What the EU Has in Store 4 U

At a time when most governments around the world are facing austerity measures and cutbacks in the face of mounting budget deficits, the European Union appears to operate with virtually unlimited resources - to say nothing of unbridled hubris. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the automotive sector - a linchpin to the continental economy and a global source of pride.

But in spite of its economic prominence and the pride it engenders the EU leadership in Brussels appears determined to turn Europe into one of the least appealing markets for car companies. The EU is on a path to adopt its second connected car mandate - this one governing vehicle-to-vehicle communications and requiring an additional piece of hardware, related software code and new related multi-billion-dollar network infrastructure distinct from the existing cellular network to be maintained and operated by some as-yet undefined entity.

This Wi-Fi-based V2V technology will join the existing mandated eCall hardware and software adding cost, complexity and cybersecurity vulnerability to cars - all in the interest of saving lives. Wrapped in the banner of saving lives as the EU is - with a goal of halving highway fatalities by 2020 (relative to 2010) - it is difficult not to salute such initiatives. It is even more difficult to vote against safety-related mandates in the European Parliament.

That is what happened this week. The forces arrayed in favor of cellular-based V2V technology were outflanked by the forces arrayed in support of Wi-Fi-based V2V technology. No doubt a vote against Wi-Fi-based V2V was seen as a vote for higher levels of highway fatalities.

It is still possible that this new mandate may yet be stopped but Spring 2019 may well be remembered as a turning point. Spring 2019 may be remembered as the moment when the EU got serious - way more serious - about safety and brought the entire industry to its knees with onerous legislation.

The EU is currently contemplating a massive array of new safety mandates intended to save lives and likely, like the new V2V mandate, to add substantial cost and complexity to cars in the process. These additional mandates will be no less difficult to oppose, intended as they are to save lives. Car companies can be expected to be cowed into silence in the face of this safety-related onslaught while they watch the cost of new cars climb.

What is in the offing? Let's take a look at the 19 technologies under consideration for compulsory fitment on new cars in Europe (from EU Legislation in Progress):

• A tire pressure monitoring system, which can evaluate the pressure of the tires or the variation of pressure over time and transmit corresponding information to the user while the vehicle is running. This requirement already exists for passenger cars, but would now be extended to all types of vehicles;
• Intelligent speed-assistance system, which would (based on observation of road signs, signals and markings or via electronic map data) alert the driver of exceeding the speed limit by providing haptic feedback through the accelerator pedal;
• Driver drowsiness and attention monitoring, which would alert the driver if, through vehicle system analysis, it assesses the driver's alertness as being insufficient;
• Advanced distraction recognition, which would assess the level of the driver's visual attention to the traffic situation. It would become mandatory at a later stage and may cover the requirement to monitor the driver's drowsiness and attention;
• A reversing detection system, to help avoid collisions with people and objects behind the vehicle by making the driver aware of them with the help of a camera or a monitor;
• An emergency stop signal, which would activate rapidly flashing stop lamps to indicate to other road users behind the vehicle that the driver is suddenly braking;
• Alcohol interlock installation facilitation, which would enable motor vehicles to be fitted with an alcohol interlock device using a standardized interface;
• An advanced emergency braking system that would automatically detect a potential collision and activate the braking system. In the first phase, it would be able to detect moving vehicles and stationary obstacles ahead of the vehicle, and in a later phase, it would also be able to detect vulnerable road users ahead of the vehicle;
• A lane-keeping system that would turn the steering wheel or apply pressure to the brakes when a lane departure occurs or is about to occur and a collision may be imminent. It would be possible to switch both of these systems off, but only by a complex sequence of actions. Each time the vehicle is turned off, the systems would be automatically switched back on again;
• An event (crash) data recorder that would record and store critical crash-related parameters and information such as speed and the functioning of safety systems before, during and after a collision;
• An enlarged head-impact protection zone that would protect vulnerable road users and mitigate their potential injuries in the case of an accident.

And for trucks and commercial vehicles:

• Advanced systems capable of detecting vulnerable road users located in close proximity to the front or nearside of the vehicle and providing a warning or avoiding collision. The proposal does not suggest that advanced emergency braking systems for trucks and buses be modified to brake autonomously when they detect vulnerable road users. The Commission says that accident analysis shows that the risk that a bus or a truck will run over a pedestrian or a cyclist in the 'blind zone' is when the vehicle is moving very slowly or is only starting to move – and that no systems available today can effectively prevent this kind of accident;
• Cabin design with direct vision that would enable the driver to see vulnerable road users directly from the driver's seat without using mirrors or cameras. This feature would have a long phase-in period and would become mandatory for approval of new types of vehicles seven years after the regulation enters into force, and 10 years after its entry into force for all new vehicles.

SOURCE: EU

Interestingly, many of these proposed measures have already been perfected, tested and adopted in the U.S. by the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The path to Parliament in the EU, though, is the source of my concern as legislators get involved in safety plunging automotive safety decision-making into the realm of politics.

The EU acknowledges that the longer-term goal is the mastery of automated driving along with some significant attention to automotive cybersecurity requirements. In other words, the EU is seeking broad compulsory fitment of an array of active safety systems even as automated vehicle technology is evolving.

The errors associated with the V2V and eCall mandates relate to technology specificity. For V2V, the EU is requiring a Wi-Fi-based technology that will require the installation of new roadside infrastructure for which few if any member states are prepared to fund. The eCall mandate required so-called in-band modem technology - otherwise known as data-over-voice - when the entire telecom industry was in the midst of transitioning to voice over data as the preferred communication protocol.

The fear is that the new mandates will bring with them a host of overly specific and onerous requirements that will be nearly impossible to modify or oppose - because the decisions will have become political and maybe even emotional. This is no way to save lives.

Before the EU moves on to the next wave of automotive safety initiatives I am suggesting a reconsideration of the flaws in the process that brought the V2V and eCall mandates to the fore. Both of these mandates led to massive delays in the adoption of life saving technology, rather than accelerating that process. It would be sad to see automotive safety once again delayed by the ill-considered machinations of the boys and girls in Brussels.