Definition of AVs: “‘Autonomous technology’ is defined as technology
that has the capability to drive a vehicle without the active
physical control or monitoring of a human operator” (California
Vehicle Code, 2012). “Autonomous vehicle” means any “vehicle
equipped with autonomous technology that has been integrated
into that vehicle. Does not include a vehicle that is equipped with
one or more collision avoidance systems, including, but not limited
to, electronic blind spot assistance, automated emergency
braking systems, park assist, adaptive cruise control, lane keep
assist, lane departure warning, traffic jam and queuing assist, or
other similar systems that enhance safety or provide driver assistance,
but are not capable, collectively or singularly, of driving
the vehicle without the active control or monitoring of a human
operator.”
As discussed above, AVs will have varying effects on the cost of mobility,
vehicle throughput, congestion, and car ownership. All of these
factors influence total VMT. Reduced travel costs from AVs will likely
increase VMT, commonly referred to as the “rebound effect” and
expressed as a percentage increase in VMT that results from a change
in per-mile vehicle costs. NHTSA assumes a rebound rate of 10 percent
for the base case and examines alternate cases of 5, 15, and 20 percent
(NHTSA, 2012a). A 10-percent rebound effect means that if per-mile
vehicle costs fall by 20 percent, VMT demand will rise by 2 percent.
In addition to existing drivers, the emergence of Level 4 AV taxis
and car-sharing services may induce additional VMT demand from
new sources. These include the elderly, the young, those without driver’s
licenses, and those who explicitly or implicitly value the time or multitask
opportunities afforded by driverless taxis at high rates. But if Level 4
driverless taxis are available, easy to use, and cheap, the incentive to own
a vehicle is reduced, and declines in vehicle ownership rates would result.
Table 2.3 outlines these and other potential impacts on total U.S. VMT.
The magnitude and direction of how AVs affect total VMT are
key drivers of change in energy use and emissions from these vehicles.
However, even increases in total VMT can have neutral effects
on energy and environmental impacts as long as vehicle efficiencies
and/or GHG intensities of fuels are reduced. For example, in 2010,
U.S. VMT per capita was 9,608 vehicle miles and VMT per vehicle
in operation was 12,370 miles (Davis, Diegel, and Boundy, 2012). In
a car that gets 31 mpg, one car would consume about 400 gallons of
gasoline traveling 12,370 miles over the course of the year. If driving
habits increased VMT and that vehicle is instead driven 20,000 miles
per year, a 50-mpg car would be required to consume the same amount
of gasoline annually.
AVs have the potential to substantially affect safety, mobility, congestion,
land use, and the environment. In this chapter, we discuss
some of the social costs of transportation and how AVs could affect
these costs. In general, we find that AV technology has the potential
to substantially reduce many of the existing negative externalities
of personal automobile use and create some additional benefits
in increased mobility and improving land use. While there are some
important disadvantages, we find these are generally outweighed by
the advantages.
However, the extent to which the specific benefit accrues to the
purchaser of the car, rather than the public as a whole, varies by the
benefit. For example, the extent to which this technology can reduce
the cost of congestion (by allowing a driver to attend to other tasks)
will accrue to the driver. On the other hand, the extent to which the
technology can generally reduce congestion on the roads accrues to the
general motoring public, not the purchaser. This is important because
it will affect the business model for the introduction of many of these
technologies, and whether subsidies or taxes are appropriate to align
private and public costs.
Policymakers have a number of opportunities for shaping the adoption
and impact of AV technologies. Key questions include:
• How, if at all, should the use of AVs be regulated, and at what
level?
• What kinds of vehicles should be allowed on the road, and who is
allowed to operate them?
• How should the safety of AVs be tested, and by whom? To what
safety standards should AVs be held?
• How might different liability regimes shape the timely and safe
adoption of AVs, and what are the tradeoffs? Under what conditions
would limitations on tort liability be appropriate?
• What are the implications of a patchwork of state-by-state laws
and regulations, and what are the tradeoffs in harmonizing these
policies?
• To what extent should policymakers encourage the adoption of
AVs; e.g., through smart road infrastructure, dedicated highway
lanes, manufacturer or consumer incentives?
Different policymaking bodies will have different roles in addressing
these questions. In recent years, state legislatures have passed laws
on what types of AVs may be driven, and have directed DMVs to clarify
testing and regulation procedures. Legislatures may also be responsible
for providing specific incentives for manufacturers to create AVs
and for the public to adopt them. Historically, DMVs test the safety
of and regulate drivers (i.e., issuing driver’s licenses), while federal
bodies like NHTSA regulate and test the safety of vehicles. AVs blur
the line between vehicle and driver, and DMVs are beginning to test
and license AVs. State DOTs maintain and operate highway infrastructure,
and thus would be responsible for any investments in intelligent
infrastructure or the creation and operation of dedicated lanes for AVs.
The goal of this report is to summarize available information on
AV technologies, identify the most salient policy issues, and provide
tentative guidance to policymakers. At the outset, we must note that
there are far more questions than answers. Further research can and
should be conducted on almost every topic we touch.
The remainder of the report is organized as follows. Chapter
Two summarizes the potential of these technologies to improve social
welfare and potential detrimental effects. Chapter Three summarizes
recent state legislation in this area. In Chapter Four, we review the history
of AV technology and discuss its current status. In Chapter Five,
we address the particular policy issues raised by telematics and communications
issues. In Chapter Six, we address the role of standards
and regulations. In Chapter Seven, we discuss the liability implications
of AV technology and the risks that are raised to the goal of maximizing
social welfare. Chapter Eight summarizes the policy implications
of this work and proposes some tentative suggestions. We also summarize
our findings and propose directions for further research in this
area.
AV technology merits the immediate attention of policymakers for several
reasons. First, the technology appears close to maturity and commercial
introduction. Google’s efforts—which involve a fleet of cars
that collectively have logged hundreds of thousands of autonomous
miles—have received widespread media attention and demonstrate
that this technology has advanced considerably. Every major commercial
automaker is engaged in research in this area and full-scale commercial
introduction of truly autonomous (including driverless) vehicles
are being predicted to occur within five to 20 years. Several states
have passed laws to regulate the use of AVs, and many more laws have
been proposed. As these technologies trickle (or flood) into the marketplace,
it is important for both state and federal policymakers to understand
the effects that existing policy (or lack thereof) are likely to have
on the development and adoption of this technology.
Second, the stakes are high. In the United States alone, more than
30,000 people are killed each year in crashes, approximately 2.5 million
are injured, and the vast majority of these crashes are the result of
human error (Choi et al., 2008). By greatly reducing the opportunity
for human error, AV technologies have the potential to greatly reduce
the number of crashes.
AVs may also reduce congestion and its associated costs. Estimates
suggest that effective road capacity (vehicles per lane per hour) can be
doubled or tripled. The costs of congestion can also be greatly reduced
if vehicle operators can productively conduct other work. AV technology
also promises to reduce energy use.5 Automobiles have become
increasingly heavy over the past 20 years partly to meet more rigorous
crash test standards. If crashes become exceedingly rare events, it may
be possible to dramatically lighten automobiles.
In the long run, AVs may also improve land use. Quite apart from
the environmental toll of fuel generation and consumption, the existing
automobile shapes much of our built environment. Its centrality
to our lives accounts for the acres of parking in even our most densely
occupied cities.6 With the ability to drive and park themselves at some
distance from their users, AVs may obviate the need for nearby parking
for commercial, residential, or work establishments, which may enable
a reshaping of the urban environment and permit new in-fill development
as adjacent parking lots are made unnecessary.
Along with these benefits, however, AVs could have many negative
effects. By reducing the time cost of driving, AVs may encourage
greater travel and increase total vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which
could lead to more congestion.7 They may increase sprawl if commuters
move ever farther away from workplaces. Similarly, AVs may eventually .
6 Autonomous Vehicle Technology: A Guide for Policymakers
shift users’ preferences toward larger vehicles to permit other activities.
In theory, this could even include beds, showers, kitchens, or offices. If
AV software becomes standardized, a single flaw might lead to many
accidents. Internet-connected systems might be hacked by the malicious.
And perhaps the biggest risks are simply unknowable.
From seatbelts, to air bags, to antilock brakes, automakers have
often been reluctant to incorporate expensive new technology, even if
it can save many lives (Mashaw and Harfst, 1990). Navigating the AV
landscape makes implementation of these earlier safety improvements
appear simple by comparison. Negotiating the risks to reach the opportunities
will require careful policymaking, and this report identifies
the critical issues and context as policymakers collectively define a path
forward.
Technological advancements are creating a continuum between conventional,
fully human-driven vehicles and AVs, which partially or
fully drive themselves and which may ultimately require no driver
at all. Within this continuum are technologies that enable a vehicle
to assist and make decisions for a human driver. Such technologies
include crash warning systems, adaptive cruise control (ACC), lane
keeping systems, and self-parking technology.1
NHTSA has created a five-level hierarchy to help clarify this continuum.2
We summarize this below and use it throughout this report:
• Level 0 (no automation): The driver is in complete and sole control
of the primary vehicle functions (brake, steering, throttle,
and motive power) at all times, and is solely responsible for monitoring
the roadway and for safe vehicle operation.
• Level 1 (function-specific automation): Automation at this level
involves one or more specific control functions; if multiple functions
are automated, they operate independently of each other.
The driver has overall control, and is solely responsible for safe
operation, but can choose to cede limited authority over a pri-
1 These technologies are sometimes called advanced driver assistance systems.
2 The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International has created a somewhat similar
taxonomy to describe automation for on-road vehicles (SAE On-Road Automated Vehicle
Standards Committee, 2013).
Introduction 3
mary control (as in ACC); the vehicle can automatically assume
limited authority over a primary control (as in electronic stability
control); or the automated system can provide added control to
aid the driver in certain normal driving or crash-imminent situations
(e.g., dynamic brake support in emergencies).
• Level 2 (combined-function automation): This level involves
automation of at least two primary control functions designed to
work in unison to relieve the driver of controlling those functions.
Vehicles at this level of automation can utilize shared authority
when the driver cedes active primary control in certain limited
driving situations. The driver is still responsible for monitoring
the roadway and safe operation, and is expected to be available for
control at all times and on short notice. The system can relinquish
control with no advance warning and the driver must be ready to
control the vehicle safely.
• Level 3 (limited self-driving automation): Vehicles at this
level of automation enable the driver to cede full control of all
safety-critical functions under certain traffic or environmental
conditions, and in those conditions to rely heavily on the vehicle
to monitor for changes in those conditions requiring transition
back to driver control. The driver is expected to be available for
occasional control, but with sufficiently comfortable transition
time.
• Level 4 (full self-driving automation): The vehicle is designed
to perform all safety-critical driving functions and monitor roadway
conditions for an entire trip. Such a design anticipates that
the driver will provide destination or navigation input, but is not
expected to be available for control at any time during the trip.
This includes both occupied and unoccupied vehicles. By design,
safe operation rests solely on the automated vehicle system.
(NHTSA, 2013).
The type and magnitude of the potential benefits of AV technology
will depend on the level of automation that is achieved. For
example, some of the safety benefits of AV technology may be achieved
from function-specific automation (e.g., automatic braking), while the
4 Autonomous Vehicle Technology: A Guide for Policymakers
land-use and environmental benefits are likely to be realized only by
full automation (Level 4)
'Now our road takes us to the magnificent kingdom of Goa.The people of this kingdom are strong, prudent and very hardworking. The kingdom of Goa is the most important in India.It is civilized, having famous orchards and water. It is the coolest place in India and it is the most plentiful in foodstuffs.'
'The white people make a practice of going to the kingdom of Goa to enjoy the shade and the groves of trees and to savour the sweet betel.'
These revealing remarks on Goa come not from the hippies or 'flower power' generation of the sixties and early seventies who thronged the beaches of Anjuna, Vagator and Arambol in search of salvation and 'peace'. These remarks were made over five centuries ago by the Portuguese Ambassador to China who visited Goa around the year 1511. They serve as a vivid precursor to the generations that followed in our times to the fabled land of Goa.
In those tumultuous and rebellious times in the sixties, it was then not the 'sweet betel' that was the prime attraction but a different kind of 'weed'. But Goa, since those days of the angry generation, has moved on to attract a multitudinous, peaceful and cosmopolitan school of visitors from all around the globe.
Down the corridors of time Goa has been different things to different people. To the Portuguese conquerors it was 'Golden Goa', the El Dorado, the 'Rome of the East'. Such was its beauty and grandeur, that a traveller was moved to remark: 'Whoever has seen Goa, need not visit Lisboa'-Lisbon, which was then the grand epicenter of the Portuguese dominions.
Some decades later, the early 17th century French traveller Francois Pyrard wrote: 'Whoever has been in Goa may say that he has seen the choicest rarities of India, for it is the most famous and celebrated city, on account of its commercial intercourse with people of all nationalities of the East who bring there the products of their respective countries, articles of merchandize, necessaries of life and other commodities in great abundance because every year more than a thousand ships touch there laden with cargo.'
Pyrard continued with near prophetic veracity: 'as for the multitude of people, it is a marvel to see the number which come and go every day by sea and land on business of every kind.One would say that a fair was being held every day for the sale of all sorts of merchandise.'
While the contemporary traveller may not come to modern, thriving Goa 'for the sale of all sorts of merchandise', the 'fair' is still very much on. The traveller is here to find something different: a balm on the busy mind, to enjoy days of freedom on Goa's magnificent beaches, to parasail or swim with the tide of fellow visitors from all around the globe, to savour its unique cuisine and imbibe its spirits, to take a long and invigorating trek in its unexplored interiors, to marvel at its majestic temples and churches, in short, to be at one with the most friendly people in the country.
In the sixties and seventies, it was, as we have remarked, a haven for the hippies. Since then Goa has moved on to fullfledged Statehood, its own Council of Ministers, a magnificent new Assembly complex, its citizens among the most literate in the country with a per capita income the highest in the land. At the hub of this prosperity, is the Tourism industry. At the Goa Tourism Development Corporation (GTDC), we take a humble bow in acknowledgement, in some small measure, of putting Goa on the tourist map of our country.
But we also acknowledge that Goa does not require a massive sales drive.
Goa is a multifaceted jewel in the crown of India.
It is a frame of mind and body, spirit and soul.
Goa is an unfading memory.
It is joy and nirvana.
Goa is India's smallest State-with the largest heart.
Goa is Forever.
Area
The state of Goa covers an area of 3,702 sq. km.
Capital of Goa
Panaji is the capital of Goa.
Population
A brief summary of the 2011 census: Goa's population is 1458545 with 739140 Males and 719405 Females. The growth of 14.8 per cent, during 1991 to 2000, is lower than the 16.08 per cent recorded during 1981 to 1990.
The sex-ratio (number of females per thousand males) in Goa is 973 in 2011 compared to 967 in 1991.
The density of population per sq km in Goa is 364 in 2001 as compared to 316 in 1991. North Goa has a much higher density (437) as compared to South Goa (300). The national figure is 324.
The literacy rate is 80 per cent. 83.3 per cent of the male and 76.4 per cent of the female population is literate.
64.68 per cent of the population is Hindu, 29.86 per cent is Christian and Muslims are a minority of 5.25 per cent.
Around 0.15 to 0.2 million of the total population of 13,43,998 are immigrants from around India who have settled down in Goa.
Principal Languages
At present, Marathi and Konkani are two major languages of Goa. Hindi, the national language of India, is well understood in Goa. In major towns, English is widely used in writing and conversation.
On the other hand, Portuguese, the language of the colonial rulers and the official language till 1961 before liberation, notwithstanding the official patronage and a compulsory medium of study, failed to make a dent in the mind of the majority of Goans.
It remained only the language of the elite but alienated the masses. Thus just after the departure of the Portuguese, Portuguese lost all its favour and usage. However, very few - particularly the older or pre-liberation generation - still use Portuguese.
Thus Goa is a multi-lingual state, thanks to its diverse history of thousands of years, which has seen people of various regions, ethnic races and religions from India and abroad coming over to and settling in Goa, while influencing the local language.
Natural Resources
Rivers
The major rivers flowing through the state are Mandovi, Zuari, Terekhol, Chapora and Betul. The other major rivers include the Tiracol, Chapora, Sal and the Talpona.
Forests
The state has a total forest cover of more than 1,424 sq. km covering almost one-third of the total area. Forests provide important products namely bamboo, Maratha barks, chillar barks and bhirand. These are of great economic value for rural mass. Coconut trees are present in almost the whole of Goa except in the upper regions. Goa’s vegetation also includes cashew, mango, jackfruits and pineapples.
Minerals
Goa is rich in mineral resources. Major minerals include iron ore, manganese, ferro-manganese, bauxite and silica sand. Iron and manganese mining industries are the backbone of Goa’s economy.
