AV Transit Shown Off in Nevada as Law Passes

Nevada's push for an autonomous vehicle law has succeeded, but part of the public relations effort associated with the legislation was the week-long operation of a shuttle in Las Vegas. Add media coverage and delighted passengers to produce a sweet picture of a rosy and uncomplicated future. Image is as important as reality.

The Nevada bill that became law on June 16 is quite broad and allows for the operation of autonomous vehicles. →No human is required to be present in an AV or ready to operate or test the vehicle.

The law provides for:

• Platooning, if in compliance with state law,
• Operation and testing of autonomous vehicles,
• Pre-emption of local laws, taxes, and fees,
• Partially and completely AV, and
• Lack of liability for post-purchase third-party conversion to AV.

Unusual is:

• Ten-business-day window for reporting crashes,
• Explicit adoption of SAE International terminology regarding levels of automation,
• Tax on AV rides from a company operating as a transportation network company (TNC), otherwise known as ride hailing,

at the rate of 3 percent of the total fare charged for transportation services, which must include, without limitation, all fees, surcharges, technology fees, convenience charges for the use of a credit or debit card and any other amount that is part of the fare. The Department shall charge and collect from each autonomous vehicle network company the excise tax imposed by this subsection.

New acronym warning

The law coins a new term here - "autonomous vehicle network company" (AVTC). The meaning is obvious, but the definition articulated is "an entity that, for compensation, connects a passenger to a fully autonomous vehicle which can provide transportation services to the passenger." The law provides for an application process for AVTCs.

Pretty much a taxi/TNC/AV law

The AVTC section of the law provides:

• Prospective passengers of AVTCs will be entitled to a fare estimate before embarking on a trip.
• At least an annual inspection of AVTC vehicles.
• Receipts for passengers and what they must contain. 
• Explicit exemption from the meaning of AVTC are human services transportation, motor carrier transportation, and carpool matching services. But later on the law allows for AV human services transportation, taxi, and motor carrier transportation. 
• Production and retention of trip records, vehicle inspection records, annual reports to the state, and on and on, blah, blah, blah.
• Ban on release of personally identifiable information about passengers - without consent or unless disclosure relates to "protect[ing] or defend[ing] the terms of use of the services or to investigate violations of those terms of use." Nice use of legalese.
• Submission of crash reports.
• Localities are permitted to regulate AVTC business licenses and permit, certification, and/or fee to operate at an airport.

There's more, but suffice it to say that this law is basically a set of AVTC regulations that some parties wanted to ensure were set pretty much in stone instead of being left to the predilection of whichever administrator is in charge.

Congress: Magical Time for Autonomous Vehicles

The Republicans are in general agreement and the Democrats I've seen appear to be on board for major changes to vehicular regulation in the US - for autonomous vehicles. NHTSA will be the big winner and states will lose much of their authority via federal preemption. The US Constitution permits Congress to use its enumerated powers, in this case the Commerce Clause, to bar states from interfering by passing laws or issuing regulations that interfere with federal law.

The time is near at hand and legislation may move quickly with so much bipartisan agreement on this issue, which is relatively under the radar. With the Russia investigation, healthcare, taxes, and infrastructure sparking controversy both among Republicans and with Democrats, it will be magical to see the House and the Senate come together on regulation of autonomous vehicles.

Note that I am not writing about anything with only Democratic support.

Not just cars and adorable shuttles

We have yet to see the big 16-bill package reported on by Reuters and in the Eno Center for Transportation blog post. Legislation submitted thus far in the US House of Representatives offers absolutely nothing but a glimpse into politics that shows how at least one interested party has found a sympathetic congressperson. H.R. 2120 , the Buses United for Safety, Regulatory Reform, and Enhanced Growth for the 21st Century Act, has a provision (Section 12) that requires the Secretary of Transportation to:

include and consult with the motorcoach and school bus industries through its representatives, including motorcoach and school bus manufacturers, companies operating mo­tor­coaches and school buses, and motorcoach and school bus industry associations, in all phases of development of vehicle policy and proposed regulations.

This is a nice directive, but it has no teeth. Conversations will take place, some of which will be taken seriously, but the Department of Transportation and its relevant divisions, particularly NHTSA, which issues standards that regulate bus safety, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration will not be compelled to listen.

Innovation Act 

Senate bill 1225, the Vehicle Innovation Act of 2017, comes with a nice title and authorizes  - but does not appropriate - funding for energy-related research related to energy, specifically to "(A) improve the fuel efficiency and emissions of all vehicles produced in the United States and (B) reduce vehicle reliance on petroleum-based fuels." Yes, those italicized words are actually included in legislation that could become law in the US - with a highly conservative Congress.

I will not bore you with too many details, just ones that pop out of this multi-page, multi-agency-related bill. I do love reading through the details because that's where the gold of what's happening can be located.

Through the Department of Energy (DOE), for fiscal years 2018-2022, over $300 million each year is authorized for research. This means that in separate legislation, Congress may - but does not have to - appropriate - meaning spend - UP TO the amount authorized. The research portions of the bill mention batteries, efficiency, waste heat recovery, aerodynamics, natural gas, and more. (I like the batteries part because one offspring is in grad school in that field.)

It's a long list, and toward the end comes vehicle to vehicle technology (V2V) and "other research areas as determined by the Secretary." Talk about leeway.

DOE vs. DOT

Remember, all of the above goes through DOE. It's quite interesting that the industry consultation requirement, which specifically refers to manufacturers of vehicles, only refers to DOE and not to the Department of Transportation (DOT). This list of players who should be consulted "to the maximum extent practicable" specifically mentions transit and transit, among other heavy vehicle-related industries, gets its own section of the bill in terms of research that mimics what is mentioned above.

Parallel universe bills on cybersecurity

Two pieces of legislation with similar, but somewhat conflicting visions have been submitted. The Security and Privacy in Your (SPY) Car Act, S. 680, introduced in the Senate thus far has only Democratic support, so it will not go far. It's a suggestion, an opening gambit, a way of staying in the game, in my opinion. It goes into detail about setting privacy standards, preventing hacking, and data storage and access. It addresses the roles of both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration's (NHTSA) roles.

In the House of Representatives, a Republican from South Carolina has introduced a somewhat different SPY Act, with one Democrat so-sponsoring. This bill, HR 701, officially called the Security and Privacy in Your Car Study Act of 2017, or the SPY Car Study Act, directs NHTSA to study cybersecurity standards for vehicles "in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Secretary of Defense, the Automotive Information Sharing and Analysis Center, SAE International, manufacturers of motor vehicles, manufacturers of original motor vehicle equipment, and relevant academic institutions."

You can tell whose lobbyists have been successful and which entities are perceived as established and trusted players. Again, that word "consultation" is broad enough to drive a truck through and it does not mandate equal consultation or coordination.

What will the study do? It will lead to a - wait for it - report. This is DC, a place that loves nerdy reports as much as action.

Plan to repeal

A House bill, HR 1623, would repeal the Advanced technology vehicles manufacturing incentive program, a loan fund program enshrined in 42 USC 17013.

Interesting tidbit on preemption vis a vis autonomous vehicles

This brief from the University of Washington School of Law's Technology Law and Policy Clinic, Autonomous Vehicles Team,  offers a view of preemption in terms of NHTSA regulation and tort liability in state courts during the Bush W's and Obama's years.

Washington State Executive Order

1. An executive order is NOT a law. The next governor can cancel it at whim. The legislature, by passing a law, can change it.

2. An executive order, as we saw at the federal level with both President Obama and President Bush before him - with the authority to use broad administrative powers - can be a force for funding and direction. But see #3.

3. Every state is different. The governance structure - who has the power and authority - varies greatly from state to state, from legislature to legislature. In some states, the governor is the power center; in others it is three top legislators who stay forever and do not need to listen to anyone else.

Washington State does more than grow apples and technology
... it wants autonomous vehicles

I claim total ignorance of the power structure of Washington State politics, but with so much technology business, the Seattle area cannot be happy that Silicon Valley in California is synonymous with the current tech boom. The governor is lagging behind, but paying attention. Who knows what he tried to get going before deciding on an AV executive order.
[Photo from HUD.]

Lots of Whereas points before the meat (or vegan meat)

Likely following state tradition that an executive order must establish that a bona fide problem exists before one should be issued, the Washington State executive order begins with a list of "Whereas ... " there's a problem and opportunities here.

[Photo by from AJAD MOHAMAD (OWN WORK) [CC BY-SA 4.0] from livability.com.]

Problems identified include:

• Lots of auto "accidents" - not PC; the correct term is crashes, 
• The state wants to be in the technological lead - it's already behind in that race for this industry.

Low and behold, the executive order has found the solutions of (a) safety and (b) economic development in autonomous vehicles.

The nitty gritty

So how is the magical solution of autonomous vehicles going to happen in the land of apples and Microsoft? A study group - ta da! Actually, it's being called a "work group."

Not kidding. Obvious that no one on the governor's team is from the world of marketing.

But wait ...

The one promising point in the executive order is permission for pilot programs that allow for autonomous vehicles to be tested on Washington States roads. The vehicles must have on board equipment that can be operated by a human and an actual human physically present UNLESS (among other predictable details):

• The vehicle is "capable of bringing the vehicle to a safe condition in the event of a system failure," 
• Developers of the vehicles self-certify to DOL (Department of Licensing) that they are compliant with the above requirements.

No requirement of a data recorder, no requirement of coordination with local jurisdictions, and no extraneous requirements.

I make fun, but this executive order is pretty middle of the road in terms of state policies and laws.

[Photo: US Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx (R) and Google Chairman Eric Schmidt (L) ride in a Google self-driving car at the Google headquarters on February 2, 2015 (Photo: Getty) via inews Essential Daily Briefing]

Crushing news for the cuteness factor

Say it ain't so. Did Waymo not learn the Toyota Prius v. Honda whatever lesson that conspicuous upgrades or do-gooding or technology quickly becomes a desired wow factor? Nope. Waymo is ditching the cute, pod-like driverless vehicles that Google developed and tested. Ah, I remember fondly the artistic designs put on the vehicles and the sweet factor.

Sorry, there's no charm in the look of an average car. A little sad here that the fireflies, as Google named the two-seater podcars, are disappearing. According to the inews Essential Daily Briefing:

Firefly will make a trip to the Arizona Science Centre in Arizona during August, before making its final journey back to Texas in October to commemorate the second anniversary of the first autonomous drive. They are also available to view in the Computer History Museum in California, and in London’s Design Museum.

Better yet - not - Waymo is counting on a minivan, which is inaccessible for people with disabilities and has zero charm, to catapult it to greatness with families who lug gear.

Bluegrass Tennessee Passes AV and CV Laws - Deep Dive

If this were my inbox or a pile on my desk, I would be groaning out loud and with great suffering. I hate stuff piling up, but I let it happen this time with the seeming constant flow of legislation, particularly from US states that believe that a new law will place them in the lead of economic prosperity that autonomous vehicles will surely bring.

NOT.

You are too late; the lead on this has already been taken. Now it is better to be either a state that puts out a welcome mat for autonomous vehicles on all roads, in all situations, and with little bureaucracy, or to take a wait-and-see attitude while other states suffer from the inevitable growing pains that a disruptive on-the-streets technology will bring.

Tennessee's new autonomous vehicle law, TN S. 151,  the Safe Automated Vehicles (SAVE) Act, has a few unusual provisions, but then that is what is interesting about the state laws being passed. They all differ in some way, just like current motor vehicle laws vary regarding conventional vehicles.

The statute covers the whole range of self-driving possibilities, from partially driverless to complete "automated driving systems" (ADS), which is the term employed by the statute. Read to the bottom for info about Tennessee's new platooning law.

Bluegrass State Likes Big Auto Companies

A big limitation is the restriction to any but auto manufacturers.

A motor vehicle manufacturer may commence a SAVE project on the streets and highways of this state after it provides notification to the department of its self-certification of the requirements set out in § 55-54-104. Only motor vehicle manufacturers are eligible to participate in a SAVE project, and each motor vehicle manufacturer is responsible for the safe operation of its participating fleet. [Emphasis added.]

A manufacturer is defined in this statute as a "person" (meaning a corporation) that:

(A) Has manufactured and distributed motor vehicles in the United States that are certified to comply with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards; and 

(B) Submitted appropriate manufacturer identification information to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as provided in 49 CFR part 566;

The limitation means that tech companies that want to test AV software, sensors, etc., will have to partner with a manufacturer - or go to a more friendly state. This subsection basically says goodbye to a startup that wants to test on its own.

Siri says put on the seatbelt or we won't go. Nah, she's not mom material

The Tennessee law includes a provision that anticipates unaccompanied children riding in autonomous vehicles. The responsibility for the child will lie not with the company that manufactures or controls the vehicle at the time, but, quite logically, with the parent, guardian, or other adult who is personally responsible for the minor. As someone who grew up on the buses and trains in New York City, I am fine with this, but that kind of situation will be a big change in most American communities.

The law goes into quite a bit of detail about the child situation, specifically addressing liability if a child fails to put on a seatbelt (in my house, the kids would scream if anyone neglected to click that seatbelt). Actually, the law excuses the seatbelt neglect as far as operators of autonomous vehicles are concerned.

Usual provisions

• Pilot projects require notification that includes geographic information about pilot and testing areas, and crash notification and data reporting technology.
• Automatic or prompt notification to law enforcement in the case of a crash. "Prompt" is left undefined, but, presumably, regulations will clarify that. 
• Consistent with general tort law, the Tennessee statute deems the manufacturer liable "for incidents where the ADS is at fault." Really, that goes without saying and does not create strict liability or a presumption of liability.
• And another significant, but usual, provision is a ban that preempts counties, cities, and other political subdivisions from having their own laws or policies that are more lenient or rigid than the state law. Big no to local control. 
• The ADS is considered the operator for a fully autonomous vehicle.

Being picky

Though the statute uses the word "crash," the law also refers to "accidents," a term which many now oppose because the design of high-speed and other dangerous roads predictably results in road violence, injury, and death.

Convoy

Tennessee has passed a connected vehicle law TN S. 676 that allows for multi-vehicle platooning IF there is "notification to the department of transportation and the department of safety. The notification provided pursuant to this subsection (a) must include a plan for general platoon operations." AND the platooning plan is not rejected by either of these state departments within 30 days of plan notification. (Emphasis added.)

Autonomous Vehicle Policy and Legal Resource Organizations

Here is a profile of a few organizations that are primarily focused on policy and legal issues that are related to autonomous vehicles. There are lots more that pay considerable attention to autonomous transportation, but have broader missions. Those include associations that represent automakers and auto-related insurance, as well as trucking interests, and technology associations and businesses.

With a few exceptions, transit and most cities are so mired in the day to day that they have not bothered to systematically analyze what is happening with driverless developments. The taxi industry, traditionally serving cities and supplementing transit, is continuing its unsuccessful strategy of blocking technological innovation. In Upstate New York, for example, the taxi lobby failed in its attempt to ban autonomous vehicles throughout the state for the next 50 years. No kidding.

Likewise, the trucking industry and labor are, in my opinion, in DC-speak pretend mode. No words about job loss make their way into any official trucking representative statements, and unions and individual truck drivers declare that safety is the primary concern rather than holding onto middle class jobs in an economy that has witnessed entire slices of the economy disappear.

While many are ignoring this upcoming societal transformation, the following organizations are full steam ahead for promoting the changes, some focusing on safety and accessibility.

ATI

ATI has experienced staff that is knowledgeable in technology and transportation policy. Its about page states:

The Alliance for Transportation Innovation (ATI21) is a consortium of transportation technology innovators, subject matter experts, and researchers. The consortium is dedicated to increasing public and stakeholder awareness of the transformative safety, sociological, and economic improvements that can be realized through the accelerated development and deployment of ingenious transportation technologies. 

ATI21 was formed to make the public aware of the dramatic social and economic benefits innovations in transportation can provide. It is equally important that our leaders, lawmakers, and regulators are well informed, thoughtful, and restrained in their approach to regulating this environment so acceleration of the development and adoption of these technologies can be realized. The future will be extraordinarily shaped by improving the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. ATI21 is committed to making this vision a reality.

ATI seeks to smooth the policy and legal road for the deployment of autonomous vehicle technology. The website speaks of ensuring that laws and regulations do not present roadblocks to testing and deployment. ATI does not put itself forth as a social equity concern and it charges big bucks for its events - $195 for a one-day event or $500 for a four-part series in Washington, DC, plus a processing fee - to discuss legal, regulatory, and policy issues with experts. Membership fees start at $ 7,500 per year.

ATI also has a strong public relations bent, exhibited in its quite successful cross-country driverless dog-and-pony show where the autonomous vehicle comes to town and gives rides local political leaders and sometimes even members of the public.

Sponsors include EasyMile, Transdev, and the American Research and Policy Institute (ARPI).

SAVe Campaign

The SAVe Campaign stands for Safe Autonomous Vehicles Campaign, which is pro-driverless, but with a balance for ensuring safety, "corporate transparency, and manufacturer accountability."

We believe that autonomous vehicles will be among the most exciting, significant technological developments we’ll see in our lifetime, but we also believe that such a significant advance underscores the need for a commonsense commitment to putting pedestrian, passenger, and driver safety first.  

Autonomous vehicles have the potential to improve highway safety, but we’ve seen what can happen in the absence of oversight: faulty airbags, dangerous ignition switches, hidden devices to conceal exhaust levels, and malfunctioning gas pedals.

SAVe states on its website that it is a national coalition of organizations, associations and individuals. Those listed include EndDD.org (End Distracted Driving), ARCCA (a forensics engineering firm that includes crash worthiness, accident reconstruction, and other auto-related services), Safe Laboratories (an auto testing firm independent of any automaker), and Syson Corp. (an automobile mechanical engineering company), among others.

I am glad that informed parties are watching the safety details of autonomous vehicles, however, for transparency, this is also an organization that is protecting the financial interest of many members so that they continue to have a piece of the transportation pie that they currently own.

Unpaid commercial break for Waymo

Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets

This is the big kid's league with paying members Ford, Uber, Google (Waymo, I mean), and Volvo, and partners MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), the National Federation of the Blind, and the United Spinal Association, among a few others. No word on whether these partners are decorative decoys or whether the coalition will actually pay serious attention to accessibility for people with disabilities. Such accessibility includes more than wheelchair access; it means interfaces that people who are visually or auditorily impaired can use. (It also means, and this is a big question mark, redundancies that protect people who have developmental disabilities and people who are frail - meaning those whom a driver currently protects and does not leave alone. A tangential question, beyond the current discussion of this post, is whether a human will continue to be made available for frail individuals or whether that will cost a whole lot extra.)

The coalition is an influence/lobbying/educational effort to encourage a legal framework that supports transportation and technological innovation. Heading up the coalition is David Strickland, a former NHTSA administrator and Obama law school friend. He is a super nice guy and seriously smart. He is invited to give statements and to speak at the highest-level driverless government meetings and events.

National Conference of State Legislatures - Autonomous Vehicles Legislation and Enacted Laws

An excellent resource is the NCSL autonomous vehicles webpage with enacted and introduced state-level legislative information and links. This resource does not include links to state regulations governing motor vehicles; nor does it provide links to already existing state statutes relevant to the operation of these vehicles. Many of the autonomous vehicle bills and laws refer to those statutes.

NCSL also maintains a webpage with state legislative information about event data recorders. This will become relevant as state courts begin to grapple with lawsuits related to driverless vehicles.

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund

DREDF wrote Self-Driving Cars: Mapping Access to a Technology Revolution for the National Council on Disability. Though already a bit outdated when it was published, that report remains an excellent examination of the issues to consider when designing accessible autonomous vehicles. Issues covered include not only wheelchair access, but also accessibility of interfaces, privacy concerns, and the safety of people with significant disabilities.

Georgia Bill Passes

Georgia bill SB 219 passed. I discussed the bill in an earlier post when the legislature of the Peach State had a few bills under consideration.

The Georgia law is a big win for tech companies that prefer to stay out of the automobile manufacturing business. A different bill had favored the car companies. Now we have a law that is manufacturer and technology agnostic.

The law also conceives of a significantly and wholly autonomous transportation world. No person need be inside a vehicle or have hands on the wheel. (And yes, that is a Confederate flag in the image.)

Electric bikes?

Weird provisions define and bring within the motor vehicle regulatory purview "electric assisted bicycles" and "'electric personal assistive mobility device' or 'EPAMD'," which seem to be power wheelchairs and scooters.

Another odd provision is that only until Jan. 1, 2020,  will autonomous vehicles - or AVs- be required to bear two and a half times more liability coverage than a conventional vehicle. After that, all vehicles will be equal in the eyes of the law.

Hello operator

An operator of a vehicle is not defined as the software or the vehicle itself, but rather as the person who causes the autonomous vehicle to engage, presumably whether or not the person is present inside the vehicle. Neither the operator of an autonomous vehicle nor the vehicle itself will be required to possess a Georgia driver's license - further imagining a world where humans do not drive.

Unlike other states, Georgia requires that in the event of an "accident" (not using the PC word - crash) the vehicle remain at the scene AND that the vehicle contacts law enforcement. Other laws require only that the vehicle report to law enforcement.

The autonomous vehicle must be registered in Georgia or in another state.

In all other ways, autonomous vehicles are regulated in accordance with normal vehicular regulations.

Hopes riding high

According to a news report from earlier this week, Georgia officials are pinning their hopes that this early - really, not that early - AV legislation will attract companies to test and otherwise shine a money-producing light on the Peach State.

Giving Birth to Driverless: Labor Troubles

Perhaps total jobs in transportation will not be lost, BUT how anyone can say with a straight face that driving jobs will not be reduced and then disappear is mind boggling. Maybe I missed the learning-to-deceive day in the third grade. Trucking representatives and now a transit system assure lawmakers and tell labor that they will continue to employ as many drivers as they currently do.

Please.

To all of you:

• taxi and ride hailing drivers
• truck drivers
• shuttle drivers
• delivery van drivers
• postal carrier drivers

Focus on plan B, whether that is going back to school, starting a new business, getting a different job, or figuring out if there will be another position with your current - driving-oriented - employer. The autonomous revolution is coming soon.

Writing on the wall

If drivers or their unions doubt those words, they should open their eyes. Message to labor: Look at what happened to the taxi industry when Uber and Lyft arrived with a better product; look at all the record stores that have disappeared; ask how many 22 year olds use a clock radio alarm or have a landline phone. That's your future, not the utter BS that trucking and now transit are dishing out.

Who is dishing?

The obfuscation comes from the HART transit system in Jacksonville, FL. Florida lawmakers and pubic facilities have been in the forefront of driverless. HART will do a pilot with autonomous shuttles.

Except for one county commissioner who talked job training, the powers that be decided that they would respond to legitimate labor concerns with hedging. That's my read; I realize there is another, more reasonable conclusion here. These are two quotes from a St. Peters Blog post.

“Drivers are vitally important,” said HART board chairman. “I don’t think we’re going to have a system where employees aren’t driving buses. That’s not going to happen,” he insisted.  

HART CEO Katharine Eagan said that “depending on who you ask,” it will be anywhere between two to thirty years before autonomous vehicle technology will arrive at a point where a driver still needs to be monitoring a steering wheel.

Wanted: objective assessment of employment consequences

Two federal lawmakers, both New Englanders - a Republican senator from Maine and a Democratic senator from Rhode Island - are asking the GAO (the U.S. Government Accountability Office) for a report about the predicted employment fallout that vehicles with autonomous technology will cause. They are looking for estimates of timing for autonomous trucking and other widespread rollouts and analysis of what autonomous driving will mean for employment.