Common Automation Language Important in Deploying Self-Driving Cars, Experts Testify
Providing a clear and common language for different levels of automation in vehicles is needed to help consumers understand the different technologies they can expect to use as automakers develop self-driving cars, said suppliers of advanced transportation systems at Tuesday's House Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee hearing, as expected (see 1703270026). "Is it just [a system] warning that my vehicle will provide or is it actually an actual intervention like an active braking situation, or can I take my hands and my feet off the controls and the car will drive by itself?" asked Kay Stepper, Bosch vice president-automated driving and driver assistance systems, on why it's important to educate consumers.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in September released voluntary guidelines for developers of self-driving vehicles that includes the different classifications of automation described by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) using scale Levels 0 through 5 (see 1609200039). William Gouse, director of SAE International's federal program development, said NHTSA was developing its own language and terminology for the different levels of automation but "fortunately" adopted his organization's standard. He said states either are unaware or choose not to use a common taxonomy, which "will result in a patchwork of very difficult to understand and operate-in environments." He said states are now passing regulations permitting the testing of various levels of automation.
Asked by Vice Chairman Gregg Harper, R-Miss., what Congress should do to facilitate development and deployment of driver assistance systems, Jeff Klei, president of Continental Automotive Systems' North American division, said NHTSA's federal automated vehicles policy (FAVP) talks more about deployment than development of the technologies. "Development is an important part of bringing these technologies to market safely and with real-world testing," he said. The policy requires exemption be granted every time a software change is made, he said, and time required to get approvals will "significantly delay" implementation. Klei said the patchwork of state rules hinders industry's ability to develop the technologies. Industry representatives have complained the multitude of different state laws make it difficult to test autonomous vehicles (see 1702140042).
Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Calif., said the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, which became law in December 2015, says self-driving cars could be introduced into commerce solely for the purposes of testing and only by companies that had at the time manufactured and distributed vehicles in the U.S. States have proposals that would permit only traditional automakers to test and deploy automated vehicles. She asked Klei and Stepper about barriers to testing.
Since the FAVP was released, Klei said there have been some 40 different bills in 20 states that complicate development of these technologies. Suppliers, not just automakers, should be allowed to test. Stepper said suppliers play an important role since they develop components and systems like electronic stability control and advanced braking and steering, which are tested in the lab. Eventually, technologies must be tested on the road to ensure they're verified and validated before being used by consumers, he added.
Proponents of self-driving cars have often pointed to the potential of preventing about 35,000 traffic accident deaths annually, most of which are caused by human error. In a Tuesday commentary for Axios, Latta said self-driving cars can also provide mobility for people with disabilities, seniors and underserved communities. He said government regulation shouldn't stand in the way and Congress should act as "a listener and observer.”
Rep. David McKinley, R-W.Va., an engineer, told witnesses he's "intrigued" by what the technology can solve and "fascinated" by developments, but he's "a huge skeptic about driverless cars and I’m not buying this one iota yet." He said independent verification and validation (IV&V) is needed to make sure the technologies work "because we don't want to rely on competitive peer pressure without having some third party validate what we’re doing." When he asked whether any of the suppliers were using IV&V parties, they said no.
McKinley said if something goes wrong with a self-driving car, control of the system would be transferred to a human in the car. He asked what if control is turned over to someone who's intellectually impaired or is inebriated. He asked how the technology would actually work and said he would need a lot more information before getting close to deploying a fully autonomous vehicle. Klei said the cars will have to adapt to the highways and infrastructure not the other way around, and cars will move via GPS and sensors. McKinley added he wanted to see more facts and research about some of the touted benefits.