Archive: Automated Vehicles
Filter
Post List
How Might We Reimagine Transportation Technology to Combat Forced Labor: Conference Explanations and Recommendations From the Law and Mobility Program’s Annual Conference 2023
The LAMP Annual Conference 2023 considered how we might reimagine transportation technology in a way that combats the systemic vulnerabilities...A Comparative Look at Various Countries’ Legal Regimes Governing Automated Vehicles
News and commentary about automated vehicles (AVs) focus on how they look and appear to operate, along with the companies developing and testing them. Behind the scenes are legal regimes—laws, regulations, and implementing bodies of different kinds—that literally and figuratively provide the rules of the road for AVs. Legal regimes matter because public welfare hinges on aspects of AV design and operation. Legal regimes can provide gatekeeping for AV developers and operators seeking to use public roads, and they can allocate liability when something goes wrong. Guiding and complementing legal regimes is public policy. Policy documents such as articulations of national strategies are sometimes used to address issues related to legal regimes and to demonstrate a jurisdiction’s support for AV development. Building on its long history analyzing AV policy issues, RAND (with support of its Institute for Civil Justice) collaborated with the University of Michigan Law School’s Law and Mobility Program to study the nature of different AV legal regimes around the world. It selected countries known to be active in this domain. The research team reviewed and shared scholarly and gray literature (which is a type of scholarship produced by an entity in which commercial publications are not the primary focus, such as white papers from a government agency), and it also consulted experts in these regimes from the public and private sectors. Under the supervision of the Law and Mobility Fellow (a lawyer), law students collected and studied materials associated with country-specific legal regimes and drafted summaries guided by RAND’s enumeration of key factors. Availability of information about legal regimes varies—access to documentation, especially in English, is uneven, even for officials in different countries working collaboratively on these issues. That constrained availability is reflected in published legal comparisons, and it motivated the research team’s systematic research, which drew from materials in English and other languages. This article summarizes the makeup of AV legal regimes of Australia, China, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom. It highlights some key contrasts, which will be developed further as the project continues. It focuses on law and policy relating to highly to fully automated vehicles (SAE Levels 4 and 5). Although guided by a common set of topics for each country, each profile reflects the material available and the factors that differentiate national approaches. The remainder of this article introduces the legal regimes of the covered countries in turn. It then provides an overview of key points of comparison and outlines future work.Opportunities and Challenges for Deploying Connected and Automated Vehicles to Address Transportation Disparities in Urban Areas
As the development and testing of connected and automated vehicles (CAV) accelerates, it is important for government stakeholders, planners, and policymakers to have a better understanding of the challenges and opportunities CAVs will bring to infrastructure, communities, and lifestyles. There is general consensus among scholars and transportation practitioners that CAV will “disrupt” transportation systems, land use patterns, and socioeconomic power structures as they exist today.The implications of CAV on transportation infrastructure have been the subject of numerous academic and professional studies, suggesting both positive and negative effects may occur. Furthermore, in an American context, transportation planning has historically contributed to the vast socioeconomic and racial inequities still seen today, so particular emphasis should be given to the potential for CAV development to compound equity issues. Regardless, the rapid development of CAV technology has led to a compressed timeline for planners and policymakers to put policies, plans, and infrastructure into place to prepare for the mainstreaming of CAVs, and the evolution of the current transportation system. In order to identify strategic ways to leverage CAV to best support communities of all scales, researchers at the University of Minnesota have gathered information from community members and stakeholders across the state. Building on previous research and community discussions surrounding CAV opportunities in Greater Minnesota, this project sought to understand the needs of transportation disadvantaged communities that have limited access to transportation due to level of income, ability, or service extent, and explores whether CAV could be an appropriate solution. This research particularly focused on such communities in the “East Metro” of the Twin Cities, with particular focus given to the east side of Saint Paul, downtown, and Frogtown areas. Much of the equity-related research conducted in the Twin Cities metropolitan area is focused on Minneapolis, and there is a relative gap in the literature for evaluating transportation challenges of the East Metro. Transportation is undoubtedly an issue for everyone, but these challenges are most difficult for individuals with limited access to transportation due to income, ability, or extent of service area. CAVs have the potential to mitigate some of these transportation challenges, but the policy measures discussed in this paper should be considered to ensure that CAV deployment does not recreate or exacerbate the inequities of today's transportation system.An Uncertain Framework: Privacy and Data Security Regulation Advances Long After Transportation Technology
It’s time to be honest with ourselves: a lot of us love the convenience of facial recognition software (FRS) especially when it comes to unlocking our cell phones. There is officially no reason to get Cheeto dust on your screen while you Instagram stalk your former high school classmates before…Exceptional Driving Principles for Autonomous Vehicles
Public expectations for automated vehicles span a broad range, from mobility for passengers, to road user safety, to compliance with the traffic code. In most ordinary situations, these expectations can be satisfied simultaneously. But these various expectations can also lead to exceptional scenarios where certain objectives, such as those related to safety, are in tension with road rules. Exceptional driving scenarios challenge motion planning algorithms in automated vehicles to find solutions that are legally grounded, ethically sound, and technically feasible. The general public’s familiarity with exceptional driving scenarios comes from the classic "Trolley Car" problem in philosophy, asking who should live and who should die in an unavoidable collision. These discussions tend to take a consequentialist view by framing the ethical action as the one that achieves the best outcome. By taking a different perspective that views driving as a social contract, the AV's ethical obligations are limited to meeting the duty of care owed to other road users. With this perspective, the existing legal system in the US provides a framework for choosing appropriate behaviors in exceptional driving cases and for answering the Trolley Car problem. This work outlines principles that prioritize care for humans, respect the authority of human-defined traffic law, and ensure that the vehicle avoids decisions that introduce unreasonable risks. Developing AVs that can legally and ethically negotiate exceptional driving scenarios is simply a matter of translating the principles into engineering requirements with no need for new laws or endless philosophical debate.Deep In the Weeds of the Levels of Automation Lurks an Ambiguous Minimal Risk Condition
Are you familiar with SAE J3016, the recommended practice that defines, among many other terms, the widely (mis)cited levels of driving automation? You can be! You could read one of the many purported (and often erroneous) summaries of it. You could read my short gloss on it. Or you could read…The Government Response to the Pipeline Hack Could Lead to Better Transportation Cybersecurity
As someone who has thought about cybersecurity for some time, including in previous posts on this blog, the recent events around the hack of the Colonial Pipeline has been front of mind, and not just because I live in Washington, D.C., where gas stations have been…Tesla, Mode Confusion, and the Lack of ADAS Regulation
Last week I wrote about how a recent crash in Texas is illustrative of a serious issue with Tesla’s Autopilot feature. As a refresher, Autopilot is an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS), meaning it can take over a number of driving tasks and help protect drivers, but a human is supposed…
Contact Responsibility as a Solution to AV Liability
By Matthew Wansley* Human drivers are a menace to public health. In 2019, 36,096 Americans were killed in motor vehicle crashes, and an estimated 2.74 million Americans were injured. Most crashes aren’t “accidents.” The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that driver error is the critical reason for…A Texas Crash Highlights Issues With Tesla’s Autopilot
Earlier this month, two Texas men died when the Tesla Model S they were traveling in crashed into a tree. However, just what led to the crash remains a point of contention between authorities and Tesla itself. The police have said that one passenger was found in the…