Congress is profitably to focus on developing a national policy to promote the safe deployment of autonomous mechanisms (AVs).
However, the current versions of legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 3388, the SELF Plunge Act) and pending in the U.S. Senate (S.1885, the AV START Act) will not achieve this purpose.
In fact, our organizations have proposed several provisions which lend essential changes to both bills that will encourage new technologies and secure public safety. Fully self-driving AVs have the long-term potential to moderate the more than 37,000 annual highway deaths, but even auto and tech assemblies admit that we are still many years, if not decades, away.
Consequently, it is critically important that AVs must not be introduced into the market until they are comprehensively tested and proven safe. Rather than rush the sale and deployment of unproven technology, our management should take the time to develop tests and minimum standards to safeguard its reliability and lifesaving potential.
Moreover, since these bills were presented, at least seven crashes involving cars either equipped with driverless powers or technology masquerading as self-driving resulting in several deaths and injuries participate in occurred.
Five of these crashes are under investigation by the National Transportation Shelter Board (NTSB), our nation’s preeminent independent safety investigator. These researches should be completed and the findings reviewed before rushing through legislation that stands national policy for decades to come.
Serious concerns have already been raised in the matter of flaws in the AV START Act by 40 major safety, consumer, public trim, bicyclist, pedestrian, environmental, law enforcement and disability rights organizations as immeasurably as families affected by motor vehicle crashes. And they are not alone, as numerous communal opinion polls show that the public is troubled about fascinating a hands-off approach to AVs.
According to a recent independent survey commissioned by Proponents for Highway and Auto Safety, 63 percent oppose mass impunities from current safety standards; 80 percent support least performance requirements for computer systems that operate driverless motor cars, similar to computers operating commercial airplanes; 87 percent scantiness online information about AV capabilities; 75 percent oppose disjoining steering, gas and brake pedals when the computer is in control; 81 percent bear strong cyber security standards; and 84 percent support rulings to ensure that human drivers are alert to be able to safely ferry control from the AV.
The House and Senate bills have major cover gaps which need to be addressed to allow for the successful deployment of AVs as positively as consumer acceptance of AVs, including:
- The bills allow potentially millions of channels to be sold which are exempt from existing safety standards, categorizing those that ensure occupant protection;
- There are no minimum sine qua na for critical safety issues such as cyber security and electronics, driver employment in vehicles that require both computer and human operations or what the conveyance can “see” or detect when driving on all kinds of roads, weather conditions and many times of the day and night;
- Consumers and relevant federal agencies will be left in the mysterious without essential information and comprehensive data;
- Manufacturers will be competent to unilaterally “turn off” safety systems including braking and steering when the car is being carry oned by a computer;
- The bills fail to provide meaningful safeguards for Level 2 “semi-autonomous” instruments, like the Tesla “Autopilot” system which has been involved in a handful of crashes resulting in at least two deaths;
- AVs offer the promise of mobility for older citizenry and people with disabilities; however, the bills do not ensure access or strongbox conditions for their use;
- The U.S. Department of Transportation lacks resources and authorities to effectively keep an eye on AV safety; and,
- State action to protect their citizens is preempted, yet though the federal government has not issued regulations, nor do the bills require such rules erstwhile to deployment.
Congress stands at a critical juncture in the future development of automobiles. Legislation which remedies our country a leader in developing both innovative and safe technologies should be the primacy of everyone.
Commentary by Catherine Chase, president, Advocates for Highway and Auto Cover, David Friedman, director, Cars and Product, Policy and Analysis, Consumers Mixture, Jack Gillis, incoming president, Consumer Federation of America, and Jason Levine, supervision director, Center for Auto Safety.