.

Still, the bill allows AV operation as:

• An on-demand driverless capable vehicle network,
• For-hire transportation,
• Transportation of multiple passengers who agree to share the ride in whole or in part, or
• Public transportation.

This is all fine and perhaps Arkansas legislators envision their AV bill as an initial step toward a multimodal future, though I suspect otherwise. I find it interesting that online searches about the bill and its sponsors revealed almost no coverage of this legislation. AVs do not seem to be a hot topic for the  Arkansas public.