{"id":5061,"date":"2017-03-03T15:19:41","date_gmt":"2017-03-03T19:19:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=5061"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:52:55","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:52:55","slug":"reevaluating-self-driving-car-guidance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/reevaluating-self-driving-car-guidance\/","title":{"rendered":"Re-evaluating Self-Driving Car Guidance and a Need for a Conversation"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>This past Sunday, Elaine Chao, the new US Transportation Secretary announced that the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the USDOT would be <a href=\"http:\/\/www.reuters.com\/article\/us-usa-trump-selfdriving-idUSKBN1650WA\">re-evaluating the self-driving vehicle guidance<\/a> penned under the Obama administration. It is not quite clear what exactly that will entail, but Secretary Chao stated her agency intends to \u201c<a href=\"http:\/\/www.theverge.com\/2017\/2\/27\/14753696\/trump-dot-elaine-chao-obama-self-driving-car-guidelines\">ensure that [the guidance] strikes the right balance<\/a>.\u201d<br \/>\nFor those interested in some light reading, the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.transportation.gov\/sites\/dot.gov\/files\/docs\/AV%20policy%20guidance%20PDF.pdf\">current guidance is over 100 pages long<\/a>. The TLDR version (too long, didn\u2019t read) is that the developers of self-driving vehicles have to provide the NHTSA safety assessments addressing <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ipwatchdog.com\/2016\/10\/05\/dot-new-policy-guidance-autonomous-vehicle-developers\/id=73245\/\">15 different safety evaluations<\/a>. These evaluations include things such as security measures against unauthorized uses of data and documentation of vehicle performance. Additionally, the guidance addresses the federal and state level responsibilities for regulatory actions.<br \/>\nManufacturers were largely against the guidance, arguing that the guidance would require them to turn over important data and delay testing, among other concerns. Because of their concerns, Secretary Chao has charged the manufacturers with doing their part to educate the public on the benefits and safety of self-driving cars and automated technology.<br \/>\nUnlike other recent cabinet picks, Secretary Chao publicly acknowledged the benefit of science and technology, noting automated vehicles could dramatically improve safety. But she is cautious: \u201c<a href=\"http:\/\/www.reuters.com\/article\/us-usa-trump-selfdriving-idUSKBN1650WA\">There\u2019s a lot at stake in getting this technology right<\/a>.\u201d That caution is not unfounded either. In February 2016, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.theverge.com\/2016\/2\/29\/11134344\/google-self-driving-car-crash-report\">a Google self-driving car<\/a> inaccurately predicted the behavior of a bus, creating a collision. A crash in May 2016 involving a self-driving Tesla resulted in the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2017\/01\/19\/business\/tesla-model-s-autopilot-fatal-crash.html\">death of its driver<\/a>. While it was ruled not the fault of the car, it shows that the systems are complex and their capabilities and limitations are not fully understood by the public.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>While there is valid concern in speedily introducing self-driving cars because of the complexity of the technology, it should be noted that Secretary Chao may be hesitant to rubber stamp decisions that truly benefit the technology because of campaign promises and lobbyists.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The <a href=\"http:\/\/webcache.googleusercontent.com\/search?q=cache:ESKjGzShABIJ:newyorkcityhightech.com\/trucking-rail-industries-welcome-trump-administration\/+&amp;cd=4&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us\">trucking and rail industries<\/a> have largely supported the Trump administration. Additionally, the administration promised to bring back jobs and keep jobs. Secretary Chao expressed concern regarding the impact of self-driving technology on the transportation labor force. It is a possibility that this technology could result in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/technology\/2017\/feb\/16\/self-driving-trucks-automation-jobs-trucking-industry\">heavy cuts<\/a> in the job market for transportation, particularly in the trucking industry. It is hard to say exactly how, when, or to what extent that loss of jobs will be. But how much of her comment is genuine concern for jobs (because let\u2019s face it, automation of many work forces is on its way) and how much of it is saving face for the administration in front of a nation that has given Trump the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cnbc.com\/2017\/02\/26\/trump-to-address-nation-sandbagged-by-record-low-approval-rating-nbcwsj-poll.html\">lowest presidential approval rating<\/a> in the country\u2019s history.<br \/>\nThere is a lot to consider for this re-evaluation. If there is deregulation in favor of the manufacturers, there should at least be increased transparency from the manufacturers, as well as accountability for both the success of the technology and proper education of the public on the technology\u2019s limitations. If regulations remain, it shouldn\u2019t be simply because the lobbyists are flexing too much green muscle. There needs to be open and thorough discussion between the administration, the manufacturers, and the public. Given the administration\u2019s current track record for speaking with the public, however, that seems unlikely to happen.<br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This past Sunday, Elaine Chao, the new US Transportation Secretary announced that the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the USDOT would be re-evaluating the self-driving vehicle guidance penned under the Obama administration. It is not quite clear what exactly that will entail, but Secretary Chao stated her agency intends to \u201censure that [the <a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/reevaluating-self-driving-car-guidance\/\" class=\"more-link\">&#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5062,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5061"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5061"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5061\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7097,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5061\/revisions\/7097"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5062"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5061"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5061"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5061"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}