INSIGHTS

AV technology to the general public. How-

P OLICY FORUM ever, humans are inherently bad at moni-
toring semi-autonomous systems and are
readily distracted (9). Manufacturers must
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT find a way to keep a driver engaged in the
driving task, and regulators must require

Autonomous vehicles: that engagement in a meaningful way. This

is a conclusion reiterated in the findings of
the National Transportation Safety Board
No driver…no regulation? (NTSB) investigation of a fatal Tesla crash
in Florida in 2016 (10).
It is vital that there be standardized,
Driverless cars are on the road with no mandatory data reporting. There needs
federal regulation, and the public is paying the price to be a central repository by which all AV
manufacturers and federal regulators are
routinely made aware of situations identi-
By Joan Claybrook1 and Shaun Kildare2 be in the driving path. The lack of regulation fied during testing or deployment that have
has allowed these unproven vehicles onto led to collisions or failures. Currently, there

A
ccording to the latest statistics from our roads. The crashes that have occurred is no transparency regarding the algorithms
the U.S. National Highway Traf- were not unforeseeable and have shaken the that form the basis for AV function and thus
fic Safety Administration (NHTSA), public’s trust in the technology. Common- no way to determine whether there are bet-

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on July 5, 2018

37,461 people were killed on the na- sense requirements for the performance of ter approaches to solving problems that
tion’s roads in 2016 (1). Autonomous AVs are necessary to protect the public and resulted in collisions or serious system mal-
vehicle (AV) technology has the po- instill confidence in the technology. functions. The information required, how-
tential to reduce this number substantially. Over 50 years ago, Congress passed the ever, is more than just that covered by an
However, proper safeguards must be estab- National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety incident report but must include details on
lished immediately by federal regulators to Act of 1966 because of concerns about the the dynamics of the collision, and more im-
govern the testing and deployment of AVs death and injury toll on our highways. portant, how the decision process of the AV
and ensure public safety. We must not under- The law required the federal government may have led or contributed to the crash.
mine current safety standards for the sake to establish minimum vehicle safety per- Only through data collection and analysis
of AV development. Moreover, reconsider- formance standards to protect the public can future regulatory needs be developed
ing current requirements may be necessary against “unreasonable risk of accidents oc- and justified. There are already examples of
to take advantage of this revolution. Nearly curring as a result of the design, construc- this type of data sharing for safety’s sake,
two-thirds (64%) of respondents in a recent tion or performance of motor vehicles” (7). such as in commercial aviation (11).
CARAVAN public opinion poll expressed Although motor vehicles have changed dra- Additionally, the possibility of a cata-
concern about sharing the road with driver- matically since that time and will continue strophic cyberattack on transportation in-
less cars (2). If commonsense protections are to do so in the future, the underlying prem- creases as the number of AVs on the road
not in place to govern AV development, and ise of this crucial law has not. increases. Federal regulators must look
problems occur, the public will reject AVs, There are currently many regulatory gaps across industries and adapt standards from
and the opportunity this new technology that need to be filled. Federal regulators other modes and fields (banking, military,
presents to improve public safety will be lost. should develop a list of operational scenarios aviation, etc.) to ensure that AVs have a
AV technology is still very much in de- and a range of conditions under which AVs means for detecting and responding to an
velopment, as evidenced by the serious and must be evaluated to ensure that the public attack appropriately and preventing a wide-
fatal crashes that have occurred this year. is not being placed in harm’s way through the spread threat to safety. The need for NHTSA
In January of 2018, a Tesla Model S that introduction of these vehicles. For example, to develop a strategy to address cybersecu-
was operating under its “Autopilot” system problems associated with different weather rity was raised more than 5 years ago in a re-
crashed into the rear of a stopped fire truck and fouling conditions for different types of port on the subject by the National Research
in California (3). On 18 March, an AV oper- sensor need to be studied. There should be Council of the National Academies (12); how-
ated by Uber struck and killed a pedestrian a minimum “vision test” for the AV system ever, little progress toward meaningful regu-
crossing a road in Tempe, Arizona (4). Only to make sure that it can properly identify its lation of this aspect of AV performance and
5 days later, a Tesla Model X was involved in surroundings, including other cars, pedestri- safety has been achieved.
a fatal crash in California, striking a safety ans, cyclists, road markings, and traffic signs, Despite the need for regulation, NHTSA,
barrier before bursting into flames (5). On 11 and respond appropriately. Moreover, manu- the federal agency responsible for keeping
May, a Tesla crashed into the rear of another facturers must be required to execute com- people safe on America’s roadways through
fire vehicle in Utah while operating under its prehensive testing and development before enforcement of vehicle performance stan-
Autopilot system (6). These crashes illustrate taking these vehicles onto public roads. To dards, has issued mere voluntary guidelines
that sensors and algorithms of AVs are still protect the public, strict protocols must also that are unenforceable and place no man-
having trouble identifying road hazards and be established for testing of these vehicles dates on the industry to develop and test AVs
potential obstacles reasonably expected to on public roads. Recent work internationally safely. In addition, the agency has failed to
has identified many of the same concerns act to address the shortcomings of AV tech-
1
President Emeritus, Public Citizen, Washington, DC, USA. with the development and deployment of nology that have already been identified.
From 1977 to 1981, she was administrator of the National AVs as noted throughout this work (8). For example, the NTSB determined that the
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2Director of Research,
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Washington, DC, USA. AVs that require monitoring by a human driver of a Tesla Model S who had been killed
Email: joan@joanclaybrook.com; skildare@saferoads.org driver have been the first introduction of in a 2016 crash in Florida had not been en-

36 6 JULY 2018 • VOL 361 ISSUE 6397 sciencemag.org SCIENCE

Published by AAAS
 toric state responsibility to protect their
residents will create a regulatory vacuum
that will needlessly put the public at risk.
Until NHTSA issues safety standards and
regulations for AVs, state and local gov-
ernments have every right, and in fact a
duty, to protect their citizens. Traditionally,
states are allowed to act where the federal
government has not taken specific action;
Object
detected
however, the issue of preemption may have
as bicycle to be resolved by the courts. NHTSA has
failed to respond meaningfully to the de-
velopment of AV technology. Although the
technology has the ability to save lives once
developed, at the same time it can risk lives
(and has already claimed several) if it is not
executed properly. A federal framework de-
veloped around ensuring safety, not just sup-
porting corporate development, is necessary.
Congress must end the deregulatory efforts
and focus on balancing productive competi-

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on July 5, 2018

Uber self-driving system data playback from the fatal, 18 March 2018, crash of an Uber Technologies, Inc., test tion while maintaining the levels of safety
vehicle in Tempe, Arizona. Yellow lines show meters ahead of the vehicle. According to the NTSB preliminary report required by established law and practice. A
(https://goo.gl/2C6ZCH), although the pedestrian pushing a bicycle was first detected 6 s before the crash, she failure to put proper safeguards in place will
was categorized by the self-driving system as an unknown object, as a vehicle, and then as a bicycle. At 1.3 s before result in the continued erosion of the public
impact, the self-driving system determined that emergency braking was needed. However, the automatic braking confidence in this potentially lifesaving and
system was not enabled, and no alert was provided to the driver who was supposed to be monitoring the system. game-changing technology. j
REFERENCES
gaged in the driving task, and that a probable American public will end up being unwitting
1. National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2016 Fatal
cause was the operation design “contributing subjects in a potentially deadly experiment. Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview. Traffic Safety Facts
to the car driver’s overreliance on the vehicle Another concern, for those cars that can Research Note. Report no. DOT HS 812 456 (National
automation.” Even worse, from an engineer- be driven either autonomously or by a hu- Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC,
October 2017).
ing standpoint, is that the design of the sys- man driver, is that the Senate bill danger- 2. ORC International, CARAVAN Public Opinion Poll:
tem allowed misuse. The NTSB found that ously departs from well-settled federal law Driverless Cars (12 January 2018).
these problems were not Tesla’s alone but are by allowing manufacturers to disconnect 3. P. Valdes-Dapena, “Tesla in Autopilot mode crashes into
fire truck,” CNN Tech, 24 January 2018.
industry-wide (13). Yet, NHTSA still has not steering wheels, brakes, and other safety sys- 4. E. Rosenfield, “Tempe police release video of deadly Uber
initiated regulatory proceedings to address tems, when such a vehicle is operated in an accident,” CNBC, 21 March 2018.
these serious safety issues. NHTSA needs to autonomous mode, without any government 5. D. Shephardson, “U.S. opens probe into fatal Tesla crash,
fire in California,” Reuters, 27 March 2018.
issue regulations governing the safe opera- review and approval. Furthermore, neither 6. K. Allen, “Tesla Model S was in Autopilot mode during Utah
tion of these vehicles to ensure that develop- bill encompasses all AVs, including those crash, driver says,” ABC News, 15 May 2018.
ment, testing, and eventual deployment into that depend on a human driver to monitor 7. Public Law 89–563.
8. International Transport Forum, Safer Roads with
the public domain do not endanger lives. their operation. These vehicles are already
Automated Vehicles? (ITF, 2018).
Compounding the problem is legislation on the road, have been involved in multiple 9. http://acrs.org.au/files/papers/arsc/2015/
currently pending before Congress (14). Both deadly crashes, and will comprise a sizable CunninghamM%20033%20Autonomous%20vehicles.pdf
a bill passed by the House of Representatives portion of the AV fleet for years to come. 10. National Transportation Safety Board, Collision between
a Car Operating with Automated Vehicle Control Systems
(SELF DRIVE Act, H.R. 3388) and a measure Neither bill being considered by Congress and a Tractor-Semitrailer Truck Near Williston, Florida,
currently pending before the Senate (AV requires NHTSA to deal with the regulatory May 7, 2016, Accident Report NTSB/HAR-17/02, PB2017-
START Act, S. 1885) will allow automakers to issues that we describe and develop critical 102600 (12 September 2017).
11. www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.
receive broad exemptions from existing fed- standards that will be essential to assur- cfm?newsId=18195
eral motor vehicle safety standards and ig- ing the proper development and operation 12. Transportation Research Board Special Report, vol.
nore the need for NHTSA to issue minimum of AVs. In addition to all of these concerns, 308, The Safety Challenge and Promise of Automotive
Electronics: Insights from Unintended Acceleration
safety requirements. In 2015, Congress ex- Congress has not provided NHTSA with suf- (Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2012);
empted test vehicles from having to comply ficient funds to deal with the expanded du- www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13342
with federal safety standards (15). The cur- ties it will have in response to the advent of 13. Collision Between a Car Operating with Automated Vehicle
Control Systems and a Tractor-Semitrailer Truck Near
rent legislation would allow for the potential AVs. AVs are already being tested in states Williston, Florida, May 7, 2016; NTSB, Accident Report
sale of millions of AVs that can be exempt and cities across the country. Some state NYST/HAR-17/-2.
from standards that ensure occupant protec- and local governments have started to put 14. S. 1885, American Vision for Safer Transportation through
Advancement of Revolutionary Technologies (AV START)
tion and crashworthiness. It would allow for in place the first requirements to preserve
Act, 115th Congress, 1st Session (2017); H.R. 3388, Safely
wide-scale commercial introduction of AVs public safety in the absence of any substan- Ensuring Lives Future Development and Research in
that fail to meet federal safety standards tive action by the federal government. Un- Vehicle Evolution (SELF DRIVE) Act, 115th Congress, 1st
in order to increase industry profits. If this fortunately, both bills before Congress will Session (2017).
15. Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, Sec. 24404,
IMAGE: NTSB

provision is not drastically altered, our na- preempt these regulations, despite NHTSA Public Law 114-94 (2015).
tion’s roads risk becoming corporate proving having yet to issue any federal standard for
grounds for unverified technology, and the AVs. This unprecedented attack on the his- 10.1126/science.aau2715

SCIENCE sciencemag.org 6 JULY 2018 • VOL 361 ISSUE 6397 37

Published by AAAS
Autonomous vehicles: No driver…no regulation?
Joan Claybrook and Shaun Kildare

Science 361 (6397), 36-37.

DOI: 10.1126/science.aau2715

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on July 5, 2018

ARTICLE TOOLS http://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6397/36

PERMISSIONS http://www.sciencemag.org/help/reprints-and-permissions

Use of this article is subject to the Terms of Service

Science (print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published by the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. 2017 © The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive
licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. The title
Science is a registered trademark of AAAS.