Autonomous vehicles have largely been absent from Minnesota roads, even as fleets of driverless cars already patrol the streets in states like Arizona and California.
[image_caption]State Sen. Scott Newman[/image_caption]
The potential economic upsides of such technology are well documented. Yet early in the 2019 legislative session, key lawmakers aren’t exactly chomping at the bit to usher in a Silicon Valley-type vision of autonomous Ubers and hands-free commutes.
“The preeminent question is safety,” said state Sen. Scott Newman, a Republican from Hutchinson who chairs the Senate’s Transportation Finance and Policy Committee. “We cannot put automated vehicles on the road until we are absolutely certain they are at least as safe as a human driver.”
Task force wants MN to allow testing
Testing of autonomous vehicles in Minnesota has been sharply limited because state laws, written long before the self-driving technology, don’t explicitly authorize them. There have only been small-scale trials — such as an automated shuttle demonstration during the Super Bowl last year overseen by MnDOT.
But with the rapid spread of companies like Waymo and Uber experimenting with self-driving cars across the country, former Gov. Mark Dayton created an advisory council in March to study how Minnesota could get a piece of the action. The council was made up of representatives from businesses including Amazon, 3M, Xcel Energy and Polaris; government officials like Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey; and community advocates like disability nonprofit Mobility Mania.
Their resulting 66-page report delivers a rosy outlook on automated cars, focusing mostly on the potential for crash prevention the bevy of positives the businesses could bring for the economy and people with disabilities that make travel difficult. To not legalize the technology in some fashion would mean falling behind the rest of the country, the report warns.
[image_credit]Governor's Advisory Council[/image_credit]
Draft legislation created by the council would set up a permit system for companies that want to test self-driving vehicles. MnDOT would then have wide latitude to decide whether to allow a business to test on private or public roads based on their history with self-driving technology. Companies would have to report collisions and other data and would face misdemeanor charges for operating without a permit.
A no go for public roads?
MnDOT officials cautioned the bills were still just a preliminary offering and likely to be tweaked before they officially reach the Legislature. Gov. Tim Walz has also yet to review them. But the current proposals have already revealed fault lines at the Legislature, where lawmakers from both parties doubt how fast the state should leap into the self-driving market.
Newman, the Republican Senator, told MinnPost he wouldn’t support testing self-driving cars on public roads yet because he’s not convinced they’re safe enough. Bills related to autonomous vehicles would typically need approval from Newman’s committee to advance. “We’d have to have a lot more information available to us in terms of the status of automation before I’d be willing to take that step to allow testing on public roads,” Newman said.
To back up his case, the Republican cited the self-driving Uber that killed a pedestrian in Tempe, Ariz., in March. It was the first death of a pedestrian tied to autonomous vehicles, the Arizona Republic reported at the time.
Of course, Newman said, humans aren’t exactly flawless drivers. Roughly 40,000 people died in motor vehicle crashes in 2017, according to the National Safety Council, a nonprofit that works to reduce driving deaths. The vast majority of those were caused by human errors, according to the state task force report. And in the long-run, proponents of self-driving cars say the technology should reduce crashes.
But measuring how safe driverless cars currently are in comparison to humans is still difficult, in part because the technology is so new and the data is limited.
[image_caption]State Sen. Scott Dibble[/image_caption]
“While I’m interested in the advancement of technology for all the good things it might offer, I don’t look at it with rose-colored glasses,” Dibble said. “Part of my concern is using our public streets and, by extension, our public as our laboratory before the technology is actually proven.”
A group of Republican and DFL lawmakers last year proposed banning self-driving cars altogether after the fatal crash in Arizona. Matching bills in the House and Senate were sponsored by Sen. Jim Abeler, R-Anoka, and Rep. Raymond Dehn, DFL-Minneapolis. (The House version was co-sponsored by Peggy Flanagan, who is now lieutenant governor, and Ilhan Omar, who is now a Congresswoman serving the 5th District.)
Dibble said even though the bill failed, it helps proves there is little appetite in the Legislature for testing on public roads. Dibble said he doesn’t envision much backlash from lawmakers against testing autonomous vehicles on private land, but he said there’s no rush for the Legislature to go further. Dibble said the state should take a comprehensive approach to regulation to help Minnesota sidestep potential downsides of a world in which self-driving cars are a dominant mode of transportation.
“There are a lot of questions about if it’s going to usher in a utopia or a dystopia,” Dibble said. “I can literally envision in my mind sci-fi films that I’ve seen where there’s not a single soul outdoors. It’s all just cars everywhere and everyone’s inside and the cars are just running around picking up your pizzas and your dry cleaning and no one has to interact with each other anymore. And it’s suburban sprawl hell.”
Let’s wait until there is such a thing as a self driving car before we allow them on our roads. Currently all we have is investor hype.
Only if the state provides a self driving car for all drivers.
This is an area where the legislature should be planning for roads that are more friendly to self driving cars. Traffic flow and lane radio beacons and signage that is machine readable will make self-driving cars safer.
There are several problems and questions regarding autonomous vehicles.
While a successful working model would be a boon to traffic safety, especially when cell phone impaired drivers dominate our roadways, the reality is they do not work in ambiguous situations, such as rain and snow, and when they be confused by novel situations. Given the amazing variability in the weather in Minnesota, this issue must first be addressed.
The second problem is that while they claim to be interested in public safety, they also are in reality a means to cut labor costs. By removing humans from controlling commercial vehicles, many millions of Americans will be put out of work. If one had a society where displaced workers were paid livable wages to retrain, this would not be a problem. As it is today, much of American poverty has resulted due to technological “revolutions”. In my opinion this is one of the primary drivers in the antagonism toward such vehicles.
Additionally, if anyone had illusions that the use of such vehicles will reduce CO2 emissions, they are mistaken. While we may at first have a fewer number of vehicles on the roadways, those vehicles would be used much more extensively causing more green house pollution. Also, by reducing the number of vehicles on the road would cause a delay in the development of workable mass transit and allow the introduction of more vehicles to take up the roadway space originally obtained. A solution to this problem would be to require all shared autonomous vehicles to be electrically powered.
Finally, given the players involved in investment in autonomous vehicles, ie Google, Uber, Lyft, etc, the long term trend would seem to benefit a few privileged corporations with deep pockets who would eventually be able to monopolize the transportation market and dictate prices. Careful thought should be given to restrictions to market monopoly.
Finally, some interested corporations, such as Google and Amazon are currently involved extensively in data mining of personal information. If people were worried about government surveillance, then privacy concerns should be carefully considered. In no automobile could you have a private conversation.
Thoughtful post Michael, thank you.
I would add on the possibility of intentional disruption of the circuit that drives the car.
I am not against the autonomous car, as drivers often are complete idiots. However, there certainly a lot of factors to be dealt with.
They really want to ban all self-driving vehicles because of just one fatality amidst loads of testing? The stories of people attacking self-driving vehicles reminds of me stories that the first automobiles were sometimes met with a violent reaction. My concern is people will think self-driving cars are somehow cleaner, that pollution will be lessened because they’re newing technology, when in fact a driver or lack thereof makes no difference. In fact, they could make pollution worse, if they push people toward individual cars and away from mass transit.
Not only should we prepare by making roads more machine-friendly, but we need to plan for displaced workers who make their living now as drivers.
There already is evidence that autonomous vehicles are safer than human drivers. Waymo has driven more than 7 million miles in the last 12 months without causing an accident. Driving more miles and safer than your average driver. We are lab rats every day when we teach people how to drive before they have driver’s license. You should allow those with a good safety record like Waymo on the streets. It will prevent accidents.