This presentation will discuss the difficult regulatory issues surrounding introducing self-driving cars onto our roadways. Many novel questions will be discussed, such as how to allocate liability for an autonomous vehicle, the self-driving cars’ impact on public transportation and infrastructure, and personal privacy concerns.
1913: 5th Ave NYC Easter Parade
Source: George Grantham Bain Collection
“You can count on one hand the number of years it will
take before ordinary people can experience (AVs).”
–Sergey Brin, at the 2012 signing of California’s SB 1298.
Opportunities for CAVs
In 2014, 6.0 million crashes in the U.S. resulting in 32,675 deaths &
>$500+ billion in comprehensive costs.
Driver error is primary cause of > 90% of U.S. crashes.
40% of fatal crashes involve alcohol, drugs, fatigue &/or distraction.
AVs can dramatically impact safety by reducing human errors.
7 billion hours of delay & $160 billion losses in 2014.
Reductions possible via traffic smoothing, tighter headways,
cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC) & fewer crashes.
What Are AVs Worth?
- to Society & to Individual Owners
Annual Per-AV Economic Impacts
Assumed Market Share
10% 50% 90%
Lives Saved 1,100 9,600 21,700
Economic Savings per AV per year $430 $770 $960
Comprehen. Savings per AV per yr $1,390 $2,480 $3,100
Travel Time Savings (M Hours) 756 1,680 2,770
Fuel Savings (M Gallons) 102 224 724
Savings per AV per year $1,320 $590 $550
Parking Savings per AV per year $250 $250 $250
VMT Increase 2.0% 7.5% 9.0%
Change in Total # Vehicles ‐4.7% ‐23.7% ‐42.6%
(U.S. Context, $2012)
Totaled Social Benefits
Assumed Market Share
10% 50% 90%
Annual U.S. Savings: Economic Benefits Only $26 B $102 B $201 B
Annual U.S. Savings: Comprehensive Benefits $38 B $211 B $447 B
Savings Per AV per year: Econ. Benefits Only $2,000 $1,610 $1,760
Savings Per AV per year: Comprehen. Benefits $2,960 $3,320 $3,900
Net Present Value (NPV) of AV Benefits minus
Purchase Price (Econ. Benefits Only) $5,200 $7,250 $10,400
Net Present Value of AV Benefits minus Purchase
Price (Comprehensive Benefits) $12,500
per AV sold $26,700
Added Purchase Price $10,000 $5,000 $3,000
U.S. Industry Impacts, at 100% Adoption
% Change in
$ per Capita per Year
Insurance $180B/yr $108B/yr 60% $339/person/yr
Freight Transportation $604 $100 17% $313
Land Development $931 $45 5% $142
Automotive $570 $42 7% $132
Personal Transport $86 $27 31% $83
Electronics & Software
$203 $26 13% $83
Auto Repair $58 $21 36% $66
Digital Media $42 $14 33% $44
Medical $2,700 $12 0% $36
Oil and Gas $284 $10 4% $31
Construction/Infrastructure $169 $8 4% $24
Traffic Police $10 $5 50% $16
Law $277 $3 1% $10
Industry-based Totals $6,113 $420B/year 7% $1,318/person/year
Adding in Additional Effects:
Travel Time “Productivity” Rises
+ Pain & Suffering from Crashes Fall
Economy-Wide (non-Industry-based) Effects
Economic Impact ($B/yr) $ per Capita per Year
$645 Billion/year $2,022/person-year
Pain & Suffering +
other Crash Costs
$488 B/year $1,530
Additional Effects $1,133 B/year $3,552/person-year
(industry + other)
$1.4 Trillion per year! $4,419 per person-year
Forecasting Americans’ Long-Term
Adoption of Connected & Autonomous
Vehicle (C/AV) Technologies
Willingness to Pay (WTP)
(if WTP > 0)
% of Respondents
with $0 WTP
Electronic Stability Control $52 $79 33.4%
Lane Centering $205 $352 41.7%
Left Turn Assist $119 $221 46.1%
Cross Traffic Sensor $169 $252 32.8%
Adaptive Headlight $203 $345 41.1%
Pedestrian Detect $145 $232 37.5%
Adaptive Cruise Control $126 $202 37.7%
Blind Spot Monitoring $160 $210 23.7%
Traffic Sign Recognition $93 $204 54.4%
Emergency Automatic Braking $183 $257 28.7%
Level 3 Automation $2,438 $5,470 55.4%
Self‐parking Valet System $436 $902 51.7%
Level 4 Automation $5,857 $14,196 58.7%
Connectivity (DSRC) $67 $111 39.1%
Simulating Fleet Evolution
to old vehicles
Sell a vehicle
and buy vehicles
Sell a vehicle
if WTP≥ Price
Buy new or
the oldest vehicle
if WTP≥ Price
LV3 or LV4
End: Do nothing
End: Dispose of
the oldest vehicle
End: Add LV1,
LV2, or self-
if WTP≥ Price
Same process for each household, every year.
Agent-Based Models for Shared AVs
+ = &
Less than 20% of newer (& 15% of all) personal vehicles are in‐use at
peak times, even with 5‐minute pickup & drop‐off buffers.
Car‐sharing programs like ZipCar & Car2go have expanded quickly,
with the number of U.S. users doubling every year or two, over the
Shared Autonomous Vehicles (SAVs) can help overcome car‐sharing
barriers, like return‐trip certainty & vehicle access distances.
Agent-Based Model Framework
Grid‐based 10 mi x 10 mi urban area with 0.25‐sq. mile zones.
Poisson‐based PK & OP counts for trip generation, every 5 minutes.
Higher trip production & attraction rates closer to city center.
Mostly round‐trip travel, with 78% travelers returning via SAVs.
Random departure times & trip distances (2009 NHTS).
SAVs travel at fixed speeds, with 5 min. intervals.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Midnight ‐ 3 AM
3 AM ‐ 6 AM
6 AM ‐ 9 AM
9 AM ‐ Noon
Noon ‐ 3 PM
3 PM ‐ 6 PM
6 PM ‐ 9 PM
9 PM ‐ Midnight
Trip Generation Trip Distances (mi.)Dwell Times (hrs.)
Example: One SAV’s 24-hour Journey
Higher AM Trip
Higher PM Trip
• Red Arrows
• Blue Arrows
Case Study Results
100 days were simulated to assess SAV travel implications.
Service area 10 mi. x 10 mi.
Outer trip generation rate 9 trips/cell/day
CBD edge trip generation rate 27 trips/cell/day
CBD core trip generation rate 30 trips/cell/day
Off‐peak speed 33 mph
Peak speed 21 mph
AM peak 7 AM ‐ 8 AM
PM peak 4 PM ‐ 6:30 PM
Trip share returning by SAV 78%
Each SAV replaced 9 to 13
Avg. wait time ≈ 2.8 min.
11% new/induced (empty‐
Yet 5% to 50% (GHG vs. VOCs)
life‐cycle emissions reductions,
thanks to smaller vehicles,
fewer cold starts, & less
What if SAVs Serve Central Austin, &
Offer Dynamic Ride-Sharing (DRS)?
Case Study Results
1:10 & 1:8 veh. replacement
rates (with & w/o DRS)
System pays for itself with
just $1/mile fares!
Electric vehicles (Leaf &
Model S) also tested (with
inductive charging), using
100 mi x 100 mi region.
DRS saves more emissions ‐
& VMT even falls (vs. BAU).
Measure With DRS Without DRS
SAV fleet size 1,855 2,181
Veh. replacement rate 9.95 8.47
Average wait time 57 sec 47 sec
% Waiting > 10 min. 0.60% 0.33%
5‐6 PM avg. wait 3.0 min 2.4 min
Avg. total trip time 14.4 min 13.8 min
New VMT introduced 4.90% 7.92%
# rides shared 5,754 0
% VMT shared 4.50% 0%
24‐hour days simulated with 56,300 to 270,000 trips served.
Excellent Level of Service (typ. wait time < 3 min.)
What if SAVs Serve the Entire Region?
And Are SAElectricVs?
Station Generation via 30-day Initial Run
range to meet
request Send SAEV to
Is a charging
station also in
Try again, in
Charging Station Locations
Charging stations generated based on demand.
Number of charging stations formed is dependent only
on vehicle range.
Central Austin Station Locations
Assuming 60 mile range + 4 hour charge time + 5:1 travelers per
SAEV (= 28 stations over 6 x 10 mi area)
Austin SAEV Results
Range (mi) 525 60 200 200 60 200
Recharge/Refuel Time (min) 2 240 30 240 30 30
# of Charging/Gas Stations 19 155 155 155 155 155
Fleet Size (# vehicles) 5,893 5,893 5,893 5,893 5,893 4,124
Avg. Daily miles per Vehicle 452 201 354 441 355 501
% of Unserved Trips 1.62 60.6 19.4 2.67 16.2 15.2
Avg. Daily Trips per Vehicle 28.5 11.4 23.4 28.2 24.3 35.1
Avg. Wait Time Per Trip (min) 4.45 9.82 8.76 5.49 6.16 9.55
% Unoccupied Travel 6.05 13.1 7.88 6.86 14.2 8.62
% Travel for Charging 0.65 5.59 1.26 1.05 5.34 1.27
• Fleet size is key to lower response times. Tripling fleet size (from 9:1 to 3:1
travelers per SAEV) lowers average response times by >75%.
• Longer charge times increase response times (& unserved trips rise 19% to 61%)
• Longer ranges lower empty VMT, but fast‐charging improves response times.
• Trips in Austin’s urban core are served best (e.g., never exceed 30‐min wait times).
SAEV Cost Assumptions
• Conventional BEV Costs: $25,000 (short range) to $35,000 (long‐range)
• Self‐driving Technology Cost: $5,000 to $25,000 per vehicle
• Battery Replacement: $100 ‐ $190 per kWh (once per vehicle life)
• Vehicle Maintenance: 5.4¢ to ‐6.6¢ per mile
• Insurance & Registration: $550 ‐ $2,200 per vehicle‐year
• Electricity: 8¢ to 20¢ per kWh
• Level II Chargers: $8,000 ‐ $18,000 each
• Level II Charger Maintenance: $25 ‐ $50 per year, per charger
• Fast (Level III) Charger: $10,000 ‐ $100,000 per charger
• Fast Charger Maintenance: $1,000 ‐ $2,000 per year, per charger
• Station Properties: $1,980 to $6,900 per vehicle space (based on location)
How Should We Modify our Travel
Demand Models & Plan for the Future?
More Complete Model Assumptions
Vehicle ownership changes over time (AVs cost more & SAVs
allow people to avoid ownership).
Travel times are less burdensome (for drivers)
Lower values of travel time thanks to more productive (& restful!) in‐
Affect trip mode choice probabilities
Travel costs may fall
AVs can head to lower‐cost parking locations
Shared AVs reduce overall vehicle‐use costs
Dynamic ride‐sharing reduces per‐trip costs even further
Link capacities rise on roadways
V2V communications (e.g., CACC) + smart intersections (long term)
AVs may eventually follow at shorter headways & distances
Hopefully lower travel times & travel‐time unreliability…
However, we also expect…
Longer travel distances (more distant destinations).
More trip‐making by those presently unlicensed, with
disabilities &/or other difficulties driving.
Less air travel by passengers & rail travel by freight.
Possibly larger, less‐efficient vehicles, for longer‐distance
trips, & more land use sprawl.
Rising congestion & infrastructure damage in many locations.
Need for smarter system management, including incentives
for ride‐sharing & non‐motorized travel, route guidance,
credit‐based congestion pricing & micro‐tolling ‐ to
internalize externalities & operate more efficiently, equitably,
CAVs offer tremendous benefits for mobility, safety & parking,
but will add VMT & congestion.
SAVs offer a new & exciting (transit?) mode, with each SAV
replacing ~8 personal vehicles, for same level of motorized trip‐
SAVs add 7‐10% extra VMT (though DRS may reduce VMT).
Yet SAVs may bring useful travel‐cost savings, emissions benefits
+ profits for transit providers.
Traditional travel models cannot capture the details of SAV
systems & CAV operations. Microsimulation is needed.
Smart system management practices are also needed, to avoid
gridlock, sprawl, greater energy use, & other downsides.
So, what is going on in ‘the law’
around the world?
United States: Federal
• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
preliminary policy on Automated Vehicles in 2013
– Outlined definitions for Levels 0 through 4 of automation
• NHTSA in September 2016 issued new Policy on Autonomous
– Adopted SAE J3016 definitions (L0 through Level 5) as
• Deliberately issued as policy & not regulations, with goal to
set stage for consistent national framework but providing
flexibility to states.
NHTSA 2016 Policy
Delineated roles/responsibilities for state(s) policy:
‐ States retain their traditional responsibilities for vehicle
licensing, registration, traffic laws & enforcement, and motor
vehicle insurance & liability.
‐ NHTSA continued preemption for interpretations,
exemptions, notice, and rulemaking & enforcement
Manufacturer responsibility to determine their system
conforms with SAE J3016.
NHTSA’s Framework for
Vehicle Performance Guidance
U.S.: Federal (2)
• NHTSA October 2016: Policy on Cyber Security in
– Covers all vehicles not just HAVs & applies to designers,
supplies, manufactures & modifiers
• FAST Act 2015, §24302 limitations on data retrieved from
Event Data Recorders (EDRs)
– NHTSA required to determine amount of time EDRs
should capture & record data for retrieval ... to provide
sufficient information to investigate a motor vehicle
• Over 80 bills are currently in front of U.S. state legislatures on
• Nevada created legislation allowing testing in 2011.
• California legislation authorized a pilot program in 2014.
• Michigan: 2013 allowed testing of automated vehicles as long
as human was in car.
• Michigan: 2016 allows driverless cars to be driven for any of the
following purposes, no human required to be in car:
– Personal use; road testing; as part of a SAVE program or “on‐
demand automated vehicle network;” & as part of a platoon.
California’s & Michigan’s approaches differ...
California: prescriptive approach
Required rulemaking by agencies, pilot tests must be
authorized, test vehicles do not require driver behind
wheel, but qualified test drivers must have ability to take
control, minimum insurance surety bond of $5 million.
Michigan: framework approach
Initially, Automakers can test AVs as long as human in car
in original legislation. No agency rulemaking required.
Current legislation, allows driverless cars to be driven for
multiple purposes not just road testing, without a human
in the vehicle as the AI is considered the driver.
EU has not yet passed any legislation specifically on HAVs.
EU Directive 2007/46 EEC regulates how vehicles should be designed
EU Roadworthiness Directive 2014/45 EU sets out basis for
Problems with the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic Article 8’s
language stating ‘every driver shall at all times be able to control his
vehicle’ incidentally prevented the development & testing of HAVs.
Amendments to the Convention in 2016 allow drivers to take hands
off wheel in self‐driving cars.
ECE Regulation 79 also creates an impediment through requirements
for specific steering configurations:
advanced driver steering system is only allowed to control steering as
long as the driver remains in primary control of vehicle at all times.
EU Member States
Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden & UK
implemented legislation in 2015/2016
Finland, Netherlands & Sweden, all have similar
systems to California’s legislation & regulations for
pilot tests, & for driver licensing.
UK issued code of practice in July 2015, which must be
followed by any groups conducting HAV testing. This
includes licensing & training provisions, & a risk
management process by the testing group.
UK issued Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 2016‐
2017 in February 2017 – outlines liability for insurers of
Activities in Canada, Japan & Australia
Canada has not yet created federal regulation
Province of Ontario in 2016 produced legislation &
regulations for a pilot program
Japan has allowed road testing, & is working to
Australia has not federally legislated
National Transport Commission has set out
recommendations & policy positions in 2016
Government of New South Wales introduced legislation in
September 2015 for road testing. NSW released a future
transport roadmap in fall 2016 that outlined the ministry’s
view on the transition to HAVs
Initial Legal Issues
Privacy, Liability, Cybersecurity & Freedom of
Information Requests / State Open Records
Requests all raised as concerns for automated &
No case law yet on these issues.
NHTSA & FTC have noted they are reviewing
hacking & privacy of consumer data in HAVs.
Federal statutes also provide penalties under the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, Wiretap Act, & Patriot Act.
Initial legal issues (2)
Privacy realm three areas have been identified
as needing changes to law:
1. Autonomy privacy (i.e. an individual’s privacy
under 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution
e.g. illegal search & seizure);
2. Personal information privacy, and
• California passed law regarding consumer
privacy in HAVs
Many jurisdictions around the world have
begun to draft legislation & regulations with
a primary focus on pilot testing.
California has begun to review how it needs to
amend its laws & regulations.
Legal articles have primarily focused on
privacy, liability, cyber security &