For testing the impact of insurance development on the growth of an economy, we conduct a series of regressions excluding the insurance density from the explanatory variables. The statistics of those regressions are given in Table 3. If the regressors include all economic factors, which are gross enrolment ratio of tertiary students lagged 2, inflation rate, trade balance, and gross fixed assets investment, the sign of the coefficient of gross enrollment ratio of tertiary students lagged 2 is positive, which is reasonable. If regressing inflation rate and gross fixed assets investment separately with gross enrollment ratio of tertiary students lagged 2 one by one into the regressors, we can have reasonable regressions. If we put trade balance and gross enrollment ratio of tertiary students lagged 2 together into regressors, the coefficient of trade balance is negative, which is not reasonable. However, the R2 of all those regressions are lower than the corresponding regressions including insurance density. It has demonstrated that insurance development really improves the economic growth. In fact, in the history of human economic society, investment and demand take the first position to promote the economic growth, and then for the long run come the education and technique innovation. These factors do not exclude the positive impact of the development of insurance on economic growth, at least it improves the economic growth, in term of promoting the society stability and security. This paper argues that insurance density with other important variables really improve the economic growth, in another words, it has a positive impact on economic growth. For testing the endogeneity of insurance density, we implement theHausman test. The result shows the insurance density is very significantly endogenous. Therefore in the next regression we use GMM method in the dynamic panel modeling.
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Definition of AVs
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.”
Research by : http://www.rand.org/
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.”
Research by : http://www.rand.org/
How Will Travel Demand Affect Energy and Emissions?
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.
Research by : http://www.rand.org/
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.
Research by : http://www.rand.org/
The Promise and Perils of Autonomous Vehicle Technology
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.
Research by : http://www.rand.org/
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.
Research by : http://www.rand.org/
What Decisions Do Policymakers Face?
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.
Research by : http://www.rand.org/
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.
Research by : http://www.rand.org/
Why Is Autonomous Vehicle Technology Important Now?
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.
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.
What Are Autonomous and Automated Vehicles?
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)
• 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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)