NHTSA Aware of Driverless Car Fears but Must Weigh Positives, Chief Says
Federal transportation regulators heard from a slew of automakers, consumer protection advocates, disability rights activists, technology executives and other stakeholders all day Wednesday about the benefits of autonomous vehicles and potential missteps if important safety issues aren't considered. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration held the public meeting at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, as the agency develops operational guidance on self-driving cars.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind said innovative technology could potentially reduce the nearly 33,000 deaths from vehicle crashes in 2014, of which 94 percent are due to human error. Government is "taking a very deliberate approach" in getting safety advancements on the road while ensuring deployed technologies are safe, he added. He said many people say the technology just isn't ready, but he said automated emergency braking, lane assist and adaptive cruise control are being installed in cars. He said NHTSA's "only concern is safety."
Rosekind said "special attention" should be given to new safety metrics. "In this new era, what are the metrics by which we will measure the safety value and road worthiness of new technologies?" he said. The old model that includes counting vehicle miles, crashes and injuries doesn't fully understand the new technologies, he said. "And let's be honest, it's not an easy question to answer." In January, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx announced a strategy for autonomous vehicles (see 1601140051).
Consumer Watchdog Privacy Project Director John Simpson acknowledged some automated vehicle technologies such as automatic braking will save lives, but he said they're supposed to work with and improve a human driver's abilities and compensate for shortcomings. "We are deeply concerned that an unjustified rush to deploy self-driving robot car technology without the ability of the driver to take control when necessary will threaten the safety of the nation's highways," he said.
Simpson again criticized the new Self Driving Coalition for Safer Streets (see 1604260072), which includes Ford, Google, Lyft, Uber and Volvo. Earlier in the meeting, Venable attorney David Strickland, a former NHTSA administrator, announced the formation of that group, which he advises and speaks for. He said its mission is to help civic leaders, community organizers, lawmakers and regulators work together to deploy self-driving cars in a safe and timely manner. "We are years not decades from this becoming a reality for the American people," Strickland said.
Simpson said "if these companies genuinely cared about safer streets rather than just grabbing an appealing title ... they would be transparent about what they're doing on our public roads. If something goes wrong, the technical details should be released and publicly available and that's not happening." He cited a February incident in which a Google self-driving car crashed into a public transit bus (see 1604070013). The public transit group released video and other information, but the company hasn't released its video or technical data about the incident, said Simpson, and it needs to.
A single federal framework for automated driving systems is needed because a patchwork of state regulatory frameworks is "burdensome and restrictive," hampering innovation, said James Kuffner, chief technology officer with the Toyota Research Institute, which focuses on artificial intelligence and robotics. He said any federal framework shouldn't set minimum performance requirements because more research is needed and technologies are still being developed.
John Doan, who said he's one of the co-founders of Self-Driving Minnesota, described as a civic group pushing for autonomous vehicles that could benefit people with disabilities, warned against federal preemption. He said these vehicles need to be designed and built with everyone in mind and incorporate diverse uses and needs for the blind and wheelchair bound, among others. In his state, legislation has been introduced to create a $5 million autonomous vehicle pilot project for people with disabilities, and he said federal preemption could "foreclose" serving the interests of the community.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving CEO Debbie Weir said fully autonomous vehicle technology could be a "game changer" and potentially could help eliminate drunken, drugged and drowsy driving. She said that the average drunken driver drives while drunk 80 times before his or her first arrest and there are increasing incidents of people driving distracted as well as under the influence of drugs.