91视频

The Oregon Legislature has established a task force to make recommendations for regulating operations of autonomous vehicles (AVs) on state roadways. Composed of government, industry and consumer stakeholders, the task force is to report in September on policies and rules that can form the basis for enacting legislation during the 2019 session.

At least 47 states, including Oregon, have enacted or are considering laws, executive orders or other actions to regulate self-driving cars and trucks, according to the task force. It鈥檚 a critical move. Public skepticism has been aroused by collisions involving AVs, but McKinsey & Co. analysts and other leading experts continue to see a growing market for AVs accompanied by auto electrification, connectivity and shared mobility as inevitable and disruptive.

There鈥檚 a lot of ground for the task force to cover, and it鈥檚 divided into committees. Here are some issues they鈥檒l deal with:

First, any laws need to make a distinction between vehicles categorized among three different levels of automation:

• Level 3 conditional automation: automated systems perform all of the aspects of driving, with the expectation that a human driver takes over if necessary
• Level 4 high automation: entirely automated driving within pre-programmed geographic areas
• Level 5 full automation: entirely automated driving anywhere, including non-programmed areas

The risk that Level 3 automation might lull drivers to inattention with collisions resulting has led the industry to want to emphasize bringing Level 4 vehicles to market in the current cycle.

A high-profile issue that will need to be addressed pertains to following distances between trucks operating in a 鈥減latoon,鈥� which generally is defined as a group of motor vehicles traveling in a unified manner in the same lane utilizing vehicle-to-vehicle communications technology to coordinate movements.

Like cyclists in the Tour de France, a connected line of trucks faces less air resistance and can accelerate and brake together over closer truck lengths, producing fuel savings that grow as more trucks are platooned over longer distances. A platoon exemption is a priority for the logistics industry and has generally proved non-controversial elsewhere because of savings efficiencies and environmental benefits.

Another big issue is insurance. Exactly how AVs will alter insurance markets remains unclear, but recommendations being prepared by the task force will likely begin to lay the framework for bringing Oregon鈥檚 insurance laws into the self-driving-car age.

There鈥檚 a general assumption that the safety premium generated by automated systems will reduce collisions, most of which are due to human errors, not technological ones. Currently, liability insurance rates are based upon drivers, but none of the occupants would be driving a vehicle operating completely driverless, which is the mode of operating insurers would assume to cover risk. So AVs create an imperative for insurance companies to shift liability risk from vehicle occupants to the vehicles themselves in some way.

Another consideration: states that enacted AV laws early generally freed or otherwise provided some legal protection to autonomous vehicle makers, because the AV technology was an after-market retrofit and because they wanted to get in the front seat of the AV revolution. Now, with GM and Ford and others having acquired their own automation technologies, state laws are being amended as necessary to address liability attributable to vehicle makers and the computers, algorithms and artificial intelligence used in self-driving vehicles.

Taking the human entirely out of the equation is an important psychological and logistical step before truly driverless cars can hit the road. At this point, Oregon may not go as far as California did earlier this year when it announced elimination of the requirement for AVs to have a person in the driver鈥檚 seat to take over in the event of an emergency. New California rules also require licensed companies to be able to operate any Level 5 vehicles remotely. Think a pilot remotely operating a drone aircraft, only terrestrially. These are issues that require a thorough thinking through.

The task force and the Legislature need to keep in mind that Congress has its own ideas about how AVs should be regulated. Vehicle makers, technologists and end users do not want to have to face a mishmash of state rules and regulations, which would trip up the market.

A bill passed by the House of Representatives would pre-empt state AV laws and regulations in favor of federal laws. The bill was on the fast track, but the desire of some very influential senators to better study the issues led the Senate to slow the bill鈥檚 progress. Still, a pronounced federal role that likely involves some manner of pre-emption will be needed for AVs to take hold. So some or all of what Oregon comes up with may prove moot at some point.

To follow the task force鈥檚 work, google 鈥渙regon autonomous vehicle task force.鈥�

Matt Slavin in 2018 founded M.I. Slavin to provide consulting in project management, strategic planning, research and communications. Contact him at 503-619-5601 or [email protected].