Blog

By Emily Kortright & Lucy Johnston-Walsh*


Children and young adults who are involved with the foster care system face multiple barriers to transportation, particularly in remote areas of the country with limited public transport options.  Recent changes in federal and state laws now allow children to remain in foster care beyond age 18 up to age 21, with a goal of providing these young adults with the opportunity to develop independent living skills.  As a greater number of older youth may choose to remain involved with foster care, there will be increasing demands for transportation to places of work and education.  Youth residing in suburban or rural areas have unique challenges due to lack of public transportation. Unfortunately, foster youth frequently experience many legal challenges in obtaining their drivers’ licenses, purchasing a car and obtaining insurance.  Foster care provider organizations (both governmental and private) often express fears of liability related to allowing a foster youth to drive.  

New and emerging forms of transportation may provide potential solutions, but – as always – with advancements in technology come challenges in implementation. Just as mass transit is unavailable, micromobility is largely inaccessible for foster youth in remote locations. Bikes, scooters, and other means of bike-lane-occupying transit have provided cost-effective, footprint reducing options for residents of cities around the world. However, micromobility options are often impractical to implement in suburban and rural locations where most trips are more than a few miles. Micromobility for foster children in urban areas presents its own slew of concerns such as risk of accidents and injuries, lack of supervision, and determination of appropriate age of usage.

Ridesharing apps have become some of the most pervasive and visible technological advancements in mobility; however, combined with the lack of available cars in non-urban areas, they do not provide the advantages to foster children that they do to the general population. Many foster children do not even have access to smart phones and cellular data. Also, Uber and Lyft drivers cannot be properly vetted to ensure the safety of the children, and often have restrictions related to unaccompanied minors. State laws and policies place appropriate safety restrictions on who may transport foster youth, and often the list includes only caseworkers, biological parents and/or foster parents, or residential facility staff. Unless special permission is given by the court or parents, it would be challenging to approve any rideshare driver.  Moreover, waiting for a rideshare driver to become available and arrive could be problematic for youth who have time commitments relating to jobs or appointments.

Companies such as HopSkipDrive, Kango, VanGo and Zum seek to provide ridesharing services to children in a safe manner, vetting drivers through extensive interviews, background checks, and certification processes, and implementing real-time monitoring systems. Los Angeles-based HopSkipDrive, has even focused its outreach on foster youth, expanding to Las Vegas and partnering with Clark County Child Welfare Services. However, these services are not widespread, often require scheduling in advance, and the extensive vetting process for drivers means that the cost of each ride tends to be even higher than most ridesharing apps. Even extensive security measures cannot completely shield children from the risks of assault and kidnapping that ridesharing apps present. In February of 2020, HopSkipDrive was suspended in Las Vegas when a driver was charged with unlawful contact with a minor and luring a child, despite having an approved criminal record and background check.

According to a new report, 1 in 10 vehicles will be fully automated by 2030, with robo-taxis comprising a significant portion of the market. While contracts with agencies that provide robo-taxi services could provide a convenient solution for foster youth, the possibility of fully automated vehicles means that even semi-autonomous cars will still require some manner of control by a human driver. This presents similar challenges as ridesharing. Furthermore, the newness of the technology will likely mean higher costs, accessibility that is limited to cities and wealthier areas, higher risks, and lower public trust – all crucial factors that the foster care system considers when dealing with the transportation of youth.

Even if the aforementioned options were easily accessible to foster youth, all of them could prove to be cost-prohibitive. Child welfare agencies operate on strict budgets, allocating money only for necessities. Foster parents are also likely on tight budgets and may have a hard time justifying the expense of transportation technology. Even if a child has access to a smart phone to order an Uber, he or she most likely does not have the money to spare. Children in urban areas may have access to micromobility, but if they do not have the money to pay for it, it is of little use. Children in suburban or rural areas may find the cost prohibits them from even owning a bike or scooter. If such technology is deemed necessary, various bureaucratic hoops remain when deciding who will pay for such expenses.

Despite these safety and budgetary considerations, technology should still be harnessed to address many of the transportation barriers that foster youth face. Technology must be adapted to better suit the unique situations of the foster youth population.  For instance, individuals with connections to child protection services (i.e. caseworkers, foster parents, Court Appointed Special Advocates, etc.) could volunteer to act as on-call drivers, providing rides to youth in the foster care system. Safety concerns could be limited by keeping drivers within the pool of individuals who have already been approved. For older youth and those in less rural areas, micromobility programs could be created specifically for foster children, in which scooters and bikes could be donated or purchased specifically for their usage. Additionally, as a far-out solution, contracts between counties and fully automated vehicles could prove to be the ultimate solution once the technology has become more pervasive and affordable. It must not be taken for granted that technology automatically benefits all populations and individuals equally; the unique challenges of foster youth mean that we must provide them with unique solutions.

Sources:


* Lucy Johnston-Walsh is a Clinical Professor and Director of the Children’s Advocacy Clinic at Penn State Dickinson Law in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Emily Kortright is a certified legal intern in the Children’s Advocacy Clinic and JD candidate. The Children’s Advocacy Clinic is an experiential learning program for law students. The Clinic receives court appointments to represent children who are involved with the foster care system. Many clinic clients have been negatively impacted by transportation barrriers.

This year we have tried our best to keep up with all of the ways that the COVID-19 pandemic continues to challenge our transportation system – though with so much news on so many fronts that is often a losing battle. This past summer I moved from Ann Arbor to Washington, D.C. and last week I made a return trip to Michigan for some work that had to be completed on campus. Having crossed the eastern part of the U.S. twice now, I have been relieved to see the vast majority of travelers using mask when in public rest stops in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Ohio – I saw maybe on noncompliant person the entire trip. In reflection on my travels, I want to use today’s blog to present a grab-bag of COVID stories from the past few months that I hadn’t had a chance to feature yet.

How COVID Changed Driving Behavior

All the way back in March, Phil noted in a blog post how COVID-related lockdowns shifted traffic and pollution levels in the U.S. For some people the pandemic has become an excuse to indulge their leadfoot. From January to August the Iowa State Patrol saw a 101% increase in the number of tickets for speeding 100 mph above the speed limit, and a 75% increase in tickets for drivers speeding 25 mph over the limit. Likewise, between March and August the California Highway patrol saw a similar 100% increase in tickets for speeding 100 mph over the limit, with other states reporting extreme speeding ticket increases as well. Some of this could be due to emptier roads inviting speed demons, combined with reductions in the number of officers on the road due to the pandemic.

Earlier in the year, the pandemic lockdowns and travel reductions did benefit one population – wildlife. Over the spring, when lockdowns were at their height and travel at record lows, California reported a 21% reduction in roadkill, while Idaho reported a 38% reduction and Maine a 44% fall. For a while it appeared that human roadway deaths would also fall as travel reduced – from March to May New York City went a record 58 days without a pedestrian fatality. Yet as time has gone on, the number of roadway fatalities has started to climb, or at least have not fallen comparable to reductions in travel. Looking at New York City again, while the number of vehicle miles driven in the city was down 40% between January and June of this year, the number of road fatalities only dropped 10%. Nationwide, while the total number of deaths on the road dropped 5%, the number of deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled actually rose from 1.02 in 2019 to 1.15 in 2020. Indeed July 2020 motor-vehicle fatality estimates saw an 11% increase over 2019.  Could it be that the drivers still on the road are the most dangerous? Could the increased number of speeders be goosing the number of deaths?

Ridesharing Continues to Take a Hit

In August I touched on the major ridership drops facing Uber and Lyft, as part of a blog post discussing the companies’ challenge to a new California law requiring them to treat their drivers as employees, rather than contractors. What I didn’t touch on was how those services and their drivers that are operating in the pandemic reacted to the health crisis. It wasn’t until May that Uber started requiring drivers to wear masks, though now they require both drivers and passengers to take selfies pre-ride to prove all parties are masked up, though in the case of riders the photos are only necessary if the rider was previously flagged for not wearing a mask. Uber has also supplied public health officials with usage data to assist with contract tracing. The company reported that in the first half of 2020 they received 560 data requests globally from public health departments, up from just 10 such requests in the entirety of 2019.

As cities and regions have opened back up, Uber ridership has been reportedly up in cities like New York, while still collapsed in San Francisco and LA. Given that nearly a quarter of the company’s rides from 2019 came from NYC, LA, SF, Chicago, and London, reduced demand on the west coast could be a major issue for them – even if the increased demand for takeout benefits their delivery service, UberEats (though delivery apps have proven to be less than profitable, even during the pandemic…).

Disinfecting Mobility

Another issue that has come to the forefront during the COVID crisis is how to clean vehicles and spaces to reduce the spread of illness. For mass transit half the battle is getting people to social distance and wear masks. In New York more than 170 transit workers have been assaulted while trying to enforce mask requirements, with 95% of those attacks taking place on buses. Meanwhile, companies like AV developer Voyage have adopted new tech to help keep their vehicles clean, which in Voyage’s case meant adopting ultraviolet lighting systems that sterilize their robotaxis in between passengers. In May, Ford rolled out new software for police vehicles they produce that uses the vehicle’s own heating system to bring the internal temperature in the car beyond 133 degrees Fahrenheit for 15 minutes, to disinfect high touch areas. In both of these cases the cleaning technology is dangerous to humans, meaning it’s unlikely to be rolled out to the average consumer. New mobility tech like drones have also been repurposed to help fight COVID, with a drone-based system being used to spray disinfectant in Atlanta’s Mercedes-Benz Stadium, which has been reopened for NFL games (though the number of fans that will actually be allowed in is unknown…).

That’s enough for today, though of course going forward we’ll continue to explore the many ways the ongoing crisis can challenge our transportation system – including upcoming looks at the future of rail and air travel.

Micromobility usage was at an all-time high before March 2020. The culmination of decades of growth and industry involvement in the United States resulted in nearly 350 million rides taken on shared bikes and scooters since 2010. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) reported this astounding statistic in their Shared Micromobility in the U.S.: 2019 report.

In 2019, more than 134 million shared trips were taken, 60% higher than trips taken in 2018. NACTO reported the average trip in 2019 was 11-12 minutes, covering a distance of 1-1.5 miles. These numbers are significant because they represent trips that may otherwise have been taken by car. 46% of all U.S. car trips are under 3 miles. Replacing short vehicle trips with micromobility trips helps decrease carbon consumption. It can also increase access to new forms of transportation for low socioeconomic status and minority communities in cities.

However, micromobility in cities can and should be doing better. The adoption rates for Capital Bikeshare, a cheap and widely available bike-sharing service in Washington, D.C., is significantly lower among the Black and African-American population than among the White population. This is surprising at first when you consider that micromobility enjoys a positive perception from diverse groups of people.

However, positive perception does not always translate into access. Micromobility needs to be made widely available to all populations in the cities in which they operate. Many bike and scooter sharing services are dockless, and thus can be left almost anywhere. Many scooter companies rely on contract workers to pick up scooters at night when the batteries are dead, charge them overnight at their residence, and redistribute the scooters in the morning. This method allows the scooter companies to rebalance their fleet, and direct where scooters are first released in the morning, and how many scooters are dropped off in each area.

Logically, companies have figured out where scooters are ridden the most. They have access to incredible real-time demand and use data. But this can lead to a feedback loop. Suppose early micromobility adopters are predominately white, male, and young. In that case, scooters will be placed where that demographic is likely to find them first in the morning. In cities where scooter numbers have a firm cap, access to scooters is a zero-sum game for things like early morning work commutes or grocery runs.

One solution to the access problem is having cities work with micromobility companies to ensure scooters’ placement is not only profitable but equitable. Scooters should be located in all communities, not merely in ones that have shown early to use micromobility most frequently. These goals can be accomplished by cities working directly with the providers to access the data and share public-private goals. It could also be done by working with unbiased third-parties to make recommendations for what policies will make micromobility systems most widely available.

Something the current pandemic has provided micromobility companies is a different picture. The NACTO report found that micromobility usage in cities was utilized at higher rates when made free to essential workers. The most-used Citi bike stations were at hospitals in April. Black workers are disproportionally found among essential workers, and essential workers’ utilizing micromobility systems revealed new commuter patterns. The pandemic may provide a picture of what access should look like while simultaneously exposing micromobility systems to underserved communities as cheap and viable transportation options. There is clearly work to be done, and the information is out there. It is time to put the information to use.

This blog post kicks off a month of coverage focused on micromobility – check back tomorrow for a new journal article on micromobility laws nationwide!

A few weeks ago I wrote about how COVID-19 has disrupted the ridesharing industry, with Lyft and Uber struggling to find their place in our changing world. Those same disruptions have sent ripples through the various bikeshare and e-scooter services that make up the micromobility industry, though that segment of the greater mobility ecosystem may be better positioned to continue functioning during the ongoing pandemic.

First, the bad news – earlier in the pandemic, both Lime and Bird, major e-scooter operators, laid off staff, with Lime shedding 13% of its workforce and Bird laying off a full 30%. Part of this was due to the companies suspending some service in the face of the pandemic. In May, a huge number of bikes owned by JUMP, a Lime-owned dockless bikeshare service, were shown being destroyed in videos posted to social media.

Yet at the same time as those JUMP bikes were being destroyed, the U.S. found itself in the middle of a major bicycle shortage. Even now, months into the pandemic, bike producers are struggling to keep up with demand, though industry leaders acknowledge that they were very lucky to dodge the business losses they originally had feared as the pandemic began. Bicycles represent a convenient means of mobility, and as city dwellers sought to avoid public transit, they turned to their bikes to get them where they need to go. Indeed, in New York City, bike riding increased over 50% across the city’s bridges in March as the weather improved. Likewise, also in March, the city’s docked bikeshare, Citi Bike, saw a 67% increase in demand.

That last number is very interesting to me – even at some of the darkest points of New York’s outbreak, people were still flocking to use bikeshare. Indeed, of all the modes of mobility, micromobility seems the most pandemic-proof. To ride carefully all you really need to do is wipe the scooter or bike’s handlebars down, or generously sanitize/wash your hands after your ride. One company, Wheels, has even released rentable e-bikes with self-cleaning handlebars! And, of course, don’t forget your mask, which frankly could improve the ride experience as it shields your face from the wind. I’ll admit that other than my car, a Spin scooter is the only form of transportation I’ve used since the pandemic began – and I would consider myself more paranoid about COVID exposure than the majority of people.

Across the globe cycling and micromobility are a vital lifeline for people to traverse cities, and have proven to be more resilient than other modes of transport in the face of disasters – as seen in the 2017 Mexico City earthquake. I’ve written in the past about how cities are changing in the face of the pandemic, and stronger investment in the infrastructure to support micromobility and cycling needs to be a part of those changes.

So what can the micromobility industry itself do to encourage consumers to use their services, especially those who can’t afford for get their hands on a bike of their own? As often is the case in the mobility space (or at least our coverage of the space…) Michigan offers a potential path forward. At the end of June, the City of Detroit announced a new pilot program to connect essential workers with affordable e-bikes and scooters. In this case, two micromobility providers, Spin and MoGo, along with GM, leased scooters and e-bikes to the employees of hospitals, grocery stores, pharmacies, and manufactures – but only to those employees living within 6 miles of their workplace. Here, micromobility companies are getting their vehicles into the hands of people who need them the most – and giving them a reliable new way to get to work. While far from a full solution to the companies’ woes, it shows that they can reach customers while also providing a public service.

Like many industries, the automated vehicle industry faced setbacks due to this year’s many COVID-19 related local and regional lockdowns. In the spring, as the first wave of the virus spread, many companies had to stop testing to protect the human safety drivers and, in the case of Bay Area companies, follow local “shelter in place” orders. One partial exception to the rule was Waymo, which has been testing fully automated vehicles without safety drivers in Arizona, was able to keep some of those fully automated vehicles operating, since there were no drivers involved.

Beyond shutting down on-the-road testing, the AV industry has seen other COVID-related fallout. Due to the pandemic Ford delayed the launch of their robotaxi service to 2022, while GM’s Cruise unit laid off 8% of their staff in May. Yet desire to invest in the AV industry appears to remain strong. Zoox, which had (at least temporary) laid off its safety drivers in April, was bought by Amazon in June. Over the summer companies have begun to announce new testing sites – with Aurora testing automated semis and cars in Dallas-Fort Worth, and a Chinese AV developer, AutoX, launching a test around PayPal’s headquarters in San Jose, CA. Closer to home, Russian AV developer Yandex announced it would begin testing in Ann Arbor, their first test in the US, while May Mobility’s AV service in Grand Rapids will resume service at the end of August.

Indeed, two other developments in Michigan show that AV and mobility-related work is still an important focus, even during periods of major upheaval. In July the state of Michigan launched the Office of Future Mobility and Electrification, which is led by the “chief mobility officer.” The office’s structure and mission is based off work done by Detroit’s Office of Mobility Innovation – and hopes to recreate that office’s success at a state level. Part of the office’s mission will be to consolidate the work of 135 different councils, boards, and commissions spread out across 17 state agencies and departments – all of which have been working on some element of mobility. Earlier this month a second major announcement pointed to just how dedicated the state seems to be toward new mobility tech. On August 13th, a public-private partnership, named “CAVNUE,” was announced, with its goal being the creation of a 40-mile long testing corridor between Detroit and Ann Arbor. The corridor would be designed for testing both connected and automated vehicles as well as infrastructure. If this project is successful, it would be a major boon for the many companies in Southeast Michigan – and would signal a move to greater public testing of emerging mobility technology beyond more controlled environments like MCity.  

One lesson of the past year has been that the future can change very quickly, making rosy predictions of future AV successes harder to believe than in “the before time.” But these developments seem to show the AV industry finding its way forward. The future promise (and challenge) of AVs hasn’t diminished, even in our rapidly changing present.

Last week I discussed the California Superior Court decision that ruled that under California law Uber and Lyft must classify their ridesharing drivers as employees, rather than independent contractors. In response to that ruling, both companies had threatened to shut down service across the state. Yesterday, an appeals court issued a stay on that ruling, allowing both companies to continue operations, “pending resolution” of their appeal of the initial order. As I mentioned in my last blog post, the rideshare giant’s strategy currently appears to be “run out the clock,” until the November election, when California voters will decide on Proposition 22, which would establish a new classification for drivers. So for now those Californians who are willing to brave getting into a rideshare will be able to do so – while Uber and Lyft also explore more creative solutions, in case Prop 22 doesn’t pass.

Also on Thursday, another court case tied to Uber was just starting. Federal prosecutors in San Francisco filed criminal charges against Uber’s former security chief, Joe Sullivan. Sullivan is charged with two felony counts for failing to disclose a 2016 Uber data breach to federal investigators who were investigating similar earlier incidents that had occurred in 2014. In the 2016 incident, an outside hacker was paid $100,000 by Uber after the hacker revealed they had acquired access to the information of 57 million riders and drivers. Beyond the payment, Uber faced further criticism for failing to reveal the incident for a full year. Two of the hackers involved later plead guilty to charges related to the hack, and they are both awaiting federal sentencing. In 2018 Uber paid $148 million to settle a suit brought by state attorneys general related to the hack, while the FTC expanded a previous data breach settlement in reaction to the incident. Beyond the lack of transparency (to the public and law enforcement) Uber’s major misstep, at least in my view, is the payment itself. While many companies, Uber included, sponsor “bug bounties,” where outside security researchers are rewarded for reporting security flaws in a company’s products, this payment fell outside of that structure. Rather, it seems more like a ransom payment to less than scrupulous hackers. While Uber is far from the only company to have faced data breaches (or to have paid off hackers), this case should be a wake-up call for all mobility companies – a reminder that they have to be very careful with the customer data they are collecting, least they fall prey to a data breach, and, just as importantly, when a breach occurs, they have to face it with transparency, both to the public and investigators.  

The third Uber-related this month involves another former Uber employee, Anthony Levandowski, who was sentenced to 18 months in prison for stealing automated vehicle trade secrets from Google. In 2016, Levandowski left Google’s automated vehicle project to start his own AV tech company, which was in turn acquired by Uber. Levandowski was accused of downloading thousands of Google files related to AVs before he left, leading to a suit between Google’s Waymo and Uber, which was settled for roughly $250 million. There are a lot more details involved in the case, but it highlights some of the many challenges Uber, and the mobility industry at large, face.

Mobility and AVs are a huge business, with a lot of pressure to deliver products and receive high valuations in from investors and IPOs. That can incentivize misbehavior, whether it be stealing intellectual property or concealing data breaches. Given how central mobility technologies are to people’s daily lives, the public deserves to be able to trust the companies developing and deploying those technologies – something undermined by cases like these.

This week a California Superior Court ruled that transportation network company (“TNC”) titans Uber and Lyft have to classify drivers as employees, rather than independent contractors. The suit, spearheaded by the state’s Attorney General, sought to bring the two ride-sharing companies into compliance with Assembly Bill 5 (“AB 5”), which reclassified an array of “gig economy” workers as employees. When gig economy workers are reclassified as employees, they gain access to minimum wage requirements, overtime and sick leave, workers’ comp, disability insurance, and (importantly, in the COVID-19 era) unemployment insurance. Given those added benefits, employees can cost a company 20 to 30 percent more than an independent contractor, which is in part fueling opposition to bill and the ruling.

The decision comes after months of COVID-19 related disruptions that have cratered the ridesharing services at the core of Lyft and Uber’s business models. Lyft has reported a 61% revenue drop in the second-quarter of 2020, though it also reported an uptick in ridership in July. Uber reported a 75% drop in US ridership over April, May, and June of this year. Various lockdowns contributed to that drop – indeed, according to Uber’s own reports, nearly a quarter of its entire business comes from four US metro areas – NYC, Chicago, LA, San Francisco – along with its London operations. While the company has claimed encouraging signs from markets in nations like New Zealand, where the virus is under control, it remains to be seen if that success can be replicated in the US, where the virus is still spreading. In May, Uber announced two rounds of layoffs, cutting roughly 25% of its workforce (around 6,700 people), while Lyft cut 20% of its workforce in April.

Uber’s precarious financial situation makes its response to the Superior Court ruling all the more interesting – toying with a potential state-wide shutdown of their services, a least temporarily. In an interview, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi indicated that if the company’s appeal of this week’s ruling fails, Uber may have to shut down service as they adjust to the new rules – with reductions in service outside major markets upon the service’s reactivation. That shutdown period also times out with the November election, where California voters will decide on Proposition 22, which would exempt ridesharing drivers from being classified as employers under AB 5. In a New York Times op-ed, Khosrowshahi has proposed a “third way” between employee and independent contractor. This system would require all gig economy companies to establish funds to give their workers cash payments to be used for benefits, with payouts based on the hours worked. By requiring all gig companies to pay in, individuals working for multiple companies at the same time remain covered as they switch from app to app. In response to this proposal, critics point out that Uber could already establish such a system, at least for their own drivers, if it wanted to.

California is far from the only place where ridesharing companies are being pushed to change the relationship the companies have with their drivers. In June, Seattle passed a law requiring paid sick time for TNC drivers during the COVID-19 crisis (the leave requirement would expire 180 days after the crisis has ended…). The Seattle bill grants one paid day of leave for every 30 calendar days worked (either full or part time). In Washington, D.C., a Lyft driver has challenged the company’s lack of sick days, arguing drivers should be classified as employees under city law. Indeed, as the pandemic spread workers across the nation have spoken up about the difficulty of obtaining any sick leave from gig economy companies, even when they showed symptoms of COVID-19.

Unemployment insurance has been a major focus in these disputes, especially as drivers have been unable to work due to lockdowns or COVID-related reductions in demand. Traditionally, when drivers are classified as independent contractors, they lose the ability to claim unemployment, as their “employer” doesn’t pay into the system. At the start of the COVID crisis, Congress set up a separate unemployment fund for self-employed workers, though that fund ran out at the end of July. Even while the funds were available,  however, many gig workers had a hard time obtaining them, as existing state unemployment systems struggled to adapt to new rules while being slammed with claims from millions of people newly out of work. In California, the issues surrounding Assembly Bill 5 complicated the process, as the Federal funds were marked for people classified as independent contractors, which, thanks to AB 5, now did not include many gig workers. Drivers in New York, frustrated at their inability to obtain unemployment funds sued the state government, and have won, at initially, building their arguments off two earlier rulings that deemed gig workers eligible for unemployment benefits. Part of the disputes in both California and New York involve the lack of earnings data for drivers, which the state needs to calculate their unemployment eligibility, with a lawyer for the State of New York accusing Lyft and Uber of “playing games” to prevent turning over said data. Elsewhere, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled on a similar case – finding that an Uber driver was not “self-employed” for the purposes of unemployment benefits, while the Massachusetts A.G. has also recently brought suit to reclassify Uber and Lyft drivers as employees.

As the pandemic drags on, it’s hard to know what will happen next. The shortfalls of the current system have been made manifest – something clearly needs to change. Perhaps that could come in the form of Uber’s proposed “third way,” but such a system would need to be much better defined than it is now to prove it could offer a level of benefits comparable to those offered to employees. At the same time, if gig workers are to be counted as full employees, could that limit the entry of new gig companies? The massive growth of companies like Uber and Lyft was fueled in part by the cost savings that came from using independent contractors. Could new companies hope to cut into existing or new markets while also providing greater employee benefits?

For now, I’d say it’s more important to focus on the existing problem. Uber and Lyft are sophisticated technology companies, and both should be more than able to adapt their system to make their drivers employees. Given the COVID-19 related reductions in demand, the time seems right for them to make that change everywhere, not just in California. After all, according to their own plans, Uber won’t be dealing with human drivers forever, so future employee expenses will supposedly reduce with time. And while the pandemic may have harmed Uber’s ridesharing, it has helped grow its delivery service, UberEats. Even if automated vehicles replace gig drivers, they will be less able to replace workers for services like TaskRabbit or Instacart, where human labor is still central. And with expanded government-based safety nets seemingly a distant possibility, for the time being, workers will still need employer-based benefits of one form or another. Just as ridesharing companies disrupted the way people move through the world, it seems the time is right to disrupt the relationship between those companies and drivers that form the core of the TNC workforce.

An IBM report released earlier this month revealed some significant changes in consumer sentiment and public willingness to use certain mobility methods as a result of COVID-19. The study polled more than 25,000 adults during the month of April. Of the respondents that regularly used buses, subways, or trains: 20 percent said they no longer would utilize those options; an additional 28 percent said they would use public transportation less often. 17 percent of people surveyed said they will use their personal vehicle more; 25 percent of that 17 percent said it will be their exclusive method of transportation going forward.

Consumer perception of public transportation and the ways we move has shifted dramatically in just three short months. These results indicate that a significant number of U.S. consumers intend to drastically change the ways they travel in the aftermath of COVID-19. If these sentiments remain in place in the coming years, the decrease in public transportation ridership would mean decreased fee collections, which can lead to several options for cities to fund public transportation, including (1) an increase in ridership fees, (2) an increase in general tax revenue devoted to public transportation, or (3) a decrease in service offerings. All of these options are undesirable, especially in cities where private vehicle ownership is low, and many workers may have no option other than public transportation. The cities with the largest annual ridership numbers for subway or metro are New York City, Washington D.C., Chicago, Boston, and the San Francisco Bay Area.

City

Annual Metro/ Subway ridership (2019)

Population
(2018 Estimates)

Percent of Households without a vehicle (2016)

New York, NY

2,274 Million

8,398,748

54.4%

Washington, D.C.

237 Million

702,455

37.3%

Chicago

218 Million

2,705,994

27.5%

Boston

152 Million

694,583

33.8%

San Francisco

123 Million

883,305

29.9%

Removing 20 percent of public transportation riders completely and decreasing the usage of nearly 30 percent more would be financially catastrophic for any city transit authority. In 2019, the New York MTA brought in nearly $17 Billion. The current decrease in ridership (down 74 percent) has already required the MTA to seek billions in aid from the federal government and led to a first-ever decrease in working hours to sanitize trains overnight. A sustained decrease of more than 30 percent of rides per year would require a systemic overhaul of the metro system or some other drastic measures.

While some respondents indicated they will use their personal vehicles more, it is clear that in cities where public transportation is most utilized, many people do not have access to a personal vehicle. This will place a difficult decision on many underserved and minority communities: return to using public transportation and face an elevated risk of potential infection, struggle to find a job closer to home to avoid transportation, or save for a personal vehicle to avoid public transportation. Owning a vehicle in major cities can be prohibitively expensive for low-income households, and affordable parking can be nearly impossible to find. As transit authorities raise prices to compensate for lost riders, more riders may depart as the cost of ridership becomes too high for their budget. This could lead to a death spiral for public transportation. These systems simply cannot sustain 90 percent ridership decreases.

The same IBM survey also found that the decision to buy a personal vehicle after COVID-19 was “greatly” influenced by a constraint on their personal finances for more than 33 percent of respondents. 25 percent said they would hold off on buying a vehicle for more than 6 months. So for many people who wish to stop using public transportation, there is no safe and affordable option immediately available. Some may point to rideshare services as a safer alternative to the cramped quarters of public transportation. But according to the survey, of the respondents who used rideshare apps and services already, more than 50 percent said they would use the services less, or stop entirely. Uber and Lyft are going to see an incredible drop off in ridership; Uber and Lyft both halted their carpooling services in March. Uber trips were already down 70 percent in some cities in March. These numbers are sure to increase, and the companies will recover financially due to the increase in demand for UberEats during this crisis. However, the surge in ridership seen in recent years will take many years to reach 2019 peaks.

Finally, the IBM survey also asked about working from home, a topic I wrote about at the end of March.  Around 40 percent of respondents indicated they feel strongly that their employer should provide employees the option to opt-in to remote working from home going forward. 75 percent indicated they would like to continue working from home at least occasionally, and more than 50 percent indicated they would like working from home to be their primary work method. Perhaps companies will heed the desires of their employees. It is unlikely that many companies will offer the “work from home, forever” option that Twitter and Facebook have provided. But almost certainly we will see an increase in the ability of employees to work from home, now that their ability to do so has been demonstrated. Especially in cities like New York and San Francisco where the annual cost of office space is more than $13,000 per employee. If more tech companies follow Facebook’s lead and allow many employees to work remotely forever, we may even see housing prices start to decrease in some select areas and a further decrease in public transportation ridership in cities like San Francisco.

Mobility is going to change immensely once this crisis is over, whenever that may be. Public transportation must be overhauled in its current processes and operations if it hopes to regain public confidence and achieve ridership numbers anywhere near 2019 levels during the next decade.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues and our memories of the “before time” feel ever more distant, some have begun to wonder how this crisis and its aftermath could change how and where people live. Will people abandon expensive and dense major cities for smaller cities, suburbs or even small towns? On the one hand, I’ll admit that living in a small city like Ann Arbor has made weathering the lock down rather easy, which could lead credence to these ideas. Personally, I’ve had no issues finding supplies, or taking a walk without running into too many other people (though my apartment building’s shared laundry rooms are now a fraught location). Of course, Ann Arbor, a wealthy, educated college town with excellent access to medical care has a lot of resources other cities do not, so it may not be the best example.

Alternatively, there are those who argue our cities won’t actually change that much post-COVID-19, and there are even ways that the outbreak could make cities better (with the proper investment). Cities have survived disease outbreaks for millennia, and given that so much of our economy, culture, and infrastructure is built around cities it would be hard to seismically shift to some other model of living. Yet the economic upheaval that the pandemic has ushered in will no doubt influence where and how people live, and could last a good deal longer than the disease itself.

So what changes are well already seeing in cities, and what could that indicate about where we’re heading? In a number of cities, including New York, Seattle, and Oakland, are closing streets to open up more space for pedestrians and cyclists. Streets could also be closed to provide more outdoor space for restaurants, to help them reopen while preserving some measure of social distancing. New Zealand has gone as far as to make such street alterations national policy. Cities and towns in that nation are able to apply for funding to immediately expand sidewalks and modify streets, with the national government covering 90% of the cost. Some suggest these closures and modifications should be permanent – that we should take this opportunity to create more walkable and bikeable cities now, when we have the chance. In many ways these modified streets are similar to proposals for automated vehicle (“AV”) dominated cities. Supporters believe that wide adoption and deployment of AVs would mean more streets could have one lane of traffic in each direction, with the extra space turned over to alternative uses. The current demands of social distancing dovetail with those ideas – could cities use the current crisis to prepare themselves for an autonomous future? Given the difficulty of building new infrastructure, it may not be a bad idea to get ahead of the curve.

As noted by Phillip in a post earlier in the crisis, another effect of the global lockdown has been improved environmental conditions in cities around the globe. In India, for example, where cities have significant pollution problems, massive reductions in travel have led to clear skies. For the first time, we are seeing clear examples of what cleaner energy production could bring (pun intended). Such improvements could lead residents to demand continued reductions in emissions even after this crisis passes. These and other changes made to cities in the short term to cope with lockdowns and social distancing could dictate the future of urban design, but only if governments and citizens are willing to adopt them and protect them from being undone once the crisis passes.

P.S. Those of you who are interested in buying a bike to help navigate the new socially-distanced world may run into an issue – just like masks, cleaning supplies, and toilet paper, bikes are now becoming a scarce resource in some places.

For the past two years, the purpose of this blog and the Law and Mobility Program has been to peak around the corner and see what’s next. We have explored the legal and policy ramifications of emerging transportation technologies and tried to figure out how those technologies, be they automated vehicles, e-scooters, delivery drones, or even flying cars, will fit into our existing transportation and legal systems.

As it has with so many aspects of our lives, the COVID-19 pandemic has complicated our ability to look forward – the world to come is harder to predict. How close to “normal” will we get without a vaccine or treatment? If a significant portion of the workforce moves to remote work (Twitter, for example, is going to a permanent remote work option), what does that mean for our transportation system? Will people retreat from large, dense cities? As the pandemic disrupts state and local budgets, what will happen to transportation budgets? Right now, there are no clear answers.

Going forward, this blog and the Law and Mobility Program will remain focused on the future, with a keen eye on today. We will still explore new technologies and their ramifications, while also seeking a better understanding of how the current crisis is altering the mobility landscape. Later today we’ll publish the first of a series of blog posts dealing with some of the specific disruptions and changes that are already occurring. We hope you’ll enjoy these posts and, as always, invite you to join us in the conversation by submitting posts of your own – outside blog post submissions (of 500-1,000 words) are always welcome at JLMsubmissions@umich.edu (all submissions are evaluated for publication by our staff).

Up to now, the way forward for roadways-based, commercial automated mobility remained somewhat of a mystery. Surely, we would not see AVs in the hand of individual owners anytime soon – too expensive. “Robotaxi” fleets commanded by the likes of Uber and Lyft seemed the most plausible option. There was, at least in appearance, a business case and that most industry players seemed to be putting their efforts towards an automated version of common passenger cars.

Over the course of 2019, the landscape slowly but steadily changed: public authorities started to worry more about safety and the prospects of seeing fleets of “robotaxis” beyond the roads of Arizona, Nevada or California seemed remote. This is how automated shuttles found their way to the front of the race towards a viable business model and a large-scale commercial deployment.

Many now mock these slow-moving “bread loafs,” ridiculing their low speed and unenviable looks. However, some of these comments appear slightly disingenuous. The point of the shuttles is not “to persuade people to abandon traditional cars with steering wheels and the freedom to ride solo.” I don’t see any of these shuttles driving me back home to Montreal from Ann Arbor (a 600 miles/1000km straight line). But I see them strolling around campuses or across airport terminals. The kind of places where I don’t quite care about the good looks of whatever is carrying me around, and also the kind of place where I wouldn’t take my car to anyway. There might be much to say about how certain electric vehicles marketed directly to the end-user failed because of their unappealing design, but I don’t plan to buy a shuttle anytime soon.

Looks aside, these automated “turtles” have a major upside that the “hare” of, say, Tesla (looking at you, Model 3!) may not dispose of. Something which happens to be at the top of the agenda these days: safety. While notoriously hard to define in the automated mobility context (what does safety actually imply? When would an AV be safe?) removing speed from the equation immediately takes us into a safer territory; public authorities become less concerned, and more collaborative, agreeing to fund early deployment projects. Conversely, scooters irked a lot of municipal governments because they go too fast (among other things). As a result, there was little public appetite for scooters and operators were forced to withdraw, losing their license or failing to become commercially viable.

As a result, it is the safe vein that various industry players decided to tap. Our turtles are indeed slow, with a top speed of 25mph, usually staying in the range of 15 to 20 mph. This is no surprise: that is the speed after which braking means moving forward several dozen if not hundreds of feet. Within that lower bracket, however, a vehicle can stop in a distance of about two cars (not counting reaction time) and avoid transforming a collision into a fatality. Hence, it goes without saying that such shuttles are only suitable for local transportation. But why phrase that as an only? Local transportation is equally important. Such shuttles are also suitable for pedestrian environments. Outside of the US, pedestrians have their place on the road – and many, many roads, across the globe, are mostly pedestrian. Finally, they can also be usefully deployed in certain closed environments, notably airports. In many places, however, deployment of such shuttles on roadways might require some additional work – creation of lanes or changes to existing lanes – in order to accommodate their presence. Yet the same observation can also be made for “robotaxis,” however, and the adaptations required there may be much more substantial. The limited applications of automated shuttles may be what, ultimately, makes them less appealing than our Tesla Model 3 and its promises of freedom.

Overall, turtle shuttles appear closer to a marginal development from widely used rail-based automated driving systems, rather than a paradigm shift. That might precisely be what makes them a good gateway towards more automation in our mobility systems; there is wisdom in believing that we will have a better grasp of the challenges of automated mobility by actually deploying and using such systems, but it is not written anywhere that we need to break things to do so.

It feels like much longer than two months ago that I first wrote about the coronavirus, Covid-19. At the time of my first blog post on the subject, the world had just witnessed China quarantine more than 50 million people in four weeks. The United States is now under conditions that significantly exceed that number. As of March 26th, more than 20 U.S. states have imposed either statewide orders, or partial orders, for residents to stay at home and shelter in place. Currently, more than 196 million citizens are being urged to stay at home. Social Distancing, Zoom, and Flatten the Curve have become household names and phrases overnight. As I write this, millions of citizens are entering their second or third week of working from home.

As the United States reckons with this outbreak’s severity and we learn to live at a distance, it is crucial to reflect on the unintended secondary effects that have become apparent from en masse “work from home” (“WFH”). Perhaps we can learn something. Perhaps it is just refreshing to note them. Perhaps it could provide inspiration for solutions to many problems we are already facing or will one day face.

Traffic Reductions

Traffic in various cities across the world has decreased dramatically. With millions of people working from home for the foreseeable future, there are fewer cars on the road during traditional rush hour peaks. Traffic in Chicago is moving as much as 60% faster; traffic in Los Angeles is moving 35% more quickly than usual.  8am LA rush hour traffic was flowing around 60 miles per hour, while it typically dips down to 30 mph. Roughly the same increase in speed was measured during the evening commute hour.

Pollution Reduction

A decrease in rush hour traffic was an easily predicted effect of mass-quarantining. One unintended side effect is the sharp decrease in pollution over major cities. There has been a severe downturn in Nitrogen Dioxide (“NO2“) — a significant pollutant released from the burning of fossil fuels — over Los Angeles, Seattle, and New York. The same significant drop in NO2 has been seen over China around Wuhan, Shanghai, and Beijing.

This decrease in pollution and an increase in traffic speeds reflect the anticipated benefits of autonomous vehicles. One of the benefits of AVs is the decrease in emissions that come from daily commutes. Most autonomous vehicle manufacturers and testers use electric vehicles because the electrical power the advanced computer systems draw exceeds the capacity of most car batteries. An increase in electric vehicles on the roads will decrease fossil fuels being burned while driving, which would likely lead to a reduction in pollutants (like NO2) over concentrated areas over roadways.

Another benefit of AVs is the decrease in traffic time. Vehicles the communicate with other vehicles (“V2V”) or that communicate with infrastructure (“V2I”) will, over time, allow for fewer slowdowns and higher average driving speeds. Because vehicles can communicate when they are slowing down, speeding up, turning, exiting, etc. the flow of highway traffic will become smoother as fewer interruptions cause human drivers to hit the breaks or come to a standstill. AVs that platoon in synchronization can also increase traffic speeds.

One of the much-touted benefits of autonomous vehicles is the increased productivity that a driver can experience by freeing up their attention and hands from needing to drive and monitor their vehicle. Although not to the same scale, faster traffic speeds from increased WFH translates into less time wasted on a commute and more time with family and at work. The same is true of WFH; my daily commute has changed from a 15-minute walk to the law school to a 15-second walk from the kitchen up to my desk. 

One metric I am interested in seeing after the Covid-19 social distancing and en masse WFH is worker productivity while working from home. If workers are similarly (or more) productive when working from home, we could see an uptick in companies allowing employees to WFH weekly, or even on an unlimited basis (subject to approval of some sort). Similarly, if some of the benefits that AVs seek to bring — decreased traffic, reduced pollution, increased productivity — can be achieved through en masse WFH, should AV proponents, and others interested in these benefits, be advocating for more WFH in other contexts? Companies could even use WFH to advertise their “green” efforts, by touting the number of driven miles and pollutants they eliminate annually by requiring employees to WFH periodically.

If we anticipate future events like Covid-19, where social distancing becomes crucial, keeping WFH skills sharp may become a necessity. Allowing or requiring workers to stay home one or more days per week could be a method to keep those skills sharp: being productive at home, efficient communication online, and keeping in contact with employees and supervisors. As this crisis continues to unfold, it is essential to remember that this round of social distancing will not last forever. As a country, we will emerge from this crisis changed. How we change is interesting to project, but it is similarly essential to aid in preventing future problems and adapting future solutions.

Last week, the United States declined to sign the “Stockholm Declaration,” an international agreement to set targets for reducing road fatalities. The reason given for not signing the declaration was the U.S.’s objection to items within the document that referenced climate change, equity, gender equality, and other issues. For context, here is the paragraph they are referencing:

[Signatories resolve to] “[a]ddress the connections between road safety, mental and physical health, development, education, equity, gender equality, sustainable cities, environment and climate change, as well as the social determinants of safety and the interdependence between the different [Sustainable Development Goals (“SDGs”)], recalling that the SDGs and targets are integrated and indivisible;”

This is an abdication of responsibility on the part of the American government, and ignores the real social, economic, and climate issues that are deeply tied to transportation. This piece is the first in a series, in which I will touch on how transportation, especially the emerging mobility technologies we usually cover, are entwined with issues that the current Administration sees as beyond the scope of road safety. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but rather a few examples offered as proof of the complexity of the issues. For today we’ll consider the environmental issues that are tied to road safety.

Road Safety and the Environment

Much has been made of how CAVs and other new mobility technologies can reduce greenhouse emissions via electrification of transportation and gained efficiencies through coordination between vehicles and infrastructure. The pursuit of safer roads via CAV deployment is also the pursuit of “greener” roads. This is especially important in the face of a recent study that found the use of rideshares like Lyft and Uber are increasing emissions – by an estimated 69%. The study found that rideshare usage shifted trips that would have been undertaken by mass transit, biking, or walking. Any discussion of the future of road safety, especially in cities, will have to include discussions of ridesharing, and how to better integrate biking, walking, and things like micro-mobility services into our streets, an integration that has important environmental implications.

The deployment of electric vehicles, something that appears to be a goal of major auto manufacturers, is another area in which road safety and the environment meet. To start with, these vehicles reduce overall vehicle emissions, which themselves are a health hazard. While not traditionally part of the road safety discussion, recent studies have shown that outdoor air pollution reduces the average life expectancy world-wide by almost 3 years. Including emissions in the safety conversation is especially important as vehicles are now the largest carbon producers.

Electric vehicles have other positive safety features – their large batteries, for example, make them less likely to roll over in an accident. On the other hand, electric vehicles traveling at low speeds can be harder for pedestrians and others to hear. In response, NHTSA has now mandated that EVs be equipped to generate artificial sound to warn those around them.

These are just a few ways in which environmental issues cross over into road safety, as recognized by the signatories to the Stockholm Declaration, and it is imperative the U.S. government take them into consideration rather than dismissing them outright.

The California DMV recently released several 2019 reports from companies piloting self-driving vehicles in California. Under state law, all companies actively testing autonomous vehicles on California public roads must disclose the number of miles driven and how often human drivers were required to retake control from the autonomous vehicle. Retaking control is known as “disengagement.” The DMV defines disengagements as:

“[D]eactivation of the autonomous mode when a failure of the autonomous technology is detected or when the safe operation of the vehicle requires that the autonomous vehicle test driver disengage the autonomous mode and take immediate manual control of the vehicle.”

Because of the proprietary nature of autonomous vehicle testing, data is not often publicly released;  this is one of the few areas where progress data is made publicly available. The 60 companies actively testing in California cumulatively traveled 2.88 million miles in 2019. The table below reports the various figures for some of the major testers in California.

Company Vehicles Active in CA Miles Driven in 2019 Engagements Engagements per 1,000 miles Average Miles Between Engagements
Waymo 153 1.45 Million 110 0.076 13,219
GM Cruise 233 831,040 68 0.082 12,221
Apple 66 7,544 64 8.48 118
Lyft 20 42,930 1,667 38.83 26
Aurora ? 13,429 142 10.57 95
Nuro 33 68,762 34 0.494 2,024
Pony.ai 22 174,845 27 0.154 6,493
Baidu 4 108,300 6 0.055 18,181
Tesla 0 0 0 0 0

What these numbers make clear is that there are several contenders who have made significant progress in the autonomous vehicle space, and there are some contenders which are not yet so competitive. Companies like Waymo, GM Cruise, and Baidu (which also tests extensively in China) have made incredible progress in decreasing the frequency at which a driver must engage with an automated vehicle. Others, like Apple, Lyft, and Aurora, while making progress, are nowhere near as sophisticated in avoiding engagements yet. Noticeably Tesla, the manufacturer frequently in the news for its “Autopilot” feature, does not test on public roads in California. The company says it conducts tests via simulation, on private test tracks, public roads around the world, and “shadow-tests” by collecting anonymized data from its customers during normal driving operations.

What these numbers seem to illustrate is that the autonomous vehicle industry is not all on par, as many often believe. It is often said that Henry Ford did not conceive the idea of an automobile; he perfected it. Similarly, companies like Waymo or GM may be the first to perfect autonomous vehicles, and gain an incredible market advantage once they do so. They are striving to be the Ford’s in this space, while others look like they’re still manufacturing carriages. However, despite these impressive numbers from a select few, the companies themselves think these metrics “do[] not provide relevant insights” (per Waymo) and that the idea that they give any “meaningful insight . . . is a myth” (per GM Cruise).

Why are the head and shoulder leaders on these metrics saying that they provide very little indication of progress on the technology? Disengagement reports may not be the best way for these companies to build trust and credibility in their products. They are only transparent in that they provide some data with no detail or context.

I was having a conversation about these disengagement numbers with a colleague* this week, and the topic of driver distraction arose. In the CA tests, the driver is constantly alert. Once these vehicles are in use for the general public, a notification to engage may not be effective if the driver is distracted. One reason these numbers do not provide particularly useful information is that for the metrics to be useful, at least two things must be true:

  • If the vehicle does not indicate it needs to disengage, no technical errors have been made; and
  • The driver is paying attention and can quickly engage when necessary.

In California testing, the drivers behind the vehicle are always alert and ready to take over. They may take over when the vehicle indicates they must, because of a malfunction or poor conditions. The driver can also engage when the vehicle has done something incorrectly, yet does not indicate that the driver needs to take over. This could include veering into a lane or failing to recognize a pedestrian.

One of the allures of autonomous vehicles is that a driver may not need to be 100 percent engaged for the vehicle to function correctly. However, current technology has not yet achieved this  result, as reiterated this past week by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The NTSB is an independent federal agency, which lacks enforcement power, but makes recommendations which are considered thorough and are taken seriously by policymakers.

The NTSB put forward many findings on Tuesday, February 25th regarding a Tesla crash that killed a California driver in March 2018. (A synopsis of the NTSB report and findings can be found here.) The facts of the crash involved driver of a Tesla in Autopilot mode, which struck a barrier between the highway and a left exit lane. NTSB found that the Tesla briefly lost sight of the lines marking the highway lane, and started to follow the right-most lane marker of the exit lane (because of fading on the highway lines) caused the vehicle to enter the “gore area.” This same action had apparently occurred several times in this exact vehicle, but the driver on previous trips was paying attention and was able to correct the vehicle. This time, the driver was playing a mobile game and did not correct the vehicle, causing the crash. Here was how NTSB presented three of their findings:

The Tesla’s Autopilot lane-keeping assist system steered the sport utility vehicle to the left into the neutral area of the gore, without providing an alert to the driver, due to limitations of the Tesla Autopilot vision system’s processing software to accurately maintain the appropriate lane of travel. (emphasis added)

The driver did not take corrective action when the Tesla’s Autopilot lane-keeping assist system steered the vehicle into the gore area, nor did he take evasive action to avoid the collision with the crash attenuator, most likely due to distraction by a cell phone game application. (emphasis added)

The Tesla Autopilot system did not provide an effective means of monitoring the driver’s level of engagement with the driving task.

Here we see a combined failure of both (1) and (2) presented above, combined with an inability to adequately monitor driver engagement. The vehicle took an action which it assumed to be correct, and thus did not notify the driver to take over. This combined with the driver not paying attention, failing to notice the need to disengage, and resulted in the crash. This tragic accident highlights that the AV industry still has many areas to improve before higher SAE level vehicles are ready for mass adoption. (The ADAS on the Tesla was SAE Level 2)

As I discussed last week, the federal Department of Transportation has taken a rather hands-off approach to regulation of automated vehicles, preferring to issue guidance rather than mandatory regulations. The  National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) criticized this approach in their Tesla crash findings. The NTSB wrote that there has been “ Insufficient Federal Oversight of Partial Driving Automation Systems.”

The US Department of Transportation and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have taken a nonregulatory approach to automated vehicle safety. NHTSA plans to address the safety of partial driving automation systems through enforcement and a surveillance program that identifies safety-related defect trends in design or performance. This strategy must address the risk of foreseeable misuse of automation and include a forward-looking risk analysis.

Because the NTSB lacks enforcement power, it cannot compel industry actors or other government agencies to take any action. It can only perform investigations and make recommendations. NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt had much to say regarding distracted driving, the AV industry, and the lack of government regulations in the hearing on Tuesday, February 25th.

“In this crash we saw an over-reliance on technology, we saw distraction, we saw a lack of policy prohibiting cell phone use while driving, and we saw infrastructure failures, which, when combined, led to this tragic loss,”

“Industry keeps implementing technology in such a way that people can get injured or killed . . . [I]f you own a car with partial automation, you do not own a self-driving car. Don’t pretend that you do.”

“This kind of points out two things to me. These semi-autonomous vehicles can lead drivers to be complacent, highly complacent, about their systems. And it also points out that smartphones manipulating them can be so addictive that people aren’t going to put them down,”

Chairman Sumwalt is right to be frustrated. The DOT and NHTSA have not regulated the AV industry, or ADAS as they should. Tragic accidents like this can be avoided through a variety of solutions; better monitors of driver engagement than torque-sensing steering wheels, lock-out functions for cell-phones when driving, stricter advertising and warning regulation by companies offering ADAS. Progress is being made in the AV industry, and automated vehicles are getting smarter and safer every day. But incidents like this that combine a failure of technology, regulation, and consumer use, do not instill public confidence in this incredible technology that will be beneficial to society. It only highlights how much farther we still have to go.

*I would like to thank Fiona Mulroe for the inspiration to take this approach to the disengagement report

In January of this year, the United States Department of Transportation and the National Science & Technology Council released Automated Vehicles 4.0: Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicles Technologies (“AV 4.0”). The report is intended to act as a set of unifying principles across 38 federal departments, agencies, commissions, and Executive offices. It offers guidance and an overarching vision to state and local government agencies, as well as technical experts and industry participants. AV 4.0 builds on AV 3.0, which was released in 2018, and AV 2.0, which was released in 2017.

Consistent across the three iterations of Automated Vehicle reports produced under the Trump administration has been the wholly restrained voluntary/guidance approach, without mandates or true regulation laid down. This “light touch” approach recognizes that much of the regulatory action is taking place at the state level, and voluntarily by industry and other AV stakeholders. The lack of federal enforceability removes the hope of any near-term consensus or consistency to the coordination of states and industry approach to automated vehicles.

As in AV 3.0, AV 4.0 begins with a discussion of guidelines and broad overarching principles that the federal government will recognize when developing AV technology. The three Principles and associated sub-areas are:

  1. Protect Users and Communities
    • (a) Prioritize Safety
    • (b) Emphasize Security and Cyber Security
    • (c) Ensure Privacy and Data Security
    • (d) Enhance Mobility and Accessibility
  2. Promote Efficient Markets
    • (a) Remain Technology Neutral
    • (b) Protect American Innovation and Creativity
    • (c) Modernize Regulations
  3. Facilitate Coordinated Efforts
    • (a) Promote Consistent Standards and Practices
    • (b) Ensure a Consistent Federal Approach
    • (c) Improve Transportation System-Level Effects

While these broader principles are new to AV 3.0, the sub-areas within each principle are a mixture of old principles from AV 3.0, combined with some new government focuses. (The new components are italicized  in the above list) These new components center mainly around the Trump administration’s desire to “Buy American, Hire American,” and bring in new focuses for security, cybersecurity, and privacy. The report does indicate that DOT will establish manufacturing, performance, and operational standards to increase safety in AV testing and integration. Still, the parameters of these standards remain unclear.

However, the majority of the report is devoted to Section III: U.S. Government Activities and Opportunities for Collaboration. The  driving purpose of the report is to provide general descriptions of the vast array of government agencies that are responsible (or will be responsible) for some level of AV-related policies or subjects. The report detail both the big and small ways that federal agencies, departments, offices, etc. will play a role in the development and commercialization of AVs. However, there is no real substantive or specific policy discussion.

The survey of government agency activity (and an appendix with links to government websites and contacts for agencies responsible for AV-related policies) are the real substance added. There is no description or plan of how interagency cooperation will occur, nor is there an overarching plan for the government’s approach to implementation. AV 4.0 is useful as a catalog for the various ways the federal government could interact with AV-policy but gives no further direction to how industry and states should regulate AVs. The DOT continues to kick the can down the road but has thankfully provided a clearinghouse of information on which agencies may be responsible for what activities, and the current efforts underway at the federal level, particularly on research and funding.

This restrained approach could be a good thing, given the rapid pace at which the AV industry is developing. However, there is a great deal more work that needs to be done at the federal level before any of the 10 core principles articulated can be realized. The Department of Transportation has requested public comment on AV 4.0.

Cars are getting smarter and safer. And yet this new breed of automobile remains inaccessible to large parts of the consumer base due to high costs. Some of these costs are a natural result of technological advancements in the automobile industry. Others however may be a product of inefficient market dynamics among car manufacturers, insurers and technology companies – which ultimately contribute to a reduced state of safety on our roads.

Automated Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) that equip cars with services like autonomous braking systems, parking assistance, and blind spot detection are growing at an exponential rate. The global ADAS market size was estimated to be around $14.15 billion in 2016. Since then, it has witnessed a high rate of growth and is expected to reach $67 billion by 2025. Not only is this good news for ADAS developers, it can also significantly increase road safety. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety estimates that the deployment of automatic emergency braking in most cars on the road, for instance, can prevent 28,000 crashes and 12,000 injuries by 2025.

The biggest roadblock to the easy adoption of ADAS-equipped cars remains its prohibitive cost. Lower rates of adoption not only reduce the overall safety of cars on the road, but also disproportionately affect poorer people. Unsurprisingly, a study in Maryland found that individuals at the upper end of the socioeconomic spectrum have greater access to vehicle safety features leaving those at the lower end at higher risk.

A significant contributing factor to the continued high cost of automated vehicles is the high rate of car insurance. This seems rather counter intuitive. The technological evolution of safety systems reduces the risk of car crashes and other incidents. Consequently, this was expected to cause a decline in insurance premiums. And yet, costs remain high. Insurance companies have resisted the demands for lowering the cost of premiums claiming that the data about ADAS systems and their efficacy in reducing risk is just not conclusive. Moreover, the industry claims, that even if ADAS systems can cause a reduction in the number of vehicular incidents, each incident involving an automated car costs more because of the sophisticated and often delicate hardware such as sensors and cameras installed in these cars. As the executive vice president of Hanover Insurance Group puts it, “There’s no such thing as a $300 bumper anymore. It’s closer to $1,500 in repair costs nowadays.”

There is no doubt that these are legitimate concerns. An industry whose entire business model involves pricing risk can hardly be blamed for seeking more accurate data for quantifying said risk. Unfortunately, none of the actors involved in the automated vehicle industry are particularly forthcoming with their data. At a relatively nascent stage, the AV industry is still highly competitive with large parts of operations shrouded in secrecy. Car manufacturers that operate fleets of automated vehicles and no doubt gather substantial data around crash reports are loathe to share it with insurers out of fears of giving away proprietary information and losing their competitive edge. The consequence of this lack of open exchange is that AVs continue to remain expensive and perhaps improperly priced from a risk standpoint.

There are some new attempts to work around this problem. Swiss Re, for example, is developing a global ADAS risk score that encourages car manufacturers to share data with them that they in turn would use to recommend discounts to insurers. Continental AG has similarly developed a Data Monetization Platform that seemingly allows fleet operators to sell data in a secure and transparent manner to city authorities, insurers and other interested parties. These are early days so whether these initiatives will be able to overcome the insecurities around trade secrets and proprietary data remains to be seen.

It is however clear that along with the evolution of cars and technologies the insurance industry too will need to change. As a recent Harvard Business Review article points out, automated vehicles will fundamentally alter the private car insurance market by shifting car ownership from an individual-centric model to a fleet-centric one, at least in the short to medium term. This shift itself could cost auto insurers nearly $25 billion (or 1/8th of the global market) in revenue from premiums. It is imperative therefore that the insurance industry devise new innovative approaches to price the risk associated with AVs. Hopefully they can do this without further driving up costs and while making safer technologies accessible to those that need it the most.

The delivery industry is evolving in order to keep up with the rise of home delivery. Arrival, a startup company in the process of building electric delivery vans, plans to add new vehicles to the roads in the next few years. The company plans to offer vehicles with different battery capacities, but the current model maxes out at 200 miles of range. Arrival’s vehicles are expected to carry 500 cubic feet of packages and up to two tons. In order to be competitive with the direction towards automation, Arrival is designing its vehicles to accommodate autonomous systems which will allow for a smooth transition once autonomous driving is more widely used. In the meantime, the vehicle’s Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems (ADAS) will increase safety and operating efficiencies.

Arrival has recently captured the interest of big corporations. Hyundai and Kia announced that they are investing around $110 million in Arrival and will jointly develop vehicles with them. UPS has been a partner of Arrival since 2016 and has both invested and ordered 10,000 of Arrival’s electric delivery vans. UPS was motivated to purchase these vehicles because of its efforts to cut emissions and delivery costs, both of which Arrival contends its vehicles will do. UPS plans to begin using some of these vehicles later this year.

The Arrival vans along with UPS’s Waymo project “will help us continue to push the envelope on technology and new delivery models that can complement the way our drivers work,” said Juan Perez, chief information and engineering officer at UPS.

Arrival sets itself apart from other electric delivery vehicle companies in a few ways. One is its plan to establish “microfactories” that take up 10,000 square meters and make around 10,000 vehicles a year for nearby customers. The use of microfactories instead of a large plant will significantly cut the costs of manufacturing. Another unique aspect of Arrival is its modular approach to production in which the vehicle’s weight, type, size, and shape can be customized according to the purchaser’s preference.

The environmental aspect of using electric vehicles over gas or diesel vehicles is a major component that will contribute to Arrival’s current and expected success. A report by the World Economic Forum revealed that deliveries will increase carbon emissions by 30% by 2030 unless there is effective intervention. One of the intervention options that will have the greatest impact on reducing CO2 emissions is switching to battery electric vehicles. According to the report, battery electric vehicles can reduce CO2 emissions by 16%. UPS currently has about 123,000 delivery vehicles in its fleet. If all goes well with the electrical vehicles it purchased then the vehicles currently in UPS’s use might be phased out which is the sort of intervention our environment needs.

“As mega-trends like population growth, urban migration, and e-commerce continue to accelerate, we recognize the need to work with partners around the world to solve both road congestion and pollution challenges for our customers and the communities we serve. Electric vehicles form a cornerstone to our sustainable urban delivery strategies. Taking an active investment role in Arrival enables UPS to collaborate on the design and production of the world’s most advanced electric delivery vehicles.”

Juan Perez of UPS

There is no doubt that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), i.e. drone aircraft or drones, are an increasingly popular and strangely normal aspect of our everyday lives in 2020. And how could they not be? When there is a product that can appeal to pretty much any and every one – from farmers wanting to efficiently monitor their crops, to those of us just looking to take the perfect selfie – it’s going to be explosively popular. Even military forces around the world are getting in on the action. The innovative uses for drones seem borderline infinite, and there is no questioning their utility even when applied in ways that may come as a surprise. 

One use that many people are likely familiar with is that of commercial delivery. A number of companies within the United States have been eyeing the drone delivery market for some time now, particularly UPS and Alphabet’s Wing. Typically, the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) rules governing drone flight in the United States require, among other things, that the drone remain in the operator’s line of sight for the entirety of the flight. This generally goes for both hobbyists and commercial operators. However, the FAA, in an effort to encourage and not stifle innovation, created the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration Pilot Program (IPP).

To promote continued technological innovation and to ensure the global leadership of the United States in this emerging industry, the regulatory framework for UAS operations must be sufficiently flexible to keep pace with the advancement of UAS technology, while balancing the vital Federal roles in protecting privacy and civil liberties; mitigating risks to national security and homeland security; and protecting the safety of the American public, critical infrastructure, and the Nation’s airspace.

Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Transportation, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Pilot Program

Additionally, the FAA has in place one particular process that allows operators to obtain exemption from specific rules governing drone flight: Part 135 certification process. All IPP participants go through the Part 135 certification process, including those companies looking to dive into the package delivery market. Currently, “Part 135 certification is the only path for small drones to carry the property of another for compensation beyond visual line of sight.” Both UPS and Alphabet’s Wing are IPP participants and have been granted Part 135 certificates, although not for the same type of operations – you can check out the four types operations for which operators can be granted a Part 135 certificate here.

It was announced on October 1, 2019 that UPS subsidiary UPS Flight Forward was awarded a Part 135 Standard certification, the first ever. Flight Forward, in partnership with drone manufacturer Matternet, started in and has continued to hone its operation model for drone delivery within the healthcare industry, with WakeMed Hospital in Raleigh, NC as the starting point. It has been reported that one goal of the program is to test delivery of healthcare necessities in area where roads may not be a viable option – think natural disasters. 

“This is history in the making, and we aren’t done yet. . . . We will soon announce other steps to build out our infrastructure, expand services for healthcare customers and put drones to new uses in the future.”

David Abney, UPS chief executive officer

Recently, the Flight Forward drone delivery service program has expanded its services to the University of California San Diego (USCD) Health system where the company’s drones will be used to transport things like blood samples and documents short distances between centers.

Interestingly enough, a proposed rule from the FAA was just recently (February 3, 2020) published in the Federal Register. The proposal, titled Type Certification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems, essentially wants to open the door to more companies who want to get involved in small-package delivery via drone fleets. This type of regulatory framework for delivery drones should work much in the same way that the type certification process operates for other aircraft, a model-by-model certification process that allows approved models to then operate throughout the US. If you feel particularly strongly about this, the FAA is accepting public comment on the proposed rule until March 4, 2020.

This seems to be just the tip of the iceberg of what needs to be and may soon be done to promote widespread use of and explosive growth within the commercial drone delivery world, but it is definitely a big step toward getting that goal off the ground – no pun intended. If nothing else, this change is a good example of how the law is attempting to keep up with innovations in technology and increases in demand for such services, and how policymakers are remaining flexible in their approaches.

The past few weeks have shown the intricate connection that access to transportation has with human health and the global economy. The outbreak of Coronavirus in Wuhan China, leading to mass international transportation restrictions, is a case study in the effects that transportation has on our daily lives and on the global economy.

Coronavirus Timeline

  • China first alerted the World Health Organization or several cases of pneumonia in Wuhan at the end of December 2019.
  • The first death in China, which occurred on January 9th,  wasn’t announced until January 11th.
  • The first WHO reported case outside of China, in Thailand, occurred on January 13th.
  • The United States announced it would start screening passengers arriving in airports from Wuhan, after a second death was announced on January 17th. Many European countries followed suit on January 22nd
  • On January 23rd, China quarantined Wuhan, suspending air and rail departures
  • On January 24th, China shut down 13 more cities, affecting 41 million people. Several entertainment venues, including Shanghai Disneyland and sections of the Great Wall, were also shut down.
  • On January 25th, five more cities were placed under travel restrictions, increasing the total number of persons affected to 56 million. Hong Kong canceled Lunar New Year celebrations and restricted travel to mainland China.

In less than 4 weeks, China went from reporting pneumonia-like symptoms to restricting the travel of over 50 million people. Wuhan, a city of more than 11 million people, was shut down right before the beginning of the Chinese New Year, one of the busiest travel weeks in the world. The travel restrictions are meant to prevent the spread of the Coronavirus, a necessary tactic with more than 100 people dead, and more than 6,000 cases of infection.

The U.S., Europe, and Asia began enforcing new regulations to block visitors from China. At the same time, major airlines suspended flights to the country for the foreseeable future. The Chinese authorities shut down commercial flights and prohibited people from leaving Wuhan using buses, subways, or ferries. The restrictions also included blocking expressways. The reason for the shutdown: evidence suggests that the virus passes from person to person through close contact. One unintended consequence of the travel restrictions: stock market crashes.

The primary difficulty in shutting down Wuhan is that it is a central hub for industry and commerce in Central China. It is home to the region’s biggest airport and a deep-water port. Tens of thousands of travelers enter and depart Wuhan every day.

Access to hospitals is one of the most significant concerns about the outbreak. The power of the Chinese government to shut down transportation is perhaps most starkly seen in their goal to build a hospital in Wuhan in less than two weeks.

Restricting travel on the world’s second-largest economy on the eve of the busiest travel week in China caused the single largest day drop in U.S. stocks since September 2019. Millions of Chinese residents would typically make hundreds of millions of trips during the Chinese New Year to visit loved ones, celebrate the beginning of a new year, and enjoy time away from work. Last year, consumers in China spent $148 billion on retail and catering and generated $74 billion in domestic tourism on 415 million trips. China’s movie sector also brought in 10% of its annual revenue during the Chinese New Year. In response to the travel restrictions on January 25th, stocks like Disney, AMEX, and American Airlines all plummeted when markets opened Monday the 27th.

Limits on mobility and transportation affect things much more important than the U.S. stock market. The Chinese New Year is the most important celebration in the Chinese Calendar. It is a time to celebrate family, ancestors, and togetherness. Those affected by travel restrictions decided to forgo trips to see loved ones and visits to important cultural sites, as well as museums, galleries, and other sources of entertainment. The need to protect human health and prevent the spread of Coronavirus is paramount. But other than the Coronavirus affecting people’s physical health, the restrictions on mobility will prevent spiritual and familial connections that underpin Chinese society.

The impact transportation and mobility have on economics, and human health is clearly demonstrated in the Chinese travel restrictions. With 50 million citizens under “city-arrest” and the rest of the country reticent to travel, shockwaves have been felt across the globe. I hope the Coronavirus crisis can be solved quickly and efficiently, and that the Chinese can return to a sense of normalcy and free mobility.

As I wrote about last time, the Uniform Law Commission recently passed the Uniform Automated Operation of Vehicles Act. Today, I want to focus on Sections 5, 6, and 7 of that Act, which are titled, respectively, “Vehicle Registration,” “Automated-Driving Provider,” and “Associated Automated Vehicle.” The three sections are meant to complement each other and the generally applicable rules regarding motor vehicle registration in a state. The Comments to Section 7 give a nice synopsis of the way these three sections interact:

Existing state law generally requires the registration of a motor vehicle that is operated on a public road. If an automated vehicle qualifies as such a motor vehicle, it too must be registered. The person seeking that registration—typically the vehicle owner—must comply with all conditions of registration under existing law. Section 5 of this act adds a further condition: For the owner of an automated vehicle to register the vehicle, an automated driving provider must have designated that vehicle as an associated automated vehicle. Section 6 specifies how an entity declares that it is an automated driving provider, and Section 7 specifies how that entity then designates its associated automated vehicles. These three sections work together with existing law to ensure that a properly registered automated vehicle has a legal driver when it is under automated operation. In general, only if an automated vehicle is associated with an automated driving provider may it be registered and operated on public roads.

The Act’s comments are fairly dense, but we can work through them section by section. Under current state law, the owner of a motor vehicle must generally register that vehicle with the state according to state registration rules. The Act retains that requirement for the owner of an automated vehicles, but also adds a new condition of registration. Under Section 5, an automated vehicle may be registered only if an entity has:

(1) declared itself to be an automated driving provider (ADP) (explained in Section 6) and

(2) designated that particular automated vehicles as one of its associated automated vehicles (explained in Section 7).

The vehicle owner and the ADP do not necessarily have to be the same legal person. The vehicle owner could be an individual, and the ADP could be an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) like Ford, Honda, or Tesla. The manufacturer, or some other entity like an insurer or fleet operator, would declare themselves to be the ADP to the state, and declare the automated vehicles to be one of its associated vehicles, but the individual would own and register the car. This has the effect of “compelling” vehicle manufacturers, or some other entity, to declare themselves to be the entity legally defined as the driver for any consequences that arise from the vehicles actions on public roads. The comments to Section 6 clarify:

To become an automated driving provider, an entity must make an affirmative declaration that includes specific representations. This means that, first, an entity does not become an automated driving provider against its will and, second, not every entity can become an automated driving provider. Subsection (a) identifies three basic qualifications, at least one of which a provider must satisfy, and subsection (c) identifies four key requirements, all of which the provider must satisfy.

To qualify as an ADP, an entity must have either participated substantially in the development of the system, submitted safety self-assessments with NHTSA, or be a registered manufacturer with NHTSA. The purpose of these sections is to require registration with the state, ensuring that every automated vehicle on a state’s roads has an entity associated with it, against whom the state can credibly enforce relevant provisions of the state vehicle code.

Manufacturers are not required to register as an ADP. But they will be incentivized to declare themselves as ADP’s for the simple reason that if they do not, their customers will be unable to register or use their vehicles in a state that has adopted the Act. If customers in one state were unable to register Ford vehicles but could register Honda vehicles, then everyone in that state would buy Honda automated vehicles and nobody would buy Ford. Under Section 7, once an ADP has designated an associated automated vehicle, the association remains until the ADP is not recognized by the state agency, ceases to exist under principles of corporate law, or affirmatively withdraws the designation.

This approach is a great way to allow manufacturers of automated vehicles to select the states in which they wish to be responsible for their vehicles. If they register as an ADP in Arizona, but not New Mexico, then their customers will be able to register and drive their vehicles on the public roads in Arizona, but not New Mexico. This can allow manufacturers to choose where they accept liability for the automated features of their vehicles.

However, this could cause problems. Assuming uniform adoption of the Act (which is unlikely), if manufacturers are selective with the states where they register as ADP’s then there could be adjacent states where a manufacturer is an ADP in state X, and not in state Y. If customers in state X drive their automated vehicle across the border into state Y, there could be legal questions if the manufacturer is liable for accidents that occur in state Y, especially if they specifically chose not to register there. This could lead to geofencing at state borders, requirements that shift control back to the human driver as they cross state borders, or a whole host of other potential solutions. These solutions could also cause problems. What if a driver is asleep as the vehicle crosses into a state where that manufacturer has not registered? What if the driver overrides and continues allowing the vehicle to drive? Has liability shifted from the manufacturer to the owner given the owner’s conscious choice?

Questions of tort liability, jurisdiction over manufacturers, and technological work-arounds could abound if OEM’s are selective with their registration as ADPs. But they should be allowed to select where they want to sell their automated vehicles if they will be required to legally be identified as the responsible entity. Sections 5, 6, and 7 of the Automated Vehicle Act will likely cause much debate in states that consider adopting the Act.

On Thursday, January 16, 2020, the Official Report of the Special Committee to review the Federal Aviation Administration’s Aircraft Certification Process was released, and it seems like quite a few people – i.e. very vocal critics of Boeing and the FAA – are not likely to be pleased by the lack of lambasting language in the report. This is only the most recent development in the still-unfolding story of the Boeing 737 MAX passenger airliner, the aircraft at the center of the two fatal crashes in October 2018 and March 2019 that killed 346 people in total. The committee’s report has been released amid outcry over recently disclosed internal documents diplomatically labelled as “troubling” and reports of impending job cuts and layoffs from companies within the Boeing 737 MAX supply chain. “Troubling” may be putting it mildly.

“The Committee applauds the remarkable gains in safety achieved by U.S. aviation and recognizes the safety benefits provided to the worldwide aviation system. However, each member of the Committee fully acknowledges the two foundational premises that risk will always exist in aviation and that no fatality in commercial aviation is acceptable.”

Official Report of the Special Committee to review the FAA’s Aircraft Certification Process, Executive Summary, page 6

With all of this currently happening, now is a good time for a bit of background to get up to speed. On October 29, 2018, Indonesian Lion Air Flight 610 departed from Jakarta and crashed into the Java Sea twelve minutes later, killing all 189 passengers and crew on board. Less than five months later on March 10, 2019, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 departed from Addis Ababa and flew for only six minutes before plummeting directly into a field at almost 700 miles per hour. Once again, all passengers and crew on board, totaling 157 people, were killed in the crash.

In the interim between the two crashes, partial fault was tentatively attributed to malfunctions in one of the aircraft’s Angle of Attack (AOA) sensors (check out these sources for a relatively clear and more in-depth explanation of the technical side of this).The MAX was equipped with the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), an automated system designed to activate and correct the problem when the AOA began to reach unsafe levels. Unfortunately, it didn’t quite work out that way. Erroneous AOA readings during both flights led to MCAS automatically activating, pitching the nose of the aircraft down while pilot and co-pilot fought to right the aircraft. This happened repeatedly until the planes ultimately crashed.

Today, in the aftermath of the two planes crashing, it’s understood that the single faulty AOA sensor and MCAS are among a number of factors that caused the accidents. Since then, Boeing and the FAA have had no shortage of critics. Going into the entire timeline of events would take quite a while, so here are some highlights: the MAX was grounded around the world and the grounding remains in effect today; Boeing reportedly misled FAA regulators as to the full extent of MCAS’s abilities and failed to mention the system in pilots’ manuals; and the international aviation community has come down hard on the FAA’s certification process, with some countries demanding changes before it will allow the MAX to return to service. (A timeline of pretty much everything can be found here.)

“The FAA’s certification system is a process sanctioned by Congress, driven by regulation, directed by the FAA, and implemented by certified organizations and individuals. It is an iterative, comprehensive process grounded in the cumulative expertise of the FAA gained through over a half century of process management and oversight.”

Official Report of the Special Committee to review the FAA’s Aircraft Certification Process, Executive Summary, page 6

Clearly, Boeing and the FAA are ready for the plot twists to come to an end and the Special Committee’s report must seem like a small point of light in an incredibly long, bleak, and dark night. My personal flair for dramatics aside, the report does seem to come to different conclusions than most. The Committee, made up of five aviation safety experts chosen by Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao, was formed to review: 1) “the FAA’s product certification process, the use of delegated authority, and the approval and oversight of designees”, and 2) “the certification process applied to the Boeing 737 MAX 8, which occurred from 2012 to 2017.” While the report does provide a number of recommendations, the Committee ultimately came to the conclusions that the FAA’s current certification process based on delegated authority is good one and that the FAA and Boeing followed the required process in certifying the MAX.

“As reflected by the safety statistics cited above, the Committee found that the FAA’s certification system is effective and a significant contributor to the world’s safest aviation system.”

Official Report of the Special Committee to review the FAA’s Aircraft Certification Process, Executive Summary, page 6

The report also cautions against a complete overhaul of the FAA’s delegation of authority framework for the certification process. However, members of Congress couldn’t seem to disagree more, especially after a slew of internal communications showing Boeing employees saying some pretty damning things were released earlier this month – calling regulators ‘clowns’ is never a good call. One particularly vocal FAA critic and crusader for legislative action is Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), Chair of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Pulling no punches, DeFazio has stated that “the FAA rolled the dice on the safety of the traveling public” in allowing the MAX to fly despite knowing the risks.

“Any radical changes to this system could undermine the collaboration and expertise that undergird the current certification system, jeopardizing the remarkable level of safety that has been attained in recent decades.”

Official Report of the Special Committee to review the FAA’s Aircraft Certification Process, Executive Summary, page 8

The question now is how, or even if, this report will impact the calls for change. Recent plot twists caution that there’s no telling what will happen next.

The Uniform Law Commission (“ULC”) is a non-governmental body composed of state-selected lawyers who oversee the preparation of “Uniform Laws” to be proposed to the states for adoption. The group’s most well-known body of law will be familiar to any lawyer or law student who paid attention in first-year contracts: the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Not all projects of the ULC are as successful as the UCC. In fact, many are never adopted by any state.

The ULC appointed a Drafting Committee on Highly Automated Vehicles in 2017.  The Committee recently completed an Automated Vehicles Act, titled “The Uniform Automated Operation of Vehicles Act,” which is a “uniform law covering the deployment of automated driving systems (SAE levels 3 through 5).” The Act is intended to cover a vast array of issues likely to be faced by states in the coming decades as autonomous vehicles become more ubiquitous. The ULC description of the Automated Vehicles Act states:

The Uniform Automated Operation of Vehicles Act regulates important aspects of the operation of automated vehicles.  This act covers the deployment of automated vehicles on roads held open to the public by reconciling automated driving with a typical state motor vehicle code.  Many of the act’s sections – including definitions, driver licensing, vehicle registration, equipment, and rules of the road – correspond to, refer to, and can be incorporated into existing sections of a typical vehicle code.  This act also introduces the concept of automated driving providers (ADPs) as a legal entity that must declare itself to the state and designate the automated vehicles for which it will act as the legal driver when the vehicle is in automated operation.  The ADP might be an automated driving system developer, a vehicle manufacturer, a fleet operator, an insurer, or another kind of market participant that has yet to emerge.  Only an automated vehicle that is associated with an ADP may be registered.  In this way, the Automated Operation of Vehicles Act uses the motor vehicle registration framework that already exists in states – and that applies to both conventional and automated vehicles – to incentivize self-identification by ADPs.  By harnessing an existing framework, the act also seeks to respect and empower state motor vehicle agencies.

The final version of the act can be downloaded here.

This Act is a step in the right direction. It does much of the leg-work for state legislatures to exempt autonomous vehicles from a variety of state laws by providing language which can be easily inserted into various state vehicle codes. States can choose to enact certain parts of the Uniform Act, picking and choosing the sections or phrases they want and discarding the rest. This is beneficial because it will likely mean more states will enact some form of AV exemption. However, it also means there could be substantial variation between states that adopt some but not all of the Act. The passage of a Uniform Act by the ULC does not ensure there will be uniform adoption.

The act is not very long, only 28 pages including all the comments and legislative notes. There are many sections that deserve a more extensive dive, but I want to begin with a subsection that relates to a topic I’ve written about before: Platooning. The Act does not include a provision that would legalize platooning, but it does contain a single provision that addresses state laws regarding minimum following distance: Section 9 (h). Section 9 covers “Rules of the Road.” Subsection (h) states:

A provision of [this state’s vehicle code] imposing a minimum following distance other than a reasonable and prudent distance does not apply to the automated operation of an automated vehicle.

The comment to the section clarifies subsection h:

[T]his section provides that a numerical minimal following-distance requirement does not apply to the automated operation of automated vehicles. These numerical minimums may be unnecessarily large for automated vehicles that react faster than human drivers. However, the common “reasonable and prudent” following-distance requirement continues to apply. This bracketed subsection (h) differs in scope from following-distance legislation enacted in some states to facilitate the platooning of vehicles, particularly commercial trucks, that use advanced technologies but may not necessarily qualify as automated vehicles.

As I’ve written about before, platooning vehicles that follow at incredibly close distances could be considered “reasonable and prudent” given the connected nature and quick response times of the technology. If the Uniform Act were adopted in some states, it could present the opportunity to argue that there is, or should be, a reasonable car standard applied to autonomous vehicles. The act also solves the problems of states with 300-500-foot following distance requirements for trucks.

The passage of the Act is exciting for many reasons. It shows that the legal world is taking autonomous vehicles seriously, and is taking fundamental steps to create a legal framework within which these vehicles can operate. It also provides a baseline for states to modify their existing laws to allow autonomous vehicles to be exempted from many requirements that need not apply to autonomous vehicles. For example, there is no need for a steering wheel or gas pedals in an AV. There may be a need for a large touchscreen like in the various Tesla models, which would be distracting in traditional vehicles. The Act will hopefully spark discussions about the proper way to regulate autonomous vehicles at the state level, and may even spark debate over the merits of varied state or uniform federal regulation.

Imagine that you and your friends go out for a night on the town. By the time you are well and tired, it seems as though everyone else simultaneously had the same idea. With everyone around you clamoring to call an Uber or Lyft, you and your friends take one look at the gridlocked streets and agree that the roads are just not the way to go tonight. However, the skies look clear and traffic-free, so why not take a helicopter across town? While this may seem like the start of a very odd joke, it’s a future that Los Angeles-based startup up Skyryse is looking to bring to the present and a reality that is closer than you might think.

“Skyryse is on a mission to get people where they want to be quickly, affordably and safely.”

Skyryse, Our Vision

While this may be enough to start stirring up the questions in your mind, here’s another twist to Skyrise’s plans for urban travel: fully automated flight. In mid-December Skyrise held a demonstration highlighting a helicopter that took off, flew for fifteen minutes, and then landed, all fully automated.

The demonstration showed a lot of what Skyryse has in mind for making urban air mobility a widely adopted norm for traveling short distances. For one, Skyryse unveiled its Skyryse Flight Stack, which “comprises of technology that automates flight in [Federal Aviation Administration]-approved helicopters, safety and communication systems, and a network of smart helipads to ultimately create a new transportation system.”

“Unlike other companies building autonomous vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft from scratch or only for the military, Skyryse refits existing consumer-grade, dependable and certified aircraft and technologies with software and hardware innovations.”

PRNewswire.com

Simply put, Skyryse isn’t building new aircraft, it’s taking what already works and adding a little bit of spice. The company’s goal is to develop a fully autonomous VTOL flight system that can be installed in both legacy and future helicopter models, as well as helipads capable of communicating with the outfitted aircraft information such as changing weather conditions or low-flying objects. Skyryse aims to become the first fully operational air taxi service available to the public that doesn’t break the bank.

Now, you may be thinking that a self-flying helicopter is a ride on which you would rather not be a passenger but have no fear. Passengers on aircraft in Skyryse’s fleet are accompanied by a trained and certified pilot who oversees the flight system and can take over the controls in the event of an emergency or potential malfunction. While this does leave open the potential for awkward conversation, it does add an extra layer of safety and checks on the autonomous system.

I personally think this sounds incredible, if it can–no pun intended–get off the ground. Why not take to the skies to avoid the mad rush of cars and congestion of city streets? And why not use already available aircraft to do it? It all makes sense and seems pretty logical. However, we all know that logic does not always guarantee success.

My main concerns surround public perceptions and pricing. For perception, I am curious about the projected amount of time it will take before there is enough demand to justify a supply. How long will air taxi companies have to advertise and ultimately wait before enough people know about and trust their autonomous aircraft? As for pricing, the concerns and questions are probably pretty clear. How is this going to be affordable for everyone, and when? It has been reported that Skyryse plans to release the details of how it will achieve affordable pricing at some point this year. I for one am looking forward to the day when I can hop in line at a helipad and quickly fly across town, all without breaking the bank.

Tesla and the State of Michigan have settled Tesla’s constitutional challenge to Michigan’s refusal to grant Tesla’s request for a Class A license, which would have allowed Tesla to open a company-owned dealership in the state. The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in the Western District of Michigan in 2016 and was scheduled to go to trial this year, grew out of a 2014 legislative amendment to Michigan’s automobile dealer law that made it unlawful for an automobile manufacturer to open its own retail store in the state, essentially forcing automobile manufacturers to distribute cars through franchised dealers. I detailed the nefarious circumstances and effects of the 2014 legislation in Tesla, Dealer Franchise Laws, and the Politics of Crony Capitalism, 101 Iowa L. Rev. 573 (2016).

There are two important terms to the settlement: (1) the state will not contest Tesla’s right to operate service centers in Michigan through a subsidiary; and (2) the state will not contest Tesla’s right to market cars to consumers in Michigan through a “gallery” model. This settlement  allows Tesla to sell and service cars in Michigan as it wants, and thus represents a total victory for Tesla in Michigan. It could also be a tipping point in Tesla’s ongoing battle for the right to engage in direct distribution in other states.

In my view, the service component is the more important aspect of the settlement. Tesla was already able to sell cars to customers in Michigan by marketing them over the Internet and delivering them out of state, so the agreement on the gallery marketing model is helpful but not essential. On the other hand, until today Tesla was prohibited from opening a service center in Michigan, which required Michigan Tesla owners to drive to Ohio for service. It will now be able to open service centers in Michigan through a subsidiary. (The subsidiary requirement will not impose any greater burden than a few hours of corporate lawyer time). Having access to service centers in Michigan will significantly increase the appeal of owning a Tesla in the Wolverine State.

The settlement also allows Tesla to open galleries in the state, although it still may not transact “sales” of its cars in the state. In effect, this means that Tesla can have sales people show its cars to potential customers in retail spaces (i.e., malls), arrange for test drives, help customers figure out what options they want on their car, and facilitate the paperwork. The customer will then have to complete the actual sales transaction over the Internet or telephone with Tesla in California (or wherever Tesla houses its sales function). The car will then be delivered to the customer in Michigan, which will increase the convenience of the buyer experience. The only remaining limit is that the sales contract needs to say that title will transfer out of state; otherwise, the customer can configure and order the car from within the state. 

There is no good reason to deny Tesla the right to open whatever sort of sales operation it wants in Michigan, but this remaining limitation will have relatively little effect on Tesla’s business model. Even in states where Tesla has complete freedom to sell cars as it wants, it doesn’t generally open traditional dealerships with lots of inventory sitting on a lot. The company operates on a custom order basis and usually uses the sort of galleries it will now be able to open in Michigan. So, while still arbitrary and annoying, the Michigan settlement gives Tesla everything it needs to compete in Michigan.

Tesla is clearly a big winner in this settlement. Who are the other winners? And who are the losers? 

Other new electric vehicle manufacturers, like Ford and Amazon-backed Rivian Motors (which will begin selling cars in 2020) and Faraday Future (which hopefully will be able to get to market eventually) will benefit from the trail Tesla has blazed. Having settled on these terms with Tesla, it would seem legally very difficult for the state to deny a similar arrangement to any other company situated like Tesla. 

The car dealer’s lobby, which has fought tooth-and-nail to stop Tesla from distributing directing on a state-by-state basis, is clearly a big loser. Michigan, the state with the most pro-dealer law on direct distribution, has now opened the doors for new EV companies to bypass the traditional dealer model entirely.

In the short run, traditional car companies like General Motors and Ford are also losers. GM, in particular, has backed the dealers politically in opposing the right to engage in direct distribution, apparently because forcing Tesla to distribute through the dated and increasingly inefficient dealer model will slow Tesla’s market penetration. Not only does the Michigan settlement allow Tesla to avoid the cumbersome dealer model and to start gaining significant market share in America’s car capital, but it’s far from clear that traditional car companies that do franchise independent dealerships would be eligible to operate their own direct distribution system on a similar model. In other words, the Michigan settlement may permit Tesla and other EV manufacturers to leapfrog traditional car companies on distribution.

Just as there is no good basis in public policy to limit Tesla’s right to engage in direct distribution, there is also no reasonable basis to prohibit it to traditional car manufacturers either. As I have previously detailed at length, there is simply no consumer protection reason that any car company shouldn’t be able to choose how it sells cars to consumers. As companies like Tesla and Rivian accustom car buyers to the benefits of dealing directly with the manufacturer, there will be increasing competitive pressure on GM, Ford, Chrysler, and foreign auto makers to seek legislative changes in hold-out states like Michigan that still prohibit direct distribution.

Finally, although the immediate consequences of the settlement will be felt only in Michigan, the settlement will put increasing pressure on other hold-out states that still block Tesla from selling to consumers. The more states that allow direct distribution and the more customers that experience it, the less credible the dealers’ lobby will be in arguing that direct distribution harms consumers. With new entry by other companies like Rivian on a direct distribution model, the political and legal battles over car distribution are at a tipping point. Although there will still be a place for franchised dealers to play a role in car distribution for some time, the inflexible and mandatory system created by the dealer laws of the mid-twentieth century is on its last legs.

If there are any ideas that the internet believes to be the truth in this modern day in age, I think that the following would at least make the list: the government is likely watching you through the camera in your laptop, and Facebook’s algorithm may know you better than anyone else. While the internet normalizes being surveilled – and George Orwell can be heard continuously rolling over in his grave – the collection, analysis, and sale of information and user data is something to, at the very least, keep in mind.

Target can predict when a shopper is due to give birth based on subtle changes in shopping habits (going from scented to unscented soap, for example); your phone tracks where you are and how often you go to the point that it recognizes your patterns and routines, suggesting certain destinations you visit regularly; and health insurance companies believe they can infer that you will be too expensive to cover simply from looking at your magazine subscriptions, whether you have any relatives living nearby, and how much time you spend watching television. It is both fascinating and startling in equal measure.

When we narrow our focus to transportation and mobility, there is still an entire world of information that is being collected, sold, and turned into, for example, new marketing strategies for companies purchasing that data from brokers. Other times, the actor using that data-turned-actionable intelligence is a government entity. Either way, it’s good know and understand some of what is being collected and how it may be used, even if it’s only the tip of the iceberg. Car insurance companies track and collect data on how often drivers slam on brakes or suddenly accelerate and offer rewards for not doing those things. People have been subjected to police suspicion or even been arrested based on incorrect geolocation data collected from their cell phones.

Despite the potentially grim picture I may have painted, user data isn’t always wielded for evil or surveillance. Recently, popular navigation app Waze added a feature that allows its users to report unplowed roads plaguing drivers during the winter months. The feature was developed through collaboration with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Users in areas with inclement winter weather are now notified when they are coming upon a roadway that is reportedly in need of a snowplow. In addition to providing users with information and warnings, Waze also partners with transportation agencies across the U.S. and provides these agencies or local governments with this winter transportation information through the Waze for Cities Data program. The point is to make responsible parties aware of the areas that are still in need of a snowplow and assist them in prioritizing and deploying resources.

This sort of data collection is innocent enough and helpful in a person’s everyday life. According to Waze, the data is anonymized and contains no personally identifiable information (PII) when it becomes accessible to government agencies. However, as cars and cities become smarter the risk of an individual user’s data being used for more concerning purposes is likely to increase. This danger is in addition to the privacy risks that come from carrying around and depending upon personal devices such as cell phones.

“[Cars are] data-collecting machines that patrol the streets through various levels of autonomy. That means that our mobility infrastructure is no longer static either, that infrastructure is now a data source and a data interpreter.”

Trevor English, InterestingEngineering.com

Uber went through a phase of tracking users even while not using the app; a number of smart city technologies are capable of capturing and combining  PII and household level data about individuals; and the City of Los Angeles wants to collect real-time data on your individual e-scooter and bikeshare trips – California’s legislature doesn’t exactly agree. As these capabilities are advancing, so is the law, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the race is a close one. So, while our cars and scooters and rideshare apps may not yet be the modern iteration of Big Brother, there’s always tomorrow.

Several major OEMs have recently announced scaling back of their shared or automated mobility ventures. Ford and Volkswagen are giving up investments in “robotaxis” – the CEO of their software partner, Argo, was quoted saying he “hates the word” anyway – and similar services operated by German automakers are withdrawing from various markets or shutting down altogether, after overextending themselves during the last 18 months.

Two separate trends seem to contribute to that movement. The first one, car ownership is still growing worldwide, albeit modestly – roughly 1% per year over the last ten years in Germany, for example – while sales of new cars is slumping. It is important to differentiate these two: while new car sales affect the revenues of OEMs, and may indicate changes in consumption patterns, car ownership rates indicate people’s attitude vis-à-vis car ownership better. In that sense, we see a continued attachment to personal car ownership, a cultural phenomenon that is much more difficult to displace or even disrupt than what some may have thought previously. Hence, the dreaded “peak car” that will relegate the iconic 20th century consumer good to museums may not materialize for a while.

The second trend has to do with an observation made time and again: OEMs are not naturally good at running mobility services: their business is making cars. As one bank analyst put it, no one expects Airbus or Boeing to run an airline. Why should it be any different with car OEMs? Thinking about the prospects of automation, it became commonplace for large industrial players to partner with specialized software developers to develop the automated driving system. That may result in a great product, but it does not give create a market and a business plan when it comes to the AVs themselves. As it turned out, the main business plan, which was to use these cars as part of large car-sharing services or sell them to existing mobility operators, ran into a some roadblocks: OEMs found themselves competing with already existing mobility operators in a difficult market; and putting an AV safely on the road is a much more daunting task than once thought. As 2019 comes to a close, we have yet to see an actual commercial “robotaxi” deployment outside of test runs.

This second trend puts a large question mark on the short and medium term financial viability of investments in “robotaxis” and automated mobility operations, generally. OEMs and their partners, looking for ways to put all those vehicle automation efforts to profitable use, look at other markets, such as heavy, non-passenger road and industrial vehicles. Nevertheless, no one seems poised to completely exit the automated passenger mobility market; they all keep a foot in the door, continuing their tests and “gathering more data,” in order to allegedly understand the mobility needs of road users. Beyond these noble intentions, however, there is an exit plan: if all else fails, they can monetize their data sets to data hungry software developers.

In the end, this comes back to a point frequently addressed on this blog, that of safety. Technological advances in automation (broadly speaking) are bringing increased safety to existing cars, and they will continue to do so. We might have become overly fixated by the golden goose of the “Level 5” robotaxi (or even Level 3), which may or may not come in the next ten years, neglecting the low-hanging fruit. While laugh at our ancestors dreaming about flying cars for the year 2000, our future selves scoff at us for chasing robotaxis by 2020.

Cargo Bikes in NYC

These past few weeks millions of people went online, added various items to their cart, and hit “submit order.” From Thanksgiving until the end of December, the volume of packages hitting the road will be substantial. With Black Friday, Cyber Monday, and holiday shopping all taking place in a short time span, the resulting packages will cause delivery trucks in heavily populated cities to disrupt road traffic more than ever.

New York City (NYC) has the highest population density of any city in the United States with over 27,000 people per square mile. Not only is NYC the most populated, it also has more packages delivered than anywhere else in the country. There are nearly 1.5 million packages delivered a day in NYC and during the holiday season that number climbs even higher. When making deliveries, trucks park in bus lanes and bike lanes, double-park, cause a significant number of cyclist accidents, and contribute to congestion. Additionally, delivery trucks pollute the air by sitting in traffic and idling its engines throughout the day.

Delivery companies and the Department of Transportation (DOT) are recognizing the rate people are ordering online and have begun to realize that large trucks may not be the most feasible option to navigate the busy streets. Recently, the city approved a new program in which cargo bikes operated by Amazon, UPS, and DHL will be allowed to make deliveries for the next six months. The Commercial Cargo Bike Program consists of around 100 pedal-assisted, electronic cargo bikes that are ready to replace some of the delivery trucks on the road.

“There’s no doubt the rise in deliveries has caused chaos on our streets–but there are plenty of thoughtful solutions out there to make our streets safer and more sustainable. I’m excited to see DOT exploring this new technology which will help bring NYC’s freight and delivery systems into the 21st Century. I look forward to seeing these cargo bikes on the road and working with DOT in the near future to take a comprehensive look at how we manage these deliveries.”

City Council Speaker Corey Johnson

The goal of the program is to monitor and collect data on how the cargo bikes handle the streets by looking at the cargo bike’s speed, size, parking, use of bike lanes, and effect on overall traffic in Manhattan. The data will be assessed by the DOT to determine whether a more permanent implementation of cargo bikes is appropriate for NYC. In the meantime, cargo bikes are permitted to travel on the street and in bike lanes at a maximum speed of 12mph as well as park in existing commercial loading areas without paying the meters. According to DHL, their cargo bikes can hold 300 pounds, which depending on the size of the packages, could be around 100 to 150 shipments per day. For each cargo bike put on the road, there is meant to be one delivery truck taken off.

Other large cities such as Paris, London, Dublin, and Seattle, have found success in using cargo bikes. UPS has cargo bikes in over 30 cities all over the world. In NYC, however, Amazon is at the forefront of the cargo bike movement. Amazon’s cargo bikes comprise 90 of the initial 100 bikes deployed for the program and they hope to add more soon. Amazon began putting their cargo bikes on the streets before the Commercial Cargo Bike Program was officially approved. Their cargo bikes were first put to use ten months ago for Prime Now grocery deliveries.

The convenience, flexibility, and efficiency of cargo bikes make them just one of many possible solutions for package delivery in densely populated cities. Now that cargo bikes have the support of NYC and the DOT, residents might begin to see some much needed relief to the vehicle congestion caused by too many trucks on the road.

Over the last few years, emerging mobility technologies from CAVs to e-scooters have become the targets of malicious hackers. CAVs, for example, are complicated machines with many different components, which opens up many avenues for attack. Hackers can reprogram key fobs and keyless ignition systems. Fleet management software used worldwide can be used to kill vehicle engines. CAV systems can be confused with things as simple a sticker on a stop sign. Even the diagnostic systems within a vehicle, which are required to be accessible, can be weaponized against a vehicle by way of a $10 piece of tech.

For mobility-as-a-service (“MaaS”) companies, the security of their networks and user accounts is also at threat. In 2015 a number of Uber accounts were found for sale on the “dark web,” and this year a similar market for Lime scooter accounts popped up. Hacking is not even required in some cases. Car2Go paused service in Chicago after 100 vehicles were stolen by people exploiting the company’s app (the company is now ending service in the city, though they say it’s for business reasons).

The wireless systems used for vehicle connectivity are also a target. On faction in the current battle over radio spectrum is pushing cellular technology, especially 5G tech as the future of vehicle-to-vehicle communication. While 5G is more secure than older wireless networks, it is not widespread in the U.S., leaving vulnerabilities. As some companies push for “over-the-air” updates, where vehicle software is wirelessly updated, unsecure wireless networks could lead to serious vehicle safety issues.

So what can be done to deal with these cybersecurity threats? For a start, there are standard-setting discussions underway, and there have been proposals for the government to step up cybersecurity regulation for vehicles. A California bill on the security of the “internet-of-things” could also influence vehicle security. Auto suppliers are putting cybersecurity into their development process. Government researchers, like those Argonne National Labs outside Chicago, are looking for vulnerabilities up and down the supply chain, including threats involving public car chargers. Given the ever-changing nature of cybersecurity threats, the real solution is “all of the above.” Laws and regulations can spark efforts, but they’ll likely never be able to keep up with evolving threats, meaning companies and researchers will always have to be watchful.

P.S. – Here is a good example of how cybersecurity threats are always changing. In 2018, security researchers were able to hack into a smartphone’s microphone and use it to steal user’s passwords, using the acoustic signature of the password. In other words, they could figure out your password by listening to you type it in.

Last month FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced a plan to allow unlicensed use of a 45-megahertz (MHz) chunk of the mid-band spectrum. How is this even close to related to mobility or transportation? In 1999, the FCC dedicated 75 MHz of the 5.9GHz band to vehicle-related communications and transportation safety, specifically to dedicated short-range communications (DSRC). Guess where that 45MHz portion is right now; you only get one try.

That’s right. Aiming for a 40-60 split in favor of unlicensed use, the FCC is cutting into the dedicated DSRC MHz to make room for what Chairman Pai likened to a “teenage phenom”. This reduction of the so-called “safety band” has garnered a healthy mix of responses, with the two opposing ends of the spectrum being vigorous support and scathing disbelief. For example:

“There’s always going to be something new just around the corner. If we’re going to be afraid to take advantage of the technology that’s available today to save lives, then we’re not doing our jobs.”

Carlos Braceras, Executive Director of Utah Department of Transportation

“The FCC is prepared to trade safer roads for more connectivity by giving away much of the 5.9GHz safety spectrum, and it proposes to make such an inexplicable decision in the absence of data. The Commission is prepared to put not just drivers but pedestrians and other vulnerable users, particularly first responders and those in work zones, at grave risk, and for what?”

Shailen Bhatt, President and CEO of ITS America

Let’s take a quick step back. What is actually is the DSRC spectrum? The DSRC spectrum addresses transportation safety via on-board and roadside wireless safety systems allowing vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communications. Essentially, it wants cars to talk to other cars and to traffic lights. However, the FCC has its sights set on a much larger goal: vehicle-to-everything communications (V2X).

Specifically, the plan proposes going beyond the practice of using short-wave technology, such as radios, in favor of prioritizing V2X using cellular technology (C-V2X), which is incompatible with DSRC.

“If it were a medicine, V2X might be considered a miracle drug capable of slowing down a public-health epidemic of U.S. traffic fatalities that last year numbered more than 36,000.”

Jeff Plungis, ConsumerReports.org

So you might assume that C-V2X tech would be getting a shot in the arm in the form of a 45MHz dedication. However, you’d be wrong. Chairman Pai’s remarks in November announced that the lower 45MHz are for unlicensed use. In particular, this would work toward addressing the ever-increasing demand for WiFi bandwidth. It was also proposed that the remaining 30MHz of the spectrum be dedicated to Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), with 20MHz to C-V2X and the remaining 10MHz potentially left to DSRC. Faster internet and lower chances of being hit by a car while crossing the road? It seems like finally being able to have our cake and eat it, too.

“So moving forward, let’s resist the notion that we have to choose between automotive safety and Wi-Fi. My proposal would do far more for both automotive safety and Wi-Fi than the status quo.”

Ajit Pai, FCC Chairman

But, of course, there are some drawbacks. Critics have pointed to a number of issues that they claim will come from splitting the safety band. For one, what about DSCR? Cities and municipalities may be sent back to square one in terms of smart transportation infrastructure developments and advancements is they focused their efforts on DSRC systems. Additionally, some auto-manufacturers may prefer C-V2X, but a number have already been installing DSCR systems, a potentially unworkable endeavor should this plan be put into action. The proposed plan doesn’t go as far as to kill DSCR, but some argue that it may as well.

The FCC’s concerns and proposed answers are admirable, but I can’t help but wonder how much of it is simply shiny paint covering tired wallpaper. For one, is the FCC’s true motivation actually addressing the lack of movement within the safety band for V2V, V2I, and V2X? Or, is it convenient? Chairman Pai indicated that this proposal came into being when the FCC was looking for contiguous swathes of the spectrum that it could open up for different types of unlicensed operations. While there is no doubt that jump starting transportation-related communications is important, the FCC’s dedication to transportation safety comes across as secondary.

I clearly don’t have answers, but these questions and others will hopefully be addressed as the FCC concludes the notice and comment period for the proposal and the next steps are taken.

As audiences worldwide await the release of Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, a few recent developments in transportation technology are taking cues (directly or indirectly) from the technology of a galaxy far, far away.

Last week, the opening ceremony of a new ride at Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge, the Star Wars themed land at Walt Disney World, included actual flying X-Wing starfighters, built from Boeing-made drones. There are two important things to take from this development: (1) Boeing is apparently now a supplier for General Leia Organa’s Resistance, and; (2) Boeing is confident enough in their “Cargo Air Vehicle” drone to allow a highly-publicized public display. The all-electric Cargo Air Vehicle flew for the first time earlier this year, and is designed to carry up to 500 lbs. of cargo at a time. I’ve written about aerial delivery drones before, in October and September, but this new Boeing vehicle has a much higher carrying capacity than the smaller drones those articles focused on. Of course, a highly controlled environment like a major theme park is perhaps not as challenging an environment as the vehicles would face elsewhere, the visibility of this deployment raises interesting questions about Boeing’s future plans for the testing and deployment of the vehicles.

Another emerging technology that is attempting to recreate the Star Wars universe here on Earth is flying taxis. A number of prototype flying taxis have been revealed over the past few years, though none have the smooth lines of those seen in Star Wars, or the retro-styling of another sci-fi mainstay, the Jetson’s car. In June, Uber showed off the design of their proposed air taxi, an electric vehicle they will be testing in LA and Dallas in 2020. Industry boosters see a future with many such vehicles crisscrossing major metro areas (hmmm…where have I seen that before…). However, there are a number of challenges:

  • How do you make them cost-effective? Aircraft are expensive, and the proposed air taxis are no different. So how do you make them efficient enough to justify their cost? Will making them electric do the trick, or will the cost of batteries and other equipment sink the concept?
  • What is the economy of scale for this type of transportation? Right now, Uber offers helicopter flights from Manhattan to JFK Airport for $200-225 a person. If an air taxi ride has similar costs, how many people will really take advantage of them?
  • What infrastructure will they need? Where are they going to land? Uber has mocked-up glossy “skyport” designs, which they say will combine street-level mobility with their aerial offerings, but how many of these will be necessary if more than one company operates in a given metro area? Will skyports proliferate? In some cities, like London, there is already a scramble for roof space to transform into landing pads for air taxis and drones.
  • How do we regulate these vehicles? Between the aerial taxis and delivery drones, the skies would seem to be primed for traffic jams. Does the FAA retain full control over everything flying, or will states and even municipalities have to step in to help regulate a proliferation of flying vehicles?

Just like connected and automate vehicles, air taxes mix promising new technology with a sci-fi edge. It remains to be seen if air taxis will actually prove cost-effective enough to function for anyone other than the wealthy, but if Disney World’s use of drone X-Wings is any indication, a new hope for aerial vehicles may be just around the corner.

P.S. – Those who are skeptical of self-driving vehicles may have found a new patron saint in The Mandalorian, who turns down a droid-piloted speeder in favor of one driven by a person (also, apparently Uber service in the Outer Rim involves flutes?). To be fair, Mando later has some issues with his adorable companion playing with the controls of his ship, proving that humanoid controlled vehicles are still prone to problems (Han could have told him that).

When Elon Musk unveiled the Cybertruck late last month, it sent shockwaves throughout the electric vehicle world, the stock market, and the internet. The sleek bodied, sharp-edged vehicle is reminiscent of the classic Back to the Future DeLorean. It has already been pre-ordered by over 200K customers, according to a tweet by Elon Musk. (It is important to note that a pre-order involves only a $100 deposit, which is refundable). Despite the large volume of pre-orders, Tesla’s stock price dropped by 5% in the days following the announcement — decreasing Musk’s net worth by over $750 million due to his significant holdings in Tesla. Notwithstanding the market reaction to the unveiling, the Cybertruck will likely be a success in the pick-up truck consumer market.

One of the entertainment factors of the reveal was the on-stage demonstration that the vehicle is built for abuse. Unlike other Tesla vehicles that are made of stamped alumni or steel, the Cybertruck is built using 30X cold-rolled steel. The body of the vehicle took a blow from a sledgehammer without leaving a scratch. However, one window did unexpectedly shatter when a steel ball was thrown into it. The truck is meant to withstand anything a user can throw at it, which will likely appeal to current pick-up truck owners who use their trucks for towing, camping, off-roading, or any other number of activities.

The Cybertruck appears to be slightly larger than the Ford F150 (the best-selling vehicle for over three decades), and was shown capable of beating the Ford F150 in a Tug of War. Tesla’s press release indicated that there are three versions of the truck that will ultimately be available.

Cybertruck is designed to have the utility of a truck and the performance of a sports car. The vehicle is built to be durable, versatile and capable, with exceptional performance both on-road and off-road. Cybertruck will come in three variants: Single Motor Rear-Wheel Drive, Dual Motor All-Wheel Drive, and Tri Motor All-Wheel Drive.

Base Model

  • Price:               $39,000
  • Range:             250 miles
  • Tow Rating:    7,500 lbs
  • 0-60 mph:        6.5 seconds

Dual Motor

  • Price:               $49,000
  • Range:             300 miles
  • Tow Rating:    10,000 lbs
  • 0-60 mph:        4.5 seconds

Tri-Motor*

  • Price:               $69,900
  • Range:             500 miles
  • Tow Rating:    14,000 lbs
  • 0-60 mph:        <3 seconds
    * Tri-Motor Production won’t begin until 2022

The Truck Market

It makes perfect sense that Tesla has finally entered the pick-up truck arena. Trucks account for roughly 15 percent of U.S. vehicle sales each year, a slice of the pie that has been growing since 2009. Americans buy nearly a million Ford F150’s every year. Not only is there market demand, but pick-up trucks are the perfect build for an electric vehicle; they are large and typically more expensive than sedans, and can better carry the large and (currently) costly batteries. 

Towing will also be easier with an electric truck, given the toque an electric vehicle can exert. Torque generally describes how quickly a vehicle will accelerate and its ability to pull a load. In an electric vehicle, high torque is available at low speeds and is relatively constant over a wide range of speeds. High torque enables an EV to move faster from a dead stop. This phenomenon can be described as “instant torque.”

However, perhaps consistent with the incredible increase in truck ownership over the past decade, truck owners frequently use their trucks much like other car owners: for commuting to work. So perhaps increased towing ability is not quite the selling point for Tesla.

A 500-mile range is incredibly impressive, considering many EVs have a range right at or below 300 miles per charge, with many below 200 miles. However, it is not likely to be seen as an improvement for truck drivers, who pleasure drive more than twice as often as other vehicle owners. Even at the top of the line, a 500-mile range is lower than an F150, which can get nearly 700 miles per tank (assuming 19 mpg and a 36-gallon tank).

If the Cybertruck can take control of a sizable segment of the truck market and begin chipping away at the market share of their low-fuel economy competitors, Tesla may begin making tangible progress towards decreasing domestic oil consumption and quicken the transition to an electrified transportation sector.

Ultimately, the sleek new design and popular appeal of the Tesla brand will likely make the Cybertruck a successful product. But it is doubtful that many purchasers will utilize the benefits an electric truck has over a traditional pick-up. They will instead likely use the vehicle as they would any other car, or as a status symbol. There are plenty of SUV and light-duty truck owners who will be glad to switch to an environmentally friendly alternative that still allows them to ride high above traffic. Others will be more than happy to end their reliance on highly-fluctuating fuel prices.

Earlier this month, Connecticut’s Governor Ned Lamont announced and released the details of his plan to upgrade and “transform” the state’s transportation system. The plan, Connecticut 2030 (CT2030), allocates $21 billion primarily to improving Connecticut’s highways, airports, mass transit, and ports and is pitched as “what Connecticut families and employers deserve.” While that is a wonderful goal, as usual, I have questions. However, I want to go over the basics of CT2030 before getting into those questions.

“CT2030 will result in nothing short of a transformation of the economy and quality of life in Connecticut. When residents are able to travel to and from at drastically quicker rates, families can thrive, employees are more productive, and businesses are able to grow and provide more opportunities.”

Impact of CT2030

Overall, the main point of CT2030 seems to be enabling people and business to move more quickly and more efficiently. Gov. Lamont aims to achieve CT2030’s goals by addressing four main focus areas mentioned above: highways, airports, mass transit, and ports.

Highways. The main thrust of CT2030’s highway plans appear to center significantly on I-84, I-91, and I-95. This makes sense, seeing as to it that multiple spots along each of these highways rank within the top 100 worst traffic bottlenecks in the United States. These three highways will be the focus of projects such as lane additions, exit enhancements, bridge improvements, and “user fee” installations (i.e. tolls).

Mass Transit. This portion of CT2030 focuses on public transportation in the forms of railways and buses. Again, the plans here are “all about less time commuting and more time with your family.” Railways would look forward to projects for straightening and upgrading tracks, replacing aging bridges, installing new signaling systems, and adding new cars and locomotives. Buses, in a much smaller endeavor, would receive upgrades providing consistency for users across the state’s bus system. These upgrades include fitting all bus stops with shelters for protection against bad weather and signs with information on operating routes, as well as providing real-time information updates via text message or phone app.

Airports. This seems to be one of the most underdeveloped aspects of CT2030. The two enhancements to Connecticut’s aviation sector are (1) connecting the Bradley International Airport to surrounding areas via direct railway lines, and (2) the development of a “fully functioning regional airport in South-Central CT.”

Ports. Connecticut’s four major ports and the associated maritime industry annually generate an estimated $11.2 billion. The projects for these ports are unique to each location. They include dredging to allow for larger ships and freighters to pass through more frequently and the implementation of a high-speed ferry system to provide services for commuters as well as tourists.

Now for some questions:

What about induced demand? Congestion can’t always be solved by simply adding more lanes, no matter how logical that solution would seem. And it does make sense: remove the congestion by removing the bottleneck. However, this reasonable answer runs full speed into the issue of induced demand. The phenomenon of induced demand can be stated simply: “When you provide more of something, or provide it for a cheaper price, people are more likely to use it.” This means that increasing capacity does little to relieve busy roadways when traffic acts as a “gas” and the “volume expands to fill the capacity.”

“Widening a highway is no more a solution to traffic than buying bigger pants is a solution to overeating.”

David Andrew, Hartford Courant

While some experts argue that induced capacity doesn’t cause as much strife as people claim, the potential is still something that should be taken into account. If CT2030 centers on reducing highway commute time through widening projects, there needs to be at least some discussion addressing the possible negative impacts, such as an increase in urban sprawl, carbon emissions, and more.

What about pedestrian infrastructure? While CT2030 allocates approximately $21 billion to its various projects, only an estimated $52 million would be dedicated to the Community Connectivity Program (CCP), a “grant program for municipalities to make improvements to sidewalks” that “helps local communities make necessary improvements for pedestrians.” If my math is even close to correct – honestly, no promises – this amounts to less than half of a percent.

Admittedly, I’m using the term “pedestrian infrastructure” broadly to include traffic calming and bicycle infrastructure in addition to traditional pedestrian infrastructure while CT2030 narrows the scope of CCP down to sidewalk projects. However, this doesn’t defeat the question of why so little focus is dedicated to pedestrian infrastructure.

There are plenty of unanswered questions and unaddressed concerns still surrounding CT2030. One major question mark is whether it will actually be implemented. This is thanks to Gov. Lamont and state legislators starring in leading roles opposite one another in a multi-season drama. With this in mind, it will be interesting to see how and if Connecticut moves forward with CT2030 or any rival transportation plans.

Regardless of the mixed reactions to Tesla’s new Cybertruck, the electric vehicle revolution is here. Some analysts have predicted that within twenty years, half of new vehicles sold will be electric. For the future of the planet, we may need them to be. One core tenet of climate change mitigation is fairly simple in concept, even if difficult in practice: electrify everything. Quickly phasing out polluting technologies—such as the internal combustion engine—and replacing them with electric batteries that are charged by renewable energy sources is our best shot to reduce emissions fast enough to limit some of the worst effects of climate change.

One thing standing in the way of our electrified future is—or as will be discussed below, may be—the lack of charging infrastructure. Electric vehicles today travel about 200 miles per charge. This is a shorter distance than most gasoline-fueled cars. And gasoline-powered cars need a five minute fill-up after traveling a few hundred miles, which is much less onerous than the hour or two that it would take to restore the 200 mile range on your electric vehicle even with the best available chargers.

But how much of a problem is the lack of infrastructure, really? The average driver only rarely takes road trips of several hundred miles. Indeed, the average car only drives forty miles per day. Level 2 EVSE charging infrastructure is relatively inexpensive to install in most homes, and powerful enough to charge a vehicle overnight. Given how cheap it already is to charge a vehicle at home, it’s no surprise that most existing public charging stations are rarely used.

This ease of charging at home is likely to be a key long-term difference in infrastructure needs between the incoming era of electric vehicles and the past era of gas-powered vehicles. It would be implausible to install a gas pump in your home garage, making publicly available filling stations placed throughout cities and towns a necessity. When it comes to electric vehicles however, far fewer stations should be needed on the surface streets because the vast majority of people driving on them will be able to get more than enough charge by simply plugging into a wall outlet each day.

Of course, EV charging infrastructure will still need to be built out in order to maximize the uptake and utility of the next generation of cars. While the vast majority of people drive no more than a few dozen miles on a daily basis, most will also expect to take the occasional long road trip during the useful life of their car. Even as modern EVs push towards a 300 mile battery range, having to stop for an hour or more to recharge every few hours will continue to be seen as impractical.

This means there will continue to be a need for superfast chargers. The good news is, speedy chargers are already on the horizon. Late last year, Porsche and BMW unveiled a prototype charging station that will supply roughly sixty miles of battery life in just three minutes, about the length of time it takes to fill up a gas tank today. Venture capital investments in EV charging infrastructure totaled $1.7 billion from 2010 through the first quarter of 2019, and the total amount rose every year from 2015 through 2018.

Such investment, and the continued technological improvement it brings, will be necessary for the EV takeover of the vehicle market to reach its full potential. But thanks to increasing battery ranges and the ease of charging at home, the need for buildout with day-to-day use in mind may not be so great as previously thought.

On November 19, the NTSB held a public board meeting on the 2018 Uber accident in Tempe, Arizona, involving an “automated” (actually level 3) Uber-operated Volvo SUV. One woman, Elaine Herzberg, a pedestrian, died in the accident. In the wake of the report, it is now a good time to come back to level 3 cars and the question of “safety drivers.”

Given that the purpose of the meeting was to put the blame on someone, media outlets were quick to pick up a culprit for their headlines: the “safety driver” who kept looking at her phone? The sensors who detected all kinds of stuff but never a person? Uber, who deactivated the OEM’s emergency braking? Or maybe, Uber’s “safety culture”? A whole industry’s?

The Board actually blames all of them, steering clear of singling out one event or actor. It is probably the safest and most reasonable course of action for a regulator, and it has relevant implications for how law enforcement will handle accidents involving AVs in the future. But because we are humans, we may stick more strongly with the human part of the story, that of the safety driver.

She was allegedly looking at her phone, “watching TV” as one article put it; following the latest episode of The Voice. The Board determined that she looked at the road one second before the impact. That is short, but under more normal circumstances, enough to smash the brakes. Maybe her foot was far from the pedal; maybe she just did not react because she was not in an “aware” state of mind (“automation complacency,” the report calls it). In any case, it was her job to look on the road, and she was violating Uber’s policy by using her phone while working as a safety driver.

At the time of the accident, the Tempe police released footage from the dash cam, a few seconds up to the impact, showing a poorly-lit street. The relevance of this footage was then disputed in an Ars Technica article which aims to demonstrate how actually well lit the street is, and how just the front lights of the car should have made the victim visible on time. Yet, I think it is too easy to put the blame on the safety driver. She was not doing her job, but what kind of job was it? Humans drive reasonably well, but that’s when we’re actually driving, not sitting in the driver seat with nothing else to do but to wait for something to jump out of the roadside. Even if she had been paying attention, injury was reasonably foreseeable. And even if she would have been driving in broad daylight, there remains a more fundamental problem besides safety driver distraction.

The [NTSB] also found that Uber’s autonomous vehicles were not properly programmed to react to pedestrians crossing the street outside of designated crosswalksone article writes. I find that finding somewhat more appalling than that of a safety driver being distracted. Call that human bias; still I do not expect machines to be perfect. But what this tells us is that stricter monitoring of cellphone usage of safety drivers will not cut it either, if the sensors keep failing. The sensors need to be able to handle this kind of situation. A car whose sensors cannot recognize a slowly crossing pedestrian (anywhere, even in the middle of the highway) does not have its place on a 45-mph road, period.

If there is one thing this accident has shown, it is that “safety drivers” add little to the safety of AVs. It’s a coin flip: the reactivity and skill of the driver makes up for the sensor failure; in other cases, a distracted, “complacent” driver (for any reason, phone or other) does not make up for the sensor failure. It is safe to say that the overall effect on safety is at best neutral. And even worse: it may provide a false sense of safety to the operator, as it apparently did here. This, in turn, prompts us to think about level 3 altogether.

While Uber has stated that it has “significantly improved its safety culture” since the accident, the question of the overall safety of these level 3 cars remains. And beyond everything Uber can do, one may wonder if such accidents are not bound to repeat themselves should level 3 cars see mass commercial deployments. Humans are not reliable “safety drivers.” And in a scenario that involves such drivers, it takes much less than the deadly laundry list of failures we had here to have such an accident happen. Being complacent may also mean that your foot is not close to the pedals, or that your hands are not “hovering above the steering wheel” as they should (apparently) be. That half second extra it takes to smash the brakes or grip the wheel is time enough to transform serious injury into death.

The paramount error here was to integrate a human, a person Uber should have known would be distracted or less responsive than an average driver, as a final safety for sensor failure. Not a long time ago, many industry players were concerned about early standardization. Now that some companies are out there, going fast and literally breaking people (not even things, mind you!), time has come to seriously discuss safety and testing standards, at the US federal and, why not, international level.

A University of Michigan Law School Problem Solving Initiative class on AV standardization will take place during the Winter semester of 2020, with deliverables in April. Stay tuned!

An important development in artificial intelligence space occurred last month with the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Board releasing draft recommendations [PDF] on the ethical use of AI by the Department of Defense. The recommendations if adopted are expected to “help guide, inform, and inculcate the ethical and responsible use of AI – in both combat and non-combat environments.”

For better or for worse, a predominant debate around the development of autonomous systems today revolves around ethics. By definition, autonomous systems are predicated on self-learning and reduced human involvement. As Andrew Moore, head of Google Cloud AI and former dean of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University defines it, artificial intelligence is just “the science and engineering of making computers behave in ways that, until recently, we thought required human intelligence.”

How then do makers of these systems ensure that the human values that guide everyday interactions are replicated in decisions that machines make? The answer, the argument goes, lies in coding ethical principles that have been tested for centuries into otherwise “ethically blind” machines.

Critics of this argument posit that this recent trend of researching and codifying ethical guidelines is just one way for tech companies to avoid government regulation. Major companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon have all either adopted AI charters or established committees to define ethical principles. Whether these approaches are useful is still open to debate. One research for example found that priming software developers with ethical codes of conduct had “no observed effect” [PDF] on their decision making. Does this then mean that the whole conversation around AI and ethics is moot? Perhaps not.

In the study and development of autonomous systems, the content of ethical guidelines is only as important as the institution adopting them. The primary reason ethical principles adopted by tech companies are met with cynicism is that they are voluntary and do not in and of themselves ensure implementation in practice. On the other hand, when similar principles are adopted by institutions that consider the prescribed codes as a red lines and have the legal authority to implement them, these ethical guidelines become massively important documents.

The Pentagon’s recommendations – essentially five high level principles – must be lauded for moving the conversation in the right direction. The draft document establishes that AI systems developed and deployed by the DoD must be responsible, equitable, traceable, reliable, and governable. Of special note among these are the calls to make AI traceable and governable. Traceability in this context refers to the ability of a technician to reverse engineer the decision making process of an autonomous system and glean how it arrived at the conclusion that it did. The report calls this “auditable methodologies, data sources, and design procedure and documentation.” Governable AI similarly requires systems to be developed with the ability to “disengage or deactivate deployed systems that demonstrate escalatory or other behavior.”

Both of these aspects are frequently the most overlooked in conversations around autonomous systems and yet are critical for ensuring reliability. They are also likely to be the most contested as questions of accountability arise when machines malfunction as they are bound to. They are also likely to make ‘decision made by algorithm’ a less viable defense when creators of AI are confronted with questions of bias and discrimination – as Apple and Goldman Sachs’ credit limit-assigning algorithm recently was.

While the most direct applications of the DoD’s principles is in the context of lethal autonomous weapon systems, their relevance will likely be felt far and wide. The various private technology companies that are currently soliciting and building various autonomous systems for military use – such as Microsoft’s $10 billion JEDI contract to overhaul the military’s cloud computing infrastructure and Amazon’s facial recognition system used by law enforcement – will likely have to invest in building new fail safes into their systems to comply with the DoD’s recommendations. It is likely that these efforts will have a bleed through effect into systems being developed for civilian use as well. The DoD is certainly not the first institution to adopt these principles. Non-governmental agencies such as the Institute of Electricals and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) – the largest technical professional organization in the world – have also called [PDF] for adoption of standards around transparency and accountability in AI to provide “an unambiguous rationale” for all decisions taken. While the specific questions around which ethical principles can be applied to machine learning continue for the foreseeable future, the Pentagon’s draft could play a key role in moving the needle forward.

Developments in technology have led to an increased reliance on artificial intelligence and autonomy in various vehicles such as cars, planes, helicopters and trains. The latest vehicles to implement autonomous technology into their operations are shipping vessels. Autonomous ships will transform the industry and current regulations are being reassessed to determine the best way to include this futuristic way of shipping.

he shipping industry is regulated on a global level and it remains one of the most heavily regulated industries today. International shipping is principally regulated by the International Maritime Organization, a United Nations agency responsible for the safety of life at sea and the protection of the marine environment. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) developed a comprehensive framework of global maritime safety regulations that was adopted from international conventions. In order to be proactive, IMO initiated a regulatory scoping exercise on Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS). The scoping exercise is led by IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee and is expected to be completed by 2020. The goal of the exercise is to determine how autonomous ships may be implemented into regulations and will touch on issues such as safety, security, liability, the marine environment and the human element.

In order to assess the scope of differing levels of autonomous ships, IMO defined four degrees of autonomy. The lowest degree of autonomy involves automated processes that can control the ship at times. Seafarers will remain in charge of operating and controlling the ship when the automated system is not activated. The second degree is a remotely controlled ship with seafarers still on board. The ship will be controlled from another location but the seafarers on board will be able to take control if necessary. The next degree is a remotely controlled ship without any seafarers on board. Lastly, the highest degree of autonomy is a fully autonomous, unmanned ship that is equipped with the ability to make decisions and take action by itself.

Several companies have already begun implementing autonomous capabilities into their ships and the technology is rapidly developing. While the scoping exercise is underway, the Maritime Safety Committee approved interim guidelines for trials to be completed on existing and emerging autonomous ships. The trials should be generic and goal-based and take a precautionary approach to ensure the operations are safe, secure, and environmentally sound. In 2018, Rolls-Royce conducted its first test of an autonomous ferry named Falco. To demonstrate two degrees of autonomy, the ferry was fully autonomous on its outward voyage and then switched to a remotely controlled operation on its return to port. The controller was in a command center 30 miles away and he successfully took over operations of the ship and guided it to the dock.

Autonomous ships are expected to improve safety, reduce operating costs, increase efficiency and minimize the effects of shipping on the environment. An increased reliance on autonomy will reduce the chance for human error thereby improving safety. Human error accounts for 75-96% of marine accidents and accounted for $1.6 billion in losses between 2011 and 2016. Operational costs are also expected to decrease as there will be little to no crew on board. Crew costs can constitute up to 42% of a ship’s operating costs. If there is no crew then accommodations such as living quarters, air conditioning and cooking facilities can be eliminated. Further, a ship free from crew accommodations and seafarers will make voyages more efficient because the ship will have an alternate design and an increased carrying capacity. Lastly, autonomous ships may prove to be better for the environment than current vessels. The ships are expected to operate with alternative fuel sources, zero-emissions technologies and no ballast. 

As we have seen in other transportation industries, regulation for autonomous vehicles falls far behind the technological innovation. By taking a proactive approach in the case of autonomous shipping, IMO may be ready to create regulations that better reflect the future of shipping within the next decade. 

Last time I wrote about platooning, and the potential economic savings that could benefit the commercial trucking sector if heavy duty trucks were to implement the technology. This week, I’m writing about one of the current barriers to implementing platooning both as a commercial method, and in the larger scheme of highway driving.

One of the most readily identifiable barriers to the widespread implementation of truck platooning is the ‘Following Too Close’ (“FTC”) laws enforced by almost every state. There is currently a patchwork of state legislation which prevents vehicles from following too closely behind another vehicle. Violating these laws is negligence per se.

For those who don’t quite remember 1L torts, negligence per se essentially means “if you violate this statute, that proves an element of negligence.” Therefore, if one vehicle is following too closely behind another vehicle in violation of an FTC statute, that satisfies the breach element of negligence and is likely enough to be fined for negligent driving.

These laws are typically meant to prevent vehicles from following dangerously close or tailgating other vehicles. The state laws that regulate this conduct can be divided into roughly four categories. Some states prescribe the distance or time a driver must remain behind the vehicle in front of them; others impose a more subjective standard. The subjective standards are far more common than the objective standards.

Subjective Categories

  • Reasonable and Prudent” requires enough space between vehicles for a safe stop in case of an emergency. This FTC rule is the most common for cars and seems to be a mere codification of common-law rules of ordinary care.
  • “Sufficient space to enter and occupy without danger” requires trucks and vehicles with trailers to leave enough space that another vehicle may “enter and occupy such space without danger.” This is the most common rule for trucks.

Objective Categories

  • Distance-Based: Some states prescribe the distance at which a vehicle may follow another vehicle; others identify a proportionate interval based on distance and speed. These are the most common rules for heavy trucks and frequently set the minimum distance between 300 and 500 feet.
  • Time: Timing is the least common FTC, but the two jurisdictions that impose this rule require drivers to travel “at least two seconds behind the vehicle being followed.”

It is easy to see how, given the close distance at which vehicles need to follow to benefit from platooning, any of these laws would on their face prohibit platooning within their borders. However, several states have already enacted legislation which exempts the trailing truck in a platoon from their “Following Too Close” laws. As of April 2019, 15 states had enacted legislation to that effect. Additional states have passed legislation to allow platoon testing or pilot programs within their states.

However, despite some states enacting this legislation, a non-uniform regulatory scheme does not provide  the level of certainty that will incentivize investment in platooning technology. Uncertain state regulation can disincentivize interstate carriers from investing in platooning, and could lead to a system where platooning trucks only operate within single state boundaries.

Although the exemptions are a step in the right direction, non-uniformity will likely result in an overall lower platooning usage rate, limiting the wide-spread fuel efficiency and safety benefits that are derived when platooning is implemented on a large, interstate scale. Without uniform legislation that allows platooning to be operated consistently across all the states, the need for different systems will hinder the technology’s development, and the rate at which trucking companies begin to adopt it.

However, even if not all states pass legislation exempting platooning vehicles from their FTC laws, there could be a way around the subjective elements. The most common subjective law, “Reasonable and Prudent” requires only enough space that the vehicles can safely stop in case of an emergency. When considering a human driver this distance is likely dozens of feet, given the speed at which cars travel on the interstate. However, recall from last week that platooning vehicles are synchronized in their acceleration, deceleration, and braking.

If the vehicles travel in tandem, and brake at the same time and speed, any distance of greater than several feet would be considered “reasonable and prudent.” Perhaps what needs to be developed is a “reasonable platooning vehicle” standard, rather than a “reasonable driver” standard, when it comes to autonomous vehicle technology. Then again, considering the ever-looming potential for technological failure, it could be argued that following that close behind another heavy vehicle is never reasonable and prudent, once again requiring an exemption rather than an interpretive legal argument for a new “reasonableness” standard.

Either way, to ensure certainty for businesses, more states should exempt platooning vehicles from their “Following Too Close” laws. Otherwise, the technology may never achieve a scale that makes it worth the early investment.

On April 8, 2019, it was announced at the 35th Space Symposium in Colorado Springs, Colorado that the space industry was getting an Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC). Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, “as a service to the industry and with the support of the U.S. Government,” was the first founding member of the Space-ISAC (S-ISAC).

“[ISACs] helps critical infrastructure owners and operators protect their facilities, personnel and customers from cyber and physical security threats and other hazards. ISACs collect, analyze and disseminate actionable threat information to their members and provide members with tools to mitigate risks and enhance resiliency.”

National Council of ISACs

ISACs, first introduced in Presidential Decision Directive-63 (PDD-63) in 1998, were intended to be the one aspect of the United States’ development of “measures to swiftly eliminate any significant vulnerability to both physical and cyber attacks on our critical infrastructures, including especially our cyber systems.” PDD-63 requested “each critical infrastructure sector to establish sector-specific organizations to share information about threats and vulnerabilities.” In 2003, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD-7) reaffirmed the relationship between the public and private sectors of critical infrastructure in the development of ISACs.

Today, there are ISACs in place for a number of subsectors within the sixteen critical infrastructure sectors, for specific geographic regions, and for different levels of government.

However, the S-ISAC, while undoubtedly a good call, has left me with a few questions.

Why so much government involvement?

From what I’ve read, the Federal government’s role is to “collaborate with appropriate private sector entities and continue to encourage the development of information sharing and analysis mechanisms.” For example, the Aviation-ISAC (A-ISAC) was formed when “[t]here was consensus that the community needed an Aviation ISAC”; the Automotive-ISAC (Auto-ISAC) came into being when “[fourteen] light-duty vehicle [Original Equipment Manufacturers] decided to come together to charter the formation of Auto-ISAC”; and the Information Technology-ISAC (IT-ISAC) “was established by leading Information Technology Companies in 2000.”

Reportedly, it was not the private actors within the space industry that recognized or felt the need for the S-ISAC, but an interagency body designed to keep an eye on and occasionally guide or direct efforts across space agencies. The Science and Technology Partnership Forum has three principle partner agencies: U.S. Air Force (USAF) Space Command, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).

Additionally, it appears as though Kratos, a contractor for the Department of Defense and other agencies, was the only private actor involved in the development and formation of the S-ISAC.

These are just something to keep in mind. The S-ISAC’s perhaps unique characteristics must be considered in light of the clear national security and defense interests that these agencies and others have in the information sharing mechanism. Also, since the announcement of the S-ISAC, Kratos has been joined by Booz Allen Hamilton, Mitre Corporation, Lockheed Martin, and SES as founding members.

Why an ISAC?

Again, ISACs are typically the domain of the private owners, operators, and actors within an industry or sector. As new vulnerabilities and threats related to the United States’ space activities have rapidly manifested in recent years and are quickly emerging today, it would seem to make sense for the Federal government to push for the development of an Information Sharing and Analysis Organization (ISAO). ISAOs, formed in response to Executive Order 13691 (EO 13691) in 2015, are designed to enable private companies and federal agencies “to share information related to cybersecurity risks and incidents and collaborate to respond in as close to real time as possible.”

While ISAOs and ISACs share the same goals, there appear to be a number of differences between the two information-sharing mechanisms. ISACs can have high membership fees that individual members are responsible for, potentially blocking smaller organizations or new actors from joining, and that often work to fund the sector’s ISAC; however, grants from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are available to provide additional funding for the establishment and continued operation of ISAOs.  ISACs – for example, the A-ISAC – seem to monitor and control the flow of member-provided information available to the Federal government more closely than ISAOs.

Also, ISACs – such as those recognized by the National Council of ISACs (NCI) – are typically limited to sectors that have been designated as Critical Infrastructure and the associated sub-sectors. Despite obvious reasons why it should, space has not been recognized as a critical infrastructure sector.

For now, this seems like a good place to end. This introductory look into ISACs generally and the S-ISAC has left me with many questions about the organization itself and its developing relationship with the private space industry as a whole. Hopefully, these questions and more will be answered in the coming days as the S-ISAC and the private space industry continue to develop and grow. 

Here are some of my unaddressed questions to consider while exploring and considering the new S-ISAC: Why develop the S-ISAC now? What types of companies are welcome to become members, only defense contractors or, for example, commercial satellite constellation companies and small rocket launchers? As the commercial space industry continues to grow in areas such as space tourism, will the S-ISAC welcome these actors as well or will we see the establishment of a nearly-identical organization with a different name?

Nowadays it seems like everyone wants to get in on the rapidly-growing commercial space industry, reportedly worth approximately $340 billion per year. From Stratolaunch Systems’ “world’s largest plane, which acts as a launch pad in the sky,” to NASA’s Space Act Agreements (SAA) with Boeing and SpaceX for taxi services to and from the International Space Station (ISS), this is certainly not your parents’ space race.

While the private space industry of today may not have bloomed until after we entered the 21st century, the United States’ love affair with space activities in the private sector can be traced back to the 1960’s, although it was the passage of the Commercial Space Launch Act in 1984 that really lit a fire under private industry. It goes without saying that a lot has changed in the years between then and now.

As a matter of fact, the private space sector as we know it today has a term all its own: NewSpace.

“Alt.space, NewSpace, entrepreneurial space, and other labels have been used to describe approaches to space development that different significantly from that taken by NASA and the mainstream aerospace industry.”

HobbySpace.com

NewSpace is a move away from the traditional understanding of space being the domain of government agencies alone and a step toward more affordable access to space. This transition has allowed for the incredible growth and expansion of the economic endeavors within the private space sector, and it’s only expected to get bigger and more profitable as time and developments continue to advance.

However, beyond the incredible news stories about “the world’s first commercial Spaceline” and Elon Musk sending his car into space – which you can track here, by the way – there is an entire universe of issues and concerns that do and/or will cause hiccups and delays to entering the first space tourists into orbit.

One of the first concerns that comes to mind is often that of safety. Saying that there are a few safety concerns relating to commercial space transportation would be putting it very, very lightly. Risks and dangers plague every step of the process, from launchpad to landing. I am all for scientific inquiry and experimentation, but unfortunately this is one area where trial and error has a good chance of ending in both the loss of equipment and the loss of life.

Commercial space transportation is still a fairly high-risk industry in terms of safety, and the responsibility to develop safety regulations for the U.S. commercial space transportation industry rests with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST). The AST issues licenses and experimental permits for launch or reentry vehicles and spaceports after the issuance of a safety approval.

According to the AST website, the FAA “has the authority to issue a safety approval for one or more of the following safety elements: a launch vehicle, a reentry vehicle, a safety system, process, service, or any identified component thereof, and qualified and trained personnel performing a process or function related to licensed launch activities.”

I will stop myself here (for now), but this is just a drop in the bucket. There are plenty of topics surrounding commercial space flight that this post didn’t discuss, such as issues with funding, the minefield that is space debris, and the question of whose law governs in space. While this may seem like a lot, be reassured by the fact that this means we all may have the chance to live out that childhood (adulthood) dream of being an astronaut.

One of the most exciting and economically advantageous aspects of autonomous vehicle technology is the ability for cars and heavy trucks to “platoon.” Platooning is a driver-assist technology that allows vehicles to travel in tandem, maintaining a close, constant distance. Imagine trucks are racers in a bicycle or foot race. By drafting closely behind one another, the vehicles reduce their energy (fuel) consumption.

I personally find that large-scale platooning should be the ultimate goal of autonomous vehicle technology; the potential time and fuel savings would be enormous if the highways were filled with vehicles drafting behind one another. Imagine a highway system without rubberneckers, the guy on the highway that floors it, and then slams on the breaks during rush hour, or the “Phantom Traffic Jam.” Imagine an organized “train” of cars and trucks instead, following at a close, but technologically safe distance (between 25 and 75-feet) and at a uniform speed.

This future is more likely to begin on a smaller scale, and in the commercial shipping sector, rather than in the consumer vehicle market. The work has already started with some platooning pilot programs involving heavy trucks.

These programs employ short-range communications technology and advanced driver assistance systems in their testing. The technology creates a seamless interface supporting synchronized actions; however, drivers are still needed to steer and monitor the system. When done with heavy commercial trucks — tractor-trailers, 18-wheelers, or semi-trucks (depending on what area of the country you live in) — the trucks are “coupled” through vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication. The V2V technology allows the vehicles to synchronize acceleration, deceleration, and braking to increase efficiency and safety.

The economic incentives for platooning in the freight industry derive from the potential fuel savings, which come from reductions to aerodynamic drag. While both vehicles in a pair of platooning trucks save fuel, the rear vehicle typically saves significantly more. Tests conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory demonstrated average fuel savings up to 6.4 percent for a pair of platooning trucks: a lower amount (up to 5.3 percent) for the lead truck and a higher amount (up to 9.7 percent) for the trailing truck. These numbers varied based on the size of the gap between the two trucks, and the driving speed. The ability to decrease fuel consumption in heavy freight vehicles represents an enormous area to reduce the cost of shipping.

Fuel costs account for roughly one-third of the trucking industries’ cost per mile; a typical heavy-duty freight vehicle incurs between $70,000 and $125,000 in fuel costs each year. Vehicles that reduce their fuel consumption by 6.4 percent would save $4,500 to $8,000 per year. These savings are potentially enormous when extrapolated across the more than 2-million tractor-trailers on the road. The ability to decrease shipping and transportation costs should be a substantial incentive for large shipping companies like Fed Ex, UPS, and Amazon. 

While getting the significant players in the transportation industry is crucial, an estimated 90% of the trucking companies in the U.S. are made up of fleets with six trucks or less, and 97% have fewer than 20. Converting existing truck cabs with the necessary technology could pose a substantial hardship for these small businesses. However, it is projected that owner-operators would recoup their investment in 10-months, and fleet operators would recoup theirs in 18-months. This relatively short period could incentivize even small-scale operators to invest in the technology.

Platooning technology could also help offset the recent spike in the average cost of truck operations. Most of these costs came from increases in driver wages and benefits, likely due to a shortage of long-haul truck drivers. The shortage of drivers is only expected to grow; the combination of long hours, inconsistent schedules, long stretches of solitude, and low pay have increased the turnover rate and disincentivized new drivers from entering the labor market. While the technology is not yet poised to run without drivers, a single truck driver would one day lead a platoon train of autonomous trucks, decreasing the need for drivers in every cab.

My vision of a highway filled with platooning vehicles may not be feasible yet, but with proper investment by businesses, platooning technology could become viable, and cost-effective, within a few years.

2018 was the year of the electric scooter. They appeared unexpectedly, lined up on sidewalks, often without enough time for city regulators and officials to prepare for their arrival. Their spontaneous presence and practically unregulated use provoked outrage from consumers, city councils, and sidewalk users everywhere.

If 2018 was the year of the electric scooter, 2020 might be the year of the electric moped. Revel, the New York-based electric moped start-up, has placed more than 1,400 mopeds across Washington, D.C., and Brooklyn and Queens, New York, with plans to expand to 10 cities by mid-2020.

Revel’s mopeds operate in much the same manner as the many electric scooters offered by companies like Spin, Lime, and Bird. Riders sign up, pay for, and lock/unlock the vehicles through an app. But where scooters are suitable for last-mile travel, mopeds may fill a medium-trip sized gap in micro-mobility. Mopeds are better for longer trips where being able to sit down and travel at faster speeds is desirable. They are a good compliment, not a rival, to other micro mobility services. The more mobility services available to the public, the more comfortable people will be using them. Overcoming the threshold is important to increasing the use of alternative transportation services.

However, in stark contrast to the drop and run business method initially employed by many electric scooter companies, Revel differentiates itself by emphasizing safety and garnering regulatory approval before deploying. When Washington D.C. announced in August that the city was launching a demonstration pilot for “motor-driven cycles” (“mopeds”), Revel CEO Frank Reig expressed immediate interest in participation:

“We share their goals of providing new, reliable transportation options that work seamlessly in the city’s current regulatory, transportation, and parking systems and help the District meet its aggressive carbon emissions goals.”

Revel’s policy is not just to work with regulators when required; they seek to foster a cooperative environment that sets the company up for long term success and partnership with the cities where the mopeds eventually deploy. Whereas many cities have banned scooters, temporarily or permanently, working upfront with city officials may benefit Revel in the long-term — potentially protecting them from being required to pull their vehicles from city streets.

The cooperative method should provide an example of conduct to other micro-mobility companies seeking to expand their operations; sometimes, it is better to ask permission rather than forgiveness. The goodwill from the city may pay off in the long run if local governments decide to limit how many companies may operate in the city. They also avoid the potential regulatory gap that electric scooter fall into; mopeds are definitely a motor vehicle, CEO Reig has made sure to emphasize:

These mopeds are motor vehicles. This means there is no regulatory gray area: you have to have a license plate. To get that license plate, you have to register each vehicle with the Department of Motor Vehicles in each state and show third-party auto liability insurance. And then because it’s a motor vehicle, it’s clear that it rides in the street, so we’re completely off sidewalks.

Another area of differentiation is safety and employment. Revel’s mopeds are limited to riders aged 21 and older, capped at speeds of 30 miles-per-hour, provide riders with two helmets, and require riders to submit their driver’s license for a safe history driving check. Moreover, unlike electric scooter companies that rely on people working in the so-called “gig-economy” to charge their scooters, Revel relies on full-time employees to swap out batteries on the vehicles. This employment structure is another selling point for cities: full-time jobs and payroll taxes. The company is making an investment that other mobility companies that operate on an independent contractor model do not make. The relationship provides benefits for the cities and Revel, according to CEO Reig:

Our biggest lesson from New York and Washington is that Revel works for cities as they exist today. They work for our riders. They work for our regulators who are seeking ways to enhance their transportation networks, not disrupt them.

After receiving nearly $27 million in Series A funding, including an investment by Toyota AI Ventures, Revel could potentially increase its vehicle fleet 10-fold, aiding them in meeting their ambitious expansion plans by the middle of next year.

Earlier this week, Raphaël wrote about the role for no-fault insurance in an age of automated vehicles. The post raised several important questions about the future of the auto insurance industry as technology advances:

Who do we want to protect? Passengers, for sure. But drivers? There is no driver! Or rather, there are many drivers. To some extent, at least under a layman’s understanding of the term “driver,” all the actors along the supply chain are driving the AV. Or, to be more precise, it is difficult to pinpoint a single driver: the “operator”? The software designer? And that is already assuming that there is a single entity who designed the software or operates what may be a fleet of AVs. And there may be others, as the AV industry continues to evolve

While Raphaël’s questions will be extremely important for the industry going forward, I want to pose a slightly different question here: Should drivers of Level 4 or Level 5 automated vehicles be required to purchase insurance at all?

Today, every US state except New Hampshire and Virginia require vehicle owners to purchase auto insurance. In a world where human drivers are in control of the vehicle, this makes sense. While flawed product designs or other manufacturer errors may contribute to car accidents today, many if not most accidents also involve some element of operator error.

In a world of fully autonomous vehicles however, this will no longer be the case. The human sitting in what is today the driver’s seat will not be in control of the vehicle in any meaningful way. Every movement such a vehicle makes will have been designed and programmed by the manufacturer or some company along its supply chain.

Given the extent of manufacturer control, would it be reasonable to have accident payouts determined by the law of products liability? Or perhaps, as Michigan Law professor Kyle Logue argued in a recent article, liability should be apportioned through a scheme of strict enterprise liability, in which automakers would be “unconditionally responsible for the economic losses resulting from any crashes of their vehicles.”

Even with the heightened manufacturer liability that may accompany highly autonomous vehicles, some room may be left for owner error, and thus for traditional insurance. Owners may be held responsible for routine maintenance of their vehicles, for ensuring software is upgraded in a timely fashion, or for actions taken if the vehicle is ever taken out of autonomous mode. But even if some minimal level of owner responsibility leads lawmakers to reject Professor Logue’s theory of enterprise liability in favor of maintenance of insurance requirements for owner/operators, insurance’s role will surely be different than it is today.

Which brings me back to a version of Raphaël’s questions that I started with. Who is the true operator of an AV, and what are they responsible for? Answering these background questions will go a long way towards determining the future of auto insurance in the era of automated vehicles.

In a recent article published on Reuters Regulatory Intelligence, a DC-area lawyer said the following regarding the potential of implementing no-fault insurance “to” automated vehicles:

“Drivers have an inherent incentive to drive safely, so as not to be injured or killed on the roadways. That inherent incentive is what mitigates the “moral hazard” of a no-fault system. But in a no-fault model for autonomous vehicles, the incentives toward safety would be degraded given that manufacturers do not suffer the physical consequences of unsafe operation, as do drivers.”

Intuitively, this seems right. Yet, I thought: is there more to it? What does a world with an AV no-fault insurance scheme would look like?

This might be puzzling at first: what does one mean with no-fault AV insurance? In a more standard setting, a no-fault insurance system means that one gets the benefits of their own insurance without regard to the actual “fault” (such as negligence) and that civil suits on the basis of one’s fault are banned or severely restricted. No-fault systems are straightforward and predictable, although potentially less “just,” to the extent that a negligent driver may get away with nothing more than a deductible to pay or eventually a higher premium.

There was, and there still is, a good policy ground behind no-fault systems around car accidents: avoiding the social cost of civil litigation, and shifting the financial cost of such litigation towards the insurers, between whom things are more often than not settled out of court. Those we want to protect with no-fault insurance schemes are drivers (and passengers), and that is a majority of the population.

Now let’s consider AVs. Who do we want to protect? Passengers, for sure. But drivers? There is no driver! Or rather, there are many drivers. To some extent, at least under a layman’s understanding of the term “driver,” all the actors along the supply chain are driving the AV. Or, to be more precise, it is difficult to pinpoint a single driver: the “operator”? The software designer? And that is already assuming that there is a single entity who designed the software or operates what may be a fleet of AVs. And there may be others, as the AV industry continues to evolve; we can already see that various paths are taken by industry players, some acting for a form of vertical integration, others relying on a variety of suppliers, in a less streamlined way.

Do these all these industry players deserve extra protection? They are all corporate entities after all, and as the lawyer mentions in the above article, none of them are subject to physical injury in case of an accident. While expensive litigation can drive corporations to the ground, the case for shifting costs to insurers, when it comes to AV drivers, appears less clear. What is clear, though, is that human victims of an accident involving an AV ought to be as protected as if the accident did not involve an AV, and maybe even more.

The final answer will come from lawmakers. Moreover, one should not forget that no-fault insurance is mandatory only in a minority of US states, despite being prevalent in the rest of the world. Yet I believe there might be a case here to adopt a legal scheme which would both guarantee a litigation-free recourse to human accident victims, potentially in the form of an industry-funded guarantee fund, while giving the opportunity to the various players along the supply chain to fight it out, in court if need be, on the basis of the reality of their involvement in the cause of the accident; they are all sophisticated players after all and all share in the benefits of the risk they create. The stories of human victims, though, are what may “kill” the industry, if not enough care is taken to ensure a high level of legal protection.

October 2019 Mobility Grab Bag

Every month brings new developments in mobility, so let’s take a minute to breakdown a few recent developments that touch on issues we’ve previously discussed in the blog:

New AV Deployments

This month saw a test deployment of Level 4 vehicles in London, which even allowed members of the public to be passengers (with a safety driver). Meanwhile, in Arizona, Waymo announced it will be deploying vehicles without safety drivers, though it appears only members of their early-access test group will be riding in them for now. We’ve written a lot about Waymo, from some early problems with pedestrians and other drivers, to the regulations placed on them by Arizona’s government, to their potential ability to navigate human controlled intersections.

Georgia Supreme Court Requires a Warrant for Vehicle Data

This Monday, the Georgia Supreme Court, in the case of Mobley v. State, ruled that recovering data from a vehicle without a warrant “implicates the Fourth Amendment, regardless of any reasonable expectations of privacy.” The court found that an investigator entering the vehicle to download data from the vehicle’s airbag control unit constituted “physical intrusion of a personal motor vehicle,” an action which “generally is a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment under the traditional common law trespass standard.” Given the amount of data that is collected currently by vehicles and the ever-increasing amount of data that CAVs can and will collect, rulings like this are very important in dictating how and when law enforcement can obtain vehicle data. We’ve previously written about CAVs and the 4th Amendment, as well as other privacy implications of CAVs, both in regards to government access to data and the use of CAV data by private parties.  

Personal Cargo Bots Could Bring Even More Traffic to Your Sidewalk

In May, as part of a series on drones, I wrote about a number of test programs deploying small delivery bots for last-mile deliveries via the sidewalk. A recent Washington Post article highlights another potential contender for sidewalk space – personal cargo bots. Called “gita” the bot can travel at up to 6 mph as it uses it’s onboard cameras to track and follow its’ owner, via the owner’s gait. The bot’s developers see it as helping enhance mobility, as it would allow people to go shopping on foot without being concerned about carrying their goods home. For city-dwellers that may improve grocery trips, if they can shell out the $3,000+ price tag!

Even More Aerial Drones to Bring Goods to Your Door

Last month, as part two the drone series, I looked at aerial delivery drones. In that piece I mentioned that Google-owned Wing would be making drone deliveries in Virginia, and Wing recently announced a partnership with Walgreens that will be part of that test. Yesterday Wired pointed out that UPS has made a similar deal with CVS – though it remains to be seen if the drones will have to deliver the infamously long CVS receipts as well. As Wired pointed out, drugstores, since they carry goods that could lead to an emergency when a home runs out of them (like medication and diapers), speedy air delivery could fill a useful niche. So next time you’re home with a cold, you may be able to order decongestant to be flown to your bedside, or at least to the yard outside your bedroom window.

P.S. – While not related to any past writings, this article  is pretty interesting – Purdue scientists took inspiration from the small hairs on the legs of spiders to invent a new sensor that can ignore minor forces acting on a vehicle while detecting major forces, making it easier for CAVs and drones to focus computing power on important things in their environment without getting distracted.

While AVs have a lot of technological leaps to make before widespread deployment, developers and governments alike also need to also consider the human factors involved, including good old fashioned human fear. Earlier this year, a AAA study showed that almost three out of four (71%) Americans are afraid to ride in an AV. This is a 10% rise in apprehension from earlier studies, a trend that could be connected to the publicity around the 2018 Uber crash in Tempe, Ariz., where a test vehicle struck and killed a pedestrian. This lack of trust in AVs alone should be concerning to developers, but in some places that lack of trust has turned into outright enmity.

Test deployments, like the one undertaken by Waymo in Arizona, have become the targets of anger from drivers and pedestrians, including an incident where man pointed a gun at a passing Waymo test vehicle, in full view of the AV’s safety driver. In that case, the man with the weapon (who was arrested) claimed he hated the vehicles, specifically citing the Uber crash as a reason for his anger. Waymo test vehicles have been also been pelted with rocks, had their tires slashed, and motorists have even tried to run them off the road. The incidents have led to caution on the part of Waymo, who has trained their drivers on how to respond to harassment (including how to spot vehicles that are following them, as witnessed by a group of Arizona Republic reporters last December). Arizona is not the only place where this has happened – in California, during a 3 month period of 2018, 2 of the 6 accidents involving AVs were caused by other drivers intentionally colliding with the AV.

So where is this anger coming from? For some in Arizona, it was from feeling that their community was being used as a laboratory, with them as guinea pigs, by AV developers. Ironically, that line of thought has been cited by a number of people who currently oppose the deployment of test AVs in and around Silicon Valley. It’s rather telling that the employees of many of the companies pushing for AV testing don’t want it to occur in their own towns (some going as far as to threaten to “storm city hall” if testing came to Palo Alto…). Other objections may stem from people seeing AVs as a proxy for all automation, and the potential loss of jobs that entails.

So what can be done to make people trust AVs, or at least accept them enough to not run them off the road? On the jobs front, in June a group of Senators introduced a bill to have the Labor Department track jobs being displaced by automation. Responding to the changes brought on by automation is a center point of Democratic Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang’s campaign, and the issue has been raised by other candidates as well. The potential of automation to take away jobs is a long-standing issue made more visible by AVs on the road, and one that won’t be solved by AV proponents alone. What AV supporters have done and can continue to do is attempt to educate the public on now only potential befits of AV deployment (which PAVE, an industry coalition has done), but also better explain just how AV technology works. At least part of the AV fear stems from not understanding how the tech actually operates, and transparency in that vein could go a long way. Future test projects also need to be sure to get input from communities before they start testing, to ease the feeling of AVs being imposed upon an unwilling neighborhood. A recent debate over AV testing in Pittsburgh, where the city obtained funds for community outreach only after approving testing, leading to push back from community members, is a good example of how a proper pre-testing order-of-operations is vital.

For now, there is clearly a lot of room for public engagement and education. Developers should take advantage of this period where AVs are in the public eye without being widely deployed to build trust and understanding, so that once the vehicles start appearing everywhere they are met with open arms, or at least tolerated, rather than ran off the road. After all, while AVs themselves may not feel road rage, it’s already clear they can be victims of it.

P.S. – If you’re interested in learning more about negative reactions to robots, a good starting point is this NY Times article from January 2018.

In 2015, Google’s parent, Alphabet, decided the time was ripe for establishing a subsidiary in charge of investing in “smart infrastructure” projects – from waste to transport and energy. Its aim was specifically to implement such projects, transforming our urban landscape into a realm of dynamic and connected infrastructure pieces. Fast forward two years, and Sidewalk Labs had become embroiled in a smart city project covering a somewhat derelict (but highly valuable) area of the Toronto along the shores of Lake Ontario. 

Already in 2001, the Canadian metropolis set up the aptly named Waterfront Toronto (WT), a publicly-controlled corporation in charge of revitalizing the whole Lake Ontario waterfront along the city. WT then published early in 2017 a “Request for Proposals,” looking for an “investment and funding partner” for what would become known as the Quayside project. By the end of the year, the Alphabet subsidiary was chosen by WT.

It is important to note that this project was initially thought as a real estate one, and the desired innovation was to be found in building materials and carbon neutrality, while achieving certain goals in terms of social housing. There was no express desire for a model “smart city” of any sort, although the document does mention the usage of “smart technologies,” but always in the context of reducing building costs and improving the carbon footprint. 

Critics were quick to point out the puzzling choice; as innovative as it may be, Alphabet has no experience in real estate development. Rather, its core business is data processing and analytics, sometimes for research and often for advertisement purposes. What was meant to be a carbon-positive real-estate project seemed to be morphing into a hyper-connected (expensive) urban hub. 

And then came Sidewalk Labs’ detailed proposal. The visuals are neat; tellingly, there is not a single electronic device to be found in those pictures (is that one man on his cellphone?!) The words, however, tell another story. Carbon footprint and costs of building take a second seat to (personal) data processing: “Sidewalk expects Quayside to become the most measurable community in the world,” as stated in their winning proposal. One wonders whether the drafters of the proposal sincerely thought that, in this day an age, such a statement would fly with the public opinion. 

Critics of the project (who have since coalesced in the #BlockSidewalk movement) used the opportunity to dig deeper into WT itself, highlighting governance issues and the top-down character of the original Request for Proposals, beyond the plethora of data privacy questions (if not problems) the Sidewalk Labs proposal raised. In response, Sidewalk Labs deployed a vast campaign of public relations, whose success is far from guaranteed: they have “upgraded” their project, aiming for a bigger plot of land and even a new light rail plan (funded mostly on public money). At the time of this writing, WT has yet to make its final decision whether to retain the project of the Alphabet’s subsidiary. 

What lessons can we draw from this Toronto experience? “Smart city” projects are bound to become more commonplace, and while this one was not meant as such, some will be more straightforward in their aims. First, we should question the necessity of connecting every single thing and person. It matters to have in mind the social objectives of a given project, such as carbon footprint or building costs reduction. Collection of personal data can thus be articulated around and in function of those objectives, rather than as an end in itself. Connecting the park bench may be fancy, but for what purpose? More down to earth, the same question can be asked of street lights. 

As Christof Spieler reminds us in a recent tweet thread, certain municipal governments may be approached with “free” turnkey projects of connected infrastructure, in exchange (oh wait, it’s not free?) of both data and integration of the developer’s pre-existing systems into that infrastructure. Think of advertisements, and all the other possible monetization avenues… As Spieler points out, monetized smart infrastructure may come at a heavy social cost. 

Beyond that, one may wonder – who do we want as developers of such projects? Do we need the Sidewalk Labs of this world to realize the post-industrial heaven shown in the visuals of the Proposal? How will multinational data crunchers with an ominous track record make our cities smarter? The burden of proof is on them.

I recently wrote about a renewed federal push to regulate automated vehicles. I’ve previously highlighted a range of state regulatory schemes, including California’s relatively strict set of regulations. Meanwhile, the advent of truly automated vehicles, which seemed imminent when Waymo announced its driverless shuttle service in Phoenix, now may be farther away than we expected. Waymo’s shuttle’s still have human safety drivers, and the technology has not advanced as quickly as expected to handle all the vagaries of the road.

But as Congress and the states struggle to get a regulatory handle on this new technology, a recent Tesla update raises an important question. Is the regulatory state agile enough to adapt when the automated vehicle market evolves in unexpected ways?

Last week, Tesla unveiled “Smart Summon,” a feature in some vehicles that allows the user to summon the car to their location. With a range of 200 feet, Smart Summon is primarily designed for use in parking lots. At least one video shows its successful use in a Costco parking lot, avoiding pedestrians and other vehicles to meet its owner at the storefront. However, the feature is not limited to use in parking lots, and videos have emerged of users trying out Smart Summon on public roads, and even running in front of their vehicle to try and make the car chase them. Despite the potential dangers this technology presents, no one has yet been injured or hit by a driverless Tesla being summoned.

Despite the seriousness with which California takes automated vehicle regulation, state authorities have determined that Teslas equipped with Smart Summon are not autonomous, and thus do not need to meet California’s AV standards. Based on regulatory definitions, this is probably the correct. A state DMV spokesperson said the state defines AVs as vehicles able to drive without active physical control or monitoring by a human. Smart Summon requires a user to be attentive to their smartphone. Furthermore, its inability to operate more than 200 feet from a human controller means that it would not satisfy SAE autonomous driving level four or five.

Despite not being a true AV though, it’s clear that Smart Summon presents many of the same dangers as one. It operates in unpredictable parking lots, filled with pedestrians and vehicles and shopping carts all moving around each other in unpredictable ways. It is the sort of environment that can get dicey for a human driver, with our experience and understanding of the subtle signals humans give off to make an otherwise unexpected move a little bit more predictable. And despite a small-print company warning that Smart Summon requires “active driver supervision,” the amount of supervision anyone can truly give a moving vehicle from 200 feet away is certainly questionable.

And yet, these vehicle are not AVs. Instead, they seem to fall within an increasingly muddled gray area of transportation that is something short of fully automated, but requires much less than full and active driver attention. In California’s current regulatory environment, this technology fits neatly into a gap.

A year ago, many people assumed we were rapidly approaching the rise of Level 4 automated vehicles that could operate smoothly on city streets. Regulations developed at the time are written with that sort of technology in mind. Even one year out, legislators were not thinking of how to assure the safety of something like Smart Summon.

So how should something like Smart Summon be regulated? What will autonomous—or semi-autonomous—technology look like a year from now, and how can government agencies prepare for it? Given the unpredictable nature of an early stage technology, regulators will continue struggling to answer these questions.

The European Union recently adopted new rules to help consumers repair household appliances like refrigerators and televisions. The rules require manufacturers to provide spare parts for years after sale – the number of years depending on the device. The “Ecodesign Directive” is intended to help protect the environment by extending the life of consumer appliances. The regulation also applies to servers, requiring firmware updates for 7 years post-production. These regulations are part of a larger battle over consumers’ right to repair their belongings, including vehicles. Vehicles are already part of the right to repair discussion, and the deployment of technically complicated CAVs will ramp up that conversation, as some manufacturers seek to limit the ability of individuals to repair their vehicles.

One current battle over the right to repair is taking place in California. In September of last year, the California Farm Bureau, the agricultural lobbying group that represents farmers, gave up the right to purchase repair parts for farm equipment without going through a dealer. Rather than allowing farmers to buy parts from whomever they’d like, California farmers have to turn to equipment dealers, who previously were unwilling to even allow farmer’s access to repair manuals for vehicles they already owned. A big part of the dispute stems from companies like John Deere placing digital locks on their equipment that prevent “unauthorized” repairs – i.e. repairs done by anyone other than a John Deere employee. The company even made farmers sign license agreements forbidding nearly all repairs or modifications, and shielding John Deere from liability for any losses farmers may suffer from software failures. Some farmers resorted to using Ukrainian sourced firmware to update their vehicle’s software, rather than pay to hire a John Deere technician. The California case is especially ironic, as the state has solid right to repair laws for other consumer goods, requiring companies to offer repairs for electronics for 7 years after production (though companies like Apple have been fighting against the state passing even more open right to repair laws).

In 2018, supporters of the right to repair were boosted by a copyright decision from the Librarian of Congress, which granted an exception to existing copyright law to allow owners and repair professionals to hack into a device to repair it. The exception is limited, however, and doesn’t include things like video game consoles, though its’ language did include “motorized land vehicles.”

So how could battles over the right to repair influence the deployment of CAVs? First off, given the amount of complicated equipment and software that goes into CAVs, regulations like those recently adopted in the EU could help extend the lifespan of a vehicle. Cars last a long time, with the average American vehicle being 11.8 years old. Right to repair laws could require manufactures to supply the parts and software updates needed to keep CAVs on the road. New legislation could protect consumer access to the data within their vehicle, so they don’t have to rely on proprietary manufacturer systems to know what’s going on inside their vehicle. A 2011 study of auto repair shops showed a 24% savings for consumers who used a third-party repair shop over a dealership, so independent access to data and spare parts is vital to keeping consumer maintenance costs down. People are very used to taking their cars to independent repair shops or even fixing them at home, and many consumers are likely to want to keep their ability to do so as CAVs spread into service.

P.S. – Two updates to my drone post from last week:

Update 1 – University of Michigan (Go Blue!) researchers have demonstrated a drone that can be used to place shingles on a roof, using an interesting system of static cameras surrounding the work-site, rather than on-board cameras, though it remains to be seen how many people want a nail gun equipped drone flying over their head…

Update 2 – UPS has been granted approval to fly an unlimited number of delivery drones beyond line-of-sight, though they still can’t fly over urban areas. They have been testing the drones by delivery medical supplies on a North Carolina hospital campus.

Last week I covered the various companies who are seeking to use aerial drones to deliver goods to your door. Today, in the third part to my series on delivery (you’ll find Part 1 here, and an even earlier post on delivery, from December of 2018, here), I’m going to look at recent proposals to use automated vehicles to deliver consumer goods.

As an introduction, I’m going to include a paragraph from that December 2018 post as an introduction to some of the ways automated vehicles are being used to make deliveries :

The potential for CAVs as delivery vehicles is already being tested by companies like Domino’s and Kroger, among others. Earlier this year Toyota announced delivery partnerships with Amazon and Pizza Hut, and Waymo’s CEO recently highlighted it as an area of opportunity.  This week the New York Times profiled Nuro, the start-up working with Kroger to test robotic delivery cars in Scottsdale, Ariz. Nuro’s vehicles are designed in-house, and look like “toasters-on-wheels,” and are currently followed everywhere they go by human safety drivers in conventionally driven “shadow car.” When the vehicle stops for a delivery, customers enter a PIN code into a small touch pad to open the compartment containing their order. The current charge for same-day delivery using the system is around $6. Ford has also flagged the delivery market as an area they’d like to explore, citing projections that by 2026 the last-mile delivery market for CAVs will hit $130 billion.

Don’t Forget to Tip Your (Robotic) Delivery Driver – Dec. 21, 2018

Since that post, Domino’s has announced a partnership with Nuro as well, with plans to test in Houston at some point this year. Walmart has also jumped in on the action – partnering with another AV developer, Gatik. For now Walmart’s test is limited to a 2-mile route between two of their stores in the company’s hometown of Bentonville, Arkansas. Why the interest? In part because of the potential cost savings – a recent Ford estimate calculates AVs could reduce the cost per mile for deliveries from $2.50 to $1. No doubt the combination of lower costs and ever-greater demand for delivery is a powerful motivator, pushing companies to explore not only AVs, but also drones and delivery bots, as discussed in Parts I and II of this series.

Beyond last-mile deliveries, there is a great deal of interest in automating semi-trucks and other large delivery vehicles. One company, TuSimple, is working with both the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and UPS to move packages between cities. Interestingly, in UPS’ case, the company only announced the partnership after TuSimple had already been delivering goods for months – which seems to indicate the program is not just a grab for positive PR. The USPS’ test was more limited, running for two-weeks and five round trips. All of the trips included a safety driver and an engineer, and both tests were carried out in the Southwest. Meanwhile, in Sweden, a completely driverless electric truck was deployed in May, a global first. Given a nation-wide shortage of truck drivers (a recent estimate puts the U.S. deficit at roughly 60,000 drivers), automated trucks present a solution that doesn’t overly disrupt a truck-heavy commercial delivery system.

But what would the wide-spread adoption of AVs as part of the delivery ecosystem mean? We can already see that the demand for faster and faster delivery is taking its toll. Recently, the NY Times and Buzzfeed News both published articles detailing the human cost of Amazon’s push for same or next-day delivery. Under-trained drivers pushed to the limit have killed people in seemingly avoidable accidents that don’t often happen with more highly-trained delivery drivers (like those used by the USPS, UPS, and FedEx). Amazon has avoided liability by using a number of third-party companies as contractors, making those companies, and not Amazon, responsible for accidents. AVs would certainly be safer for the public, as they wouldn’t fall prey to the pressures of human drivers, though that does nothing to alleviate the pressures on the human delivery people, who would still be needed to move goods from the vehicle to a door. At the same time, Amazon may continue to escape liability, if the AVs remain owned by third parties. There is also the greater question of the environmental impact of the growing number of delivery vehicles on the road (not to mention the waste created by packing materials and shipping boxes). I’ll leave a greater discussion about those issues to future posts and other forums, but those questions, among so many others (privacy, cybersecurity, and traffic management among them) are important to consider as automated delivery vehicles of all kinds begin to fill our streets and skies.

P.S. – In a follow up to last week’s blog, the USPS has stated to investigate the use of aerial drones, and is now seeking information from drone operators and developers.

This is the much-delayed second part in a series of posts I started earlier this year. In that first post I discussed how companies are experimenting with small delivery robots that crawl along sidewalks to deliver goods right to your door. However, the sidewalk is not the only place where delivery drones may soon be found, as many companies are interested in using aerial drones to bring their products right to consumers.

In April, Wing, a division of Google parent company Alphabet, was given approval to start delivering goods via drone in Canberra, Australia. At launch, the drones were delivering food, medicine, and other products from 12 local businesses. This formal launch came after a trial period that ran for 18 months and 3,000 deliveries. Also in April, Wing received an FAA certification typically used for small airlines, as they begin to plan U.S. based tests, again with the intent to partner with local businesses. Not to be left behind, in June Amazon revealed it’s own delivery drone, which is indented to bring good directly from their warehouses to nearby customers within 30 minutes. Also in June, Uber announced a plan to partner with McDonalds to test delivery drones in San Diego. In Ohio, a partnership between the Air Force and the state government will allow drones to test outside of line-of-sight (a range that most civilian drones are currently limited to by the FAA). One company that intends to take part in the Ohio testing is VyrtX, which is looking to use drones to deliver human organs for transplant. 

But just what would wider use of such delivery drones mean for society? What would it mean to live in a world with robots buzzing around above our heads? In the Australian tests there were complaints about noise, with some residents claiming the sound of the machines caused them significant distress. In January of this year an unidentified drone shut down London’s Heathrow Airport, showing what can happen when drones wander into places they’re not welcome. In February of this year NASA announced two tests of “urban drone traffic management,” one in Texas, and the other in Nevada. Such a system would no doubt be necessary before widespread deployment of any of the systems so far proposed – to prevent incidents like the one in London.   

There is also a major privacy concern with drones collecting data as they fly above homes and businesses. This concern extends beyond just what privately owned drones may find, but also what law enforcement could collect. In Florida v. Riley, a 1988 case, the Supreme Court found that there is not reasonable expectation of privacy from aircraft (in that case, a police helicopter) flying in navigable airspace above a person’s home, when the air craft is flying within FAA regulations. So drones would provide a useful tool for investigations, and one that is limited only by FAA rules.

There are a lot of unanswered questions about delivery drones – and given the highly-regulated nature of all forms of air travel, the federal government, via the FAA, currently has a lot of power over just what can go on in U.S. airspace. What remains to be seen is if this regulatory structure will stifle drone development or instead insure that any market for delivery drones is developed deliberately, rather than ad hoc, with an emphasis on safety.

P.S. – A brief follow-up to my last article – Ford recently partnered with Agility Robotics on a new form of last mile delivery bot, a bipedal unit designed to carry up to 40 pounds. Could it become the C-3PO to the R2-D2-like bots already in testing?

Anyone currently living in a large city or an American college town has had some experiences with scooters – would that be the mere annoyance of having them zip around on sidewalks. Or, as a friend of mine did, attempt to use one without checking first where the throttle is…

Montréal, the economic and cultural capital of Québec province in Canada, has recently given temporary “test” licenses to micromobility scooters and bikes operators Bird, Lime and Jump, the latter two being owned by Google and Uber, respectively. 

Operations started late spring, among some skepticism from Montrealers. Not only in face of the strict regulations imposed by the city’s bylaw, but also the steep price of the services. As one article from the leading French language daily La Presse compares, a ride that takes slightly more than 20 minutes by foot would cost more than 4 Canadian dollars (about $3) with either Lime (scooters) or Jump (bikes), for a total ride time of 12 minutes. The subway and the existing dock-based bike-share service (BIXI) are cheaper, if not both cheaper and quicker. 

While Montréal’s young and active population segment can be understood as the perfect customer base for micromobility, its local government, like many others across the world who face a similar scooter invasion, really mean it with tough regulation. Closer to home, Ann Arbor banned Bird, Lyft and Lime earlier this spring for failure to cooperate; Nashville mayor attempted a blanket ban; Boulder is considering lifting its ban; several Californian cities are enforcing a strict geofencing policy; further away from the US, Amsterdam is also going to put cameras in place in order to better enforce its bikes-first regulation after having already handed out 3500 (!) individual fines over the course of a few months. As NPR reports, the trend is toward further tightening of scooter regulations across the board.

So is Montréal’s story any different? Not really. It faces the same chaotic parking situation as everywhere else, with misplaced scooters, found outside of their geofence or simply where they should not be. In its bylaw providing for the current test licenses, the city council came up with a new acronym: the unpronounceable VNILSSA, or DSUV in English. The English version stands for “dockless self-serve unimmatriculated vehicles”. The bylaw sets a high standard for operators: they are responsible for the proper parking of their scooters at all times. Not only can scooters only be parked in designated (and physically marked) parking areas, but the operator has two hours to deal with a misplaced scooter after receiving a complaint from the municipal government, with up to ten hours when such a complaint is made by a customer outside of business hours. In addition, customers must be 18 to ride and must wear a helmet. 

Tough regulations are nice, but are they even enforced? The wear-a-helmet part of the bylaw is the police’s task to enforce and there has not been much going on that front so far. As for the other parts, the city had been playing it cool, so far, giving a chance to the operators to adjust themselves. But that did not suffice: the mayor’s team recently announced the start of fining season, targeting both customers who misplace their scooter or bike if caught red-handed and the operators in other situations. The mayor’s thinly veiled expression of dissatisfaction earlier prompted Lime to send an email to all its customers, asking them in turn to email the mayor’s office with a pre-formatted letter praising the micromobility service. The test run was meant to last until mid-November, but it looks like may end early… The mobility director of the mayor’s team pledged that most of the data regarding complaints and their handling – data which operators must keep – would be published on the city’s open data portal at the end of the test run. 

If Chris Schafer, an executive at Lime Canada, believes that customers still need to be “educated” to innovative micro-mobility, Montréal’s story may prove once more that micromobility operators also need to be educated, when it comes to respecting the rules and consumers’ taste for responsible corporate behavior.

Back in January, I wrote about the auto industry’s growing sense that a set of nationwide regulatory standards was needed to govern automated vehicles (AVs). To date, twenty-nine states and Washington, DC have enacted AV-related legislation. A handful more have adopted Executive Orders or developed some other form of AV regulation. As the number of states with varying regulatory regimes continues to rise, the industry and some experts have grown concerned that the need to comply with a patchwork of disparate laws could hinder development of the industry.

Despite these concerns, and bipartisan support, the federal AV START Act died in the Senate at the close of 2018. After passing the House, a group of Senate Democrats became concerned that the bill focused too much on encouraging AV adoption at the expense of meaningful safety regulation. After the bill went down at the end of the year, the industry significantly reduced its lobbying efforts. This led some observers to conclude that the effort to pass AV START would not be renewed any time soon.

Never ones to let a good acronym go to waste, several members of Congress have begun work to revive the American Vision for Safer Transportation Through Advancement of Revolutionary Technologies (AV START) Act. Over the summer, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in both chambers held a series of meetings to discuss a new deal. Their hope is that, with Democrats now in control of the House, the safety concerns that stalled the bill in the upper chamber last winter will be assuaged earlier in the process.

Congress’ efforts, spearheaded by Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) appear to be making at least some headway. Both the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, sent letters to a variety of stakeholders requesting comments on a potential bill.

The legislature appears to be moving forward deliberately however, and to date no hearings on the subject have been scheduled in either the House or Senate. As Congress once again builds an effort to pass comprehensive AV legislation, this blog will be following and providing updates.

I previously blogged on automated emergency braking (AEB) standardization taking place at the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (also known as WP.29), a UN working group tasked with managing a few international conventions on the topic, including the 1958 Agreement on wheeled vehicles standards.

It turns out the World Forum recently published the result of a joint effort undertaken by the EU, US, China, and Japan regarding AV safety. Titled Revised Framework document on automated/autonomous vehicles, its purpose is to “provide guidance” regarding “key principles” of AV safety, in addition to setting the agenda for the various subcommittees of the Forum.

One may first wonder what China and the US are doing there, as they are not members to the 1958 Agreement. It turns out that participation in the World Forum is open to everyone (at the UN), regardless of membership in the Agreement. China and the US are thus given the opportunity to influence the adoption of one standard over the other through participation in the Forum and its sub-working groups, without being bound if the outcome is not to their liking in the end. Peachy!

International lawyers know that every word counts, and every word can be assumed to have been negotiated down to the comma, or so it is safe to assume. Using that kind of close textual analysis, what stands out in this otherwise terse UN prose? First, the only sentence couched in mandatory terms. Setting out the drafters’ “safety vision,” it goes as follows: AVs “shall not cause any non-tolerable risk, meaning . . . shall not cause any traffic accidents resulting in injury or death that are reasonably foreseeable and preventable.”

This sets the bar very high in terms of AV behavioral standard, markedly higher than for human drivers. We cause plenty of accidents which would be “reasonably foreseeable and preventable.” A large part of accidents are probably the result of human error, distraction, or recklessness, all things “foreseeable” and “preventable.” Nevertheless, we are allowed to drive and are insurable (except in the most egregious cases…) Whether this is a good standard for AVs can be discussed, but what is certain is that it reflects the general idea that we as humans hold machines to a much higher “standard of behavior” than other humans; we forgive other humans for their mistakes, but machines ought to be perfect – or almost so.

In second position: AVs “should ensure compliance with road traffic regulations.” This is striking by its simplicity, and I suppose that the whole discussion on how the law and its enforcement are actually rather flexible (such as the kind of discussion this very journal hosted last year in Ann Arbor) has not reached Geneva yet. As it can be seen in the report on this conference, one cannot just ask AVs to “comply” with the law; there is much more to it.

In third position: AV’s “should allow interaction with the other road users (e.g. by means of external human machine interface on operational status of the vehicle, etc.)” Hold on! Turns out this was a topic at last year’s Problem-Solving Initiative hosted by University of Michigan Law School, and we concluded that this was actually a bad idea. Why? First, people need to understand whatever “message” is sent by such an interface. Language may come in the way. Then, the word interaction suggests some form of control by the other road user. Think of a hand signal to get the right of way from an AV; living in a college town, it is not difficult to imagine how would such “responsive” AVs could wreak havoc in areas with plenty of “other road users,” on their feet or zipping around on scooters… Our conclusion was that the AV could send simple light signals to indicate its systems have “noticed” a crossing pedestrian for example, without any additional control mechanisms begin given to the pedestrian. Obviously, jaywalking in front on an AV would still result in the AV breaking… and maybe sending angry light signals or honking just like a human driver would do.

Finally: cybersecurity and system updates. Oof! Cybersecurity issues of IoT devices is an evergreen source of memes and mockery, windows to a quirky dystopian future where software updates (or lack thereof) would prevent one from turning the lights on, flushing the toilet, or getting out of the house… or where a botnet of connected wine bottles sends DDoS attacks across the web’s vast expanse. What about a software update while getting on a crowded highway from an entry ramp? In that regard, the language of those sections seems rather meek, simply quoting the need for respecting “established” cybersecurity “best practices” and ensuring system updates “in a safe and secured way…” I don’t know what cybersecurity best practices are, but looking at the constant stream of IT industry leaders caught in various cybersecurity scandals, I have some doubts. If there is one area where actual standards are badly needed, it is in consumer-facing connected objects.

All in all, is this just yet another useless piece of paper produced by an equally useless international organization? If one is looking for raw power, probably. But there is more to it: the interest of such a document is that it reflects the lowest common denominator among countries with diverging interests. The fact that they agree on something, (or maybe nothing) can be a vital piece of information. If I were an OEM or policy maker, it is certainly something I would be monitoring with due care.

“Safety.” A single word that goes hand-in-hand (and rhymes!) with CAV. If much has been said and written about CAV safety already (including on this very blog, here and there,) two things are certain: while human drivers seem relatively safe – when considering the number of fatalities per mile driven – there are still too many accidents, and increasingly more of them. 

The traditional approach to safely deploying CAVs has been to make them drive, drive so many miles, and with so few accidents and “disengagements,” that the regulator (and the public) would consider them safe enough. Or even safer than us!  

Is that the right way? One can question where CAVs are being driven. If all animals were once equal, not every mile can be equally driven. All drivers know that a mile on a straight, well-maintained road by a fine sunny day is not the same as a mile drive on the proverbially mediocre Michigan roads during a bout of freezing rain. The economics are clear; the investments in AV technology will only turn a profit through mass deployment. Running a few demos and prototypes in Las Vegas won’t cut it; CAVs need to be ready to tackle the diversity of weather patterns we find throughout the world beyond the confines of the US South-West.

Beyond the location, there is the additional question of whether such “testing” method is the right one in the first place. Many are challenging what appears to be the dominant approach, most recently during this summer’s Automated Vehicle Symposium. Their suggestion: proper comparison and concrete test scenarios. For example, rather than simply aiming for the least amount of accidents per 1000’s of miles driven, one can measure break speed at 35mph, in low-visibility and wet conditions, when a pedestrian appears 10 yards in front of the vehicle. In such a scenario, human drivers can meaningfully be compared to software ones. Furthermore, on that basis, all industry players could come together to develop a safety checklist which any CAV must be able to pass before hitting the road. 

Developing a coherent (and standardized?) approach to safety testing should be at the top of the agenda, with a looming push in Congress to get the AV bill rolling. While there are indications that the industry might not be expecting much from the federal government, this bill still has the possibility of allowing CAVs on the road without standardized safety tests, which could result in dire consequences for the industry and its risk-seeking members. Not to mention that a high-risk business environment squeezes out players with shallower pockets (and possibly innovation) and puts all road users, especially those without the benefit of a metal rig around them, at physical and financial risk were an accident to materialize. Signs of moderation, such as Cruise postponing the launch of its flagship product, allows one to be cautiously hopeful that “go fast and break things” mentality will not take hold in the automated driving industry.

*Correction 9/9/19 – A correction was made regarding the membership to 1958 Agreement and participation at the World Forum.

A European Commission plan to implement the connected car-specific 802.11p “Wi-Fi” standard for vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication was scrapped early July after a committee of the Council of the European Union (which formally represents individual member states’ during the legislative process) rejected it. The standard, also known as ITS-G5 in the EU, operates in the same frequency range as domestic Wi-Fi, now most often deployed under the 802.11n specification.

The reason for this rejection were made clear by the opponents of “Wi-Fi V2V”: telecommunication operators, and consortia of IT equipment and car manufacturers (such as BMW and Qualcomm) would never allow locking out 5G and its ultra-low latency, “vehicle-to-everything” (V2X) solutions. In turn, countries with substantial industrial interest in those sectors (Germany and Finland, to name only two,) opposed the Commission plan.

Yet it appears that Commissioner Bulc had convincing arguments in favor of 802.11p. In her letter to the European Parliament’s members, she stresses that the technology is available now, and can be successfully and quickly implemented, for immediate improvements in road safety. In her view, failure to standardize now means that widespread V2V communication will not happen until the “5G solutions” come around.

5G is a polarizing issue, and information about it is often tainted with various industries’ talking points. It first matters to differentiate 5G as the follow-up on 4G, and 5G as the whole-new-thing-everyone-keeps-talking-about. As the follow up on 4G, 5G is the technology that underpins data delivery to individual cellphones. It operates mostly in higher frequencies than current 4G, higher frequencies which have a lower range and thus require more antennas. That in turn explains why most current cellphone 5G deployments are concentrated in large cities.

The “other” 5G is based on a promise: the higher the frequency, the higher the bandwidth and the lower the latency. Going into the hundreds of GHz, 5G theoretically delivers large bandwidth (in the range of 10 Gbps) in less than 1ms, with the major downside of a proportionally reduced range and ability to penetrate dense materials.

The logical conclusions of these technical limitations is that the high-bandwidth, low-latency 5G, set to revolutionize the “smart”-everything and that managed to gather some excitement will become a reality the day our cities are literally covered with antennas at every street corner, on every lamppost and stop sign. Feasible over decades in cities (with whose money, though?), a V2X world based on a dense mesh of antennas looks wholly unrealistic in lower density areas.

Why does it make sense, then, to kick out a simple, cheap and patent-free solution to V2V communication in favor of a costly and hypothetical V2X?

Follow the money, one would have said: what is key in this debate is understanding the basic economics of 5G. As the deployment goes on, it is those who hold the “Standard Essential Patents” (SEPs) who stand to profit the most. As reported by Nikkei in May 2019, China leads the march with more than a third of SEPs, followed by South Korea, the US, Finland, Sweden and Japan.

If the seat of the V2V standard is already taken by Wi-Fi, that is one less market to recoup the costs of 5G development. It thus does not come as a surprise that Finland was one of the most vocal opponents to the adoption of 802.11p, despite having no car industry – its telecom and IT sector have invested heavily in 5G and are visibly poised to reap the rewards.

Reasonable engineers may disagree on the merits of 802.11p – as the United States’ own experience with DSRC, based on that same standard, shows. Yet, the V2X 5G solutions are nowhere to be seen now, and investing in such solutions was and remains to this day a risky enterprise. Investments required are huge, and one can predict there will be some public money involved at some point to deploy all that infrastructure.

“The automotive industry is now free to choose the best technology to protect road users and drivers” said Lise Fuhr, director general of the European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association (ETNO) after their win at the EU Council. I would rather say: free to choose the technology that will preserve telcos’ and some automakers’ risky business model. In the meantime, European citizens and taxpayers subsidize that “freedom” with more car accidents and fatalities, not to speak of other monetary costs 5G brings about. The seat will have been kept warm until the day their 5G arrives – if it does – at some point between 2020 and 2025. In the meantime, users will have to satisfy ourselves of with collision radars, parking cameras, cruise control and our good ol’ human senses.

One of the most persistent issues in public transportation is the so-called “last mile” problem. The essence of the problem is that, if the distance between the nearest transit stop and a rider’s home or office is too far to comfortably walk, potential riders will be more likely to drive than use public transit. The rise of smartphone enabled mobility options like ridesharing, bike-share, and e-scooters have been pitched as potential solutions to this problem. However, some cities have found that these technologies may create as many problems as they solve.

This post will focus in particular on the rise of e-scooters. Over roughly the last two years, e-scooters from companies like Bird and Lime have proliferated across American cities. Often appearing seemingly out of nowhere as companies frequently launch the product by dropping off a batch of scooters overnight without warning, they have been a source of angst for many city officials.

As the scooters spread, ridership has proliferated. Thanks to ease of use, the proliferation of smartphones, and increasing comfort with new forms of mobility, ridership has accelerated at a faster pace than ride-hailing apps, bikeshare programs, or other mobility platforms that have developed in recent years.

With this growth though has come challenges. In June, Nashville chose to ban e-scooters in the aftermath of the city’s first rider death. Last year, in response to concerns about safety and obstruction of sidewalks, Cleveland banned e-scooters. In the initial rollout period Cleveland was far from alone, as cities from St. Louis to San Francisco to Santa Monica also moved to ban or significantly reduce the number of scooters allowed.

Some of these bans, or at least use restrictions, may have been justified. Because they have no defined ports at which to be put away, scooters are often left blockading the sidewalk. At least 8 scooter riders have died in crashes, and users often remain confused about what laws apply to them and where they can ride. Hospitals across the country have seen a spike in emergency room visits related to scooter crashes, and the Centers for Disease Control has found that head trauma is the most common injury resulting from a scooter crash.

Slowly though, cities have begun experimenting with ways to let scooters in without letting them run wild. Last month Cleveland allowed scooters back in, with new limitations on where they are allowed to go and who is allowed to ride. Norfolk, VA recently contracted with e-scooter company Lime to allow them to have a local monopoly over scooter service in the city. The move may allow Norfolk greater control over how Lime operates within its borders, which could ultimately increase safety.

Given the obvious potential for e-scooters to increase mobility to parts of a city that aren’t within easy walking distance of transit stations, cities should continue working to find ways to allow them in while mitigating safety concerns. The results in cities like Norfolk and Cleveland that are working to introduce regulation to this new industry will be important to watch in the coming months.

In my previous posts, I have written a lot about city design and integrating emerging forms of transit, primarily automated vehicles, into the transportation landscape of a city. I am spending this summer in Washington, DC, and am getting an up-close look at this city’s transit options. I left my car behind for the summer, so for the first time in years, I am entirely reliant on public transportation, ridesharing apps, and my own feet to navigate the city. In the process, I have learned a few things that I plan to explore in more depth over the course of the summer. For now, here are the highlights:

1. Scooters do provide important transit for at least some people:

My house is about 0.6 miles from the bus line I take to work. So far, I have walked to that stop every morning. Along the way though, I see people riding by on scooters between the metro or bus station and their homes. It may yet be the case that scooters are a passing fad, and for now they appear – at least anecdotally – to have been adopted primarily by younger people. And to be sure, regulating them has been controversial in cities across the nation, which I plan to address in a coming post. For now though, they do show promise as a “last-mile” transit option for people who prefer not to drive.

2. A wide range of transit options improves access and reliability:

I ride the bus to and from work every day. When I want to explore the city on weekends, I take the metro downtown. I was running late to meet a friend the other day, and got an Uber. Others use scooters or the city’s bike-share program to get where they need to go. All of these options will work better or worse for different people, and for different purposes. All of them operating together can create a more functional, accessible transit system that serves the entire city.

3. Walkable neighborhoods ease the burden on a city’s transit system:

I live in a neighborhood with a grocery store, a Target, and a handful of bars and restaurants within a few blocks radius. As a consequence, I can walk just about everywhere I have to go except my office. Later this summer, I plan to explore ways in which cities can encourage development of walkable neighborhoods, thus easing the burden on overtaxed public transit systems and reducing the use of personal cars in the long run.

4. Affordable housing is directly linked to transit equity:

Perhaps this goes without saying, but a good, comprehensive transit network within a city does little good for the people who cannot afford to live in that city. This week, I’ve spoken with a couple people in my office who live an hour outside the city because it’s more affordable than living here. They drive to the farthest out metro stations, park there then ride into the city. To be sure, this still reduces congestion within the city. But good, reliable public transit is primarily important for the quality of life, cost savings, and environmental benefits that come with reduced use of personal automobiles and shorter commutes. People who have to commute a long way to even get to the public transit system in the city where they work are largely left out of those benefits.

As we move towards a future of fully automated vehicles, the types of crime – and attendant need for criminal enforcement – committed with cars is likely to evolve. As our transit system becomes more automated, the danger of a hack, and the difficulty of discovering the crime through ordinary policing tactics, is likely to increase. Some experts have expressed concerns that automated vehicles would be just as easy to use for delivery of drugs or guns as for more innocuous packages. Others, such as Duke University professor Mary Cummings, say that vehicles are too easy to hack and steer off course.

Going beyond relatively ordinary crimes such as theft, an unclassified FBI report obtained by The Guardian revealed the agency’s concern that autonomous vehicles could be commandeered and utilized as a “potential lethal weapon” or even self-driving bomb.

The likelihood that automated vehicles will generally obey the traffic laws complicates the ability of police to find crimes being committed with these vehicles using traditional methods. As I have written previously, traffic stops prompted by minor violations are a point of contact at which cops often look for evidence of more serious crime. While there is some hope that a reduction in such stops may reduce racial bias in policing, it also highlights the need for law enforcement to reduce dependence on this method of tracking serious crime.

While the potential for criminal activity or even terrorism using automated vehicles is a real possibility, some experts are less concerned. Arthur Rizer, from the conservative think tank R Street Institute, argued that the lives saved by adoption of driverless technology will far outweigh any risk of criminal or terror threat from a hacking. Rizer calls the risk “minute compared to the lives that we will save just from reducing traffic accidents.”

If a significant portion of the roughly 40,000 traffic fatalities per year can be prevented by the adoption of automated vehicles, Rizer is likely correct that the benefits will outweigh any risk that vehicles will be hacked by bad actors. Nevertheless, there is a possibility that, as CalTech professor Patrick Lin warns, automated vehicles “may enable new crimes that we can’t even imagine today.” Going forward, it will be important for law enforcement to develop new techniques of tracking crime facilitated by automated vehicles.

All the way back in December, I wrote about how various companies, including Amazon (in partnership with Toyota), Postmates, Domino’s and Kroger were all working on using CAVs and drones to deliver goods to consumers. Since then there have been a number of news stories on similar projects across the globe, which deserve some attention, as you’ll see in this, the first of three posts:

On the Ground

In my December post I talked about Postmates’ testing of delivery robots that could bring products directly to your door. This winter similar ‘bots were deployed on the campuses of the University of the Pacific (sponsored by PepsiCo), and George Mason University (via start-up Starship Technologies and food-services giant Sodexo). College campuses, which tend to feature greater walkability and an always snack-craving populace, seem to be the perfect testing ground for such systems. And the robots seem to have made a difference in the eating habits, at least at George Mason – with an additional 1,500 breakfast orders being delivered via robot. This may be due to the fact the robots were integrated into the campus meal plan, meaning students weren’t just able to order snacks, but could order full meals and pay for them via their meal plan.  

While these delivery services may be seen as saviors to hung-over college students in need of a bacon, egg, and cheese sandwich, the expansion of such programs does raise issues. Just as ridesharing has changed the way cities have to manage curb space, delivery ‘bots raise questions of sidewalk management. Just how much of public space should we cede to commercial use? How will the ‘bots be programmed to “share the road” with pedestrians. Of course, that may not be as big of an issue in more sprawling American cites that don’t have the same density of foot traffic. They’ll also have to content with being messed with by humans, as was the case in this video, where a ‘bot’s cameras were intentionally covered in snow (there is a happy ending, as seen in the footage – after a good Samaritan cleaned off  the camera the ‘bot continues on its way, after saying “thank you!” to its’ human helper). In an attempt to get ahead of these issues San Francisco banned sidewalk delivery ‘bots in 2017, and has only slowly opened up room for testing. Will other cities follow suit? Or will they open the floodgates? Currently, the California DMV is considering new rules on delivery ‘bots and car-sized autonomous delivery vehicles, so look for a follow-up blog once those are out.

Given my continued interest in data collection and privacy, (an interest echoed in more recent blog posts by Kevin – available here, here, and here) I’d be remiss to not flag those issues here. (those issues also come up in the context of aerial deliveries, discussed in our next post). Not only would sidewalk based delivery ‘bots collect data on the items you order and when, they could potentially collect data about your home or its surrounding environment (think back to when Google was caught collecting wi-fi data with its’ Street View cars).

In our next post – aerial delivery drones!

Many have claimed that EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) would “kill AI”. Shortly after its entry into force at the end of May 2018, the New York Times was already carrying industry concerns: “the new European data privacy legislation is so stringent that it could kill off data-driven online services and chill innovations like driverless cars, tech industry groups warn.” Following that train of thought, news outlets, general and specialized alike, have since then piled up on how such regulations on “data” would generally be harmful to innovation.

To be sure, other voices make themselves heard too. When trust in a technology is at stake, heralds of that technology understand that appearing to embrace regulation is a good PR move. Yet, beyond what could be seen as a cynical attitude, there are the pragmatists too. For them, regulation is a given, and with the right mindset, it can be transformed into an advantage.

This is such a mindset one could expect for European Union institutions. Speaking at a tech conference in Slovenia last April, EU Commissioner for Transport Violeta Bulc painted a rosy future for European transportation. Not only is Europe ready for automation, but it is embracing it. Already, car manufacturers must integrate certain automation components to all their new cars, such as lane assistance, distraction sensors and a black box used to “determine the cause of accidents.” And then not only cars, but ships, planes, trains, even drones are part of the EU’s vision for an integrated transportation system, as part of the “mobility as a service,” or MaaS vision. To support that MaaS (all-electric and paperless,) a “European GPS,” Galileo, and widespread 5G deployment, with even a priority on rural areas!

Is this all fluff? Far from seeking refuge from overbearing European red tape, most European AI and automation leaders see themselves in a “tortoise and the hare” paradigm: let the US innovators go fast and break things; we’ll take steady measured steps forward, but we’ll get there, and maybe even before the US. This is what a recent Bloomberg feature article on the booming European automation scene. Concretely, what are these steps? As far as AVs go, the first and main one is shared data sharing. Intense AV testing might be Arizona’s and California’s go-to model. But what is the use case for Waymo’s car beyond the dry, wide, and dunny streets of Phoenix? What about dense urban environments with narrow streets, like in Europe? Or snowy, low-density countryside roads, of which there are plenty in the US during the winter months? Safety in mass deployment will come from the capacity to aggregate everyone’s data, not just your own.

The most surprising part is that this push to open the “walled gardens” of the large OEMs does not even come from the government, but from tech firms. One of them, Austrian, is working an open AV operating system, with the intention to keep safety at the core of its business philosophy. As its founder told Bloomberg, “open to information sharing” is a requirement for safety. With such an angle, one is not surprised to read that the main challenge the company faces is the standardization of data flows; a tough challenge. But isn’t what innovation is about?

While the clever scientists won’t give the press all their tricks, many appear confident, stating simply that working with such regulations simply requires a “different approach.”

A couple weeks ago, I wrote a post outlining the fledgling legal efforts to address the increasingly urgent privacy concerns related to automated vehicles. While Europe’s General Data Privacy Regulation and California’s Consumer Privacy Act set a few standards to limit data sharing, the US as a whole has yet to seriously step into the field of data privacy. In the absence of national regulation in the United States, this post will look at an industry created standard. The auto industry standard is important not only for its present-day impact on how auto companies use our personal information, but also for the role it is likely to play in influencing any eventual Congressional legislation on the subject.

In 2014, two major industry trade associations – the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers collaborated to create a set of guiding principles for collection and management of consumer data. These twenty automakers, including the “Big Three” in the US and virtually every major auto company around the globe, created a list of seven privacy protection principles to abide by in the coming years.

In the list, two of the principles are somewhat well fleshed out: transparency and choice. On transparency, the automakers have pledged to provide “clear, meaningful information” about things like the types of information collected, why that information is collected, and who it is shared with. For certain types of information, primarily the collection of geolocation, biometric, or driver behavior information, the principles go one step further, requiring “clear, meaningful, and prominent notices.”  When it comes to choice, the industry says that simply choosing to use a vehicle constitutes consent for most types of data collection. Affirmative consent is sometimes required when geolocation, biometric or driver behavior data is shared, but that requirement contains several important exceptions that allow the automaker to share such data with their corporate partners.

The remaining five: respect for context; data minimization, de-identification and retention; data security; integrity and access, and; accountability may serve as important benchmarks going forward. For now, each of these five points contains no more than a handful of sentences pledging things like “reasonable measures.”

These industry-developed privacy protection principles are, for the most part, still pretty vague. The document describing all seven of them in-depth runs a mere 12 pages. In order for the standards to be truly meaningful, much more needs to be known about what constitutes reasonable measures, and in what sorts of situations geolocation, biometric, or driver behavior data can be shared. Furthermore, consumers should know whether the automaker’s corporate partners are bound by the same limits on data sharing to which the manufacturers have held themselves.

Without more detail, it is unclear whether these principles afford consumers any more protections than they would have otherwise had. They are important nonetheless for two reasons. They show that the industry at least recognizes some potential problems with unclear data-sharing rules, and they will likely play a key role in the development of any future legislation or federal regulation on the topic.

For the past several months, this blog has primarily focused on new legal questions that will be raised by connected and automated vehicles. This new transportation technology will undoubtedly raise novel concerns around tort liability, traffic stops, and city design. Along with raising novel problems, CAVs will also add new urgency to longstanding legal challenges. In some ways, this is best encapsulated in the field of privacy and data management.

In recent decades, the need to understand where our data goes has increased exponentially. The smartphones that most of us carry around every day are already capable of tracking our location, and recording a lot of our personal information. In addition to this computer/data generation machine in our pockets, the CAV will be a supercomputer on wheels, predicted to generate 4,000 gigabytes of data per day. Human driven vehicles with some automated features, such as Tesla’s with the company’s “Autopilot” functionality, already collect vast amounts of user data. Tesla’s website notes that the company may access a user’s browsing history, navigation history, and radio listening history, for example.

In response to this growing concern, California recently passed a sweeping new digital privacy law, set to take effect in 2020. Nicknamed “GDPR-Lite” after the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, California’s law “grants consumers the right to know what information companies are collecting about them, why they are collecting that data and with whom they are sharing it.” It also requires companies to delete data about a customer upon request, and mandates that companies provide the same quality and cost of service to users who opt out of data collection as those who opt in.

In comparison to the GDPR, California’s law is relatively limited in scope. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is tailored to apply only to businesses that are relatively large or that are primarily engaged in the business of collecting and selling personal data. Furthermore, CCPA contains few limitations on what a business can do internally with data it collects. Instead, it focuses on the sale of that data to third parties.

In many ways, it remains too early to evaluate the effectiveness of California’s approach. This is in part because the law does not take effect until the beginning of next year. The bill also enables the California Attorney General to issue guidance and regulations fleshing out the requirements of the bill. These as-yet-unknown regulations will play a major role in how CCPA operates in practice.

Regardless of its uncertainties and potential shortcomings though, CCPA is likely to play a significant role in the future of American data privacy law and policy. It is the first significant privacy legislation in the US to respond to the recent tech boom, and it comes out of a state that is the world’s fifth largest economy. CCPA’s implementation will undoubtedly provide important lessons for both other states and the federal government as they consider the future of data privacy.

With roughly a clip a month – most of these being corporate fluff – Waymo’s YouTube channel is not the most exciting nor informative one. At least, those (like me) who keep looking for clues about Waymo’s whereabouts should not expect anything to come out of there.

That was until February 20th, when Waymo low-key published a 15 second clip of their car in action – the main screen showing a rendering of what the car “sees” and the corner thumbnail showing the view from the dash cam. The key point: Waymo’s car apparently crosses a broken-lights, police-controlled intersection without any hurdle. Amazing! Should we conclude that level 5 is at our very doorsteps?

The car and tech press was quick to spot this one, and reports were mostly praise. Yet Brad Templeton, in his piece for Forbes pinpoints at a few things that the clip does not say. First, we have the fact that Waymo operates in a geographically-enclosed area, where the streets, sidewalk and other hard infrastructure (lights, signs, and probably lines) are pre-mapped and already loaded in the algorithm. In other words, Waymo’s car does not discover stuff as it cruises along the streets of Northern California. Moreover, the street lights here do not work and so technically, this is just another four-way stop-signed intersection, with the difference that it is rather busy and there is a traffic police directing traffic in the middle. Finally, the car just goes straight, which is by far the easiest option (no left turn, for example…)

Beyond that, what Waymo alleges and wants us to see, is that car “recognizes” the policeman, or at the very least, recognizes that there is something person-shaped standing in the middle of the intersection and making certain gestures at the car, and that the car’s sensors and Waymo’s algorithms are now at the level of being able to understand hand signals of law enforcement officers.

Now I heard, less than a year ago, the CEO of a major player in the industry assert that such a thing was impossible – in reference to CAVs being able to detect and correctly interpret hand signals cyclists sometime use. It seems that a few months later, we’re there. Or are we? One issue which flew more or less under the radar, is how exactly does the car recognize the LEO here? Would a random passerby playing traffic cop have the same effect? If so, is that what we want?

As a member of the “Connected and Automated Vehicles: Preparing for a Mixed Fleet Future” Problem Solving Initiative class held at the University of Michigan Law School last semester, my team and I have had the opportunity to think about just that – how to make sure that road interactions stay as close as possible as they are today – and conversely how to foreclose awkward interactions or possible abuses that “new ways to communicate” would add. Should a simple hand motion be able to “command” a CAV? While such a question cuts across many domains, our perspective was a mostly legal one and our conclusion was that any new signal that CAV technology enables (from the perspective of pedestrians and other road users) should be non-mandatory and limited to enabling mutual understanding of intentions without affecting the behavior of the CAV. Now what we see in this video is the opposite; seemingly, the traffic police person is not equipped with special beacons that broadcast some form of “law enforcement” signal, and it is implied – although, unconfirmed – that there is no human intervention. We are left awed, maybe, but reassured? Maybe not.

The takeaway may be just this: the issues raised by this video are real ones, and are issues Waymo, and others, will at some point have to address publicly. Secrecy may be good for business, but only so much. Engagement by key industry players is of the highest importance, if we want to foster trust and avoid having the CAV technology crash land in our societies.

Earlier this month, the Journal of Law and Mobility hosted our first annual conference at the University of Michigan Law School. The event provided a great opportunity to convene some of the top minds working at the intersection of law and automated vehicles. What struck me most about the conference, put on by an organization dedicated to Law and mobility, was how few of the big questions related to automated vehicles are actually legal questions at this point in their development.

The afternoon panel on whether AVs should always follow the rules of the road as written was emblematic of this juxtaposition. The panel nominally focused on whether AVs should follow traffic laws. Should an automated vehicle be capable of running a red light, or swerving across a double yellow line while driving down the street? Should it always obey the posted speed limit?

The knee-jerk reaction of most people would probably be something along the lines of, “of course you shouldn’t program a car that can break the law.” After all, human drivers are supposed to follow the law. So why should an automated vehicle, which is programmed in advance by a human making a sober, conscious choice, be allowed to do any differently?

Once you scratch the surface though, the question becomes much more nuanced. Human drivers break the law in all kinds of minor ways in order to maintain safety, or in response to the circumstances of the moment. A human driver will run a red light if there is no cross-traffic and the car bearing down from behind is showing no signs of slowing down. A human will drive into the wrong lane or onto the shoulder to avoid a downed tree branch, or a child rushing out into the street. A human driver may speed away if they notice a car near them acting erratically. All of these actions, although they violate the law, may be taken in the interest of safety in the right circumstances. Even knowing they violated the law, a human driver who was ticketed in such a circumstance would feel their legal consequence was unjustified.

If automated vehicles should be able to break the law in at least some circumstances, the question shifts – which circumstances? Answering that question is beyond the scope of this post. At the moment, I don’t think anyone has the right answer. Instead, the point of this post is to highlight the type of moment-to-moment decisions every driver makes every day to keep themselves and those around them safe. The rules of the road provide a rough cut, codifying what will be best for most people most of the time. They could not possibly anticipate every situation and create a special legal rule for that situation. If they tried, the traffic laws would quickly grow to fill several libraries.

In my view, the question of whether an AV should be able to break the law is only tangentially a legal question. After arriving at an answer of, “probably sometimes,” the question quickly shifts to when, and in what circumstances, and whether the law needs to adapt to make different maneuvers legal. These questions have legal aspects to them, but they are also moral and ethical questions weighted with a full range of human driving experience.  Answering them will be among the most important and difficult challenges for the AV industry in the coming years.

The “Trolley Problem” has been buzzing around for a while now, so much that it became the subject of large empirical studies which aimed at finding a solution to it that be as close to “our values” as possible, as more casually the subject of an episode of The Good Place.

Could it be, however, that the trolley problem isn’t one? In a recent article, the EU Observer, an investigative not-for-profit outlet based in Brussels, slashed at the European Commission for its “tunnel vision” with regards to CAVs and how it seems to embrace the benefits of this technological and social change without an ounce of doubt or skepticism. While there are certainly things to be worried about when it comes to CAV deployment (see previous posts from this very blog by fellow bloggers here and here) the famed trolley might not be one of those.

The trolley problem seeks to illustrate one of the choices that a self-driving algorithm must – allegedly – make. Faced with a situation where the only alternative to kill is to kill, the trolley problem asks the question of who is to be killed: the young? The old? The pedestrian? The foreigner? Those who put forward the trolley problem usually do so in order to show that as humans, we are forced with morally untenable alternative when coding algorithms, like deciding who is to be saved in an unavoidable crash.

The trolley problem is not a problem, however, because it makes a number of assumptions – too many. The result is a hypothetical scenario which is simple, almost elegant, but mostly blatantly wrong. One such assumption is the rails. Not necessarily the physical ones, like those of actual trolleys, but the ones on which the whole problem is cast. CAVs are not on rails, in any sense of the word, and their algorithms will include the opportunity to go “off-rails” when needed – like get on the shoulder or on the sidewalk. The rules of the road incorporate a certain amount of flexibility already, and such flexibilities will be built in the algorithm.

Moreover, the very purpose of the constant sensor input processed by the driving algorithm is precisely to avoid putting the CAV in such a situation where the only options that remain are collision or collision.

But what if? What if a collision is truly unavoidable? Even then, it is highly misleading to portray CAV algorithm design as a job where one has to incorporate a piece of code specific to every single decision to be made in the course of driving. The CAV will never be faced with an input of the type we all-too-often present the trolley problem: go left and kill this old woman, go right and kill this baby. The driving algorithm will certainly not understand the situation as one where it would kill someone; it may understand that a collision is imminent and that multiple paths are closed. What would it do, then? Break, I guess, and steer to try to avoid a collision, like the rest of us would do.

Maybe what the trolley problem truly reveals is the idea that we are uneasy with automated cars causing accidents – that is, they being machines, we are much more comfortable with the idea that they will be perfect and will be coded so that no accident may ever happen. If, as a first milestone, CAVs are as safe as human drivers, that would certainly be a great scientific achievement. I do recognize however that it might not be enough for the public perception, but that speaks more of our relationship to machines than to any truth behind the murderous trolley. All in all, it is unfortunate that such a problem continues to keep brains busy while there are more tangible problems (such as what to do with all those batteries) which deserve research, media attention and political action.

The common story of automated vehicle safety is that by eliminating human error from the driving equation, cars will act more predictably, fewer crashes will occur, and lives will be saved. That future is still uncertain though. Questions still remain about whether CAVs will truly be safer drivers than humans in practice, and for whom they will be safer. In the remainder of this post, I will address this “for whom” question.

A recent study from Benjamin Wilson, Judy Hoffman, and Jamie Morgenstern at Georgia Tech found that state-of-the-art object detection systems – the type used in autonomous vehicles – demonstrate higher error rates in detection of darker-skinned pedestrians as compared to lighter-skinned pedestrians. Controlling for things like time-of-day or obstructed views, the technology was five percentage points less accurate at detecting people with darker skin-tones.

The Georgia Tech study is far from the first report of algorithmic bias. In 2015, Google found itself at the center of controversy when its algorithm for Google Photos incorrectly classified some black people as gorillas. More than two years later, Google’s temporary fix of removing the label “gorilla” from the program entirely was still in place. The company says they are working on a long-term fix to their facial recognition software. However, the continued presence of the temporary solution several years after the initial firestorm is some indication either of the difficulty of achieving a real solution or the lack of any serious coordinated response across the tech industry.

Algorithmic bias is a serious problem that must be tackled with a serious investment of resources across the industry. In the case of autonomous vehicles, the problem could be literally life and death. The potential for bias in automated systems begs for an answer to serious moral and legal questions. If a car is safer overall, but more likely to run over a black or brown pedestrian than a white one, should that car be allowed on the road? What is the safety baseline against which such a vehicle should be judged? Is the standard, “The AV should be just as likely (hopefully not very likely) to hit any given pedestrian?” Or is it “The AV should hit any given pedestrian less often than a human driven vehicle would?” Given our knowledge of algorithmic bias, should an automaker be opened up to more damages if their vehicle hits a black or brown pedestrian than when it hits a white pedestrian? Do tort law claims, like design defect or negligence, provide adequate incentive for automakers to address algorithmic bias in their systems? Or should the government set up a uniform system of regulation and testing around the detection of algorithmic bias in autonomous vehicles and other advanced, potentially dangerous technologies?

These are questions that I cannot answer today. But as the Georgia Tech study and the Google Photos scandal demonstrate, they are questions that the AV industry, government, and society as a whole will need to address in the coming years.

In the coming decades, advancing technology is likely to strain many tried-and-true legal concepts.  The tort law cause of action for design defects is likely to be among the most impacted. This post will explore the current understanding of design defect claims, and highlight areas where autonomous vehicles and other highly complex technologies will likely lead to a rethinking of the doctrine.

As outlined in the Third Restatement of Torts, design defect claims can be brought against a manufacturer when “the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design . . . and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe.” Essentially, plaintiffs who bring a design defect claim after being harmed by a product bear the burden of showing that the product was designed unreasonably for its intended use, and that an alternative design would have been safer for the user and reasonable for the manufacturer to adopt.

Traditionally, courts have adopted one of two tests to determine the reasonableness of a product design under these claims. Under the consumer expectations test, the key question is whether a product performed up to the level at which an ordinary consumer would expect. Because this test is based on the expectations of an ordinary consumer (one who is presumed to not have any special knowledge about the product), a claim can be successful without any expert testimony about the alleged design failure, as in McCabe v. American Honda Motor Corp.

Alternatively, many courts have adopted the risk-utility test for proving a design defect. The risk-utility test is more akin to cost-benefit balancing. The South Carolina Supreme Court in Branham v. Ford Motor Co. noted that the risk-utility test balances “numerous factors . . . including the usefulness and desirability of the product, the cost involved for added safety, the likelihood and potential seriousness of injury, and the obviousness of danger.” As this test requires testimony on cost of the current design and any proposed alternatives, it will require expert testimony and specialized knowledge, unlike the consumer expectations test.

Some have made the case that the consumer expectations test will be inadequate to address claims of design defect in complex technologies such as autonomous vehicles. After all, the argument goes, how could an ordinary consumer possibly have a realistic expectation of how an autonomous vehicle is supposed to perform in a given situation? Any given action by an AV is the result of a series of algorithms that is being constantly updated as the car gathers new information about the world around it. Should a consumer expect the AV to act just as a human would act? Should it be more cautious? Or perhaps even take actions that would seem overly risky for a human driver, because the AV system was certain of what every step in its maneuver would look like going in? How could a human passenger know? If courts are persuaded by these concerns, they will likely need to address them by adopting the more expert-reliant risk-utility test.

On the other hand, some scholars argue that the consumer expectations test is perfectly adequate to handle claims involving advanced technology such as AVs. In a recent article, NYU Law Professor Mark Geistfeld notes that consumers need not understand the intricacies of how a technology works in order to have “well-formed expectations of the product performance.” Under Geistfeld’s approach, a consumer either should have such a well-formed expectation or, in the case where they have yet to develop one, should be warned by the manufacturer or dealer in such a way as to make them aware of the risk they are taking on.

It remains to be seen how design defect claims will be forced to evolve as autonomous vehicles come on the scene. Like many areas of law though, this is a field that will be stressed, and potentially forced to evolve, by the advent of this revolutionary technology.

The European Parliament, the deliberative institution of the European Union which also acts as a legislator in certain circumstances, approved on February 20, 2019 the European Commission’s proposal for a new Regulation on motor vehicle safety. The proposal is now set to move to the next step of the EU legislative process; once enacted, an EU Regulation is directly applicable in the law of the 28 (soon to be 27) member states.

This regulation is noteworthy as it means to pave the way for Level 3 and Level 4 vehicles, by obligating car makers to integrate certain “advanced safety features” in their new cars, such as driver attention warnings, emergency braking and a lane-departure warning system. If many of us are familiar with such features which are already found in many recent cars, one may wonder how this would facilitate the deployment of Level 3 or even Level 4 cars. The intention of the European legislator is not outright obvious, but a more careful reading of the legislative proposal reveals that the aim goes much beyond the safety features themselves: “mandating advanced safety features for vehicles . . .  will help the drivers to gradually get accustomed to the new features and will enhance public trust and acceptance in the transition toward autonomous driving.” Looking further at the proposal reveals that another concern is the changing mobility landscape in general, with “more cyclists and pedestrians [and] an aging society.” Against this backdrop, there is a perceived need for legislation, as road safety metrics have at best stalled, and are even on the decline in certain parts of Europe.

In addition, Advanced Emergency Braking (AEB) systems have been trending at the transnational level, in these early months on 2019. The World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (known as WP.29) has recently put forward a draft resolution on such systems, in view of standardizing them and making them mandatory for the WP.29 members, which includes most Eurasian countries, along with a handful of Asia-Pacific and African countries. While the World Forum is hosted by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE,) a regional commission of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the UN, it notably does not include among its members certain UNECE member states such as the United States or Canada, which have so far refused to partake in World Forum. To be sure, the North American absence (along with that of China and India, for example) is not new; they have never partaken in the World Forum’s work since it started its operations in 1958. If the small yellow front corner lights one sees on US cars is not something you will ever see on any car circulating on the roads of a W.29 member state, one may wonder if the level of complexity involved in designing CAV systems will not forcibly push OEMs toward harmonization; it is one thing to live with having to manufacture different types of traffic lights, and it is another one to design and manufacture different CAV systems for different parts of the world.

Yet it is well known that certain North American regulators are not a big fan of such approach. In 2016, the US DoT proudly announced an industry commitment of almost all car makers to implement AEB systems in their cars, with the only requirement that such systems satisfy set safety objectives. If it seems like everyone would agree that limited aims are sometimes the best way to get closer to the ultimate, bigger goal, the regulating style varies. In the end, one must face the fact that by 2020, AEB systems will be harmonized for a substantial part of the global car market, and maybe, will be so in a de facto manner even in North America. And given that the World Forum has received a received a clear mandate from the EU – renewed as recently as May 2018 – to develop a global and comprehensive CAV standard, North American and other Asian governments who have so far declined to join the W.29 might only lose an opportunity to influence the outcome of such CAV standards by sticking to their guns.

The global automotive industry – and the world of global corporations – was shaken when Carlos Ghosn, Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi’s (“RNM”) CEO, was arrested by Japanese authorities for alleged multiple counts of financial misconduct at the end of November 2018. For those who had been following developments inside the RNM “alliance,” this apparently sudden crackdown came as no surprise. Irrespective of the substance of the claims against Ghosn (and it is reasonable to believe that they are at least in part substantiated) the story of Ghosn downfall is a long one, told in long form in a recent Bloomberg piece.

One part of that story is the rise of Nissan, early on relegated to second fiddle in the Alliance’s grand scheme of things, and the relative stagnation of Renault since. If the former needed rescue at the time of the setup of the Alliance in 1999, facts on the ground have changed: Nissan’s market homerun with its all-electric, consumer-accessible Leaf, secured the Japanese car-maker a comfortable position. To say the least, these facts have not always been quite reflected in the corporate structure and decision-making practices at the Alliance level. Increasingly, the overbearing role of the French state, the largest (by a hair’s width) shareholder of Renault came about as an irritant to the Japanese partner. As reported by the French investigative weekly Le Canard Enchaîné of November 28, 2018,Ghosn was the keystone of the formal – and informal – corporate governance entente throughout the Alliance itself, and both Renault and Nissan individually, with executive or board positions in all three entities.Where Ghosn once stood alone now stands three different persons and the Japanese car-maker’s economic domination over its former French rescuer is just made more apparent. While French media were quick to point out that the nomination of Jean-Dominique Senard to be the head of Renault (and eventually Nissan, and eventually the Alliance itself) would bring everything back to normal, the Financial Times reported on February 19, 2019 that Nissan would oppose his nomination as CEO of the Japanese carmaker, thereby disavowing the old governance model.

In parallel to this corporate drama, as of February 2019, the Alliance is allegedly negotiating a deal with Alphabet’s Waymo that would have them build “robotaxis” and develop the spanning software infrastructure that mandatorily comes with such a project. Now, most of the press seems to think that a Waymo deal would bring some energy to revive the alliance after a hard hit. The revelations about the deal came with the usual disclaimers: an Alliance spokesman termed all this mere “speculation” and Waymo, well, Waymo draped itself in its usual ominous silence.

Could Waymo end up changing its mind about the whole thing following the deepening crisis rocking the Alliance? Us mere ill-informed mortals can only speculate about what Waymo does or what Waymo wants, and if a mature deal is not something to be ditched on a whim, it might make sense to keep the whole thing closer to Nissan than to Renault, and most of all steer clear from Eurasian transnational corporate politics. Rather than reviving the Alliance, the Waymo deal might just be an opportunity to ditch it. Interestingly enough, the original February 5th, 2019 report by Nikkei on the deal clearly states that it would involve the deployment of mobility-as-a-service (MaaS) infrastructure in Japan with cars made by Nissan (and maybe, made in Japan too?) Moreover, Renault’s stance in the CAV is not quite clear. It’s much hyped (at least judging by the awed French journalists) Symbioz – a level 3 CAV – is now nowhere to be seen. If I were Nissan and Waymo, I might just be going non merci on Renault for this time around.


After introducing a discussion of mobility justice last week, I planned to highlight a few cities that were doing particularly well at enabling transit equity across racial or economic lines in their cities. While I did not expect to find many cities excelling across the board, I hoped to find some places with best practices that could be used as models along one dimension or another of mobility justice.

What I found instead is that to date, no metrics exist that appear to capture the full picture of mobility justice without leaving out significant elements of the challenge. 

For instance, 99% of San Francisco’s population lives within half a mile of public transit. In one sense, this is a positive development, as a city cannot have accessible transit options unless those options physically travel near people’s homes. However, other authors have pointed out that high housing costs have driven many of the most vulnerable communities in the San Francisco metro area beyond city limits, where transit options become sparser. Furthermore, the fee structure of San Francisco’s public transit can serve to make mobility unaffordable for low-income riders. The region has recognized transit equity as a problem, creating the Bay Area Equity Analysis Report to explore ways to improve access to transit across the region. The report includes proposals such as a region-wide reduced fare pass and a simplified process to apply for reduced fares. Both proposals appear to be positive steps. Their effectiveness at improving access to transit must be evaluated in the coming years.

New York’s subway system is by far the busiest in the nation. Virtually the entire city has either subway or bus service near their home, and the city’s buses and subways provide roughly 7.7 million rides per day. However, the high usage rate is straining the system. In recent decades New York’s subway has been chronically underfunded, and thus subject to increasing delays and needs for repair that limit its usefulness for many city residents. Furthermore, it is unclear how much even a fully functional New York subway could serve as a model for other cities. New York is among a limited number of American cities that grew up before the rise of the automobile. As such, it is more compact as a whole, and its transit system was able to grow with the city in a way that would not be the case for the more sprawling cities investing more heavily in transit in recent years.

A recent study by Greg Griffin and Ipek Nese Sener from the Texas A&M Transportation Institute analyzed transit equity in nine major metro areas across the nation. The authors found that cities like Atlanta and Los Angeles, which have an integrated system of both bus and rail service, are among the most equitable in the nation. However, they cautioned that their study focused primarily on access across incomes, rather than overall access. A city such as Atlanta “may rank low on overall accessibility while doing well in terms of equity by income. Of course, lower transit accessibility overall will undoubtedly impact low-income communities more than others. While their research did not account for such issues, the development of a metric to study transit equity is a valuable contribution to the mobility justice conversation.

On the whole, no city in America is a great model of mobility justice. This is perhaps unsurprising, considering that mobility justice involves the interaction of a wide range of factors such as pricing, changing housing patterns, and planning of effective combinations of rail, bus, bikeshare, and other programs. In each city, adequately meeting this challenge will require significant local engagement with the most impacted communities, and a constant willingness to adapt their system. Plans such as the Bay Area’s Equity Analysis Report are a step in the right direction. As automated vehicles and other new forms of transportation emerge, cities need to be especially attentive to their impacts on marginalized communities.

Whenever connected and autonomous vehicles are considered, some people envision a mobility paradise. They see current parking areas making way for more productive buildings or green space, pedestrians and cyclists sharing the roads with vehicles that can seamlessly respond to every move, and a dramatic decrease in traffic fatalities. Such visions are behind much of the push towards autonomous vehicles, and the hands-off regulatory approaches I’ve written about before in states like Arizona.

Grand visions of the future of mobility frequently focus on socioeconomic segments of our society from the middle class up. This focus is rarely stated explicitly. However, it is generally assumed that autonomous vehicles will be hailed with a smartphone. Major beneficiaries of the CAV revolution will be information sector employees who could work from a laptop during their commute. Reuse of space currently dominated by parking is primarily an issue for affluent downtown business districts. While CAVs could ease transportation for many people, it is important that affirmative steps be taken to ensure access to adequate transportation for poor and minority communities in the new world we are building.

The advent of CAVs would not be the first time a new transportation technology has left disadvantaged communities behind. The rise of the personal automobile led to a transportation boom for the middle class, while many poor neighborhoods were forgotten or paved over to facilitate the creation of new highways. Many poor and minority communities today are in “transit deserts,” areas of a city with high demand for public transportation but poor service.

Some of the problems stemming from past transportation shifts were borne of malice. The history of redlining and efforts to design cities in such a way as to keep minority communities segregated from middle and upper-class white residents is well documented. Much of the problem may have also been simple negligence. People with disposable income, cars, and cell-phones are better able to make their voice heard in corridors of power. Without an active effort to reach out to other parts of their constituency, government officials may only hear the needs of those with the means to participate.

There are early signs that cities are considering how to make new transit systems accessible by the whole community. While light on detail, a recent document from the National Association of City Transportation Officials lists “mobility for the whole city” as a key principle of the coming urban transportation environment. The World Bank has noted the importance of transit opportunities to the economic prospects of impoverished city-dwellers. To follow up on that high-minded vision, city leaders will need to not only engage the usual stakeholders and governmental departments, but the entirety of the effected community. Mayors, council members, and planners must actively reach out to poor and minority communities to discuss their transportation needs, and develop concrete plans. Such outreach may not be easy, particularly given the need to account for the time constraints of people who work multiple jobs or lack disposable income. It is the type of work that is necessary though if the CAV revolution is to fulfill its potential for all of a city’s people.

Americans have traditionally had an understandable skepticism towards government collection of our data and monitoring of our private communications. The uproar caused by the Snowden leaks in 2013 was followed by increased public attention to data privacy. In a 2014-15 survey, 57% of respondents said that government monitoring of the communications of US citizens was unacceptable. Over 90% of respondents found it important to be able to personally control what data about them was shared, and with whom. The public has expressed similar concerns about data-sharing among private companies. Nearly 2/3 of Americans say that current laws do not go far enough to protect their privacy, and would support increased regulation of advertisers.

Limitations on government collection of private data are built into the Fourth Amendment, as applied to collection of digital data in Carpenter. But there is no analogous limitation on the ability of corporations to share our data far and wide, as anyone who has seen a targeted Facebook ad pop up minutes after searching for an item on Amazon knows. Indeed, First Amendment cases such as Sorrell v. IMS Health, in bolstering protections for commercial speech, may significantly restrict the ability of Congress to regulate private companies selling our data amongst themselves. While many targeted ads can make data sharing seem harmless (I see you just bought a watch. Perhaps I can interest you in these 73 similar watches?), at times it may be more nefarious. 

Public unease with data sharing may be especially warranted in the case of mobility data. The majority of Americans move about the world in cars. While many of those trips are innocuous, some may be trips to an unpopular church, to the home of a secret paramour, or to the scene of a crime. Even the innocuous trips may be simply embarrassing (maybe you ate at a fast food restaurant a few more times than you should have, or fibbed to your spouse once or twice about working late when you were actually getting an after-work drink with friends). These are the type of excursions that, if your car were continuously collecting data on its whereabouts, could easily be sold to a private actor that would be willing to use it against you.

The concern that a private company could abuse access to your personal data just as easily as the government has led legal scholar Jeffrey Rosen to propose a new Constitutional amendment. Such affronts to dignity, as Rosen describes this all-consuming data collection and sale, are problematic enough that we need an amendment to bar unreasonable searches and seizures by either the government or a private corporation. Mercatus Center Senior Research Fellow Adam Theirer has argued that Rosen’s proposal is ill-advised, but still supports making it easier for consumers to restrict access to their private data.

Under current doctrine, the path to heightened protections from abuse of our personal data by private companies is unclear. In Carpenter, the Court took account of the changing nature of technology to limit the government’s ability to collect our information from corporations under the Fourth Amendment. Going forward, the Court should bear in mind the public’s desire for privacy, and the increasing prominence of data collection companies such as Google, Amazon, and soon, CAV operators. As in Carpenter, they should adjudicate with changing technology in mind, and seek to enable Congress’ ability to legislate limits on the ability of private companies to sell our personal data.

Recently, I wrote about the prospects for federal legislation addressing connected and autonomous vehicles. While the subject will be taken up in the new Congress, the failed push for a bill at the end of 2018 is an indication of the steep hill any CAV legislation will have to overcome. Despite the lack of federal legislation, the Department of Transportation (DOT) has been active in this space. In October 2018, the Department issued Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0, DOT’s most comprehensive guide to date outlining their plan for the roll-out of CAVs. The document indicates that the department expects to prioritize working with industry to create a set of voluntary safety standards over the development of mandatory regulations.

Given the Trump administration’s broad emphasis on deregulation as a driver of economic growth, this emphasis on voluntary standards is unsurprising. A handful of consumer groups focused on auto safety have raised the alarm over this strategy, arguing that mandatory regulations are the only way to both ensure safety and make the general public confident in automated driving technology.

The remainder of this post will discuss the effectiveness of voluntary safety standards relative to mandatory regulation for the CAV industry, and consider the prospects of each going forward. While little information is available about the response to either option in the CAV field, I will seek to draw lessons from experience with regulation of the traditional automobile industry.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) has undergone a dramatic strategic shift over its half-century existence. In its early days, NHTSA was primarily devoted to promulgating technology-forcing regulations that sought to drive innovation across the industry. Jerry Mashaw and David Harfst have documented the agency’s shift away from adopting regulations in favor of an aggressive recall policy for defective products in the 1980s. As they write, the agency then returned to a regulatory policy in the 21st century. However, rather than attempt to force technology, they chose to mandate technologies that were already in use across most of the auto industry. While these new standards still took the form of mandatory regulation, they operated as virtually voluntary standards because they mandated technologies the industry had largely already adopted on its own. Mashaw and Harfst found that this shift was essentially a trade-off of slower adoption of new safety technology, and potentially lost lives, in favor of greater legitimacy in the eyes of the courts and industry. Particularly given the rise of pre-enforcement judicial review of regulations, this shift may be seen as a defensive mechanism to allow more regulations to survive court challenges.

Even as NHTSA has pulled back from technology forcing regulations, there has been no sustained public push for more aggressive auto safety regulation. This may be because the number of traffic fatalities has been fallen slightly in recent decades. This shift is likely due more to a reduction in drunk driving than improved technology. With studies showing that the public is particularly wary of CAV adoption, it remains to be seen whether NHTSA will seek to return to its technology-forcing origins. While the auto industry has traditionally preferred voluntary adoption of new technologies, it may be the case that government mandates would help ease public concern about CAV safety, speed the adoption of this new technology, and ultimately save lives.

No matter how you get to work, chances are you’ve spent at least a handful of hours frustrated by the commute. At some point, construction, poor weather, or simply congested roadways have taken valuable hours from all of our days. Given the constant annoyance of bad traffic, it is unsurprising that people get excited about any technology that may reduce the problem. Such was at least part of the hope for ridesharing technologies like Uber and Lyft.

To date, that hope has been at least premature, if not misplaced entirely. Recent studies have shown that the introduction of Uber and Lyft to a city actually increases traffic. A study by transportation analyst Bruce Schaller found that popular ridesharing apps were responsible for 51% of the increase in traffic in San Francisco between 2010 and 2016. Results in other major metro areas were similar.

The increased traffic appears to be primarily attributable to two things. First, rideshare drivers spend around 40% of their road time between passengers, merely taking up space on the road without moving customers where they want to go. Second, Schaller’s research suggests that the convenience of ridesharing has increased the total number of trips taken. He finds that 60% of trips taken with rideshare apps replace trips for which people would have either taken public transit, biked, walked, or simply not made the trip. Uber and Lyft dispute some of Schaller’s methods, arguing that he does not adequately account for factors like increased tourism and freight delivery as causes of increased congestion.

Even if some of the companies’ criticisms are valid, the challenges of passenger-less rideshare vehicles and rideshare trips replacing non-car travel are almost certainly both real. It is possible that, as Uber, Lyft, and others collect more data about patterns of mobility, they will be able to effectively limit the amount of time their cars are on the road with no passengers. By contrast, increased traffic due to rideshare replacement of non-car travel will not be abated by the companies alone. Their incentives align with reducing the amount of time drivers have no passenger in the car, but not with ceding a share of their market to public transit or other modes of transportation.

The challenge of rideshare trips replacing non-car travel will require affirmative government action to overcome. Broadly, cities may take one of two paths, or a combination of both. First, they can design their infrastructure and public transit systems in such a way as to make walking or public transportation a more attractive option for the individual consumer than a solo car trip. Second, they may choose to limit the number of rideshare vehicles allowed on the road. Such a program would be similar to the grant of a set number of taxi medallions. Some cities, such as Chicago, have begun charging a tax on Uber and Lyft rides specifically to help fund improved public transportation. Such a scheme may enable the city to keep its other transit options competitive with rideshare and reduce overall traffic congestion.

To date, the growth of Uber and Lyft present a cautionary tale for tech optimists. On one hand, the growth of these companies has presented riders with a convenient way to travel, and has enabled some people to forgo owning their own car. However, there is evidence that the explosion of vehicles on the road has dramatically increased traffic congestion in the nation’s largest cities. While some of the traffic problems may be solved as the companies continue to collect data, it will likely take affirmative action by local governments to make other transportation options more compelling and abate the worst of the traffic problem.

To date, twenty-nine states have enacted legislation related to connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs). Eleven governors have issued executive orders designed to set guidelines for and promote the adoption of CAVs. In response to this patchwork of state laws, some experts have argued that the federal government should step in and create a uniform set of safety regulations.

Partially responding to such concerns, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued A Vision for Safety 2.0 in September, 2018. The guidance document contains voluntary guidance for the automotive industry, suggesting best practices for the testing and deployment of CAVs. It also contains a set of safety-related practices for states to consider implementing in legislation.

The NHTSA document is likely to have some effect on the development of safety practices for the testing and deployment of automated vehicles. While not mandatory, the guidance does give the industry some indication of what the federal government is thinking. Some companies may take this document as a sign of what they will be required to do if and when the Congress passes CAV legislation, and begin to prepare for compliance now. Furthermore, this nudge from the federal government could influence state action, as legislators with limited expertise on the subject look to NHTSA for guidance in drafting their CAV bills.

Without new legislation however, the force of NHTSA’s guidance will be blunted. No manufacturer is required to follow the agency’s views, and state legislatures are free to continue passing conflicting laws. Such conflicts among states could make it difficult to design a vehicle that is able to meet all state standards and travel freely throughout the country. To date, this has not been an acute problem because CAVs, where they are deployed, operate only within a tightly limited range. As use of these vehicles expands however, uniform standards will begin to appear more necessary.

A late push for CAV legislation in the last Congress petered out in the December lame duck session. After unanimously passing the House in 2017, the bill stalled when Senate Democrats balked at what they saw as its lack of sufficient safety protections. With Congress’ schedule blocked by the government shutdown, CAV legislation has been put on the back burner so far in 2019. At some point though, Congress is likely to take up a new bill. The Senators who were key drivers of the CAV bill in the past Congress, Gary Peters (D-MI) and Jon Thune (R-SD) remain in the Senate. Both Senators retain their influential positions on the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The key change from the previous Congress will be the dynamic in the newly Democratic-controlled House. While a bill passed unanimously last term, it remains to be seen whether the new House will be held back by the same consumer safety concerns that led the Senate to reject the bill last term.

As autonomous vehicle technology continues to march forward, and calls for a uniform nationwide regulatory system are expected to grow. We will be following major developments.

Welcome to 2019! Over the past several months, this page has focused a lot on deployment of connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs) in US cities. 2018 was indeed a big year for CAVs in the United States. The vehicles were deployed commercially in Arizona, California began to allow testing of the technology without a safety driver, and policymakers and urban planners across the nation thought seriously about how to integrate CAVs into their existing transportation grid.

Running through much of this work is the fear that, if left unchecked, wide-scale deployment of CAVs will kick off an accelerated version of the problems associated with the initial popularization of the automobile – suburban sprawl, increased congestion, deeper economic inequality, and more. Most American cities have proposed addressing these issues – to the extent they have considered them at all – through modest incentive programs. To kick off the new year, I want to briefly examine a city that has taken a much more aggressive tack on curtailing the problems associated with sprawl and traffic.

Even before the widespread adoption of CAVs, Singapore is moving beyond modest incentives to combat congested roads. The city of nearly 6 million people charges commuters nearly $15,000 per year to own a vehicle and use it during rush hour. In 2017, Singapore took the extreme step of announcing a freeze in the growth rate of private car ownership. While such measures seem exorbitant from an American perspective, they have contributed to reduced congestion. Singapore in 2015 was less congested than the year before, and suffered less congestion than cities such as New York, London, or Beijing. Only around 11% of Singapore’s population owns a car, in comparison to 46% of New York City residents and nearly 90% of Angelenos.

The city is also taking steps to prepare for a future dominated by CAVs. Singapore recently removed a requirement that cars have human drivers, and has mandated that all new development meets standards that accommodate CAVs while discouraging car ownership. These new real estate requirements include narrow streets, road markings designed to be easily recognizable by CAVs, and fewer parking spaces.

Such aggressive maneuvers are out of sync with policy across the United States. Many US cities have created carpool lanes to encourage ride-sharing, and Oregon has experimented with a per-mile charge to reduce congestion and plug infrastructure funding gaps that have traditionally been filled with a gas tax. However, such programs have typically been modest. Perhaps most strikingly, in comparison to Singapore’s large yearly fees, the average annual tax levied on vehicle ownership in the US comes in at a little over $200.

In many parts of the US, abundant cheap land and low vehicle taxes set the stage for suburban sprawl and maddening levels of congestion brought on by the first automobile revolution. The same factors are aligned to accelerate these problems in the upcoming CAV revolution. None of this is to say that the Singaporean approach is right for the US. It is certainly possible that, as CAVs are deployed nationwide, their benefits will outweigh any social cost brought on by sprawl and congestion. When setting their own policy though, our cities should examine a full range of options, including places like Singapore that are modeling a more aggressive regulatory posture. Regardless of the approach we choose to take, there are valuable lessons to learn from countries that approach these challenges from a different governance tradition.

This fall we’ve spent a fair amount of time talking about how connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) will change the structure of our cities, from the curb, to public transit, and beyond. In my last post before the holidays, I want to take a look at how CAVs could change the way goods are transported and delivered within cities. While they probably won’t reach Santa-levels of delivery efficiency, CAVs may help make last-mile deliveries more efficient (and could help fill the current shortage of truck drivers in the US, but that’s a subject for another day).

CAVs are already being tested as delivery vehicles by companies like Domino’s and Kroger, while earlier this year Toyota announced delivery partnerships with Amazon and Pizza Hut, and Waymo’s CEO recently highlighted it as an area of opportunity.  This week the New York Times profiled Nuro, the start-up working with Kroger to test robotic delivery cars in Scottsdale, Ariz. Nuro’s vehicles are designed in-house, and look like “toasters-on-wheels.” Currently they followed everywhere they go by human safety drivers in conventionally driven “shadow car,” since the vehicles are still in testing. When the vehicle stops for a delivery, customers enter a PIN code into a small touch pad to open a compartment containing their order. The current charge for same-day delivery using the system is around $6. Ford has also flagged the delivery market as an area they’d like to explore, citing projections that, by 2026, the last-mile delivery market for CAVs will hit $130 billion.

But the roads are not the only path automated vehicles may soon tread in their mission to bring you your takeout order. A number of companies, including Postmates, are working on delivery robots that will cruse down the sidewalk and roll right up to your door. Last year I even personally witnessed Postmates’ bot rolling along the streets of Washington. As exciting as it would be to have R2-D2’s cousin deposit an order of egg rolls on your doorstep, the deployment of delivery bots raises an interesting question of how much space we’re willing to give up to automated devices. The sidewalk is a human dominated space, and, especially in cities, is already busy with foot traffic. Will people be willing to cede some of this space to a robot? Yet another question that city regulators and individual citizens will be forced to answer as automation makes greater inroads to our daily lives.

P.S. – Last week a delivery robot caught fire in Berkeley, leading some locals to build a memorial in its honor.

Guest Blog by Jesse Halfon

Last month, two California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers made news following an arrest for drunk driving. What made the arrest unusual was that the officers initially observed the driver asleep behind the wheel while the car, a Tesla Model S, drove 70 mph on Autopilot, the vehicle’s semi-automated driving system.

Much of the media coverage about the incident revolved around the CHP maneuver to safely bring the vehicle to a stop. The officers were able to manipulate Tesla Autopilot to slow down and ultimately stop mid-highway using two patrol vehicles, one in front and one behind the ‘driverless’ car.

But USC Law Professor Orin Kerr mused online about a constitutional quandary relating to the stop, asking, “At what point is a driver asleep in an electric car that is on autopilot “seized” by the police slowing down and stopping the car by getting in front of it?” This question centered around when a person asleep was seized,a reasonable 4th Amendment inquiry given the U.S. Supreme Court standard that a seizure occurs when a reasonable person would not have felt ‘free to leave’ or otherwise terminate the encounter with law enforcement.[1] 

Kerr’s issue was largely hypothetical given that the police in this situation unquestionably had the legal right to stop the vehicle (and thereby seize the driver) based on public safety concerns alone.

However, a larger 4th Amendment question regarding semi-automated vehicles looms. Namely, what constitutes’reasonable suspicion’ to stop the driver of a vehicle on Autopilot for a traditional traffic violation like ‘reckless driving’ or ‘careless driving’?[2] Though there are no current laws that prescribe the safe operation of a semi-autonomous vehicle, many common traffic offenses are implicated by the use of automated driving features.

Some ‘automated’ traffic violations will be unchanged from the perspective of law enforcement. For example, if a vehicle on Autopilot[3] fails to properly stay inits lane, the officer can assess the vehicle’s behavior objectively and ticket the driver who is ultimately responsible for safe operation of the automobile.Other specific traffic violations will also be clear-cut. New York, for example still requires by statute that a driver keep at least one hand on the wheel.[4] Many states ban texting while driving, which though often ambiguous, allows for more obvious visual cues for an officer to assess.

However, other traffic violations like reckless driving[5] will be more difficult to assess in the context of semi-automated driving.

YouTube is filled with videos of people playing cards, dancing, and doing various other non-driving activities in their Teslas while Autopilot is activated. While most of these videos are performative, real-world scenarios are commonplace. Indeed, for many consumers, the entire point of having a semi-autonomous driving system is to enable safe multi-tasking while behind the wheel.

Take for example, the Tesla driver who is seen biting into a cheeseburger with both hands on the sandwich (and no hands on the wheel). Is this sufficient for an officer to stop a driver for careless driving?Or what about a driver writing a note on a piece of paper in the center console while talking on the phone. If during this activity, the driver’s eyes are off the road for 3-4 seconds, is there reasonable suspicion of ‘reckless driving’that would justify a stop? 5-6 seconds? 10? 20?

In these types of cases, the driver may argue that they were safely monitoring their semi-automated vehicle within the appropriate technological parameters. If a vehicle is maintaining a safe speed and lane-keeping on a low traffic highway, drivers will protest – how can they be judged as ‘careless’ or ‘reckless’ for light multi-tasking or brief recreation while the car drives itself?

The 4th Amendment calculus will be especially complicated for officers given that they will be unable to determine from their vantage point whether a semi-autonomous system is even activated. Autopilot is an optional upgrade for Tesla vehicles and vehicles that are equipped with L2/L3 systems will often be driven inattentively without the ‘driverless’ feature enabled. Moreover, most vehicles driven today don’t even have advanced automated driving features.

A Tesla driver whose hands are off the steering wheel could be safely multi-tasking using Autopilot. But they could also be steering with their legs or not at all. This leaves the officer, tasked with monitoring safe driving for public protection, in a difficult situation. It also leaves drivers, who take advantage of semi-automated systems, vulnerable to traffic stops that are arguably unnecessary and burdensome.

Of course, a driver may succeed in convincing a patrol office not to issue a ticket by explaining their carefully considered use of the semi-automated vehicle. Or the driver could have a ‘careless driving’ ticket dismissed in court using the rational of safely using the technology. But once a police-citizen interaction is initiated, the stakes are high.

Designing a semi-automated vehicle that defines the parameters of safe driving is complex. Crafting constitutional jurisprudence that defines the parameters police behavior may be even more complex. Hopefully the Courts are up to the task of navigating this challenging legal terrain.

Jesse Halfon is an attorney in Dykema’s Automotive and Products Liability practice group and a member of its Mobility and Advanced Transportation Team.


[1] United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980); United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 202 (2002);Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 435-36 (1991).

[2] Some traffic violations are misdemeanors or felonies. To make an arrest in public for a misdemeanor, an officer needs probable cause and the crime must have occurred in the officer’s presence.  For a Terry stop involving a traffic misdemeanor, only reasonable suspicion is required.

[3] Tesla Autopilot is one of several semi-automated systems currently on the market. Others,including Cadillac Super Cruise Mercedes-Benz Drive Pilot and Volvo’s Pilot Assist offer comparable capabilities.

[4] New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1226.

[5] Most states have a criminal offense for reckless driving. Michigan’s statute is representative and defines reckless driving as the operation of a vehicle “in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property”.  See Michigan Motor Vehicle Code § 257.626. Michigan also has a civil infraction for careless driving that is violated when a vehicle is operated in a ‘careless or negligent manner’. See Michigan Motor Vehicle Code § 257.626b

The Battle For the Curb

Recently, Kevin wrote about how CAVs could alter the shape of cities. While CAV deployment is still in its infancy, the boom in ride sharing is already changing the design of cities. In Washington, D.C. the city government has announced the creation of five pickup and drop off zones that are reserved for ride shares 24 hours a day. The zones are also used for commercial loading and unloading, and are located near highly trafficked areas.

The creation of these zones in D.C. are part of a greater discussion of how cities use the curb. Right now, there is a lot of competition for the curb, from parking meters, to bike lanes, to drop off zones like the ones in D.C. And companies like Coord have started to keep track of everything that is going on near the curb, with an intent to build out a database that can be used by city planners and anyone else interested in what’s happening at street level. Any changes that CAVs make to cities will no doubt start at the curb – which means city governments need to figure out just what’s going to happen on the curb. Will cities be willing to give up their venue from street parking? Or will a boom in AVs cause that revenue to disappear on its own?

I’ve written in recent weeks about the impact of autonomous vehicles on city design. Choices made by both city planners and CAV operators in the coming decades will play key roles in determining whether our new transportation paradigm is one of compact, walkable cityscapes that accommodate traffic of all sorts, or one that spurs increased suburban and exurban sprawl and is truly designed only with car transport in mind. One particularly important aspect of this question is to what extent CAVs will integrate with current mass transit rather than attempt to replace it.

Some companies, such as Ann Arbor based May Mobility,are purposely seeking out opportunities to integrate with local transit. The company recently contracted with Columbus, OH to begin operating their CAVs on a short loop through downtown along the Scioto River. A small-scale project like this has the potential to improve traffic flow in the central city without incentivizing people to move ever farther away from the urban core. A deal was also announced between May and the state of Rhode Island to run autonomous shuttles that will connect public transit lines in the nearby cities of Providence and Olneyville.

Its certainly possible that May’s long-term ambitions are bigger. They may hope to use their autonomous technology to compete with companies like Ford, Waymo and Uber to provide people with a primary mode of transportation. For now though, services like this should be viewed as a model for cities seeking to promote vibrant urban centers.

Many cities across the country, even those without longstanding strength in public transit, have already committed serious resources to revitalizing and maintaining their urban cores. Kansas City is planning a roughly $300 million extension of an existing light rail line. Phoenix, which first opened its light rail line ten years ago, passed a ballot initiative in 2015 to raise new funds fora 66-mile expansion of the system. And public transit is not supported only by public money. In South Florida, a privately owned, high speed commuter train recently opened to carry passengers between Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach.

Cities investing so heavily in large-scale public transit certainly have a demonstrated interest in the economic development that comes with urban revitalization. Furthermore, they see transportation as a key factor in spurring renewed growth. If these localities are not careful though, they may see their careful plans laid to waste by the onset of CAVs. In the post-WWII era, the dominance of the automobile contributed to the emptying out of city centers and the paving over of vast swaths of land. Looking ahead, it’snot hard to see the rise of this new technology thwarting the plans of the most well-intentioned cities.

Those that hope to back up their commitment to public transit and sustainable living will need to think carefully about how transportation technologies should be accommodated. For now, the May Mobility model may be attractive for its intentional compatibility with other forms of transit. Looking ahead, as CAVs become more advanced, such companies will likely move to take over more of the transportation market. Cities need to be aware of that possibility and consider how to design their infrastructure and transportation policies to integrate CAVs into existing plans, lest they betaken over by them.

California has become the second state in the nation to permit connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) to operate on public roads without a safety driver. With the recent announcement that Waymo has obtained approval to test driverless CAVs in a handful of Northern California communities, the state joins Arizona on the leading edge of the driverless vehicle revolution. Similar to the Arizona experiment, which I wrote about recently, California has positioned itself to play a key role in shaping the speed and direction of growth in the CAV industry.

California’s regulatory apparatus, while not without its critics, will provide an interesting contrast to the relatively lax system enacted by Arizona. The remainder of this post will explore the key differences between these two approaches to governance of CAVs.

Arizona requires merely that CAV operators submit written confirmation to the State that each vehicle complies with all relevant federal law, that it is capable of reaching a “minimal risk condition” when necessary, and that it be capable of complying with traffic and safety laws. California, by contrast, has a handful of more specific requirements. In addition to the need to comply with federal law, California requires that driverless CAV operators:

  • Notify local authorities in communities where testing will take place
  • Submit a law enforcement interaction plan
  • Certify that the vehicles meet the autonomous vehicle Level 4 or 5 definition of the Society for Automotive Engineers
  • Maintain a communication link between the vehicle and a remote operator
  • Inform the DMV of the intended operational design domain
  • Submit an annual disengagement report to the DMV
  • Submit collision reports to the DMV within 10 days of a crash

In addition to these requirements for driverless vehicle testing, California has a further set of requirements before driverless CAVs can be certified for public use. This supplemental set of requirements generally revolves around data recording and security against cyber-attacks.

Critics have argued that even California’s approach to CAVs is not safety conscious enough. Consumer Watchdog, a California public interest group, has raised an alarm that the state is merely taking Waymo’s word that it has met requirements “without any real verification.” The organization has also suggested that California’s regulations are not substantively strict enough, arguing that they are turning people “into human guinea pigs for testing [Waymo’s] robot cars.” Proponents though, argue that the safety concerns are overblown in light of the potential for vast improvements relative to error-prone human drivers.

While the debate over how much regulation is proper persists, it is notable how quickly California seems to be following in the footsteps of Arizona in the rollout of CAVs. One key argument in favor of Arizona’s light touch regulation is that it has positioned the state to take the lead in development of this new technology. California’s oversight, while not enough for some, is undoubtedly more rigorous than that of its neighbor to the east. Arizona’s approach does appear to have given the state a short head start in the CAV race. California’s progress, though, indicates that modest increases in state oversight may not present a substantial barrier to the adoption of this new technology.

In the U.S., Thanksgiving represents the busiest travel period of the year, with AAA predicting that this year 54 million people will travel 50 miles or more before sitting down for turkey and stuffing. So how will CAVs and other mobility innovations change how we travel, not just at Thanksgiving, but yearlong? Lets take a look at a few recent stories that could point the way:

Waymo’s Self-Driving Service Hits the Bigtime

Back in August, Dan mentioned some issues Waymo’s automated vans had run into in Phoenix. Those issues don’t seem to have slowed the Alphabet (Google) owned company, as they have announced (as noted by Kevin) the launch of commercial service in December. The company is planning a slow roll out, and some cars will still have backup drivers, but by the Christmas travel season, some people in Arizona will be able to hail a driverless taxi to shuttle them to the airport.

Multimodality – Instead of a Taxi to the Airport, How About an E-Scooter and a Bus?

Uber has recently started to personalize suggestions on how to complete a trip. Depending on the distance to be traveled, the app will suggest you use a JUMP bike instead. Travelers in select cities can use Citymapper to plan trips across rideshares and public transit. In Chicago, for example, the app coordinates city buses, Divy bike shares, the ‘L’ system, and commuter rail. In London, Citymapper users can even hail a rideshare via the app’s own fleet. Meanwhile, bike and scooter startup Lime is expanding their services to include cars on their platform, and plans to deploy up to 500 cars in Seattle by the end of the year.

These companies are far from the only parties trying to synchronize how we use various mobility services. While the promise of a single app for all our mobility needs is yet to be fulfilled, the momentum is clearly there. Such an app would further enhance the congestion (and environmental) benefits that are projected to come with wider adoption of CAVs. While CAVs can better coordinate the cars that are on the road, multimodal programs can take even more cars off the road by pointing users to more efficient public transit or bikes/scooters.

Leaving Car Ownership Behind (Eventually…)

While some drivers may use self-driving cars and multimodality services to supplement their personal vehicles, there is an increasing push to replace vehicle ownership altogether. Lyft has launched a “ditch your car” challenge in a number of cities, encouraging users to try to live without their vehicles for a month. They’ve also launched a subscription service, offering 30 rides (up to $15 each) a month for $299.

Not interested in completely ditching your car? GM’s Maven platform lets you rent out your own vehicle, and is expanding in 2019 to include non-GM vehicles. Or you can opt for a more old-fashioned carpool, facilitated by Waze, which is slowly expanding a service to connect potential carpool members. So by next Thanksgiving, you may be able to snag a Waze carpool while leaving your personal vehicle behind to earn a little extra cash on Maven.

The point of this round up is not to provide a commercial for these platforms, but to highlight the ongoing disruption of the way people move through the world, a disruption that will only continue as CAVs reach greater deployment.

CAVs and the Traffic Stop

The traffic stop has long been a primary point of interaction between police and the community. As consent Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations into local police departments in Ferguson, Baltimore, and Chicago made clear in recent years, they are also a moment that is open to large-scale abuse. The rise of connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs) will fundamentally alter, and perhaps dramatically reduce the occurrence of, this common police tactic. In order to avoid replicating the problematic aspects of traffic stops, communities need to grapple with the ways in which their current system has failed, and how policing should look in the future.

Local police departments in at least some parts of the country have been found to use routine traffic stops as a fundraising tool for the city. Due to either implicit or explicit bias, such policies frequently have an outsized impact on minority members of the community. DOJs investigation of the Ferguson Police Department unearthed a city government primarily concerned with the use of traffic stops to “fill the revenue pipeline.” Particularly in light of decreased sales tax revenue, city officials saw the need to increase traffic citations as “not an insignificant issue.” This attitude filtered down from the City Council and Financial Director to line officers, who were regularly reminded of the need to increase “traffic productivity.” In Ferguson, demand that the police department be a revenue generation machine contributed to racial bias in the city’s criminal justice system. African American drivers were the subjects of 85% of the traffic stops, despite constituting only 67% of the population. Among those stopped, 11% of black drivers were searched, compared to only 5% of white drivers. While the Ferguson report throws the twin problems of racialized policing and use of the police for revenue generation into stark relief, the city is far from alone. The investigations in Baltimore and Chicago found similar abuses. A review of academic literature by researchers at Princeton found that “Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be stopped by the police, convicted of a crime, and . . . issued a lengthy prison sentence” than similarly situated whites.

These findings highlight the centrality of the traffic stop to modern policing. Traffic stops not only lead directly to citations – for speeding, missing stop signs, and the like – but also to searches of individuals and vehicles that may lead to more serious crimes for things like possession of drugs or weapons. The importance of traffic stops has been spurred on by a Supreme Court that has given its blessing to pretextual stops, in which an officer can stop a car as long as there is a valid reason, regardless of their actual reason. Widespread use of CAVs, however, could seriously cut down on pretextual stops. If a CAV is programmed to travel no faster than the speed limit, to always signal turns, and to never run a red light after all, the number of available pretexts is significantly reduced. While many commentators have been hesitant to think that this shift will lead to large-scale shifts in police tactics or a significant reduction in abuses, they have at least highlighted that possibility.

While CAVs and other new technology may lead to a shift in police tactics, they alone will not eliminate, and may not even reduce, biased policing. Unless addressed through changes to underlying structures of taxation or spending, the financial imperative to turn the police force into a revenue generator will continue to drive over-policing of minor violations. Without addressing implicit bias, this over-policing will continue to disproportionately target minority communities. The CAV era may channel these pressures in new directions. But cities that wish to address the ongoing challenge of racially biased policing must initiate structural changes, rather than merely hope that technology will save them.

City design has long been shaped by modes of transportation. The transition is easy to spot as you move westward across America. Relatively compact eastern cities initially grew up in the 18th and 19th centuries, when people traveled by foot or by horse. Scattered across the plains, and particularly throughout the vast expanses of Texas and the Southwest, are cities filled with wide thoroughfares and sprawling suburbs, designed to match the rise of car culture. A large-scale shift to autonomous vehicle transportation will once again mold our cities in new ways. I wrote recently about this coming shift, focusing in particular on the reuse of space currently dominated by parking. This post will build on that theme by exploring the ways in which big data generated by new transportation technologies will guide city planners and business strategists in creating new urban environments.

Many cities already take advantage of more traditional forms of transportation data to improve urban planning. For example, analysis of population density and traffic patterns facilitated Moscow’s 50% increase in public transit capacity, which enabled the city to reduce driving lanes in favor of more space for pedestrians and cyclists. Looking to the future, New York University’s Center for Urban Science and Progress seeks to help cities harness the power of big data to “become more productive and livable.” Today, more data exists regarding our transportation habits than ever before. Ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft, along with the popularity of “check-in” apps such as Foursquare, have exponentially increased the amount of data collected as we go through our daily routines. The advent of CAVs, along with smaller scale technologies such as bike-share and scooter-share programs, will only accelerate this trend.

Currently, most of this data is collected and held by private companies. This valuable information is already being aggregated and used by companies such as Sasaki, a design firm that uses data from Yelp, Google, and others to help businesses and developers understand how their planned projects can best fit in with a community’s existing living patterns. The information is able to help businesses understand, on a block-by-block basis, where their target market lives, shops, and travels. As companies such as Uber and Waymo roll out fleets of autonomous vehicles in the coming years that collect data on more and more people, such information will increasingly drive business planning.

Just as this wealth of data is impacting business decisions, making it available to the public sector would mark a significant upgrade in the capabilities of urban planners. To be sure, granting the government easy access to such fine-grained information about our daily lives comes with its own set of challenges, which my colleague Ian Williams has explored in a previous post. From the perspective of planning utility however, the benefits are clear. By better understanding exactly what times and locations present the worst traffic challenges, cities can target infrastructure improvements, tollways, or carpool benefits to alleviate the problem. A more detailed understanding of which routes people take to and from home, work, shopping, and entertainment districts can allow for more efficient zoning and the development of more walkable neighborhoods. This type of improvement has the potential to improve the livability of city centers so as to guard against the danger that CAVs will facilitate a new round of exurban flight.

As with previous shifts in transportation, the widespread move to CAVs expected in the coming years will be a key driver of the future shape of our cities. Urban planners and business strategists will play a featured role in determining whether this technology ushers in a new round of sprawl, or facilitates the growth and attractiveness of metropolitan centers. The intelligent and conscientious use of data generated by CAVs and other emerging technologies can help fuel smart development to ensure that our downtown spaces, and the communities they support, continue to thrive.

 

Tesla’s enthusiastic marketing of its Autopilot feature may be landing the company in legal hot water. Last week, a Florida man sued the car manufacturer after his Model S crashed into a stalled vehicle at high speed. The driver, who allegedly suffered spinal and brain injuries, claims that Tesla’s “purposefully manipulative sales pitch” had duped him and other Tesla owners into the mistaken belief that their vehicles can travel on the highway almost without supervision. The outcome of the case may carry key lessons not only for Tesla, but for all automakers as they develop more autonomous features.

This isn’t the first time Tesla has faced legal challenges related to the Autopilot feature. In May, the company paid $5 million to settle a class action suit claiming its Autopilot 2.0 upgrade was unusable and dangerous. This case, while currently only involving one plaintiff, could have even broader ramifications. The plaintiff’s products liability suit claims that the company has systematically duped consumers through a “pervasive national marketing campaign.” If successful, this suit could open the door to recovery for others who crash while using Autopilot.

While Tesla has typically been more grandiose in their advertising techniques than more traditional automakers, their legal challenges do serve to highlight the struggles that auto manufacturers will face in the coming years. This year alone, Ford has packaged its driver assist features into a system called Co-Pilot 360 and GM has called its Super Cruise system “the world’s first true hands-free driver assistance feature for the freeway.” In the near future, other car manufacturers are expected to join these companies in developing ever more autonomous features.

As the auto industry collectively drives toward the creation of truly autonomous vehicles, there will be an understandable temptation to hype up every new technological feature. Arguably, many of these features will increase auto safety when used properly. Certainly, road testing such features is a key step on the path towards fully driverless cars. The challenges facing Tesla should serve as a warning though. Companies need to be cautious in describing their driver-assist technologies, and ensuring that customers understand the limits of such new features. Doing so will have the dual benefit of reminding drivers that they should still be in control of the vehicle, and shielding themselves from the type of liability Tesla faces today.

 

The rapidly approaching deployment of commercially available CAVs has led city planners to begin grappling with the ways in which this new technology is expected to shape our built environment.  A 2017 report from MIT’s Urban Economics Lab and Center for Real Estate, financed by Capital One, explores potential real estate changes driven by CAVs. The report describes two theories of what the effect will be. First, CAVs could reinforce demand for central city living by relieving congestion and need for parking, making cities more livable. Alternatively, they could lead to a new wave of suburbanization by increasing the distances people are willing to travel.

As much as CAVs will shape the future of cities though, design choices made by city planners today will also impact the ways in which CAVs are utilized. Cities that are designed primarily for drivers, with limited walkability and few public transit options, are likely to experience a rehash of all the problems with 20th century suburban sprawl: congestion, increasing infrastructure needs on the urban fringe, and a reduced tax base within city limits, to name a few. There are, however, affirmative steps that cities can take to disincentivize sprawl in favor of growth in the urban core. Two of these policy options, which I will discuss below, are smart pricing of vehicle travel and increased walkability of city centers.

Many cities have already taken steps to make solo trips in cars less attractive. Whether these policies take the form of increasing options for light rail and other public transportation, designating carpool lanes, or varying parking costs depending on the time of day, many of them may not be significantly altered by the arrival of CAVs. One change that could be facilitated by CAVs is the possibility for more fine-grained trip pricing. A city that is committed to reducing congestion could vary ride pricing for people who carpool, or for trips made outside of the heaviest use periods. Those hoping to incentivize public transit could provide reduced fares for “last mile” trips to and from light rail or bus stations.

The prevalence of CAVs will also provide cities an opportunity to rethink the design of their urban landscapes. Most American cities are dominated by parking, with 30% of the space in many downtown areas being taken up by parking spaces. This is unsurprising in light of the fact that the typical car is parked around 95% of the time. The rise of CAVs will provide cities with an opportunity to adapt much of this space to more productive use through business development, building downtown housing, and expanding green space. A key challenge here for cities will be in managing the transition. A study by the Regional Planning Association for New York, New Jersey and Connecticut found that land use planning is unlikely to be “permanently altered” by CAVs until 2040 and beyond. In the intervening years, cities can begin to take steps to plan for adaptive reuse of space. This includes such design choices as building parking garages with features that allow them to be easily converted into housing and considering zoning changes that will facilitate a more livable, walkable urban core.

CAVs have the potential to contribute to the continued revitalization of city centers through the creation of more resident-friendly downtowns, or to kickstart an accelerated urban sprawl. Smart, data-driven trip pricing and infrastructure designed to smooth the transitioning needs of cities can help guide the use of CAVs in ways that facilitate compact growth and walkable communities.

Two recent news stories build interestingly on my recent blog post about CAVs and privacy. The first, from Forbes, detailing law enforcement use of “reverse location” orders, where by investigators can obtain from Google information on all Google users in a given location at a given time. This would allow, for example, police to obtain data on every Google account user within a mile of a gas station when it was robbed. Similar orders have been used to obtain data from Facebook and Snapchat.

Look forward a few years and it’s not hard to imagine similar orders being sent to the operators of CAVs, to obtain the data of untold numbers of users at the time of a crime. The problem here is that such orders can cast far too wide a net and allow law enforcement access to the data of people completely uninvolved with the case being investigated. In one of the cases highlighted by Forbes, the area from which investigators requested data included not only the store that was robbed, but also nearby homes. The same situation could occur with CAVs, pulling in data from passengers completely unrelated to a crime scene who happen to have been driving nearby.

The other story comes from The Verge, which covers data mining done by GM in Los Angeles and Chicago in 2017.  From the article:

GM captured minuted details such as station selection, volume level, and ZIP codes of vehicle owners, and then used the car’s built-in Wi-Fi signal to upload the data to its servers. The goal was to determine the relationship between what drivers listen to and what they buy and then turn around and sell the data to advertisers and radio operators. And it got really specific: GM tracked a driver listening to country music who stopped at a Tim Horton’s restaurant. (No data on that donut order, though.)

That’s an awful lot of information on a person’s daily habits. While many people have become accustomed (or perhaps numb) to the collection of their data online, one wonders how many have given thought to the data collected by their vehicle. The article also points out scale of the data collected by connected cars and what it could be worth on the market:

According to research firm McKinsey, connected cars create up to 600GB of data per day — the equivalent of more than 100 hours of HD video every 60 minutes — and self-driving cars are expected to generate more than 150 times that amount. The value of this data is expected to reach more than $1.5 trillion by the year 2030, McKinsey says.

Obviously, creators and operators of CAVs are going to want to tap into the market for data. But given the push for privacy legislation I highlighted in my last post, they may soon have to contend with limits on just what they can collect.

~ P.S. I can’t resist adding a brief note on some research from my undergraduate alma mater, the University of Illinois. It seems some researchers there are taking inspiration from the eyes of mantis shrimp to improve the capability of CAV cameras.

 

By the end of this year, Alphabet subsidiary Waymo plans to launch one of the nation’s first commercial driverless taxi services in Phoenix, Arizona. As preparations move forward, there has been increasing attention focused on Arizona’s regulatory scheme regarding connected and automated vehicles (CAVs), and the ongoing debate over whether and how their deployment should be more tightly controlled.

In 2015, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey issued an executive order directing state agencies to “undertake any steps necessary to support the testing and operation of self-driving vehicles” on public roads in the state. The order helped facilitate the Phoenix metro area’s development as a key testing ground for CAV technology and laid the groundwork for Waymo’s pioneering move to roll out its driverless service commercially in the state. It has also been the target of criticism for not focusing enough on auto safety, particularly in the aftermath of a deadly crash involving an Uber-operated CAV in March.

As the technology advances and the date of Waymo’s commercial rollout approaches, Governor Ducey has issued a new executive order laying out a few more requirements that CAVs must comply with in order to operate on Arizona’s streets. While the new order is still designed to facilitate the proliferation of CAVs, it includes new requirements that CAV owners affirm that the vehicles meet all relevant federal standards, and that they are capable of reaching a “minimal risk condition” if the autonomous system fails.

Along with these basic safety precautions, the order also directs the Arizona Departments of Public Safety and Transportation to issue a protocol for law enforcement interaction with CAVs. This protocol is a public document intended both to guide officers in interactions with CAVs and to facilitate owners in designing their cars to handle those interactions. The protocol, issued by the state Department of Transportation in May, requires CAV operators to file an interaction protocol with the Department explaining how the vehicle will operate during emergencies and in interactions with law enforcement. As CAVs proliferate, a uniform standard for police interactions across the industry may become necessary for purposes of administrative efficiency. If and when that occurs, the initial standard set by Waymo in Arizona is likely to bear an outsized influence on the nationwide industry.

Critics have called the new executive order’s modest increase in safety requirements too little for such an unknown and potentially dangerous technology. Even among critics however, there is no agreement as to how exactly CAVs should be regulated. Many have argued for, at minimum, more transparency from the CAV companies regarding their own safety and testing procedures. On the other hand, advocates of Arizona’s relaxed regulatory strategy suggest that public unease with CAVs, along with the national news coverage of each accident, will be enough to push companies to adopt their own stringent testing and safety procedures.

This more hands-off regulatory approach will get its first close-up over the next few months in Arizona. The results are likely to shape the speed and direction of growth in the industry for years to come.

 

For many people, syncing their phone to their car is a convenience – allowing them to make hands-free calls or connect to media on their phone through the car’s infotainment system. But doing so can leave a lot of data on the car’s hardware, even after a user believes they have deleted such data. That was the case in a recent ATF investigation into narcotics and firearms trafficking, where federal law enforcement agents were issued a warrant to search a car’s computer for passwords, voice profiles, contacts, call logs, and GPS locations, all of which they believed had been left on the car’s on-board memory. While it’s uncertain just what was recovered, an executed search warrant found by Forbes claims the information extraction was successful.

While this case doesn’t necessarily raise the same issues of government access to data found in the Supreme Court’s recent Carpenter decision, it does illustrate the growing amount of personal data available to outside actors via the computer systems within our vehicles. And while the 4th Amendment can (usually) shield individuals from overreach by government, personal data represents a potential target for malicious actors, as shown by the recent data breach at Facebook which exposed the data of 30 million users. As cars become yet another part of the greater “internet of things,” (IoT) automakers have to confront issues of data protection and privacy. Security researchers have already began to prod vehicle systems for weaknesses – one group was able to breach the computer of a Mazda in 10 seconds.

There has of late been a great deal of talk, and some action, in Washington, Brussels, and Sacramento, towards mandating greater privacy and security standards. Earlier this month, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on Data Privacy in the wake of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, which took effect in May, and California’s Consumer Privacy Act, which was passed in June. Last month, California also passed a bill that sets cybersecurity standards for IoT devices – and there are similar bills that have been introduced in the House and Senate. While it remains to be seen if either of those bills gain traction, it is clear that there is an interest in more significant privacy legislation at the state and federal level, an interest that has to be considered by automakers and other CAV developers as CAVs move closer and closer to wide-scale deployment.

Last week’s release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report highlights the “rapid and far-reaching” societal transformations required in order to limit warming to 1.5, or even 2 degrees Celsius. A new study by researchers at the University of Michigan, published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, highlights the role of connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) in ushering in a low-emissions future. This research sheds new light on a largely understudied aspect of the coming CAV revolution. In my first post for the Journal of Law and Mobility, I will summarize that study and provide key takeaways for policymakers.

The Michigan study identifies several factors that will cause CAVs to emit more greenhouse gases than comparable human-driven vehicles. The weight of sensors and the computer system necessary to operate an CAV, the power consumed by the computer system, in particular the mapping function used to create high definition charts of the car’s surroundings, and the increased drag from cameras and sensors mounted on the outside of the vehicle, all operate to increase emissions. Depending on the weight of the equipment and power usage of the computer, these factors were found to increase emissions by between 2.8% and 20% relative to a comparable human driven car.

These factors are expected to be partially, if not entirely, offset by the car’s ability to create more favorable traffic patterns and identify more efficient routes. This extra efficiency is expected to more than offset any increase in weight, power usage, and drag under some scenarios, and turn a relatively large emissions increase into a more modest one under others. All things considered, the study finds that the emissions impact of CAVs will range from a 9% reduction to a 5% increase.

Many of the obstacles to reducing CAV emissions are engineering challenges: reducing the weight and power consumption of computer systems, and improving the aerodynamics of external sensors. Policymakers role in solving these challenges are likely to primarily take the form of support for university research and/or tax credits for private sector research on improving the efficiency of CAVs.

Policymakers do however have a significant role to play in improving the network effects of automated vehicles, such as reduced congestion. After the proper levels of safety, security, and reliability are obtained, a high volume of CAVs on the road increases the efficiencies that can be gained through cars communicating with each other to ease the flow of traffic. Laws that ensure high standards for data privacy and CAV safety can give consumers the confidence needed to use CAVs at a higher rate. Regulatory schemes that ease the entrance of CAV fleets into a city’s vehicular landscape can promote early adoption.

Particularly as the technology advances, CAVs have a role to play in reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions. Widespread adoption of the technology can maximize these benefits, paving the way for large fleets of CAVs that create strong network efficiencies. As the technology advances to a point of being safe for public use, policymakers should account for these potential benefits as they consider the advent of CAVs in their cities.

Getting on the Road

Hello! My name is Ian Williams, and I am the Managing Editor of the Journal of Law and Mobility. I wanted to take a moment to introduce myself, and give a brief preview of what to expect from the Journal in the coming weeks and months.

As Managing Editor my job is to keep the trains, err… connected and automated vehicles… running on time. I work with the editorial board to review and edit our articles, and will be a frequent voice on this blog. Starting today I will also be joined on the blog by some brilliant law students who are serving as Research Editors for the Journal.

In the coming months the Journal will begin to publish articles and blog posts on a more frequent basis, with the help of our board and our students. We’ll also be holding events on campus at the University of Michigan, and will host a symposium next year (details to follow). If you’re interested in following our work, subscribe to our mailing list, and take the time to follow us on Twitter, @FuturistLaw.

 

As per my last post, our law school problem solving class is looking at problems created by the interaction between connected and automated vehicles and other roadway users. This article from The Information offers some interesting insights on the difficulties Waymo is facing as it deploys its robo-taxi service in Phoenix.  Basically, the problem comes down to . . . people.  A blurb from the article:

The biggest issue for Waymo’s vans and other companies’ prototypes is human drivers or pedestrians who fail to observe traffic laws. They do so by speeding, by not coming to complete stops, by turning illegally, texting while driving, or with an endless array of other moving violations that have become an accepted part of driving. Waymo’s prototypes sometimes respond to these maneuvers by stopping abruptly in ways that human drivers don’t anticipate. As a result, human drivers from time to time have rear-ended the Waymo vans.

This fall, the University of Michigan Law School is offering its third Problem Solving Initiative (“PSI”) course concerning connected and automated vehicles. The first class, offered in the Winter 2017 semester, involved a team of fifteen graduate students from law, business, engineering, and public policy who accepted the challenge of coming up with commercial use cases for data generated by connected vehicles using dedicated short-range communication (“DSRC”) technology.

In the Fall of 2017, we offered our second PSI Course in CAV—this one to 23 graduate students. That course focused on the problem of Level 3 autonomy, as defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers (“SAE”). Level 3 autonomy, or conditional automation, is defined as a vehicle driving itself in a defined operational design domain (“ODD”), with a human driver always on standby to take over the vehicle upon short notice when the vehicle exits the ODD. As with the first course, our student teams spent the semester collecting information from industry, governmental, and academic experts and proposing a series of innovative solutions to various obstacles to the deployment of Level 3 systems.

This semester, our PSI course is entitled Connected and Automated Vehicles: Preparing for a Mixed Fleet Future. I will be co-teaching the course with Anuj Pradhan and Bryant Walker Smith. Our focus will be on the multiple potential problems created by unavoidable future interactions between automated vehicles and other road users, such as non-automated, human-driven vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

Although cars can be programmed to follow rules of the road, at its core, driving and roadway use are social activities. Roadway users rely heavily on social cues, expectations, and understandings to navigate shared transportation infrastructure. For example, although traffic circles are in principle governed by a simple rule of priority to vehicles already in the circle, their actual navigation tends to governed by a complex set of social interactions involving perceptions of the intentions, speed, and aggressivity of other vehicles. Similarly, while most states require bicyclists to obey stop signs and traffic lights, most cyclists do not; prudent drivers should not expect them to.

Can cars be programmed to behave “socially?” Should they be, or is the advent of robotic driving an opportunity to shift norms and expectations toward a greater degree of adherence to roadway rules? Will programming vehicles to be strictly rule compliant make CAVs “roadway wimps,” always giving in to more aggressive roadway users? Would that kill the acceptance of CAVs from a business perspective? Is reform legislation required to permit CAVs to mimic human drivers?

More generally, is the advent of CAVs an opportunity to reshape the way that all roadway users access roadways? For example, could the introduction of automated vehicles be an opportunity to reduce urban speeds? Or to prohibit larger private vehicles from some streets (since people may no longer be dependent only on their individually owned car)? These questions are simply illustrative of the sorts of problems our class may choose to tackle. Working in interdisciplinary groups, our graduate students will attempt to identify and solve the key legal, regulatory, technological, business, and social problems created by the interaction between CAVs and other roadway users.

As always, our class will rely heavily on on the expertise of folks from government, industry, and academia. We welcome any suggestions for topics we should consider or experts who might provide important insights as our students begin their discovery process next week.

Transportation as we know it is changing dramatically.  New technology, new business models and new ways of thinking about how we move are being announced almost daily.  With all this change, come inevitable questions about legality, responsibility, and morality.  Lawyers and policy makers play a leading role in answering these challenging questions.  The newly launched Journal of Law and Mobility, will serve an important role as the leading source for scholarship, commentary, analysis, and information, and enable a meaningful dialogue on a range of mobility topics.

In order to facilitate this needed dialogue, it is important at the outset that we ground ourselves in the terminology used to describe “mobility.”  There are a lot of terms being used by different people in the industry, government and media that can be confusing or ambiguous to those not familiar with the technology.  Terms such as “semi-autonomous,” “highly automated” or “connected and automated vehicles” can describe a wide range of vehicles, from “self-driving cars” that actually have self-driving capability, to cars that are connected and communicating with each other, but have lower levels of automation that provide assistance to drivers.

It is very important that we are clear and concise when having a discussion about mobility, because while there are common issues in each area, there are many unique aspects of each technology that merit different discussion.  Fortunately, we have a framework that helps us have clearer discussion about automated technology, the SAE levels of driving automation.  This document describes 6 levels of automation, from Level 0 – no automation, to Level 5 – full automation, and the responsibilities associated with each level of automation in terms of monitoring and executing the Dynamic Driving Task (DDT).  The SAE taxonomy has become so widespread, that even governmental entities such as the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) and the California Department of Motor Vehicles (CA DMV) are utilizing these levels of automation in their policy statements and rulemaking.

The CA DMV went even further, and specifically regulates the use of certain terminology.  In their Driverless Testing Regulations issued in February, 2016, they specifically require that “no manufacturer or its agents shall represent in any advertising for the sale or lease of a vehicle that a vehicle is autonomous” unless it meets the definition of SAE Levels 3-5.

Lawyers know the importance of words for legal purposes, but terminology is also important for consumers, particularly for building the trust that will be required for successful deployment of self-driving vehicles.  There is already some data suggesting that consumers are confused, for example a finding from an MIT AgeLab survey question that asked respondents if self-driving vehicles are available for purchase today, with nearly 23% saying “yes” – despite the fact that no Level 3 or higher vehicle is actually for sale yet.

NHTSA’s 2017 policy statement addresses this concern, it includes “Consumer Education and Training” as one of the twelve safety design elements of the Voluntary Safety Self-Assessments it suggests that manufacturers complete, citing a need for explicit information on system capabilities to minimize potential risks from user system abuse or misunderstanding.  Legislation that passed the House last year, the SELF DRIVE Act, would take this a step further by mandating that the Department of Transportation (DOT) do research to determine the most effective method and terminology for informing consumers about vehicle automation capabilities and limitations, including the possible use of the SAE levels.

SAE is not the only organization to tackle this problem, there are similar definitions developed in Europe by the German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA) and the Germany Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt).  Whether we utilize one of these definitional frameworks or not, what is most important is that we are specific about what we are discussing, to enable clear and effective dialogue as we endeavor to solve the important issues ahead.

I am delighted to welcome you to the newly launched Journal of Law and Mobility! The Journal is the centerpiece of the University of Michigan Law School’s new Project in Law and Mobility, which will work in partnership with Mcity and the wider University community to expand knowledge, communication, and learning about the intersection of law, regulation, and mobility. In addition to the Journal, the Project will include such features as a periodic speaker series, an annual conference, and support for our Problem Solving Initiative course in connected and automated vehicles.

With the generous support and encouragement of Gov. Snyder, the University of Michigan Provost’s Office, Mcity, and its legal working group, we aim to make the Journal the leading resource for scholarship, analysis, and information concerning law and the brave new world of connected and automated vehicles. Rather than replicating a traditional legal journal with dense text and footnoting, we hope to create a nimble and adaptive resource that will bring important developments and insights quickly to the mobility community.