OOIDA tells regulators to pump the brakes on autonomous vehicle hype
Regulators and lawmakers are told that autonomous vehicles will be safer than human drivers. But is that really the case?
In formal comments submitted to the U.S. Department of Transportation in October, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association said that potential and reality are very different things.
“One of the central problems today is that regulators are often presented with research that presumes AVs will be safer than human drivers simply because, under narrow and carefully controlled circumstances, AVs may show advantages,” OOIDA wrote in comments signed by President Todd Spencer. “USDOT should support research that proves – rather than presumes – safety for AVs, with particular attention to automated heavy trucks operating in mixed traffic. Because rare, high-severity crashes cannot be ruled out by accumulating ordinary on-road miles, alternative evidence is required. Evaluation should therefore rely on structured safety cases, validated scenario testing, clearly defined safety metrics and independent review …”
OOIDA told the DOT that autonomous vehicle standards must be based on documented research and testing data.
“Regardless of their potential, it is important to understand the implications of AVs on public roadways,” OOIDA wrote. “While AVs might improve safety under certain conditions, they create new risks with dangerous outcomes. Unfortunately, mostly voluntary federal reporting requirements leave truckers and the general public in the dark about the safety and reliability of autonomous technologies.”
Recent research from the Autonomy and Robotics Center at George Mason University revealed serious concerns about the safety of autonomous vehicles.
OOIDA said it supports mandatory testing, safety and crash reporting requirements that would educate the public about the actual reliability and performance of autonomous technology.
“The reliance on voluntary safety reporting from AV manufacturers has not effectively built public trust, acceptance and confidence in the testing and deployment of these vehicles,” OOIDA wrote. “Any hurried and misguided introduction of AVs would not only hurt safety but would disrupt the trucking workforce by displacing drivers and adversely impacting the economy.”
OOIDA submitted the following suggestions for increasing the safety of autonomous vehicles:
- Make safety claims testable and auditable before scale
- Standardize adverse weather and degraded-surface benchmarks
- Utilize crash and incident evidence integrity for legal and policy use
- Build context-aware comparators
- Exercise transparency and build public understanding
Aurora says it received exemption, drops lawsuit
About a year ago, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration denied a request to exempt an autonomous trucking company from a regulation regarding the placement of warning devices.
Following the denial, Aurora filed a lawsuit against FMCSA, saying the decision “stifles innovation and would impede the development of the autonomous trucking industry for no valid or lawful reason.”
Aurora announced in October that the U.S. Department of Transportation gave it permission to use warning beacons mounted on the truck cab instead of traditional warning devices. Aurora also announced that it plans to withdraw its lawsuit.
“Today, Aurora has received approval from the U.S. Department of Transportation to begin using cab-mounted warning beacons as an alternative to reflective triangles,” the company wrote on Oct. 9. “The cab-mounted flashing lights indicate when a vehicle is stopped on the side of the road to warn other road users, which is similar to systems used by emergency and construction vehicles, and is a step forward for road safety.”
As of press time, notice of an exemption had not been published in the Federal Register. However, the lawsuit was officially dismissed on Oct. 24.
Current regulations require truck drivers to place warning devices in a specific manner whenever a commercial motor vehicle is stopped on the shoulder of a highway.
Drivers are required to place the warning devices:
- One on the traffic side and four paces – approximately 10 feet – from the stopped commercial motor vehicle in the direction of approaching traffic
- One at 40 paces – approximately 100 feet – from the stopped commercial motor vehicle in the center of the traffic lane or shoulder occupied by the commercial motor vehicle and in the direction of approaching traffic
- One at 40 paces from the stopped commercial motor vehicle in the center of the traffic lane or shoulder occupied by the commercial motor vehicle and in the direction away from approaching traffic
Of course, the current regulation doesn’t work for autonomous trucking companies that hope to operate without a human on board. So, in 2023, Aurora and Waymo requested an exemption that would allow warning beacons instead.
In December 2024, FMCSA denied the request, saying it was too broad and that it lacked the “necessary monitoring controls to ensure highway safety.”
OOIDA was one of the groups opposed to the exemption, saying the warning beacons wouldn’t work if the vehicle is stopped within 500 feet of a curve.
“Waymo/Aurora do not discuss any backup warning systems that can be implemented if and when an automated truck experiences any type of failure where the lights or beacons can no longer function,” OOIDA wrote in 2023. “Again, we continue to see too many instances where autonomous vehicle technology does not perform the way it is designed, which further jeopardizes safety performance. Reflective triangles and flares are not reliant on technology systems that are so vulnerable to disruptions.”
Another request
Aurora isn’t the only company to ask for an exemption from the warning device regulation. In August, Emergency Safety Solutions asked the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for a five-year exemption from regulations requiring drivers to place warning device triangles around a stopped commercial motor vehicle.
OOIDA opposed this request as well.
The comment period ended in late September, and FMCSA has not announced whether or not it will grant the exemption. LL