The
recent guidelines published by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration NHTSA abdicate its mandate which would have resulted in
thoughtful, thorough, national regulations that ensure, transparency, safety,
and accountability, instead they are simply deffering to the industry to
regulate itself and passing the buck down to the states. The guidelines clearly
lack legally enforceable regulations and may allow the possibility of states weakening
existing liability laws that protect consumers and permit manufacturers of unsafe and malfunctioning
vehicles to escape responsibility for
harm caused when a highly automated vehicle (HAV) crashes.
NHTSA must not delegate its
regulatory responsibilities to the states. NHTSA must issue a minimum federal
performance standard for Highly Automated Vehicles (HAV’s), and make clear
there is no preemption. Designers and manufacturers must be held accountable
for any harm HAVs cause.
This announcement should not be seen as an
alternative to comprehensive safety standards, thorough oversight and strong
enforcement. The promising benefits of HAVs are great, but the potential
problems are too serious and the public safety risks are too momentous to be
left to industry alone. Recent incidents involving the recall of tens of
millions of vehicles and needless deaths and injuries due to faulty General
Motors’ ignition switches, dangerous Takata airbags and cheating emissions
systems in Volkswagen vehicles highlight how the industry easily conceals
problems from both the public and the government.
The
Department of Transportation (DOT) must use its federal regulatory authority to
assure the American public of the safety of HAVs. Safety performance standards
encourage competition among automotive companies because they help to assure a
market for the real innovators and suppliers. The manufacturers always complain
about new federal protections, but HAVs are a whole new technology with great
promise but also with the potential for serious public harm.
The advent of this new technology and its release
is happening so quickly that the NHTSA claims it is not ready to issue minimum
regulatory performance standards. NHTSA has surrendered its Congressional mandate to manufacturers and the
States. This is abhorrent of the National Traffic Safety Act. In doing so, it appears that we’re heading toward a hodge-podge of state
regulations or no regulation whatsoever.
The addition of HAVs
to the marketplace represents a brand
new area in which vehicle manufacturers will compete for sales. There are billions of dollars of profits at
stake. The more “autonomous” features that are offered, the greater the
marketing opportunities. This certainly explains the frenzy of car companies to
market each feature and to be the “first” with the “most” automated features.
Those who would
market and profit from this technology – vehicle manufacturers and their
suppliers – have organized major lobbying efforts suggesting that laws should
be passed granting them immunity and shielding them from liability when
injuries and deaths happen because of the failure of this new technology. They
want taxpayers and state health care systems to fund their mistakes. That's not
fair!
If corporations are confident that their highly
automated vehicles will work properly and safely, why do they want immunity?
Why should this industry get blanket protection? Why should they even be worried about having
to accept responsibility if their technology fails? Because history has proven
that vehicle design changes, and especially those involving new technology, can
cause injuries and deaths.
In their rush to
introduce as many computer driven safety features as possible, and reap the
profits of increased sales, car manufacturers must not put vehicles on our highways
unless each feature has been properly designed and fully tested to be certain
of their effectiveness. To fail to do so
would surely expose the motoring public to new and unidentifiable risks of
injury and death.
Without well thought
out regulations, the marketplace must
demand that each company that participates in the design, manufacture or
sale of highly automated vehicles commit – publicly – to take full
responsibility, including accepting legal liability – for collisions and their
consequences when such features fail.
Given the extensive deference the NHTSA has
shown to the industry when it comes to the safety of HAVs, the industry must
chose to accept responsibility and accountability for the self-driving vehicles
it puts on America’s highways and to which American citizens entrust the lives
of our families. As companies work to develop HAVs and collision avoidance technology (CAT) such as
“lane departure warnings,” “lane departure steering control,” “auto brake
features,” “frontal object detection,” “rearward object detection,” and “auto
pilot,” it has become increasingly clear that consumers are totally reliant on
manufacturer’s skills and willingness to provide the safest available systems.
While the industries’ efforts, as well as the voluntary guidelines promulgated
by NHTSA, are a good first step, countless safety concerns remain when it comes
to HAVs and CAT that could expose consumers to unnecessary harm if they are not
properly designed and fully tested. Recognizing this, every manufacturer should
follow the lead of Volvo Cars, whose chief executive officer recently stated
his company’s commitment:
“Manufacturers should be held
responsible if their autonomous technology causes car accidents. We are the
suppliers of this technology and we are liable for everything the car is doing
in autonomous mode.” –President and CEO Hakan Samuelsson, October, 2015.
As HAVs become a reality, with the
singular goal of making highway travel safer, it is vital that American
consumers be able to trust that each manufacturer has made its vehicles safe
and reliable. To this end, every other
vehicle and component manufacturer must join with Volvo Cars and make a public
pledge to accept responsibility for harm and injury resulting from a collision
that occurs because of the failure of an autonomous feature or when one of its
automated systems either malfunctions or fails to perform as intended. Absent such a pledge how can the NHTSA, the
states and the American Public trust the safety of their families to these
highly automated vehicles?
The guidelines do appear to indicate DOT is planning to address these issues and
seeking public comment for this new system of transportation; but it must not
shy away from assuring public safety with minimum federal vehicle safety
standards and means to hold manufactures responsible and accountable. It should
not rely on mere guidance, deference to the industry and each individual state.
NHTSA
must not delegate its regulatory responsibilities to the states. NHTSA must
issue a minimum federal performance standard for Highly Automated Vehicles
(HAV’s), and make clear there is no preemption. Designers and manufacturers
must be held responsible and accountable
for any caused when an HAV does not perform as intended or malfunctions.
