3 reasons why slow regulatory action in Highly-Automated Driving keeps drivers at risk

Currently, systems that would allow drivers to take their hands off the wheel for extended periods of time or to perform secondary tasks (SAE Level 3 to L4-5) are not allowed on most roads. Misuse or misinterpretation of the capabilities of current Level 2 systems puts drivers and other road users at risk.

Drivers are expected to keep their hands on the wheel and eyes on the road at all times even when their cars are fitted with ADAS providing both longitudinal and lateral control, such as Tesla's Autopilot.  

1. Automation “language” barriers still confuse drivers about ADAS feature capabilities

Despite the fact that some driver assistance systems are quite prevalent in major car markets, such as Automatic Emergency Braking, Lane-Departure Warning in Europe; Forward Collision Warning and rear-view vision in the U.S because of the safety regulation and competition, consumers seem to still be confused about limitations of the systems and their responsibilities when these features are active.

This is evident in the news with multiple stories of drivers misusing ADAS but also from surveys such as the recent one from AAA which shows that drivers still don’t understand the difference between Level 0-warning systems and L1.

Drivers with experience using advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) like adaptive cruise control and lane-keeping assist, were nearly twice as likely to engage in distracted driving while using the systems compared to when they were driving without the systems, according to new research from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

This educational gap needs to be addressed now because, with the proliferation of cars with different levels of autonomy hitting the road over the next decade, misuse and abuse of features could have more severe implications. Is this awareness gap justified? Of course, it is since automation language barriers exist which confuse drivers about the capabilities of existing driver assistance systems.

One of the reasons for the confusion is that there is no universally-accepted definition of the levels of automated driving. Additionally, carmakers are not using a uniform naming strategy in ADAS features because they use automated driving capabilities as product differentiators and USP.

What are the actions to bridge the language barrier?

• In Nov'19, 4 organizations, the AAA, Consumer Reports, J.D. Power and the National Safety Council, came together to adopt ADAS standardized names across 5 categories: Driving Control Assistance, Collection Warnings, Collision Intervention, Parking Assistance, Other ADAS.
• In 2018, the EuroNCAP examined 10 cars equipped with SAE Level 2 systems or ACSF B1 systems to "provide information about the current state-of-the-art and comments on the design strategy taken by the car manufacturer, within the context of what is legally allowed according to European regulation".
• Ford is "calling on all self-driving vehicle developers, automakers and technology companies who are committed to deploying SAE level-4 vehicles to create an industry standard for communicating driving intent".

2. Lack of regulatory clarity over stricter safety standards

Apart from the adoption barrier, we see that slow progress in the amendment or update of regulation delays deployment of Level 3 systems, which can deliver conditional eyes of the road because they have superior redundancy over Level 2 systems.  

The transition from driver-centric regulation to Automated Driving Systems is necessary for the deployment of higher levels of vehicle autonomy

The problem arises from the fact that vehicle regulation and national traffic laws have been developed with the driver in mind, i.e. driver in control. From a technological perspective, we have now reached the point wherein certain markets the amendment of regulation is needed to allow Automated Driving Systems to take conditional and eventually full control of the driving task and monitoring of the road. 

Audi developed a low-speed, highway only Level 3 system in 2018 using the first series production laser scanner for redundancy and centralized domain controller. However, deployment is still pending subject to validation and regional regulatory requirements. 

2019 saw more clarity in engineering roadmaps from other manufacturers of Automated Driving Systems. Some of the highlights include Nissan announcing Level 3 (ProPilot 2.0) in Japan and more carmakers joining Level 2, such as Renault in Clio and Megane (Motorway and Traffic Assistant).

Level 3 deployment in the EU prior to the amendment of Regulation No.79 is not possible without exemptions

When Stage 1 amendments enter into force systems under ACSF B2, C D, and E will not be able to obtain approval until the provisions have been introduced into Reg.79. The implications are that, under the current timeline and definition of ACSF categories, getting approval for SAE L3 equipped vehicles prior to the amendment of R79 Cat B2 is not possible in Europe (without exemptions using Article 20. However, the fact that the contracting parties have not yet released an official decision on B2 being a L2 and/or L3, makes ACSF Cat vs SAE classification difficult.

We understand that in order to accelerate approval of L3, carmakers and specifically Audi which has announced L3 capabilities in the A8, will probably have to use EU’s Article 20 which could provide exemption and at the same time lobby domestic lawmakers to amend national traffic laws to allow L3. 

Germany legalized Level 3 in 2017 to favor domestic leaders but might lose out to the USA

By amending the German Road Traffic Act legal framework to allow the deployment of L3 systems in mid-2017, Germany aims to give a head-start to Audi, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz, who are closer to delivering L3 than other European brands. But Level 3 deployment can happen only if Automated Driving System manufacturers are compliant with UNECE regulations (Reg.79) and data recording for accident reconstruction and claims are in place, or they get an exemption from the framework under Article 20 of the Framework Directive 2007/46/EC (“EC exemption type-approval”).

Despite the German government’s initiatives, the progress in the amendment of UNECE Reg.No79 which would unlock Level 3 deployment is slow. The counterparties were expected to conclude the amendment of regulation that will allow approval of L3+ gradually until mid-2018 but recent announcements from the WP.29 show that it could be delayed until the end of 2020 in the EU. The outcome is crucial for the rest of the world, especially China and Japan who tend to follow the European framework, sometimes with some adjustments for the domestic car market.

This could mean that Europe might lose out to the U.S in terms of the first launch of L3 systems as certain states in the U.S. offer a more favorable regulatory framework. Carmakers in Europe have the option to apply for an exemption to deploy in Germany or other EU member states but it is unclear at this stage if any exemptions have been approved. 

The Reg.79’s amendment will only allow approval of up to Level 3 in Europe; not L4

Even after the proposed amendments come into force, approval of L4-5, where the driver no longer needs to constantly monitor the system, will not be permitted because Reg.79 still requires the driver to remain at all times in primary control of the vehicle’s steering system. This creates uncertainty whether L4/5 systems, coming at the end of the decade will be legal or another regulatory amendment will be required.

3. Lack of regulatory harmonization might create additional or country/state-specific requirements

Regulatory requirements for Level 3 are not standardized across the world with the USA following a different approach to the rest of the world which mostly complies with UNECE regulations. This means that carmakers might have to account for design variation to meet regulatory requirements e.g. in Europe comparing to the U.S and China.

• In Europe, China and Japan, the key piece of regulation that is under an amendment to unlock Level 3 is the UNECE R79-Steering equipment. The full amendment of this regulation will allow Type approval of L3 systems, i.e. allow them to be sold. However, an update of national highway codes is required to legally allow drivers to take their hands-off-the steering wheel and their eyes-of-the-road when these systems are active. Currently UNECE regulation follows a Vertical approach, i.e. there is a different regulation for steering, braking, etc. This creates an inherent problem as AVs can manage un-supervised lateral and longitudinal control and have started conversations for a Horizontal approach.

The update of UNECE R79-Automated Steering was originally expected to come into force by Oct-2018 but progress has been slow and pushed to the end of 2020

The U.S.A follows a different framework and they are not signatories to R79. Manufacturers need to self-certify against all relevant FMVSSs (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards). There is no federal regulatory blanket to harmonize standards across all states as the U.S government is following a liberal approach with the introduction of voluntary guidelines, rather than regulation.

• China follows R79. L3 is not legal there today, however, the strong government support might lead to either exemption for geofenced deployment or an effort to give a head start to domestic carmakers.

More guidance needed in the form of common, international AV standards

The industry is currently debating whether or not the ISO 26262 for Functional Safety is adequate for Highly Automated Driving or dedicated standards for AD should be developed. It is very interesting that Interpol has recently announced its intention to push towards AD standards.

In detail, INTERPOL and ACEA hosted a workshop in Dec’16 on how the Auto Industry and Law Enforcement agencies can collaborate on the future safety and security of autonomous vehicles. Their paper suggests that there is a need to agree on standard approaches for an automotive forensic interface.

What is more, liability in Level 3 is not clearly defined. The amendment of German law states that responsibility will remain with the driver requiring data recording and storage to clarify liability but more information is needed from this and other major car markets. However, among automotive industry associations, the GEAR 2030 has expressed the views that “motor insurance and product liability directives are sufficient for upcoming systems, whereas harmonization of national liability regimes is neither needed nor feasible for the upcoming systems in 2020”.

What do you think?

Lack of consumer awareness, slow regulatory adoption and inherent differences in regulatory frameworks to regulate Automated Driving are some key hurdles restricting the deployment of safer systems.

What do you think? Is stricter regulation better for safer adoption of automated driving? Which geographies and carmakers do you see benefiting the most? What does this mean for consumers?

Read more insights:

• Another carmaker skips Level 3 Automated Driving
• Top-6 Technology Trends in Mobility 2030
• Automated Driving in 2019

Georgios lead's FutureBridge's research and thought leadership efforts in future mobility.