International

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 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.

Here you will find more information on the Expert Participants who are taking part in our 2020 conference, including bios and links to their websites and work:

  • Silvia Stuchi Cruz – Founder, CorridaAmiga (Brazil)

Silvia Stuchi Cruz is a Postdoc in Sustainability at the University of Sao Paulo, with emphasis on active mobility. She has previously served as an environmental manager at the University of Sao Paulo, and holds a PhD in Scientific Policy and Technology from State University of Campinas. While completing her PhD she interned at the University of Science and Technology in Lille/ France, and was a visiting student researcher at the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland. Silvia has 8 years of experience in sustainability and climate change, along with 6 years of work on pedestrian mobility. A passionate active transportation advocate, she is the founder of the NGO “Corrida Amiga” which works with Brazilian communities (public schools, as wel as institutions for elderly people and people with disabilities) to promote pedestrian mobility and to develop projects, campaigns and tools related to walkability, accessibility and right to the city.   

  • Dr. Rohit Baluja – Chairman, Institute of Road Traffic Education (India)

Rohit Baluja has a PhD in Civil Engineering from the University of Birmingham. Rohit is now a visiting faculty at the School of Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham as well as at the Sardar Vallabhai Patel –Indian National Police Academy, Hyderabad.

Rohit established the Institute of Road Traffic Education (IRTE)as a not for profit organisation in New Delhi  1991, which has led to the establishment of the College of Traffic Management in the NCR Delhi which is the only single umbrella facility for research and training in all the areas of traffic management. The College of Traffic Management has now been recognised as the Centre for Excellence in Road Safety for the South East Asian Region.

Rohit is a Member at the United Nations Road Safety Collaboration. As President IRTE, he is Observer at the United Nations Global Forum for Road Traffic Safety (Working Party 1). The IRTE has been granted the Roster Consultative Status by the United Nations Economic and Social Council and have recently signed an MOU with the United Nations towards promoting road safety in South East Asia.

  • He Shanshan – Partner, Anli Partners (China)

He Shanshan is the head of Autonomous Driving Law Centre of Intelligent & Connected Mobility Academy, and leader of Automobile and Artificial Intelligence Group of Anli Partners. Ms. He Shanshan is also the member of Autonomous Driving Expert Committee of Beijing.

Shanshan has been closely working on the automated driving projects and conducting research and advice on law, policy, ethics and standards regarding AI and autonomous driving. She also keeps close communication and cooperation with industry field, academic field and relevant authorities domestically and overseas on AI and autonomous vehicles. 

Shanshan obtained the bachelor of law degree and master of law degree from Tsinghua University School of Law, the master of law degree from Columbia University in New York. She is both qualified in P.R. China and New York.  Her previous experience includes work in an international law firm and the legal department of an international automobile company.

  • Luiz Otávio Maciel – Miranda Advisor, Traffic Department of State of Pará (Brazil)

Luiz Otávio Maciel Miranda is an advisor at the Traffic Department of the State of Pará – DETRAN/PA, where he has worked since 1983. He is the Brazilian delegate at the Global Forum for Road Traffic Safety (WP.1) of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) since 2016. Counselor at the National Traffic Council (CONTRAN) representing the Ministry of Health, working on the drafting of National Road Safety Regulations and the enforcement of the Brazilian Traffic Code. He worked as a consultant at the Global Road Safety Partnership (GRSP) at the Bloomberg Philanthropies Global Road Safety Programme (BPGRSP) and the Bloomberg Initiative for Global Road Safety (BIGRS) for Brazil. He worked as an advisor at the National Traffic Department (DENATRAN), Technical Consultant at the Ministry of Health and Counselor at the State Traffic Council (CETRAN/PA)

Mr. Miranda graduated from Federal University of Pará with degrees in Civil Engineering (1985), Mathematics (1983) and Science (1982).

  • Pramanand Gopaldu – Lead Engineer, Traffic Management and Road Safety Unit (Mauritius)

Pramanand Gopaldu is a Lead Engineer for Traffic Management and Road Safety, a department under the aegis of the Ministry of Land Transport and Light Rail in Mauritius. For the past 15 years he has devoted much of his practice to maximize road safety and to address road traffic issues.

Mr Gopaldu graduated from the University of Mauritius, with a bachelor degree in Civil Engineering in 1994. He then earned his Master’s degree in Traffic from Monash University, Australia, in 2012.

  • Phil Monture – (Six Nations of the Grand River)

Beginning in 1975, Phil developed a long-term research program and supervised the research for the Six Nations of the Grand River as relates to lands which are no longer used for their benefit or legal surrender obtained under prevailing legislation. He was the principle architect of the ongoing 1995 litigation against Canada and Ontario for an accounting of all Six Nations Lands, resources and assets supposedly held and managed on Six Nations behalf by the Crown(s). 

Phil has also been active in taking Six Nations unresolved Land Rights issues to the United Nations and working with developer proponents utilizing the legal duty to consult and accommodate; implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and its requirement to obtain our free, prior and informed consent. This has enabled the Six Nations Peoples to have partnerships and beneficiaries of over 1,000 MGW of Green Energy developments within Six Nations Treaty lands.

Utilizing Six Nations’ Sovereign Treaty relations with the Crown, Six Nations have undertaken protective measures through the Climate Development Mechanism of the UN to assert certain initiatives to counter climate change and to enhance their environment.

  • Raymond Hess – Transportation Manager, City of Ann Arbor (US)

Raymond Hess is Transportation Manager for the City of Ann Arbor, Michigan. Alongside a passionate team, he implements transportation initiatives that aim to improve safety and the livability of the community. Previously, he was Director of Planning Services at the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada and oversaw the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the greater Las Vegas Valley as well as a regional sustainable communities initiative known as Southern Nevada Strong. Prior to joining the RTC, Raymond worked for the City of Bloomington (IN), the City of Brooksville (FL) and was a Peace Corps Volunteer in the Ivory Coast West Africa.

  • Ellen Partridge – Policy and Strategy Director at Shared-Use Mobility Center (US)
Ellen Partridge has nearly 20 years of work in public transit administration and operations at both the federal and transit agency levels. She was appointed Chief Counsel for the USDOT Research and Innovative Technology Administration and also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology and Chief Counsel for the FTA. She is intimately familiar with the legal and regulatory landscape of public transit, including the nuances of public agency partnerships with private mobility providers.
 
At the Chicago Transit Authority, she focused on policy initiatives – first as Deputy General Counsel for Policy and Appeals and then in the Strategic Operations unit that deployed new technology and trained supervisors on how to use it to improve bus service. Before joining the nation’s second-largest transit agency, she practiced environmental law with the firms of Jenner & Block in Chicago and Van Ness Feldman in Washington, D.C. She lived in the Republic of Palau, serving as counsel to its government as it transitioned from being a United Nations Trust Territory to independence.
 
While practicing law, she taught environmental and natural resources law as an adjunct professor at Northwestern University and DePaul University Law Schools. Ellen is a fellow with Leadership Greater Chicago, was awarded a fellowship with the German Marshall Fund and was a Senior Fellow with the Environmental Law and Policy Center. She earned her law degree at Georgetown University Law School and an MBA from the University of Chicago.
 
  • Daniel Arking – Counsel, Department of Law, City of Detroit (US)

Daniel Arking is an Assistant Corporation Counsel in the City of Detroit Law Department. In this role, Daniel works on a variety of regulatory and transactional matters related to land use and zoning, recreation, transportation and mobility, and public private partnerships. In the mobility space, Daniel has worked with the City’s mobility innovation team to expand access to a variety of transportation options, including the development of guidelines for the operation of dockless electric scooters in Detroit. Since then, multiple scooter operators have deployed over 1,000 scooters in neighborhoods across the City with notable success.

Prior to joining the Detroit Law Department in 2015, Daniel served as an Associate in the Washington DC office of Holland & Knight LLP and as an aide in the New York City Mayor’s Office under the Bloomberg Administration. Daniel holds a Juris Doctor from the Georgetown University Law Center and a Bachelor of Arts in Physics from the University of Chicago.

  • Jeff P. Michael, EdD – Distinguished Scholar and Leon S. Robertson Faculty Development Chair in Injury Prevention, Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University (US)

Dr. Michael is an accomplished national and international leader with demonstrated leadership in analysis, development and implementation of programs to improve road safety – both in the United States and in other nations. As the Leon S. Robertson Faculty Development Chair in Injury Prevention, Dr. Michael’s current research focuses on the development of strategies for utilizing emerging mobility technologies to improve safety and reduce health disparities. The combination of artificial intelligence, shared rides and electric vehicles is predicted to transform mobility patterns in the next decade.  Inherent in this transformation is the potential to deliver mobility services to populations that have historically suffered from limited access to health care, nutritious food and economic opportunities. However, the prevailing market-driven mobility movement is unlikely to reach these underserved populations absent a deliberate scientific and policy initiative dedicated to this purpose.

As Coordinator of the New Mobility Initiative at the Center for Injury Research and Policy, Dr. Michael is leading an effort to develop evidence-based policy models to steer the deployment of New Mobility products and services for public health benefit. The New Mobility Initiative is working closely with the City of Baltimore to conduct and evaluate mobility experiments and policy evaluations.  

  • Emily Frascaroli – Managing Counsel, Product Litigation Group, Ford Motor Company (US)

Emily Frascaroli is managing counsel of the Product Litigation Group at Ford Motor Company, including the product litigation, asbestos, and discovery teams. She also advises globally on automotive safety, regulatory, and product liability issues, including a focus on autonomous vehicles and mobility. She has extensive experience handling complex product litigation cases, regulatory matters with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and other governmental entities, and product defect investigations. She also is co-chair of the Legal and Insurance Working Group for the University of Michigan’s Mcity. In 2017, she was appointed by Gov. Rick Snyder to the Michigan Council on Future Mobility, and in 2019 she was appointed by Ohio Gov. John Kasich to the DriveOhio Expert Advisory Board.

She earned her JD, cum laude, from Wayne State University and was an editor of the Wayne Law Review. She received her BS in aerospace engineering from the University of Southern California and her MEng in aerospace engineering from the University of Michigan. Prior to practicing law, she worked in engineering at both Ford and NASA.

  • Jessica Robinson – President and Executive Director, Michigan Mobility Institute (US)

Jessica Robinson is President and Executive Director of the Michigan Mobility Institute where she works to accelerate the development of talent for the growing mobility industry. The Institute is the first initiative of the Detroit Mobility Lab which she co-founded to focus on building the mobility talent infrastructure necessary to shape the sector’s future within the City of Detroit. She has more than 10 years of operating experience with mobility businesses at Zipcar and Ford Smart Mobility and a background in technology and innovation launching startup accelerator programs at Techstars with industry-leading corporate partners.

Global Perspectives on Law, Policy, and Mobility Innovation

Co-sponsored by the University of South Carolina School of Law.

 February 7th, 2020

9:00 AM – 5:30 PM

Room 1225, Jeffries Hall, University of Michigan Law School 

The goal of the 2020 Law and Mobility conference is to bring together a diverse selection of international transportation experts from government, industry, and civil society to discuss how communities and nations across the globe are reacting to new mobility technologies like drones, automated vehicles, and micro-mobility platforms. Within the United States the discussion around new mobility technology has been focused on domestic developments, with some discussion of developments in nations and regions that have deep connections to the American transportation system – as dictated by geography (Canada) or economics (the EU, Japan, South Korea, and Japan, among others). This conference is intended to expand that discussion to a wider set of nations and regions, to gain new perspectives on both the promise and peril of these emerging technologies.

Global Perspectives on Law, Policy, and Mobility Innovation is presented by the University of Michigan Law School’s Law and Mobility Program, and co-sponsored by the University of South Carolina School of Law.

Expert Participants will include:

  • Silvia Stuchi Cruz – Founder, CorridaAmiga (Brazil)
  • Dr. Rohit Baluja – Chairman, Institute of Road Traffic Education (India)
  • He Shanshan – Partner, Anli Partners (China)
  • Luiz Otávio Maciel – Miranda Advisor, Traffic Department of State of Pará (Brazil)
  • Pramanand Gopaldu – Lead Engineer, Traffic Management and Road Safety Unit (Mauritius)
  • Phil Monture – (Six Nations of the Grand River)
  • Raymond Hess – Transportation Manager, City of Ann Arbor (US)
  • Ellen Partridge – Policy and Strategy Director at Shared-Use Mobility Center (US)
  • Daniel Arking – Counsel, Department of Law, City of Detroit (US)
  • Jeff P. Michael, EdD – Distinguished Scholar and Leon S. Robertson Faculty Development Chair in Injury Prevention, Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Emily Frascaroli – Managing Counsel, Product Litigation Group, Ford Motor Company (US)
  • Jessica Robinson – President and Executive Director, Michigan Mobility Institute (US)

Further Information on Expert Participants is Available Here

Schedule of Events

Morning Sessions


(Available via livestream)

  • 9:00 am – 9:05 am
Welcome and Introduction

Profs. Daniel Crane and Bryant Walker Smith


  • 9:05 am – 10:15 am
Expert Participant Presentations 

Expert participants will make short presentations on their work and the transportation issues faced by their communities and nations.

Presenters:


  • 10:30 am – 12:00 pm
Rural and Inter-City Transportation

Emily Frascaroli, Moderator  

Expert participants will discuss the transportation challenges facing rural communities, the demands of moving people and goods across nations and regions as a whole, and how emerging transportation technologies can meet those challenges.

Each expert will briefly present their views on these issues, followed by open discussion with other speakers and questions from the audience.

Expert Participants:

Pramanand Gopaldu, Lead Engineer, Traffic Management and Road Safety Unit (Mauritius)

Luiz Otávio Maciel Miranda, Advisor, Traffic Department of State of Pará (Brazil)

Phil Monture, (Six Nations of the Grand River)

Lunch and Expert Participant Presentations

(Available via livestream)

  • 12:00 pm – 1:45 pm 

All guests will enjoy lunch while some of our expert participants make short presentations on their work and the transportation issues faced by their communities and nations.

Presenters: 

Afternoon Sessions

(Available via livestream)

  • 1:45 pm – 3:15 pm
Urban Transportation

Ellen Partridge, Moderator  

Expert participants will discuss the transportation challenges facing urban areas, and how emerging transportation technologies can meet those challenges. 

Each expert will briefly present their views on these issues, followed by open discussion with other speakers and questions from the audience.

Expert Participants:

Daniel Arking, Counsel, Department of Law, City of Detroit (US)

Silvia Stuchi Cruz, Founder, CorridaAmiga (Brazil)

Raymond Hess, Transportation Manager, City of Ann Arbor (US)


  • 3:30 pm – 5:00 pm
Transportation Regulation, Policy, and Planning 

Bryant Walker Smith, Moderator

Expert participants will discuss how governments and communities approach new transportation technology, and the relationship between law, policy, and planning in transportation systems. 

Each expert will briefly present their views on these issues, followed by open discussion with other speakers and questions from the audience.

Expert Participants:

Dr. Rohit Baluja, Chairman, Institute of Road Traffic Education (India)

Jeff P. Michael, EdD, Distinguished Scholar and Leon S. Robertson Faculty Development Chair in Injury Prevention, Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University (US)

Jessica Robinson, President and Executive Director, Michigan Mobility Institute (US)


  • 5:00 pm – 5:30 pm

Summary and Closing

Ian Williams, Moderator

Expert participants and attendees will close out the day by taking part in wide discussion of all of the day’s panels.

    

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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 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.


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.

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.