The U.S. Senate is set to consider the nation’s first driverless car legislation. And while the bipartisan bill has the support of numerous groups that say the roads would be safer, others contend the bill is flawed and lacks safeguards.
President of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety Cathy Chase joined several others detractors of the bill on a press call. She says there are many reasons to put the brakes on the AV START Act, a bill that would set policy on AVs, or autonomous vehicles. One is the National Transportation Safety Board’s ongoing investigations into AV crashes. And, she says:
“Other than giving AV manufacturers the green light to sell potentially millions of untested and unproven AVs to the public, there is no good reason for the Senate to move forward with this bill,” Chase says.
The Senate is expected to consider the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act in the coming days, and AV START Act sponsors aim to attach their legislation to the FAA bill. Thomas Manger is a county police chief in Maryland and president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association. He says law enforcement has three major concerns.
“This bill prohibits state regulatory action on autonomous vehicles even though the federal government has not taken any regulatory action. States must retain their traditional legal authority to protect public safety,” Manger says. “The second issue is data insufficiency. Even though some states are requiring data on self-driving vehicle crashes now, the bill give the United State Department of Transportation three years to act and revise data collection to include autonomous vehicles.”
He says all crashes involving AVs should be reported to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration immediately and made publicly available. And he says the legislation should include a cybersecurity standard to fend off vehicle hacks. Dr. Jeanna Matthews is associate professor of Computer Science at Clarkson University in New York.
“The AV STARTS Act simply requires that manufacturers have a written plan for identifying and reducing cybersecurity risks,” says Matthews. “That’s it.”
Plus, she says.
“Simply put, rush to legislation plus 4,000-ton vehicles plus no human driver plus software vulnerabilities is a recipe for disaster and human tragedy,” Matthews says.
Meantime, more than 100 organizations are urging the Senate to pass the measure. In a letter to senators, auto manufacturers and technology companies say now is the time to establish a technology neutral regulatory framework to advance groundbreaking technologies while supporting research and investment. They say a lack of congressional action will only cause uncertainty and delays in the development and ultimate deployment of life-saving technologies.
Ken McLeod says he once considered himself an AV evangelist but says the driverless car bill in its current form has too many shortcomings. McCleod is policy director of the League of American Bicyclists. He says the death of Elaine Herzberg is one reason to hold off on the bill’s passage. Herzberg was struck and killed by an AV while walking her bicycle across a street in Tempe, Arizona, in March. It was believed to be the first pedestrian death caused by an AV.
“Will an AV stop when I cross the road? Will an AV see me when I wear dark clothes? To realize the promised benefits of AVs, the AV START Act should ensure that AVs are safe for all people,” McLeod says. “By potentially attaching AV START to another bill, Congress is not debating the merits of the bill or waiting for the National Transportation Safety Board to complete its investigation of Elaine Herzberg’s death, which might provide valuable insight on necessary safety provisions.”
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety’s Chase says she has previously acknowledged improvements to the bill, but is, for the first time, coming out in opposition to the measure. And she points to one welcome improvement.
One of the improvements that was made to the bill was offered by Senator Corey Booker from New Jersey that was incorporated into the bill, and, in fact it’s in Section 9. And if a manufacturer provides false or misleading reports about the capabilities of the autonomous vehicle, they will be subject to civil penalties,” says Chase. “So we were able to get that improvement made to the bill, but we still think it should go further.”
Dr. Missy Cummings is director of Duke University’s Humans and Autonomy Lab. The systems engineer says she is a strong proponent of technology, but believes the technology for AVs is not ready for the road.
“And the code in these systems is probably the most complex software that we’ve ever seen in transportation systems. This code in autonomous cars, it’s far more complex that what you have in commercial aircraft today,” Cummings says. “And I don’t think anyone on this conference call would get into an airplane that has never gone through any formal testing or certification. Yet this legislation is asking you to do just that. This legislation is willing to make guinea pigs out of the American public for what is fundamentally untested and unproven technology.”
Others on the call say the AV START Act rushes unproven technology to market and that senators should go back to the drawing board. But supporters say without the measure, the U.S. will lose ground in AV technology to other countries.
