NHTSA's Updated Autonomous Safety Guidance Doesn't Actually Offer Any
On Tuesday, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao outlined the Trump administration’s “Vision for Safety 2.0” at the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute in Ann Arbor. The document is a collection of non-binding requests to manufacturers and a promise that they can go hog-wild with their autonomous vehicle testing, at least as far as the feds are concerned.
In a deluge of policy updates, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tweaked its vision for safety, claiming it was responding to the recent increase in the number of road accidents.
While Obama-era guidelines weren’t particularly robust, the Trump administration has essentially built a technical-sounding framework aimed at destroying regulatory red tape. Ironically, the government seems to have gone out of its way to ensure it stays out of the way. In some respects, it has to. The speed of development is beginning to happen at a rate where any outside bureaucracy would have difficulty keeping pace. Chao said the guidance would remain flexible, ready to adapt to the changes as they come. But it is also without teeth, promoting development and the future promise for safety at the expense of any meaningful oversight.
Did the Department of Transportation and NHTSA sell themselves out to industry or do they actually think giving automakers carte blanche on autonomous testing was the best thing for public safety?
In the short term, it’s easy to argue that it makes things less safe — but only marginally. Safety 2.0 eliminated the Obama administration’s request for manufacturers to submit a 15-point safety assessment prior to putting an autonomous vehicle on the road and replaced it with jack squat. If a manufacturer wants to provide the DOT with such a document, companies are more than welcome to do so. But it isn’t mandatory.
The document also tells individual states to mind their own business and prepare for test vehicles on their highways and roads. Uniformity would be a boon to R&D departments, as California is notoriously strict about regulating self-driving vehicles while Michigan doesn’t seem to mind autonomous testing whatsoever.
Other key points of update include a changing of language to better reflect the evolving tech, encouraging new entrants and ideas into the industry, making regulatory processes more nimble to help match the pace of private sector innovation, and supporting industry innovation while encouraging open communication “with the public and with stakeholders.”
To paraphrase, Vision 2.0 is really about bolstering business. While that’s great in some respects, some consumer advocacy groups are more than a little pissed. Consumer Watchdog was already highly critical of Congress’ approval of self-driving tech and expressed additional concerns in response to Chao’s address.
“This isn’t a vision for safety,” said John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s privacy project director. “It’s a road map that allows manufacturers to do whatever they want, wherever and whenever they want, turning our roads into private laboratories for robot cars with no regard for our safety.”
Several House Democrats have also been outspoken on just how soft the Department of Transportation’s guidance is. House Democrats Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois issued a joint statement accusing Vision 2.0 of being regressive, claiming “the administration chose to cave to industry and pressure the states into not acting.”
Chao does have her supporters, however. In attendance at Tuesday’s announcement was Mark Riccobono, president of the National Federation of the Blind, who has repeatedly praised fully autonomous vehicles as “an unprecedented opportunity to bring equal access to people with disabilities.”
Riccobon said those opportunities could not be emphasized enough for the 7 million blind citizens currently living within America’s borders.
Whether or not that was ever the intent of automakers is debatable, however. The kind of autonomy required to allow a blind person to “drive” is still a long way off (and would also require a non-touchscreen interface to facilitate their needs). It’s something to strive for, but present-day licensing laws would have to change if they were ever to be more than a passenger.
Likewise, the NHTSA is pushing the technology as a way to keep elderly people behind the wheel. This is another worthy cause but poses further problems. Anyone who has a family member with even mild dementia will tell you that teaching them how to utilize an unfamiliar digital interface is next to impossible — limiting the application of the technology to a particularly tech-savvy minority. That is, at least until the systems have been around long enough to have an aged community grow into it.
Even with all of Chao’s talking points on improving safety, Vision 2.0 doesn’t actually do much to improve it in the short term. Instead, it is banking on an unregulated automotive industry hurrying to the finish line and delivering safer technologies on a longer timeline.
Vision for Safety 2.0 is available for perusal at the NHTSA’s website (goofy graphics and all), but Chao indicates Vision 3.0 is already being worked on. Keep in mind this is still all voluntary, but establishes framework for legislators and the industry to work from.
Last week, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow automakers to place as many as 25,000 autonomous cars on the road apiece — even if some features don’t meet current NHTSA safety standards. The limit would rise over four years, permitting each manufacturer to field 275,000 driverless cars by the end of the period.
The House bill is in largely in line with Vision 2.0, as it would require safety assessments but permission to test would not be required. States would also be mandated to follow federal regulations.
“Safety must always be number one but we need to take a look at this new technology and how it augments, furthers safety,” Chao said. “As the technology advance and the department gathers new and more information from stakeholders and consumers, we will continue to refine and update this guidance.”
[Source: Mlive.com][Image: NHTSA]
Latest Car ReviewsRead more
Latest Product ReviewsRead more
- MaintenanceCosts We hear endlessly from the usual suspects about the scenarios where EVs don't work as well as gas cars. We never hear the opposite side of the coin. From an EV owner (since 2019) who has a second EV reserved, here are a few points the "I road trip 1000 miles every day" crowd won't tell you about:[list][*]When you have a convenient charging situation, EV fueling is more convenient than a gas car. There is no stopping at gas stations and you start every day with a full tank.[/*][*]Where there are no-idling rules (school pickup/dropoff, lines for ferries or services, city loading, whatever else) you can keep warm or cool to your heart's content in your EV.[/*][*]In the cold, EVs will give you heat from the second you turn them on.[/*][*]EVs don't care one bit if you use them for tons of very short trips. Their mechanicals don't need to boil off condensation. (Just tonight, I used my EV to drive six blocks, because it was 31 degrees and raining, and walking would have been unpleasant.)[/*][*]EVs don't stink and don't make you breathe carcinogens on cold start.[/*][*]EV maintenance is much less frequent and much cheaper, eliminating almost all items having to do with engine, transmission, or brakes in a gas car. In most EVs the maintenance schedule consists of battery coolant changes and tire maintenance.[/*][*]You can accelerate fast in EVs without noisily attracting the attention of the cops and every passerby on the street.[/*][/list]
- MaintenanceCosts Still can't get a RAV4 Prime for love or money. Availability of normal hybrid RAV4s and Highlanders is only slightly better. At least around here I think Toyota could sell twice the number of vehicles that they are actually bringing in at the moment.
- Tree Trunk Been in the market for a new Highlander Hybrid, it is sold out with order time of 6 months plus. Probably would have bit the bullet if it was not for the dealers the refuse to take an order but instead want to sell from allotment whether it fits or not and at thousands over MRSP.
- AKHusky The expense argument is nonsense. My mach e was $42k after tax credit. Basically the same as similarly equipped edge. And it completely ignores that the best selling vehicles are Rams, F150s, and Silverados, all more expensive that a bolt, MAch e or ID4. As an owner, I'd say they are still in second car territory for most places in the country.
- Johnster I live in a red state and I see quite a few EVs being purchased by conservative, upper-class Republicans (many of them Trump-supporters). I suspect that it is a way for them to flaunt their wealth and that, over time, the preference for EVs will trickle down to less well-off Republicans.