Notes from the NHTSA Meeting at Stanford

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration held its second public meeting on April 27, 2016 at Stanford’s CARS facility in Palo Alto. The goal of the meeting was to solicit input on operational guidelines for self-driving cars.

NHTSA had published in advance a list of 15 topics on which it sought input. The speakers mostly provided high level position statements, and noted they would submit more detailed input in writing. The meeting wrapped up two hours earlier than scheduled after all speakers were heard.

A few thoughts on the meeting:

1. The speakers largely divided into two camps: (1) those who want to see Level 4 fully autonomous vehicles (with no driver required) allowed as soon as possible and governed by federal regulations (not a “patchwork” of state rules); and (2) those who don’t, mostly because they believe the technology is not safe and a driver should be required.
2. The first camp consisted of two strong but unrelated advocacy groups — lobbyists for car companies developing Level 4 fully autonomous vehicles and advocates for the disabled, the elderly and others who currently lack the ability to drive themselves (along with MADD, which promotes the technology to avoid drunk driving).
3. The car companies focused on the benefits of fully autonomous vehicles, noting the number of deaths from car crashes each year with human drivers, along with the other benefits society can realize if the cars are fully autonomous and a driver does not need to be present and ready to take over operation of the car. These speakers included David Strickland, counsel for the new coalition formed by Ford, Google, Lyft, Uber and Volvo, and Chris Urmson, head of Google’s self-driving car program. These arguments were largely ones the audience and panel had heard before and seemed to be well received. The car companies generally seem to advocate issuance of new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to fully autonomous vehicles and clear articulation of federal preemption of vehicle standards to limit the role of state regulation and prevent conflicting rules.
4. The advocates for the disabled and elderly were equally vocal in their support for fully autonomous vehicles, making the point that anything less than a truly driver-less car would deny them the benefit of the technology. These advocates pointed out that: (a) the needs of the disabled should be considered in the initial design of autonomous vehicles so they can be used by people in wheelchairs, or who are blind or deaf, without modifications to the vehicles; (b) fully autonomous vehicles will be transformative to the disabled community by solving current mobility challenges; and (c) regulations should preclude discrimination against those with disabilities to ensure these cars can work for everyone. These advocates largely took issue with California’s proposed DMV rules which would require a licensed driver to be able to operate the vehicle.
5. The second camp of speakers generally opposed allowing Level 4 fully autonomous vehicles at this time and urged NHTSA not to “rush” to enable such vehicles with federal regulations. This group included several consumer safety advocates, including one wielding a steering wheel at the podium, who cited the number of “disengagements” and other incidents with self-driving cars requiring human intervention as evidence they are not ready for commercial use without drivers. Other speakers also raised data privacy and cybersecurity concerns with autonomous vehicles.
6. A few other interesting speakers of note included the former mayor of Beverly Hills who noted that city’s passage of a city council resolution to produce a fleet of self-driving cars that would provide on-demand shuttle service around town. He noted the need for policymakers and urban planners to begin planning for the consequences of self-driving cars, and urged NHTSA to allow fully autonomous vehicles and to move quickly in enacting regulations. A cyclist also spoke on behalf of pedestrians and cyclists who are the less protected parties on the road, noting that they often rely on human interaction with drivers, such as hand signals, eye contact and nods, to determine if a driver sees them and is allowing them to proceed. He asked NHTSA to consider rules facilitating communication between autonomous vehicles and cyclists/pedestrians, and providing visible indication of when a car is being driven autonomously and not by its human passengers.
7. While all stakeholders involved seemed to recognize there are issues to be resolved before fully autonomous vehicles will be safe enough to allow on the roads for commercial use, the main focus of this public meeting seemed to be whether NHTSA should proceed now to address these regulations or wait until a later time when the technology is more developed or there is more test data available.
8. Given NHTSA’s stated intention to issue rules by this summer, and the concern that a failure to act now will result in further conflicting state regulations, it seems likely that the show will go on and the devil will be in the details of the regulations. Even the opponents of prompt NHTSA action did not suggest that allowing 50 different sets of state rules was the right outcome, so a single federal set of rules seems most likely. Written submissions to NHTSA are permitted until May 9.
9. While opponents have challenged the agency’s speed in moving forward, it is refreshing to see a federal agency recognize the need to move quickly to facilitate innovation, provide clarity to all stakeholders and avoid conflicts with state regulations.