AV State Laws Passed From 2018 to Present

I was wondering recently what has been the trajectory in terms of state laws passed in the post-2016-17 heyday of perfectly safe AVs will soon be here! The killing - yes, killing - of Elaine Herzberg on Mar. 18, 2018, with a combination of unsafe pedestrian infrastructure and Uber's hubris was a major dump of cold water on a free pass for lenient AV legislation. Ms Herzberg did not die in vain; state legislatures slowed down considerably.

This slowdown did not mean inaction. In the last year, two types of state laws have become popular: those mandating AV studies and those allowing for truck platooning. Please note that the source for most the provisions discussed below is the set of links from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) webpage that houses a list of enacted state laws dealing with autonomous vehicles, and some independent research.

I have no idea how much trucking trade associations and companies are paying for lobbying at the federal level, but they have quietly infiltrated state legislatures and, without fanfare, accomplished the passage of platooning bills in many states.

There are a few exceptions in terms of topics among the 2018 and 2019 statutes, which are explained below.

Another reason for a slowdown and look around among state legislators is the anticipation that the US Congress will act and that it needs to act. There is limited authority to among states to regulate vehicles anyway. What I find most interesting in the passage of recent state laws is the diversity among the "Let's study this" laws as to what is actually being pondered and examined.

Study and report

Maine requires state government agency participation related to aging and people with disabilities,  and participation of a non-profit transit provider.

New York requires that its second annual AV report, in 2019, be from the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.

Oregon's task force is mandated to include representatives from transit, the taxi industry, and transportation unions, as well as the usual AV, cybersecurity, and insurance industry representation, among others. The study topics go beyond those routinely mentioned in such legislation, with land use, transit, and infrastructure design among the specified long-term topics.

Pennsylvania requires transit participation and either pedestrian or biking participation on its advisory committee.

Washington State has created a work group that is tasked with reporting annually and which is set to expire in 2023. The work group is made up solely of state officials and legislators. The net that the work group is required to cast is broad in that it includes examination of AV social impacts, among other topics, and the task force is legislatively mandated to engage stakeholders and the public.

Washington, District of Columbia (DC) has an impossible legislative search system, so I did a Google search for the name of the legislation. The legislative text (link gives you a Word document) authorizes an expansive AV study, but it does not restrict or discuss who specifically (or their designees) will serve on any committee to research and consider AV laws, regulations, and possible impacts. The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) is required to produce a study that will be made publicly available by July 1, 2019. The DDOT study must consider many of the usual AV study topics, as well as public space and public health, safety of pedestrians and bicyclists, various transportation modes - "including mass transit, shared-use vehicles, and public and private vehicles-for-hire" - and the "impact on the District's disability community."


Platooning

Alabama allows for truck platooning, offers a definition, and authorizes its state Department of Transportation to regulate. Alabama does not appear on the studies list because it passed a "thou shalt study and prepare a report" law in 2016.

Indiana platooning law is not limited to trucks.

Kentucky requires that a proposed plan be submitted to the state Department of Vehicle Regulation, which must approve before platooning is permitted; notification is required to be made to the state police.

Louisiana platooning is not permitted on two-lane roads.

Mississippi does not allow platooning on two-lane roads. Platooning must be also expressly approved by both the state department of transportation and the department of public safety after a "plan for approval of general platoon operations" is submitted.

Oregon does not use the term "platooning," instead calling it "connected automated braking system" and this term conceivably applies to any type of vehicle, not merely commercial vehicles or trucks, that is equipped with the appropriate technology.

Pennsylvania allows for platooning with military, bus, or motor carrier vehicles. Platooning vehicles must bear a visual mark. Platoons are limited to a maximum of three vehicles and each must have a driver on board. There's more, which means that platooning takes a considerable amount of lead time.

Utah has passed a platooning law. It is not limited to any particular type of vehicle. This is in addition to Utah's general AV law discussed below.

Wisconsin passed a simple platooning law. It is not limited to specific classes of vehicles.


Other

California statute allows law enforcement officers to remove an AV from a road if the vehicle does not possess a permit to operate as an AV on public roads within the state.

Another California law allows the City of San Francisco to impose a fee for every AV ridehailing or shared ride provided for a fare.

Nebraska general AV law: Requires that an AV be able to achieve on its own a minimal risk condition, but does not require proof or testing of such capability. Also explicitly allows for ridehailing, other shared-use AV commercial passenger transportation, and public transit. Preempts local regulation or taxes related to AVs.

New York specifies the coordination with the state police required prior to AV testing demonstrations in the Empire State. This is an update to a pretty restrictive AV statute passed in 2017. The 2018 law requires that a "law enforcement interaction plan shall be included as part of the demonstration and test application that includes information for law enforcement and first responders regarding how to interact with such a vehicle in emergency and traffic enforcement situations." The law also calls for a report to be written; see above for details about that.

Pennsylvania allows for automated work zone vehicles as part of its Turnpike Commission's road projects.

Utah's legislature just passed an AV law, awaiting the governor's signature, that:

• Governs and allows for AV ridehailing 
• AV registration requirement
• Fully allows, for level 3 automation, whether with driver on board or a remote driver 
• No license required for AV systems
• Preemption of local government regulation of AVs 
• Low speed vehicles have different rules. Defined as four passengers, including the driver or fallback operation, or less. BUT that human driver is permitted to be a remote operator. These vehicles have a maximum speed permitted of 25 mph.

It should be noted that Utah was an early state that studied AVs. Perhaps the state is a bellwether for others that are or have studied AVs and will then consider AV legislation.

Bunch of links: Pilots, UK law, SAE announcement

Pilots

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.

Australia - Regional pilot locations announced in New South Wales.

Phoenix, Arizona area - Waymo and Phoenix's public transit, AND Waymo and Walmart partner up for rides to the store, AND Waymo test families include a teenager with the coolest driver - as in none.

Austin, TX - Cap Metro, the transit agency, is testing AVs prior to year-long pilot with EasyMile shuttles. More local coverage.

Dallas/Fort Worth, TX, area - AV service within geofenced area by Drive.ai with bright orange Nissan vans.

Regulation and insurance

Pennsylvania - Stronger "voluntary" regulations, I mean "guidelines," demand more of AV testing companies.

New insurance law in England, mostly concerned with partial vehicle automation.

SAE

SAE to develop standards for AV safety. First draft due by end of 2018.

New SAE J3016 levels of automation came out in June and a new graphic was released in July. Still clumping together the very different and distinguishable partial automation level 3 with full automation levels 4 and 5.

PennDOT and a Wine Tour AV Shuttle - Drink and Ride

A perfect reason for an AV shuttle: tourist wine tours without driving. Taste more and ditch the designated driver. BUT you will have to go all the way to Australia (unless you are already there). Autovino - no kidding - if approved, will operate in New South Wales, that's NSW for those in the know, "on Hermitage Road, set against the majestic Brokenback Mountain Range." Not to worry if you prefer beer or no alcohol; craft beer, olive groves, and a day spa are in the area. The Around Hermitage Association will be happy to help with accommodations and other plans. The association is also a partner in the Autovino plan.

Could be better than attending an AV conference, given the wine, the gorgeous scenery, and the cute shuttle. No word yet on when Autovine will debut.

Liberal AV policy makes one state nervous

Pittsburgh, located in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has lots of AV activity going on and - until THE fatality - Uber was giving driverless, well partially driverless, it turns out, rides. Someone at PennDOT, the state department of transportation, or someone close to the governor, must have panicked at Arizona's bad fortune to get caught with its pants down, basically not regulating AVs at all.

So Pennsylvania, a state founded by Quakers (just to throw in a bit of Pennsylvania history), rightfully has cold feet, but it does not wish to alienate the tech industry. Instead of passing a law or issuing regulations, which take time and get mired in details and advocacy, Pennsylvania is entering into a gentlemen's agreement of sorts. Basically, the deal for the tech industry is "you cooperate and we won't get too tough."

Kind of like a sweet plea bargain - technically voluntary

The deal is voluntary. Technically.

The plan includes submission of detailed company information, verification that federal and state safety standards are met, certification of driver training, list of vehicles involved, routes for testing and proof of insurance. 

At least six entities are involved with HAVs in this area, including Aptiv, Argo AI, Aurora Innovation, Carnegie Mellon University and Uber, although Uber suspended testing while national highway traffic officials investigate the Arizona tragedy.

Leslie Richards, the PennDOT secretary, said "[w]ithin 60 to 90 days, ... she would convene a meeting with the companies testing autonomous vehicle technology to discuss the interim [request] regulations. In addition, the state will reconvene the Autonomous Vehicle Policy Task Force to review the regulations and update policy recommendations."

Again, these are not regulations at this point, just a request that companies may voluntarily accede to.

Here's a clip from the movie Gentleman's Agreement.

Brought to You by the Letter P for Pittsburgh and Perth

Way, way, way too busy with autonomous vehicle (AV) work on top of actual work and actual life. So here is what I see as important news this week. I am not covering the Uber/Waymo settlement. It's everywhere, easy to find, and the professional reading equivalent of the last episode of the season of a guilty-pleasure TV drama. Oh my, though, right?

City of bridges and AVs

I just went to Pittsburgh, in the worst weather possible, and found an entire transportation community knowledgable about AVs and robotics. I am talking people working in programs for older adults, people with disabilities, and healthcare transportation - not staff from startups or Uber.

[From TheIncline]

This morning, I found a great article in my feed from TheIncline, which is closely monitoring the bubbling, active AV testing going on downtown and elsewhere in Pittsburgh. Truly amazing as well because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is quite enthusiastic about AVs, so there is none of the usual state/city friction that one sees in many other states.

I hope to have the time to return to state legislative developments, and there are some in Pennsylvania. Carnegie Mellon University has really solidified itself as a center for AV and robotics technology and has almost single-handedly launched Pittsburgh into a major contender.

For right now, it's ridehailing giant Uber providing rides. There is no AV shuttle - yet, but there is plenty of planning.

Down under city starting with P

Perth is also in the forefront and an old hat in the AV transit bus world. It has had an AV bus since 2016, practically the middle ages in terms of AV pilots. The AV bus is open to the public and the city will be hosting a launch of AV ridehailing this year, otherwise called on-demand. Navya will be the partner for that project, which will use cars.

I'm including the link because I keep getting redirected to a subscription page. Here is the link: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/perth-residents-embrace-driverless-vehicle-technology/news-story/6f0a3b8288db6e791bba316477906f8c.

Cross-country in a truck

Embark can boast a successful demonstration with a coast-to-coast US truck trip with its AV truck. Do not get too excited because there was a driver and that person did take over a few times. The trip was from LA to Florida. Quietly, Embark is accomplishing quite a bit with frequent LA to El Paso trips. Now there's a beach destination.

Legislation Bonanza - Focus on Pennsylvania

Would everyone just stop already? I do not have time for all things driverless at this rate. TMI - too much information. And one must actually read the information to determine whether it is (a) info vomit, (b) mildly significant, (c) or truly valuable.

But that is life, no?

Pennsylvania legislation

Pennsylvania (PA) Senate bill 427 - A long, detailed bill, presumably designed to sidetrack the state DOT (my opinion) in making detailed decisions about driverless testing and applications to test autonomous vehicles. The legislation does not concern sale and normal operations of AV in everyday life on state roads. 

This is not only an AV piece of legislation. The bill makes a big deal of addressing platooning and offering analogous provisions for platooning at every opportunity. That contributes to the length of the bill, obviously.

Pretty meaningless department

(1) An advisory committee of mostly state officials who are required to meet at least once a year to discuss AV and platooning issues. Insert - sigh here; harrumphs are acceptable.
(2) Report due by Jan. 1, 2020 that is supposed to cover the AV kitchen sink of issues.
(3) Another report due by Jan. 1, 2020 to address barriers to AV and platooning testing, deployment, and operation. 
(4) A third report due by a different date, this time Jan. 1, 2025, to address infrastructure improvements and funding relating to AV and platooning. This legislation will definitely have been superseded by then. 

Standard provisions

Ability to satisfy a judgment for damages.
Preemption of local laws.

Interesting stuff

Special sticker on every AV or platooning vehicle being tested. No word on size or design of the required sticker. (My obnoxiousness is visualizing the you're-great-stickers that pediatricians give to kids at the end of each appointment, the one that even four year olds don't care about.) (One more parenthetical: Uber already does the sticker thing.)

Approval or denial of applications to test AVs must be issued within 15 business days, but the public will be entitled to comment. A quick process; I question how meaningful or promoted the public comment right will be.

Level 4 and 5 vehicles being tested may be controlled remotely. There is NO requirement that a licensed human be on board and ready to take over the wheel.

There is a provision that mandates reporting of cybersecurity breaches. 

Instead of using either the word "crash" or "collision," the bill employs the word "accident." After an accident with a vehicle being tested and the requisite reporting of the episode, the bill would allow for "self-certification" explaining how the tester will "reinstate" the AV or platooning vehicle back into service.

An audit once every two years of every permit. The process will also be designed to examine safe testing and management of AV and platooning. 

More stuff to read ...

Bay State Legislation, International, and Chutzpah from Musk

A Massachusetts legislator seeks to tie driverless operation on its roads to zero-emission requirements and higher per-mile fees for empty roving vehicles. Oh and the legislation would replace the gas tax for these vehicles with a VMT (vehicle miles traveled) fee of 2.5 cents for every mile traveled, empty or full. 

In October 2016, an executive order in the Bay State was issued that encourages partnerships involving automated vehicles, giving usual utterance about safety, and pointing out that Boston - I assume meaning Cambridge as well - is the expected center of driverless activity.

A Pittsburgh-area company is trying to grow in a market niche of finding bugs in self-driving software code. It's a nice niche and a good place to be, right near Uber and Carnegie Melon.

International: Far and wide 

At the Christ Church airport in New Zealand, there is a driverless shuttle being tested and it's basically ready to transport airport travelers. The shuttle vehicle is a 15-person, French-made Navya. 

Here's a link to a boring, but brief, video of Paris Easy Mile bus in operation, with at least one passenger, in a very separated lane. Don't be shy, scroll down until you get to the rectangular box.

From the drink and ride desk

An Irish legislator believes that driverless vehicles will mean economic revitalization for rural areas, particularly for rural pubs. No one will worry about or avoid drinking at a pub due to concerns about driving.

Can't ignore Musk - nice on the chutzpah

While lots of testing and pilots are happening or being planned; while governors and legislators salivate and invite business and partner with universities; while federal money and interest drips into the driverless coffee pot - Elon Musk at Tesla and his partnership with Nvidia seems close to bearing big, maybe gigantic, fruit in three to six months with the rollout of "fully self-driving mode." It will go where your calendar says you should be, or default to taking you home if it does not receive a destination.

The Musk model seems to perpetuate the current system of the single-occupancy-vehicle, business as usual, just with no hands on the wheel. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

National Driverless Committees - Relevant?

Perhaps I am snarky, DC-based, and cynical, but my general opinion is that the committee discussed below will not accomplish much and the private sector will continue to drive - no pun intended - the future of autonomous transportation. This will be so particularly in the Donald Administration with its crew of pro-business advisors and Cabinet secretaries. Even in the outgoing Administration, I have witnessed this kind of pattern with the ride hailing companies as well. 

Lots of news here about:

• An excellent report about autonomous vehicles and their potential for people with disabilities, and
• State legislation and possibilities

Sounds like Eh Cat!

In the world of DC acronyms, here is a new one: ACAT, or the Advisory Committee on Automation in Transportation, a committee created by the US Department of Transportation. It is made up of very high people, such as the CEO of GM, for example. I'm convinced that the reason why the word automation is used instead of autonomous, driverless, or the equivalent is to make sure that only people who know that ACAT exists will find information about it on the  website, a notorious labyrinth of unconnected webpages. But I am paranoid. 

Here is the list of committee members. Lots of CEOs, professors, auto, and tech members. Last I would mention the token representative of the disability community and one labor representative. Oh and Lisa Jackson, ex-EPA Administrator and a representative of Apple, but perhaps that was the Obama Administration's parting DOT gift to the new DOT leadership. It would not look good to either disband ACAT or to throw off Jackson.

Since this is a government-created committee, it must adhere to US open meetings laws. On the positive side, any slob can attend or live stream a meeting, such as the Jan. 17, 2017 ACAT meeting, but on the down side none of the corporate bigwigs ever say anything forthright or unexpected because press is present and any person can live stream and sip their coffee at the same time (assuming the multitudes of transportation nerds are sipping the same beverage I am and prefer to view such events in jeans or pajamas). 

Mayor Garcetti was the only one to push the group forward and offer a plea for real action - a blueprint with measurable, planned goals - and hope that the committee will do something significant. And he was not even in the room; he called in from LA, where it was an early 7-9 a.m. Pacific time.

Some tidbits 

• The labor representative showed concern, as well he should. Remember the elevator operators once had a union and jobs. 
• The FAA's committee on airborne drones was cited as a successful example of a government advisory committee. 
• The guy from Zoox was the only one not to wear a professional uniform; he showed up in a hat and a sweater (and pants, of course).

Potential is the word for people with disabilities

A nice report by Henry Claypool, the sole member of ACAT representing people with disabilities or having one himself, has co-authored a frank report for about the potential scenarios for people with disabilities as ride hailing services progress and driverless transportation looms just over the horizon.The report, entitled Self-Driving Cars: The Impact on People with Disabilities and issued the day after the ACAT meeting, goes beyond cars to look at current ride hailing, paratransit, taxi, street network and transit inequities - more than 25 years after passage of the ADA - and the sunny and gloomy scenarios that are possible when driverless transportation arrives. 

Claypool and his co-authors strongly encourage the formation of an active coalition of groups representing people with disabilities and others to educate political and business leaders about the needs of this transportation-challenged and diverse population and to advocate for universal design solutions for the new vehicles. 

Claypool  and his co-authors rightly declare that the opportunity is now to get it right - meaning equitable - for all travelers instead of standing by and allowing current problems, such as those that the ADA did not solve, to continue. 

This is an excellent and in-depth report about an important aspect of the coming transportation revolution. The Ruderman Family Foundation and SAFE (Securing America's Future Energy, a bipartisan think tank) supported the production of the report.

(FYI: This is high praise. Most reports on autonomous vehicles are basically driverless-for-dummies productions, make completely speculative declarations based on huge assumptions, or both.) 

Smart Belt - some PR person said it's better than Rust Belt

Starting with the self-congratulatory name of the Smart Belt, some previously Rust Belt states are ganging up together for a better chance to obtain federal funds and to lead the way together - well somewhat together - in the race toward driverless. Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are cooperatively pushing their impressive array of government and academic partners for the testing, research of, and presumably, wide introduction of driverless transportation. Focus areas also include policy, funding and freight issues.

East, then down south and west

Maryland's Motor Vehicle Administration (the DMV equivalent for any New Yorkers) is advocating for its prominent role in driverless regulation, perhaps seeing ahead that it will have much less to do once there are no drivers. The MVA Administrator testified in Annapolis, the state capital, in favor of a bill that would give her agency broad flexibility. She also wants testing of driverless in the state. 

Alabama is worried that without drivers there will be a huge reduction in state funds. There won't be drivers speeding, failing to put on lights, going over lane markings or anything else. When your state coffers depend on driver fees and penalties, it is worrisome to think there will not be any drivers. So Alabama is exploring legislative approaches via its Legislative Committee on Self Driving Vehicles, considering laws dealing with vehicles, insurance, and funding programs. 

Transit-friendly Texas? 

Texas has promoted itself as a business-friendly state and it continues this tradition with the state's efforts to enable driverless testing - in Houston on highways. The auto makers welcome this endeavor, but so do some freight players and Houston's public transit agency, which is also involved. (I admit that as a native New Yorker I do not also associate transit with Texas, but Houston recently did a nice job of rethinking its bus routes in a very inclusive process.)

Happy New Year - and Driverless Testing

Boston

A successful hometown startup, nuTonomy, operating driverless vehicles in Singapore, has come back to Beantown to do driverless testing in a restricted area. Nothing unusual except that this is new for Boston and that its neighbor, Cambridge, spawned nuTonomy at MIT. Testing began this week.

Testing will be at low speeds and only in good weather, just like all Boston driving. Ha ha! Go to the Globe article and see a short unimpressive video of the initial spin.

Las Vegas

Sometime in 2017 this sin city, whether downtown, on the Strip, or both, will have a driverless shuttle. Two possibilities are Olli from Local Motors and NAVLY from Keolis. 

Video below is Nvidia's latest, this time with music and an attempt to generate excitement outside of nerd community.

Pennsylvania

Since its heyday with Philadelphia as the nation's capital and hosting the Continental Congress as well as the convention that produced the US Constitution, perhaps due to closed windows and doors in terrible summer heat (like hot yoga meets intellectual debate), the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not been an urban leader (talking general reputation here), but it is fighting hard to keep Pittsburgh's prominent position in the race for driverless development, testing, and perhaps a real rollout - as opposed to what is essentially a PR pilot by Uber.

Actual news: Pennsylvania through its transportation agency, PennDOT, is throwing its hat into the USDOT ring to get funding for a driverless proving ground designation. Really no idea why it can't just be called a testing ground. This news is being reported everywhere.

Link to USDOT intent to designate proving grounds.

Michigan - Eastern time zone, but Midwest in nature

My brain is asking: Embarrassed by Trump, seeing marketing possibilities, needing highly-educated talent or all of the above? Ford canceled its plans for a plant in Mexico and will be staying more grounded in its ancestral homeland of Michigan, where it is now a progressive mobility company instead of pusher of car in every driveway - at least while it considers its transformation to be profitable. Ford will be producing its hybrid and driverless vehicles in its home state, to the happy applause of unions and Trump, making for interesting bedfellows. Yes, this news is everywhere; tons of articles if you want to spend ten more minutes reading.

Michigan has also applied to host a USDOT-approved proving ground, which will exist whether or not the national Department of Transportation designates it as such. I suspect the chances are excellent, however. A new administration in DC will want to reward those states that gave the Electoral College to Trump despite the popular vote for Hillary Clinton. Just a guess.

Balancing hobbies

So nice to take time off, but driverless never sleeps and to avoid Lucy-and-Ethel mind crushing mental experience of shoving metaphorical or actual chocolates in my mouth as they burst forth down the assembly line, I will be concentrating on driverless trends and what interests me. There's plenty of others speculating - 70 percent of driverless news - or reporting absolutely everything. Plus, I am also committed to finishing my 108 Breads project this year, which will require effort and assistance of friends who will serve as tasting committee for a significant challenge I have given myself for the last 14 or so breads. Project has achieved initial goals of (a) being busy as transitioned to empty nest and (b) learning about and experimenting with different doughs, pre-doughs, and bread making approaches. The empty nest is the new adolescence.

There's also a sudden burst of energy to do my artwork of paintings, collage, and book, so driverless has to fit in, but not obliterate, actual creative production ongoing in my small walk-in closet a/k/a art studio (sometimes using a sink elsewhere when water becomes necessary).

Living Document = Let's Chat

Advances in technology, law, planning, and driverless projects did not stop this week for the double whammy of a hospitalization, then a death in the family, and surgery on another close relative. Life goes on, but I am digging out of a large mountain of email and work and fighting back the numb sensation of futility.

I have not even peeked at the comments to the proposed NHTSA guidelines or the proposed guidelines regarding cybersecurity. Here's a link to Consumer Reports' review of comments about data sharing. There's a NHTSA public meeting this coming Monday, Dec. 12, 2016, but I will be otherwise engaged with the surgical follow-up appointment. I hope to catch some of the live stream.

Game of chess and fun pilots

Is there a stalemate right now between the concepts of data sharing and proprietary data? Is the term living document being used as code for no one is ready for actual regulation? That is what it seems like at the federal level, where voluntary guidelines are proposed and we do not seem close at all to actual guidelines or regulation. In Pennsylvania, proposed regulations for driverless testing are not being pushed forward, reportedly because Uber is unhappy with data sharing provisions. And right now it seems that Uber owns the driverless field in Pennsylvania, particularly in Pittsburgh.

But there are strivers who are eager to race ahead. One is Florida, with the City Jacksonville's transit authority pondering, without any real detail, a driverless replacement and improvement on its current, disappointing Skyway. 

Sick of the 94 percent factoid

This statistic is repeated EVERYWHERE, including here and several times at the recent Congressional Roundtable of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. But is this factoid consistent across time, types of crashes, types of drivers, and different places? I do not know. All I know is that the 94 percent figure is cited over and over again without being tethered to any source of evidence or discussion of whether that evidence is consistent in various situations and places. In fact, even if the statistic is sometimes 85 percent, or in some places 98 percent, does it matter? The important reality is that we in the US pay lip service - in most places - to Vision Zero or other efforts to reduce roadway fatalities and injuries. Ultimately my irritation with the repetition of the 94 percent figure is irrelevant because we have effectively accepted the equivalent of a huge number of deaths each week. 

Scary when I think that my daughter will be making a six-to-eight hour drive home in a week. 

Not a united attitude

I don't know whether it is the imminent change in administration in Washington or NHTSA's relatively timid - not necessarily inappropriate - approach, but states and cities in the US are not taking a national approach. In their own ways, they are striving to race to the forefront, where the current leaders are Michigan and California, with Pennsylvania close behind due to the presence of Uber and Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh.

Two arbitrary tidbits

Yes, some of this news is a bit stale, but I want to catalogue this for myself. I realize this is a bit arbitrary because there is plenty I am mentioning only on Twitter or Reddit.

Local Motors adds a drone accessory

Nvidia can text driverless vehicles in California

Congress Members of the Roundtable

I went to a roundtable discussion on Monday hosted by the US House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, where six Congressional representatives from the left to the right and various industry and other stakeholders all agreed that innovation is good and stymying autonomous vehicle development and implementation would be bad. The room was packed even though no food, drinks, or particularly new information were served. The members of Congress were guest star Chairman of the House Transportation Committee Bill Schuster (R-PA), subcommittee Chairman Sam Graves (R-MO), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Daniel Webster (R-FL), and Daniel Lipinski (D-IL). I hope I did not leave out anyone. (Information in the parentheses refers to party, Democrat or Republican, and state.)

The subcommittee's informal conversation - NOT a Congressional hearing - was with:

• Mr. Chris Spear, President and CEO, American Trucking Associations (ATA),
• Hon. David Strickland, Counsel and Spokesperson, Self-driving Coalition for Safer Streets (and former NHTSA Administrator during the Obama Administration),
• Mr. David Zuby, Executive Vice President and Chief Research Officer, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, and
• Mr. Kevin Acklin, Chief of Staff and Chief Development Officer, City of Pittsburgh

Keeping a straight face award goes to ...

The representative from the American Trucking Associations said - without laughing - that no jobs will be lost and that it will take decades for driverless technology to roll out. However, without turning his head completely around, he also said that trucking fleets would transition to driverless much more quickly than passenger vehicles because these are business vehicles and are operated as fleets. Mr. Spear also said that truck driver jobs are difficult to fill, so, presumably, the never-get-tired driverless technology will be a better bet than humans.

On the other hand, the Pittsburgh representative and David Strickland were much more jolly and upbeat about the prospect of autonomous vehicles, what they can accomplish for society, and the improvement in quality of life for older adults and people with disabilities.

Eyes on safety and commerce

Safety was a topic on everyone's lips with the significant uptick in fatalities on US roads in 2015 and 2016. Mr. Strickland emphasized this and it was also noted by the representative of the Insurance Institute, Mr. Zuby. Mr. Zuby was first runner up for the straight face award because he managed to express a belief in innovation and risk while also suggesting that the insurance industry needs complete proof. But insurance is a follower and not a leader in this field.

One aspect of safety that the members of Congress hung on to was the question of safety during the expected three decades - not my expectation - when "legacy" and fully autonomous vehicles will be sharing the road.

The other significant topic discussed was commerce with no one enjoying the prospect of 50 states with differing regulations governing driverless operations. The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution allows Congress to pass legislation that affects any related issue and to preempt state laws and regulations that interfere with interstate commerce. The representatives present at the roundtable discussion referred to their Constitutional authority. It was mentioned (I think by Strickland) that the California regulations go beyond the traditional self-certification model that NHTSA generally uses. 

What does "driverless" mean exactly?

Like people off the street, participants on both sides of what was a long rectangular table with Congress members on one side and the invited guests on the other, talked about both partially autonomous and fully autonomous vehicles. The guests were generally better at articulating these distinctions.

Really not any news here. Just interesting to see alignment among unusual Congressional bedfellows. No one mentioned the elephant in the room - what will happen when a completely different kind of Administration fills the offices of the government on January 20 and beyond.