self-driving cars

Report: Majority of Americans still skeptical of self-driving cars

March 9, 2017 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

For the second year in a row, three-fourths of American drivers are afraid to ride in self-driving cars, according to a new survey published by AAA.

The statistics come at a time when companies like Google and Uber vie for industry dominance, both by way of manufacturing and advances in technology. Meanwhile, the federal government continues to wrestle with regulatory standards for the fledgling industry.

But talk of competition or regulation may be premature. The bigger issue may be whether the public feels comfortable riding in fully autonomous vehicles at all. Only one in five Americans say they trust an autonomous vehicle to drive itself, an indication that the technology is still far from comprehensible, and the skepticism seems to be a matter of safety. More than half of U.S. drivers (54 percent) feel less safe when considering the prospect of sharing the road with autonomous cars, while only 10 percent of respondents say that they would feel safer.

Vehicles with semi-autonomous features fair better among the public. Sixty-one percent of survey participants indicate that they prefer at least one of several automated technologies to be available in their next car: automatic emergency breaking, adaptive cruise control, self-parking technology or lane-keeping assist. Still, most Americans trust their driving skills above all else, and 81 percent of those who took the survey believe that the fully automated vehicle features should work universally across all systems.

Other notable statistics from the survey include:

Baby Boomers are more likely to cite safety as a reason they want semi-autonomous features on their next vehicle (89 percent) than Millennials (78 percent)
Millennials are more likely to cite convenience (75 percent) and wanting the latest technology (36 percent) compared to older generations
Women are more likely to cite reducing stress as a reason for wanting the technology (50 percent) than men (42 percent)

Proponents of self-driving cars believe they can reduce, or even eradicate, accidents altogether. Jill Ingrassia, AAA’s managing director of Government Relations and Traffic Safety, noted that 35,000 people die each year because of human-related errors, but that further research is necessary to “ensure that these new vehicles are safely tested and deployed.” Based on the stats, it appears the public requires it.

Boston inks deal to test self-driving cars. Is Chicago next?

September 14, 2016 by Brett Manchel Leave a Comment

The folks in Bean-town have peered into their crystal balls and one of the things they’re seeing is self-driving cars. The Boston Globe reported this morning that the city has struck a deal with a group of unnamed tech companies and manufacturers to test autonomous vehicles, beginning in a matter of months. Coincidentally Uber is set to unleash a fleet of autonomous cars (though this particular fleet will include an actual human behind the wheel for safety reasons) on the streets of Pittsburgh later today.

More from the Globe: “If this technology is going to yield benefits for the consumer, we want to make sure it works in the city of Boston,” said Chris Osgood, the city’s chief of streets. “We want to make sure we’re doing our due diligence and understanding what the implications are. How do we set up the right policies and take the right approach to this so it’s going to have the biggest net benefit?”

Counting Pittsburgh, it seems Boston is the second major city in recent months to commit to exploratory testing. Could Chicago be the third? Here are four reasons why it might.

The mayor is a big Uber fan

His brother, Ari, is also a big investor. Back in 2014 reports started swirling that Rahm’s younger brother stood to make nearly a billion dollars from his Hollywood agency’s dealings with the popular ridesharing company, which is venturing into autonomous territory. On top of that, David Plouffe, a strategist to then-Senator Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008 and former White House mainstay, now serves as one of Uber’s most prominent strategic advisors. The mayor has also favored rideshare-friendly legislation that keeps it at a premium in the Windy City (much to the consternation of the highly regulated limousine and cab service industry). Now that Uber has unleashed self-driving cars on the roads of Pittsburgh, it’s easy to imagine the company heading further west to a place that fits its self-driving test criteria and where it’s ostensibly been feeling the love.

Chicago has one of the largest populations in the country

This goes beyond the Uber and ridesharing craze. Chicago is a major city with a major population—nearly 2.7 million people to be more precise. That’s good enough for third on the national charts, behind only Los Angeles and New York. A study in 2015 by Zen99, a resource for folks who depend on 1099s, found that Chicago ranked ninth out of 70 U.S. markets that were favorable for ridesharing users. That’s not counting the untapped potential of autonomous ridesharing either. One could assume that a city that loves alternative modes of public transportation is bound to look closer at the ways self-driving cars impact the broader economy, both commercially and otherwise.

Like a good neighbor, State Farm is here

So is Allstate, based in Northbrook. They’re two of the biggest auto insurance companies in the country and the insurance industry has been wrestling with the notion that self-driving cars may reduce crashes and potentially eliminate them altogether. That poses big questions for State Farm, Allstate, Nationwide, and others, which will soon need to figure out how they’re business plays into the bigger picture. I’m not saying that either will be making a public relations push in favor of self-driving cars, but what better opportunity to do some experimentation while the guinea pig is rummaging around in your own backyard? Let’s assume the worst: self-driving cars get into tons of accidents. Maybe a public relations push on behalf of the insurance companies isn’t so far-fetched after all.

It’s the economy, stupid

The reality is this: Autonomous cars are the future of transportation. It’s not a matter of “if” but “when.” Rahm and others like to refer to Chicago as the Silicon Valley of the Midwest. If we’re to take that declaration at face value, we need to make the most of our opportunities, which could have huge economic benefits. Tech is big business and presenting Chicago as a tech-friendly hub feeds the narrative while drawing new talent to the city. Being labeled as a pioneer of autonomous transportation and the legislation that governs it has the potential to be hugely beneficial in the long run. I can already imagine Tim Cook pulling up to Apple headquarters in the West Loop. In a self-driving car no less.

Autonomous vehicles: We predict the future

February 24, 2016 by Brett Manchel Leave a Comment

What will we be doing 50 years from now? Along with the new iPhone L (how long before Apple switches to Roman numerals?), will we also be waiting for the release of the latest DriveOS software? Lamenting the fact that Grandpa won’t come to terms with swapping his old Ford 5 for a Ford 10? Perhaps insurance companies will finally be willing to negotiate premiums because, hey, we’re not the ones driving anymore.

Get ready: autonomous vehicles (AVs) – self driving cars – are on the verge of breaking through in a big way, and it’s with a cheery note of optimism that we peer into our crystal ball for a glimpse into the future—the not so distant future, depending on who you’re asking. The Obama Administration recently offered up close to $4 billion over the next decade to fast-track projects related to the safety of AVs, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has decided that artificial intelligence (AI) constitutes “a driving entity,” meaning drivers will no longer need to be living and breathing in order to operate a vehicle.

To reference an old cliché: It’s not a matter of “if” AVs become part of mainstream consumerism, but “when.” So when it does happen, what will our roads and our world look like? There are a lot of technological, infrastructural, and legal decisions to be made, and we’re taking educated guesses at what could happen.

Insurance makes a move

AV advocates have long preached the benefits of eliminating human error altogether, reducing the number of auto crashes by significant margins. For insurers and drivers, that may mean a national, comprehensive no-fault regime is on the horizon. An AV study by the RAND Corporation suggests that the concept behind no-fault auto insurance laws might become an appealing alternative to tort-based laws for drivers and AV manufacturers. In other words: your own insurance company, would cover your damages in the event of an crash, regardless of who caused the accident. Tort-based law, by contrast, is based on principles seeking monetary compensation from the at-fault party’s insurance company.

What ultimately happens depends largely on which side makes the first move, and likely, who can get the most public support: the insurance industry, the technology and manufacturing industry, or legislators. All have varying interests in the future of AVs. Both the traditional tort model and no-fault have pros and cons in a world dominated by AVs.

The insurance industry depends on receiving premiums and thrives on holding onto as much money as possible, while paying out as little as possible in claims. National no-fault means an insurer of a driver is responsible whereas tort-based systems allow wiggle room for insurers and injured parties to go after the at-fault party. The RAND Corporation paper depicts a world with comprehensive no-fault and limited liability – up to and including immunity – for manufacturers who’s AVs are involved in a crash..

Technology and manufacturing companies want to be efficient and at the forefront of new, exciting technology like AVs. They should also want to manufacture safe AVs, but for a device as complex and dynamic as a self driving car, companies need to be invested in their products, set on frequent updates and advancements.

Of course, if AVs are as safe as anticipated, auto crashes, and thus injuries caused by crashes, will decrease. The result: less no-fault insurance claims, which insurers may be willing to support. But manufacturers and software developers are still liable in some cases – if the software or hardware of an AV is defective – so they’ll want something to protect them, too. They’ll turn to legislators, demanding immunity or other legal protections, so, they often claim, they can continue to innovate without fear of a massive lawsuit bankrupting them. But with a blanket immunity, the incentive to create, update, and take responsibility for AVs is arguably diminished.

As the sides play out, expect an expensive marketing campaign from insurers, who still rely on high premium-paying customers to make money. “Are you in good hands?” may become a much more literal slogan, for example.

Digital corruption sparks new driving policies

Several months ago, WIRED magazine decided to conduct an experiment with two hackers who were able to infiltrate the computer console of a Chrysler-manufactured Jeep. The trial ultimately forced one driver into a ditch on the side of the road. Though the stunt was planned, it caught the attention of lawmakers who were none-too-pleased with the prospect of real-life remote-control cars. Two Senators in particular set out to look closely at the way hacking presented challenges in a fully autonomous driving world.

That brings into question matters of digital corruption policies and the establishment of security practices to protect drivers from themselves (accidentally installing malware, for example), as well as laws to deter and punish outside forces like hackers. Tailoring these laws to a world in which AVs are prominent would be beneficial in the long run. Expect Congress to take a much more detailed look in the coming years as AVs become more prominent

The legal field starts retrofitting old laws to fit new ones

The days of Napster and P2P file sharing sent some copyright lawyers into frenzy. Attorneys were grappling with a new technological capability—mass downloads—and relying on outdated precedents to argue infringement. So much was happening in such a short time that it became easy to misunderstand what was really going on. As file sharing and copyright laws progressed, a new set of case law began to afford the technology its own body of law, giving lawyers a means by which to prosecute effectively. We may soon see the same thing happen when it comes to the rules of the road for AV.

Today’s question

We have to decide, as a community, how all the moving parts of the AV puzzle will fit together. Who will make the rules, and how will those rules be enforced? At this point, there may be things we don’t know that need changing in order to have AV operating seamlessly. Ford, for example, is working to create an on-demand ride service—like Uber—with AVs. Who would’ve conceived of such an idea just five short years ago and what would the consequences be, both legally and economically? The future is coming into full view. The bigger question is: can we keep pace?