Something to Agree On: Everyone Wants More Autonomous Vehicle Legislation

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky
something to agree on everyone wants more autonomous vehicle legislation

While the United States has enacted some laws governing autonomous vehicles, the framework is pretty loose. Automakers have a cap on the number of test vehicles they’re allowed to field. They also have to get permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, but safety reporting is basically voluntary — and there’s plenty of conflict with existing safety standards.

A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing held Tuesday sought to address the issue by gathering input from an array of sources, some of which had conflicting goals. And yet it appears that a consensus has miraculously been reached on Capitol Hill. All sides want more laws passed governing autonomous vehicles, albeit for various reasons. Consumer groups want assurances that AVs will remain safe and service as many people as possible; industry groups want a clearcut regulatory framework they can use to gradually shift test mules into products with more intellectual property protection and less red tape.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), said the U.S. had fallen woefully behind the rest of the world — and may even be holding up development — since passing the Self Drive Act in 2017.

“China is using our infrastructure, testing on our roads, collecting information on our citizens and stealing our technology to beat us,” Rodgers said. “There is a global race to AVs. Do we want China to win that race or do we want to lead?”

Even though that race currently resembles something out of an elementary school field day, development continues and progress is being made. Congress will undoubtedly need to put more rules on the books to avoid future conflict, but it’s never really showed a robust, collective understanding of the technology. Tuesday’s hearing was supposed to help with that, but, according to Automotive News, everyone in attendance asked for rather specific items. The only overarching theme was a high emphasis placed on ensuring safety.

From Automotive News:

Gary Shapiro, CEO of the Consumer Technology Association, which produces the CES trade show, said those involved in developing AV technology and legislation should be focusing on “safety, empowerment and competitiveness.”

He said the lack of a national goal and an unclear sense of urgency are hindering the country’s progress.

Cathy Chase, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, argued against the claim that the U.S. is falling behind other countries in advancing the deployment of AVs.

“The U.S. is not behind in other countries in allowing them to go to market, but we are behind in establishing comprehensive safeguards to ensure that this progress happens without jeopardizing or diminishing public safety,” she said.

Chase called for legislation that advances a public safety agenda — not just an economic one — and addresses a broad range of topics on safety, accessible mobility and consumer confidence.

Jeffrey Tumlin, director of transportation for San Francisco’s Municipal Transportation Agency, also called on Congress to require companies to include event data recorders in AVs to preserve information from sensors, and that every safety incident involving a self-driving vehicle be documented in a national public database.

Interestingly, there was little discussion of any negative ramifications of rampant AV deployment and widespread use of advanced driving aids. In fact, subcommittee chair Jan Schakowsky’s (D-IL) opening statements suggested that automakers leaving such technologies as expensive options (rather than standard equipment) was a problem. While she still urged caution in issuing new legislation, it had nothing to do with studies suggesting driving aids actually lower a person’s ability to act safety behind the wheel, or how fallible some of these systems can be. Her concerns were largely economic.

“More than 4.4 million americans aged 16 and over work in some capacity as drivers,” Schakowsky said. “After NAFTA was passed in 1993, which resulted in enormous job losses, the federal government had done next to nothing to support workers who were displaced and we can’t let that happen again.”

John Bozzella, CEO of the freshly formed Alliance for Automotive Innovation lobby, said Congress need to act swiftly, adding that the success of autonomous vehicles relied “on a robust federal safety agency, increased public awareness and education, and coordination between federal, state and local government.” But he also said each group needs clearly defined roles, with whatever legislation comes next having enough flexibility to change as the technology evolves.

Bozzella also said the best path to modernizing our roadways was to continue exempting AVs from existing safety standards, something Ms. Chase disagreed with. Existing regulations only require automakers to submit voluntary safety reports as they each run thousands of test vehicles on public roads. Saying it’s more than the government could possibly keep tabs on, she believes the ramp-up to 100,000 AVs per company, while not having to adhere to the same standards as regular cars, totally fails to address public safety.

“We’re talking about a lot of vehicles right now that are going to be exempt from federal motor vehicle safety standards. I don’t want to be on the road with cars exempt from these safety standards. In fact, we offer there should be many more safety standards,” Chase explained. “We’re talking about minimum performance standards. If a company cannot comply with a minimum performance standard, then the vehicle should not be on the roads.”

Check the entire hearing out for yourself:

Join the conversation
5 of 15 comments
  • Retrocrank Retrocrank on Feb 12, 2020

    OMG China is beating us .... in this race for the Darwin award. I'm good with losing.

  • Inside Looking Out Inside Looking Out on Feb 12, 2020

    Sooner or later we will have to introduce basic income benefit for all those displaced by robots. Robots are much more efficient than humans and it will result in more prosperity for everyone not less.

    • See 1 previous
    • Inside Looking Out Inside Looking Out on Feb 13, 2020

      @slavuta No we will develop robots until they learn to develop themselves and us. What I am talking about here - there are 2 billion hungry Indian and Chinese engineers - robots have no chance.

  • Del My father bought GM cars in the 60's, but in 1971 he gave me a used Datsun (as they were called back then), and I'm now in my 70's and am happy to say that GM has been absent from my entire adult life. This article makes me gladder than ever.
  • TheEndlessEnigma That's right GM, just keep adding to that list of reasons why I will never buy your products. This, I think, becomes reason number 69, right after OnStar-Cannot-Be-Disabled-And-It-Comes-Standard-Whether-Or-Not-You-Want-It and Screw-You-American-Car-Buyer-We-Only-Make-Trucks-And-SUVs.
  • 3SpeedAutomatic Does this not sound and feel like the dawn of ICE automobiles in the early 20th century, but at double or triple speed speed!!There were a bunch of independent car markers by the late 1910’s. By the mid 20’s, we were dropping down to 10 or 15 producers as Henry was slashing the price of the Model T. The Great Depression hit, and we are down to the big three and several independents. For EVs, Tesla bolted out of the gate, the small three are in a mad dash to keep up. Europe was caught flat footed due to the VW scandal. Lucid, Lordstown, & Rivian are scrambling to up production to generate cash. Now the EV leader has taken a page from the Model T and is slashing prices putting the rest of the EV market in a tail spin. Deja vu……
  • Michael Eck With those mods, I wonder if it's tuned...
  • Mike-NB2 I'm not a Jeep guy, but I really, really like the 1978 Jeep Cherokee 4xe concept.