AV Testing Data to be Shared Publicly by DOT Though New Transparency Program

August 21, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

A new program launched by the U.S. The Department of Transportation aims to improve transparency to the public and inform more people about current automated vehicle technology.

During a webinar event last month, leaders within the DOT introduced the Automated Vehicle Transparency and Engagement for Safe Testing (AV TEST) initiative. This effort will work toward heightening engagement among the public, industry representatives, and government leaders. It will also bring stronger transparency through “an online, public-facing platform for sharing automated driving system on-road testing activities.”

It’s the most accessible platform of its kind for these tests, said Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. “Through this initiative, the department is creating a formal platform for federal, state, and local governments and industry stakeholders,” she explained.

During a time where automated vehicle technology has been at the forefront of industry innovations for a while now, many Americans have expressed skepticism in terms of this technology’s safety. The NHTSA is planning “online mapping tools” that will show activity data and testing locations, which will hopefully improve overall public awareness and trust in these inventive efforts.

James Owens, Deputy NHTSA Administrator, said that boosting transparency “encourages everybody to up their game to help better ensure that the testing is done in a manner fully consistent with safety.” Owens also explained that AV TEST will be open to all stakeholders who are involved in safe testing of automated trucking systems. These participants include Toyota Motor Corp., Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Uber Technologies Inc., Cruise (General Motors Co.’s self-driving subsidiary), and Waymo, as well as the states of California, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

These efforts will serve as a huge tool in educating the public about all factors of this automated technology, as well as information about the stakeholders participating in its progress. Currently, because there are so many misconceptions and fears around these kinds of vehicles, Owens says this kind of candid information is most important.

“These systems have the promise to help prevent fatal crashes, save lives, and reduce crash severity,” he said. “Public trust will be the key to their adoption.”

Owens also explained that the goal of NHTSA is to “pull together really critical stakeholders to deepen the lines of communication and cooperation among all of us,” and that this was “an opportunity for the states to start sharing information among themselves.”

Critics of current AV system regulations want NHTSA to mandate federal safety standards for all automated driving technology.

In its investigation of a pedestrian death involved in an Uber AV test vehicle crash, the National Transportation Safety Board said that the NHTSA needed to create self-driving vehicle safety assessments that are mandated and that properly ensure AV vehicles have the necessary safeguards in place.

According to Owens, NHTSA “will not hesitate” to intervene if vehicles are being tested unsafely, although the agency has not yet adopted the recommendations set forth by the NTSB.

AV 4.0, DOT’s latest federal update of AV tech guidelines, was released in January, and is called “Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicle Technologies.” The update aims to be a set of principles to unify a collective of 38 federal departments, agencies, executive offices, and commissions. It will also provide guidance to local and state government agencies, industry representatives, and technology efforts.

Administration actions have pushed forward AV technology growth, government collaboration efforts, and American AV tech principles that have worked together in a collaborative mindset to structure these new guidelines. AV 4.0 is meant to help the industry work towards a safety-centered, innovative, and consistent approach to the regulation of self-driving technology.

“We’ll make it available for you to view,” said the NHTSA on its website, referring to the new platform for public observation of AV tech efforts. “You’ll be able to see if testing has been reported in your community and learn more about the types of activities happening, including testing of various types of motor vehicles–cars, low-speed shuttles, trucks, and driverless electric delivery vehicles.”

The agency explains that the possibilities around safer roads are growing quickly with these innovations: “The continuing evolution of automotive technology aims to deliver even greater safety benefits and automated driving systems that–one day–can handle the whole task of driving when we don’t want to or can’t do it ourselves. The AV TEST Initiative is another way that NHTSA is convening and facilitating initiatives with stakeholders to support the safe development, testing, and integration of automated vehicle technologies in the United States.”

Illinois Supreme Court Commission Invites Ken Levinson to Speak on Professionalism to New Law Students

August 20, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

On August 19th, Ken Levinson spoke on behalf of the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism.

After presenting at this event for the past five years, the annual 1L Law School Professionalism Orientation Program has become one of Levinson’s favorite experiences outside of the firm.

“I talk to local law students on their first day of law school about civility, professionalism, and ethics,” Levinson said. “Over the years, I have kept in touch with many of the students–many are now lawyers–to guide and mentor them.”

The orientation program took place in a fully-virtual capacity for the first time ever, and consisted of virtual discussion on the Pledge of Professionalism, administered by a judge. Some of the schools who are participating took part in small group discussions facilitated by practicing attorneys, and all volunteer facilitators received 1.5 hours of professional responsibility CLE credit.

“My hope is people have gotten used to using Zoom and that the students are more used to it,” Levinson explained. In his discussion, he will focus on ethical dilemmas for lawyers and ask students for feedback on what they think a lawyer should do in certain situations. “Because it’s their first week of law school, they are surprised about some of the rules.”

Before the facilitated sessions took place, the Commission hosted Zoom training for all volunteer facilitators, which is set to last between 20 and 30 minutes. These training periods helped volunteers prepare for the hour-long small-group sessions where they facilitated their own sessions for the beginning law students.

“A lot of the time, something will come about up about evidence within social media, or even a text on your phone, and the question becomes: If someone comes to you with a case or a crime, can you advise your client to delete, say, a Facebook post?” said Levinson.

Many tech-savvy law students will often say the post should just be deleted, “but you cannot destroy evidence, or advise a client to destroy it, even if it’s hurtful,” Levinson continued. “So, we had a discussion as to why, and it’s really exciting to look the brand-new law students in the eye–they’re just so excited for their new profession and they’re ready to learn.”

Levinson will be facilitating a conference for the incoming law students of John Marshall Law School at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

A First Look into Kodiak Robotics’ Self-Driving Longhaul Trucks

August 16, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Kodiak Robotics, a self-driving truck company based out of San Francisco, has finally detailed its recent approach to the challenge of giving long-haul trucks self-driving technology after its 350th commercial delivery.

The company has released a 49-page safety self-assessment report demonstrating its commitment to public safety. The report gives a detailed explanation of how the startup operates and programs its autonomous vehicle technology.

“We believe it’s critical that we begin the process of explaining to the general public not just how we are safely testing our vehicles, but how we’re going to prove, mathematically and in plain English, that our vehicles are comprehensively safe even without a person behind the wheel,” said Kodiak co-founders Paz Eshel and Don Burnette.

This candid self-assessment aims to soothe any skepticism among the public and build trust and rapport with other motorists on the road.

“Given our progress, we think it’s time for Kodiak to start talking more about our unique, truck-focused technology,” said Burnette, who has previously worked for companies such as Otto, Uber, and Google.

Kodiak uses computer simulation and test track runs to examine and analyze its technology. The company was founded in April of 2018, had its first on-road test the following March, and made its very first delivery in July of 2019. Now, it has a fleet of 10 trucks hauling commercial freight throughout the state of Texas. Kodiak is also one of only a few trucking startups working to bring automation technology to long-haul trucking.

The startup’s technology often mimics how human drivers operate vehicles, such as within its ability to use lane markings as visual cues, rather than built-in map programming. This system within the “Kodiak Driver” allows for the vehicle to respond to and avoid unexpected obstacles on the road, like construction projects, even when the program’s maps don’t show them.

This ability is referred to as “perception over priors–i.e., that the Kodiak Driver trusts its eyes, not its memory, and we believe it represents a significant step forward for the AV industry,” said the company.

In its safety assessment, the Kodiak team shares its reasoning for focusing heavily on “structure highway driving” rather than city driving, as well as how its specifically-designed systems benefit heavy-duty trucks.

“We optimize our driving for safety, not comfort: paper towels don’t care if they get jostled a bit, whereas a rideshare passenger expects a smooth ride,” said the company.

In 2017, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released “Voluntary Guidance–Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety,” which included a suggestion for any companies aligned with automated driving systems to provide a public assessment of their approaches to safety.

Since this recommendation, nearly two dozen companies have submitted these assessments, including other automated commercial vehicle competitors of Kodiak, like Waymo, TuSimple, and Starsky Robotics–although Starsky has since gone out of business.

“At Kodiak, we are strategic about every mile we drive,” said the company in its report. “We never drive our trucks for the sake of just logging more miles. Of course, this disciplined approach means we will probably never log as many test miles as some of our competitors. We see our lower mileage count not as a risk, but as a sign of our commitment to safety.”

Also present in Kodiak’s report was its explanation of its commercial-grade steering column “designed specifically for trucks,” which will eventually expand into dual-redundant electric motors that will allow the automated system to stay easily controlled if one motor fails. The system’s sensors also have “overlapping fields of view, so that every region around the truck is seen by multiple sensors,” which will allow the Kodiak Driver to always know the details of its surroundings, even if a sensor might fail. The AV technology will actuate the vehicle on “redundant, fault-tolerant computers,” that will run independently from the main computer. “These computers always know how to bring the truck to a safe stop, so that if the main computer should ever fail, they can safely achieve a Minimal Risk Condition,” the report stated.

Still, deploying a fleet of self-driving trucks without a safety driver on board is not likely to happen within the next year, Burnette explained.

“The fact is, once people get used to them, self-driving trucks will actually be pretty boring,” he said. “They’ll largely stay in the right lane, they’ll never weave in and out of traffic, and they’ll never speed.”

Supporters of automated vehicles within the commercial truck industry say these trucks will be much safer than human drivers, who often run red lights, text, fall asleep at the wheel, or otherwise become dangerously distracted while on the road.

“Our mission is to build the world’s most efficient, reliable, and respected freight carrier, using our autonomous technology,” explained Burnette. “Operating as a carrier will allow us to design our technology to meet shippers’ needs, and ultimately allow us to build a better product.”

Pre-Employment Drug Testing Waiver Extended to Relieve Truckers During COVID-19 Crisis

August 15, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has announced that it will be offering a 90-day waiver from pre-employment drug testing requirements to recently furloughed commercial truck drivers, due to the effects of the current coronavirus pandemic.

The waiver became effective in June and is set to expire September 30th, and amends regulations in place that have required drivers to comply with pre-employment drug testing. A potential employee must have a negative test result shown to his or her employer before any safety-sensitive actions are performed, such as operating a commercial motor vehicle.

“In response to the COVID-19 pandemic public health emergency, many employers have imposed layoffs, furloughs, or otherwise temporarily removed employees from performing safety-sensitive functions, resulting in their removal from the random pool for controlled substances and alcohol testing for a period greater than 30 days,” said the FMCSA in its announcement.

The waiver states that if a pre-employment controlled substances test can not take place, the potential employee must not be allowed to perform Department of Transportation duties with any safety risks until a negative test can be conducted.

The regulation also extends an exemption to this rule to drivers who have been part of a recent testing program (within the last 30 days) that meets the requirements of regulation and who were also tested for controlled substances within the last six months before the date of the employment application, or who have participated in the random controlled substances testing program within the last 12 months before the date of the employment application.

If an employer can ensure that no previous employer of the prospective employee has any records of a violation in regards to this area of the controlled substances-use rule of another DOT agency within the last six months, an exemption can also be granted.

“As employers begin calling these drivers back to work, they will incur the cost of conducting pre-employment controlled substances testing before using these drivers to perform safety-sensitive functions,” the agency continued. “The administrative and cost burdens of pre-employment testing for furloughed drivers outside the random testing pool for more than 30 days falls on motor carrier employers at the very time they are attempting to return to expanded levels of operation.”

Now, the FMCSA says this temporary regulatory flexibility will help motor carrier companies heal after impacts from the coronavirus crisis, while not affecting overall safety. The agency also explained that this waiver is meant to help economic recovery throughout the entire country by allowing for the resumption of cargo transportation.

This extension comes after Donald Trump’s executive order in May calling for action to “combat the economic consequences of COVID-19 with the same vigor and resourcefulness with which the fight against COVID-19 itself has been waged.”

This order urges agencies to focus on the impacts of this economic crisis “by waiving or providing exemptions from regulations and other requirements that may inhibit economic recovery consistent with applicable law and with protection of public health and safety.”

The waiver also requires employer verification of a driver having participated in controlled substances testing, and that he or she has had no recorded violations of the FMCSA’s controlled substances-use regulations within the last six months. The employer must also cooperate with the Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse pre-employment query requirement, complete investigations and inquiries needed by any federal regulations, and give notice of any accident involving any driver operating under the terms of the waiver, with specifications that the driver was indeed operating under these terms, to the FMCSA within five business days of the accident. Lastly, the employer cannot allow a driver to perform any safety-sensitive duties if the results of a Clearinghouse pre-employment query show that the driver has been prohibited from performing said duties.

According to the FMCSA, with current precautions in place regarding this waiver, the agency “has determined that the waiver is likely to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to the level of safety that would be obtained absent the waiver,” and that “the waiver of a particular regulation should not be looked at in isolation, but rather as part of the whole of all regulations governing the safety of drivers.”

EPA’s Stormwater Proposal Could Bring Changes to Trucking Industry

August 14, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

The Environmental Protection Agency’s intentions to expand its ability to regulate facility activities at buildings exposed to stormwater runoff could potentially affect trucking fleets with refueling, maintenance, or truck washing operations.

“The trucking sector is unique in that larger fleets may typically have facilities across the country, each of which must be familiar and comply with different state or federal stormwater requirements,” said American Trucking Associations. “As this requirement will complicate the development of properties near or on brownfields, it should be a sector-specific requirement and be eliminated for low-risk facilities.”

According to EPA’s draft proposal from this spring, stormwater runoff can cause certain pollutants to enter nearby storm sewer systems or bodies of water. In regards to public comments on the proposal, ATA was the only trucking association to comment. The proposal detailed huge updates to the agency’s five-year Multi-Sector General Permit plan for industrial stormwater runoff regulations.

EPA originally sought public comment on its 2020 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) for industrial activity stormwater runoff for 60 days following the proposals’ publication in the Federal Register. Once finalized, this MSGP will replace the permit implemented in 2015.

States with EPA stormwater programs, like Massachusetts, New Hampshire, or the District of Columbia, or those using permit requirements based on those of EPA, may have to drastically change their current regulations. Glen Kedzie, ATA’s energy and environmental affairs counsel, says they may even need to implement quarterly stormwater discharge sampling.

“Some fleets are not even aware they must have permits until they are reported,” explained Kedzie. “There’s been a lot of activity in California and other states where environmental groups get into public databases to figure out who is supposed to have a permit.”

EPA outlined its tiered approach to monitoring in the MSGP in order to improve stormwater data quality in its final proposal fact sheet, saying that the agency is proposing “a possible ‘inspection-only’ option in lieu of benchmark monitoring available at low-risk facilities of the proposed permit,” the requirement of new “universal benchmark monitor,” the continuation of current benchmark monitoring requirements in place from 2015’s MSGP, and the requirement of “continued benchmark monitoring as part of the proposed Additional Implementation Measures protocol for repeated benchmark exceedances.”

The U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, which commented on the proposal, recommended this monitoring approach, and suggested the effort focuses on “gathering high-quality data for future rule-makings rather than immediate, burdensome, regulatory requirements.” The organization said this would “ensure that the 2020 Multi-Sector General Permit will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”

Environmental Strategies & Management of Massachusetts also weighed in on the universal benchmark proposition, saying it is “rather onerous and burdensome” for small businesses in industry sectors which have stormwater runoff that has “very minor, if any, effect to surface water.”

In regards to the trucking industry in particular, companies like those within the ready-mix concrete business must have permits for the rinse water needed for washing their thousands of trucks and wide range of equipment, which would be extremely tedious. These requirements would bring an onslaught of paperwork for just the act of washing alone.

Land transportation and warehouse facility quarterly benchmark monitoring is estimated to cost between $5,000 and $12,500 per facility each year, if a facility plans to meet all of these requested parameters. These costs include lab analysis, equipment, materials, and staffing costs; however, costs will vary due to the number of permitted outfalls.

These EPA updates come from a 2016 settlement which required the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s National Research Council to make recommendations regarding improved ways to mitigate surface water pollution from industrial companies to EPA.

Although this permit will only be administered in a few states, other states with the ability to continue their own regulation systems will need major program revisions if their current oversight does not meet federal standards.

Additionally, the proposed MSGP would involve 29 different sectors of industrial activity and their stormwater discharges. The sectors include Land Transportation, Water Transportation, and Transportation Equipment (industrial or commercial machinery).

Autonomous Vehicles May Not be the Answer to Safer Roads

August 13, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Autonomous vehicles have widely been speculated as becoming an industry changer in regards to safety, as driver mistakes account for almost all deadly crashes. However, according to a new study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, only a third of all crashes could potentially be avoided if automated systems operate too similarly to human drivers.

Although autonomous vehicles will, at some point, be able to spot hazards and obstacles and react to safely avoid them much faster than humans, and they won’t operate with any distractions, stopping crashes altogether is still a huge challenge.

“We’re still going to see some issues even if autonomous vehicles might react more quickly than humans do,” said vice president of research for the institute and co-author of the study, Jessica Cicchino. “They’re not going to always be able to react instantaneously.”

Because of this, the Institute’s study found that although driver error is the ruling factor in 9 out of 10 crashes, only a third of those were due to mistakes that automated vehicles could avoid due to their superior perception abilities. To avoid the remaining two-thirds of crashes, automated vehicles would need programming to specifically prioritize safety over everything else–including speed.

“Building self-driving cars that drive as well as people do is a big challenge in itself,” said lead author of the study and research scientist for IIHS, Alexandra Mueller. “But, they’d actually need to be better than that to deliver on the promises we’ve all heard.”

The institution studied over 5,000 crashes caused by “sensing and perceiving” errors like driver distraction, failing to spot hazards in time, or impaired visibility, as found by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Crashes were also distinguished by “incapacitation,” such as drivers being impaired by drugs or alcohol, medical problems, or severe fatigue. The study found that autonomous vehicles can prevent these issues.

“It’s likely that fully self-driving cars will eventually identify hazards better than people, but we found that this alone would not prevent the bulk of crashes,” Cicchino explained.

Some of these unavoidable challenges for current self-driving technology include planning errors, like driving too fast for certain road conditions; execution errors, like unsafe evasive maneuvers; or misjudging another vehicle’s speed.

Error-free, 360 degree perception by these vehicles is key, Cicchino said. She referenced one example: if a cyclist or other vehicle suddenly enters an autonomous vehicle’s path, the self-driving car could likely not stop or steer away fast enough.

“Autonomous vehicles need to not only perceive the world around them perfectly, they need to respond to what’s around them as well,” Cicchino said.

In the study, crashes as a result of sensing and perceiving errors made up 24% of all accidents, and incapacitation made for 10%. These particular crashes are thought to have been potentially avoided if all on-road vehicles were self-driving. However, these autonomous vehicles would need to have zero malfunctions, and the remaining crashes could still take place unless these vehicles were able to specifically avoid other decision-making errors.

Duke University robotics and human factors professor, Missy Cummings, gave her thoughts on the study. She explained that technology is not likely to prevent even one-third of crashes caused by human error right now, as self-driving vehicles with radar, laser, and camera sensors still often cannot perform perfectly in any situation.

“There is a probability that even when all three sensor systems come to bear, that obstacles can be missed,” she said. “No driverless car company has been able to do that reliably. They know that, too.”

Cummings also explained that those working in the business of self-driving vehicles did not plan for any technology to prevent all human-caused crashes. That belief, she said, would be “layman’s conventional wisdom that somehow this technology is going to be a panacea that is going to prevent all death.”

Researchers from IIHS who studied crash causes made the ultimate decisions about which ones could be prevented altogether with only autonomous vehicles on the road, according to Cicchino. When self-driving vehicles share the road with human drivers, even fewer crashes will be able to be prevented.

“Our analysis shows that it will be crucial for designers to prioritize safety over rider preferences if autonomous vehicles are to live up to their promise to be safer than human drivers,” said Mueller.