Feds Abandoning 10 Self-driving Test Sites, Sticking With Voluntary Regulation

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

With Honda and General Motors teaming up on a self-driving car and GM’s Super Cruise getting the green light from Consumer Reports, it’s already been a busy week for automotive autonomy — and it’s only getting busier.

The U.S. Transportation Department plans to repudiate 10 locations previously outlined by the previous administration to serve as federally recognized proving grounds for self-driving vehicle tech. But don’t think for a second that this means the noose is tightening around the neck of autonomous testing. The Trump administration is preparing a new initiative that will lead to nationwide testing from just about anyone who can cobble together a vehicle with advanced driving aids.

Established by the Obama administration in its very last days, the 10 sites were intended to be safe places for companies to test their hardware and collaborate on tech. Considering its timing, the move might also have been a partisan play to delay Trump’s promised deregulation of the automotive industry.

Under the Trump administration, the NHSTA has already managed to leave the door open for firms interested in testing on the open road. Its “Vision for Safety 2.0” clearly prioritizes development over regulation. However, after a few high profile incidents, criticisms of the NHTSA’s approach to autonomous safety started to snowball. Naysayers claim this has effectively made the public’s welfare a voluntary concern for vehicle manufacturers and tech firms. Still, those in favor of its methodology will tell you the agency is simply doing what is necessary to supercharge development because autonomous vehicles are supposed to nullify traffic accidents someday.

Speaking at the Most Powerful Women Summit in California on Tuesday, Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao said that America is on the cusp of something revolutionary. “I have beseeched Silicon Valley and also the OEMs. This new technology is converging the traditional automakers and also silicon valley — all these high-tech companies — and they really need to work together,” she explained. “Because all the high-tech companies know technology and they have such an interesting future that they envision for our world. The older, traditional manufacturers know safety and they know what is required.

She also went on to say that the government is not the best purveyor of knowledge when it comes to highly technical programs. Nor should it tell people what kind of cars they should drive. Innovation, as far as Chao is concerned, cannot be stifled, as its an essential aspect of America’s national identity and likely the best way to ensure public safety in the long term. Ultimately, Chao believes that competitiveness and collaboration without top-down interference from the government will yield superior technologies at a faster rate.

However, she did admit that the journey would not be without pitfalls. “When we have autonomous vehicle, we are not removing all risks,” she said. “The risk is just moving from the human being to the software program.”

Those points were echoed on Thursday when she officially announced the federal government’s third set of guidelines for self-driving cars since Trump took office. It also appears that automakers will still have to voluntarily report information about their testing protocols and progress. The Department of Transportation is pushing development, not regulation.

The new guidelines focus on adapting terms like “driver” and “operator” for use on autonomous vehicles. Currently, federal regulations require a living, breathing person in the driver seat. The department feels that the rules need to “recognize that such terms do not refer exclusively to a human, but may in fact include an automated system.” It is also considering axing rules that mandate the inclusion of components that wouldn’t be particularly use for a self-driving vehicle or could stifle new tech (replacing side mirrors with cameras, for example).

“It will not be top-down command and control,” Chao said during the announcement. “This department is not in the business of picking winners and losers, because the government is not the best place to choose which technology will succeed and which technologies will fail.”

According to Bloomberg, the new AV program was intentionally supposed to mimic the administrations drone initiative — which opens up the door for national testing but still requires individual program approval from the Federal Aviation Administration as companies duke it out. Swap the FAA for the DOT and you have the basic idea.

From Bloomberg:

The department first plans to solicit feedback on the issues posed by autonomous vehicles that should be addressed in the pilot projects, the people said. Project proposals will be solicited once those subjects are determined, they said.

The initiatives are part of the department’s third automated vehicle policy guidance, which for the first time goes beyond automated cars to include the federal agencies that oversee long-haul trucks, gas pipelines, highways and public transit systems.

The decision is likely to ruffle the feathers of some safety advocates but the Transportation Department didn’t ignore their wailing entirely. Chao said she had routinely asked companies to address the public’s “legitimate concerns about the safety, security and privacy of this new technology” and will continue doing so.

“Without public acceptance, the full potential of these technologies will never be realized,” she said. “Consumer acceptance will be the constraint to growth of this technology.”

[Imgae: NHTSA]

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
 4 comments
  • Tylanner Tylanner on Oct 04, 2018

    Fleeting and temporary....when the justification is this braindead it will be exceedingly easy to recover from these four years of negligence. Thankfully all rational stakeholders will realize this will ignore most of these fitful outbursts.

  • St.George St.George on Oct 04, 2018

    I haven't seen much about these 10 sites. They're probably completely unsuitable and were left as a 'gift' for the incoming administration. The excerpts from Elaine Chao's speech actually seem quite logical. Government is way slower to react than private industry/technology, it's not often you hear such refreshing honesty.

    • See 1 previous
    • St.George St.George on Oct 04, 2018

      @Matt Posky Thanks Matt, quite an odd list, I'm sure there's sound reasoning behind it.

  • 3-On-The-Tree Same as the Land Cruiser, emissions. I have a 1985 FJ60 Land Cruiser and it’s a beast off-roading.
  • CanadaCraig I would like for this anniversary special to be a bare-bones Plain-Jane model offered in Dynasty Green and Vintage Burgundy.
  • ToolGuy Ford is good at drifting all right... 😉
  • Dave Holzman A design award for the Prius?!!! Yes, the Prius is a great looking car, but the visibility is terrible from what I've read, notably Consumer Reports. Bad visibility is a dangerous, and very annoying design flaw.
  • Wjtinfwb I've owned multiple Mustang's, none perfect, all an absolute riot. My '85 GT with a big Holley 4 barrel and factory tube header manifolds was a screaming deal in its day and loved to rev. I replaced it with an '88 5.0 Convertible and added a Supercharger. Speed for days, handling... present. Brakes, ummm. But I couldn't kill it and it embarrassed a lot of much more expensive machinery. A '13 Boss 302 in Gotta Have It Green was a subtle as a sledgehammer, open up the exhaust cut outs and every day was Days of Thunder. I miss them all. They've gotten too expensive and too plush, I think, wish they'd go back to a LX version, ditch all the digital crap, cloth interior and just the Handling package as an add on. Keep it under 40k and give todays kids an alternative to a Civic or WRX.
Next