Connected and Automated Mobility (CAM)
New for summer 2024! Your favourite self-driving news in print.
Well, this is exciting; visitors to the MOVE event in London will be the first to enjoy Cars of the Future – the UK’s No.1 for Self-Driving – in print.
Copies will be available in Theatre 6 (the AV stage), where I’ll be hosting on Wednesday afternoon. If you can’t make it, fear not, you can always email us to request one.
Or there’s this digital copy: Cars of the Future, summer 2024
A brief look at common objections to self-driving. Do they stack up?
“It’s clear that many people are still not sure whether self-driving vehicles will be safer than human drivers, and don’t know whether they will improve travel or who will benefit most,” concluded the 2021 Myth-Busting Self-Driving Vehicles paper by the road safety charity, Brake.
Compared to bizarre but persistent urban legends like “dogs can’t look up”, these sound like reasonable doubts which can and should be addressed. That said, it is universally accepted that the automated vehicle (AV) industry has a public perception mountain to climb.
To move the debate on, we’ve divided the vocally anti-self-driving into three groups: 1) deniers, 2) opponents, and 3) catastrophisers. Let’s take their concerns in turn and see if they stack up.
The it’ll never happen brigade – those living, wilfully or not, in denial of the capabilities of modern transport technologies. Exhibit A: The headline “Self-driving cars are another Silicon Valley fantasy that will never work” in The Telegraph last September.
Being as balanced as we can, the industry has somewhat brought this upon itself by overpromising. In 2018, Elon Musk felt “very confident” that Tesla owners would be sending their cars out as robotaxis the following year. That didn’t happen.
Fast forward to 2024, however, and AVs are on the road. In America, Waymo says it has conducted “7+ million miles of rider-only driving”. In Scotland, Project CAVForth – using a specially modified fleet of Stagecoach buses – has been taking fares daily since May 2023, giving tens of thousands of UK passengers their first taste of self-driving public transport.
The I don’t like it mob – fair enough, that is their prerogative, but it is often extended to an assertion that nobody loves AVs. Exhibit B: The headline “Maybe People Don’t Want Self-Driving Cars After All” in Jalopnik last October.
Ok, why should they? Last summer, The Self-Driving All-Party Parliamentary Group published a well-informed policy paper to make the case, starting with some pretty eye-catching economic and safety benefits.
“The UK has a unique opportunity for leadership in an industry that could be worth £750 billion globally by 2035,” it said. “The Government’s analysis of the sector showed that it could potentially generate £42 billion and 38,000 jobs for the UK economy by 2035.”
On the safety impact, it listed the four leading causes of road accidents – driver error, reckless behaviour, disobeying traffic laws and driver impairment – saying: “Research from the insurance industry shows that self-driving vehicles could save the NHS £2.3 billion annually in medical and ambulance costs by eliminating the 85% of accidents where human error is a contributory factor.”
Another oft-quoted benefit is improved accessibility. While urging the industry to engage more with the community, Gordon McCullough, CEO of the Research Institute for Disabled Consumers (RiDC), said recently: “Self-driving can clearly be a transformative technology for a lot of disabled people.”
The nightmare scenario obsessives – sometimes quite knowledgeable, who focus on the worst potential impacts of automation. Exhibit C: The headline “Terrorists could hack into driverless cars to use as weapons” in The Mail last October.
Cybersecurity has been one of the hottest automotive topics for a decade now, with increasingly frequent and sophisticated attacks met by ever more advanced defences. It was highlighted at the SMMT’s Connected 2024 event that we don’t invest as heavily as the banking sector. Maybe we should.
Another go-to for catastrophisers is the trolley problem – the question of who to save in no-win crash situations. Exhibit D: Jeremy Clarkson’s “Driverless cars are pointless – and they have built-in instructions to kill you” headline in The Sun.
That isn’t how perception software works, and, as Elliot Hemes, of IPG Automotive UK, says: “99% of the time, great brakes will get you out of trolley problem scenarios.”
Please note: a version of this article was first published in the Institute of the Motor Industry’s MotorPro magazine.
Talking self-driving safety and regulation with Philip Koopman, Associate Professor at Carnegie Mellon University
With the Automated Vehicles Bill passing Parliament, and attention turning to secondary legislation, we go deep on regulation with one of the world’s preeminent self-driving safety experts – Philip Koopman, Associate Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) at Carnegie Mellon University, Pennsylvania.
In his 2022 book “How Safe Is Safe Enough? Measuring and Predicting Autonomous Vehicle Safety”, aimed at engineers, policy stakeholders and technology enthusiasts, Koopman deconstructs the oft-quoted metric of being “at least as safe as a human driver”, and urges greater focus on what is “acceptably safe for real-world deployment”.
To be clear, the context was a general statement about safety, not necessarily specific to any particular regulation or standard. It’s a cultural statement, rather than a technical one.
Let’s talk about the US, the UK and Europe, because I can separate those out. In Europe, there’s type approval, whereas in the US there is no requirement to follow any standards at all. People point to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), but that’s about things like airbags and dashboard warning lights, not automated vehicle features.
In the UK, you have the ALARP principle, which applies to all health and safety law. It is not required anywhere else, other than perhaps Australia, which is also doing a good job on safety. Under ALARP, companies are required to have a safety case that demonstrates they have mitigated risks ‘As Low As Reasonably Practicable’.
That’s a reflection of UK culture valuing and emphasising safety – industrial safety systems as well as occupational safety. Other countries don’t do that to the same degree, so that was the basis for my ‘adult in the room’ statement.
You British actually have research funding for safety! There’s a bit of that in the EU, but in the US there’s essentially none. I’ve succeeded, and Professor Leveson at MIT, but it’s a very small handful. In the UK, you have the York Institute for Safe Autonomy, you have Newcastle University, and there’s government funding for safety which you just don’t see in the US.
The car companies had functional safety people, and some of them ended up looking at autonomy, but it was often pretty crude. You need to differentiate between traditional motor vehicle safety and the computer-based safety required for self-driving.
Ultimately, it comes down to culture. The car safety people have historically had a human driver to blame when things go bad – and this is baked into the standards such as ISO 26262, the classic automotive safety standard for electronic systems.
In private, some US self-driving companies will say ‘yeah, we read it, but it’s not for us’. In public, they use words written by lawyers for other lawyers – the large print giveth and the fine print taketh away.
In other standards, risk is a combination of probability and severity – the riskier it is, the more engineering effort you need to put in to mitigate that risk.
In automotive, they say it’s controllability, severity and exposure. They take credit every time a driver cleans up a technical malfunction, until they don’t – then they blame driver error. Google the Audi 5000 Unintended Acceleration Debacle, a famous case from the 1980s. The point is car companies are used to blaming the humans for technical malfunctions.
In self-driving you also have the robot guys, who are used to making cool demos to get the next tranche of funding. Their idea of safety is a big red button. I’ve worked with them, they’re smart and they’re gonna learn on the job, but they historically had zero skills in mass production or safety at scale on public roads.
Both these cultures made sense in their previous operating environments. In traditional automotive, I have a problem with some driver blaming but, holistically, one fatality per 100 million miles is pretty impressive. With the robot guys, the Silicon Valley ‘move fast and break things’ model falls down if what you’re breaking is a person, particularly a road user who didn’t sign up for the risk.
Oh, and they’re also now using machine learning, which means the functional safety people will struggle to apply their existing toolsets. That’s the challenge. It’s complicated and there’s lots of moving parts.
In the US, it’s like we’ve been purposely avoiding regulating software for decades. Look at the National Highway Transportation Safety Authority (NHTSA) investigations into Tesla crashes – it always seems to be about the driver not paying attention, rather than Tesla made it easy for them not to pay attention.
Now we have the likes of Cruise, Waymo and Zoox – computers driving the car, no human backup, and basically self-certification. Jump through the bureaucratic hoops, get insurance, and you can just put this stuff on the road.
The US is the Wild West for vehicle automation. There are no rules. The NHTSA might issue a recall for something particularly egregious. If there’s a bad crash in California, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) might yank a permit.
Our social contract is supposedly supported by strong tort and product defect laws. But what good is that if it takes five years and a million dollars of legal fees to pursue a car company in the event of a fatal crash? In some states the computer is said to be responsible for driving errors, but is not a legal person, so there is literally nobody to sue.
That’s why I’m working with William H. Widen, Professor at the University of Miami School of Law – to find ways to reduce the expense and improve accessibility.
Whether you like them or not, the SAE levels are the worst idea ever for regulation – they make for bad law. The mythical Level 5 is just an arbitrary point on a continuum! Also, testing – beta versus not beta – matters a lot and SAE J3016 is really weak on that.
That’s why I’ve proposed a different categorisation of driving modes: testing, autonomous, supervisory and conventional. L2 and L3 is supervisory, L4 and 5 is autonomous.
The car accepting the button press to engage self-driving transfers the duty of care to a fictional entity called the computer driver, for whom the manufacturer is responsible. That’s not incompatible with your Law Commission’s user in charge (UIC) and no user in charge (NUIC).
The next question is: how do you give the duty of care back to the human driver? I say by giving them at least a 10 second warning, more if appropriate. In a lot of cases, 30 or 40 seconds might be required, depending on the circumstance.
It’s not perfect, but it’s got simplicity on its side. The car companies can then do whatever the heck they want, held accountable under tort law.
For further info, including links to Philip Koopman’s books and Safe Autonomy blog, visit koopman.us
Attention turns to secondary legislation as landmark self-driving Bill passes UK Parliament.
Following consideration of Commons amendments in the Lords on 8 May 2024, the Automated Vehicles (AV) Bill has successfully passed through Parliament.
The landmark self-driving legislation now awaits only the rubber stamp of royal assent, with some speculating this could be given within days.
We’ve covered the passage of the Bill extensively on Cars of the Future, from its inclusion in the 2023 King’s Speech to the excellent Self-Driving Vehicles All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) media briefing at Wayve.
For the sake of posterity, let us record here that its long title is: “A Bill to regulate the use of automated vehicles on roads and in other public places; and to make other provision in relation to vehicle automation.”
It was sponsored by Lord Davies of Gower, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Transport (DfT), and Secretary of State for Transport, Mark Harper, both Conservatives, but secured cross-party support.
Lord Davies of Gower said: “My Lords, I extend my gratitude to colleagues across the House for their supportive comments on and contributions to this Bill. Your Lordships’ careful and considered scrutiny has been hugely valuable.
“Over the coming months, we will launch a comprehensive programme of secondary legislation, building the new regulatory framework piece by piece.
“This will incorporate several statutory instruments, including guidance in the form of the statement of safety principles. Among the first elements to be consulted on will be regulations on misleading marketing, as these can apply before the authorisation system has been established.”
What might this mean for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) package, we wonder? Tellingly, prominent early reactions came from the automotive and insurance industries.
Jonathan Fong, of the Association of British Insurers (ABI), said: “We’re delighted the Automated Vehicles Bill will soon receive royal assent – putting the UK on the road to being a world leader in AV technology.
“While this Bill represents a significant step forward, further consideration is needed to address concerns around safety and cybersecurity. It’s critical that insurers have access to relevant data in order to support the adoption of this technology.”
Tara Foley, CEO of AXA UK&I, agreed: “AXA UK is delighted that the Bill has now become law, paving the way for self-driving vehicles to improve road safety, boost the UK economy and enhance mobility for people with limited transport options, including the disabled and elderly.
“It’s now crucial that secondary legislation is quickly passed to address issues such as cybersecurity, data sharing and the safety principles for commercial deployment.”
Meanwhile, the Institute of the Motor Industry (IMI) was quick to highlight the technical upskilling required to service fleets of self-driving vehicles.
Hayley Pells, Policy Lead at the IMI, said: “The Automated Vehicles Bill 2024 addresses the liability issues of automated vehicles for manufacturers and insurers, and provides a positive pathway for the introduction of this new form of mobility that could be empowering for so many.
“Clearly this is just the first step, and the IMI is keen to ensure that future legislation also takes into account the skills that will be crucial in the aftermarket for safe use of automated vehicles.
“Failure to maintain and update these high-tech systems, many of which are designed to keep road users safe, really could be a matter of life and death.
“To ensure checks are carried out accurately, we desperately need more technicians to be trained to work on vehicles with this technology. We are therefore urging government and policymakers to ensure there’s the funding and infrastructure to support the essential upskilling.”
Responding to an update on the AV Bill by transport technology lawyer Alex Glassbrook, Ben Gardner of Shoosmiths suggested that royal assent could be given as soon as next week – then on to secondary legislation.
As Nelson Mandela noted in his Long Road To Freedom speech: After climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb.
New York City to start trials of self-driving cars with safety drivers.
Flagship local news provider NBC New York has highlighted plans to trial self-driving cars with safety drivers in the most populous city in the United States – “autonomous but not driverless”, as reporter Andrew Siff puts it.
NYC Department of Transportation Commissioner, Ydanis Rodriguez, emphasised that all companies applying for testing permits will have to go through a rigorous approval process.
They must also agree to share data relating to any occasions when the safety driver has intervened.
This approach is broadly in line with what we’re doing here in the UK – certainly more cautious than the free-wheeling approach of California.
The report notably contains footage of robotaxis operated by both Cruise and Waymo.
Thanks to Ian Dooley on Unsplash for the cool black and white NYC photo.
VW deepens strategic partnership with Mobileye to deliver self-driving ID Buzz
In what it claims is a first for a global vehicle manufacturer, Volkswagen Group has partnered with self-driving technology specialist, Mobileye, to develop a Level 4 electric van for “large-scale production”.
The agreement will see Mobileye supplying software, hardware and digital maps for the self-driving ID Buzz. In particular, a self-driving system based on the Mobileye Drive platform.
Further key components include two independent high-performance computers, 13 cameras, nine lidar and five radar units, plus constant online connection to clouds providing “swarm data from other road users about the traffic situation”.
As well as automated driving, Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles (VWCV) is also the lead brand within VW for mobility-as-a-Service (MAAS). It has been working on the self-driving ID Buzz since 2021 and, via Volkswagen ADMT GmbH, plans to have it ready by 2026.
“Bringing autonomous shuttles on the road in large quantities requires cooperation from strong partners,” said Christian Senger, member of the Board of Management at VWCV. “We are developing the first fully autonomous large-scale production vehicle, and Mobileye brings its digital driver on board.”
In the longer term, VW aims to develop on own in-house system, leveraging its partnerships with Bosch and Qualcomm, as well as Horizon Robotics in China.
“Our goal is to offer our customers throughout the world outstanding products with cutting-edge technology,” said Oliver Blume, CEO of VW and Porsche.
“New automated driving functions will significantly boost convenience and safety. These functions, which will be tailored to our brands and products, will make every trip a personal, individual experience. In Mobileye, we have an additional first-class partner to shape this automotive future together.”
Prof. Amnon Shashua, President and CEO of Mobileye, added: “We are proud to work closely with Volkswagen Group to make the future of driving safer, more automated and more rewarding.”
The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) has opened its call for evidence on self-driving.
The UK’s National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) has opened its call for evidence on connected and self-driving technologies to “support sustainable economic growth across all regions of the UK, improve competitiveness and quality of life, and support climate resilience”.
As outlined by Chairman Sir John Armitt CBE at the Zenzic CAM Innovators’ Day in March, the NIC exists to provide government with impartial, expert advice on major long term infrastructure challenges.
Recent NIC studies have looked at ways to reduce the risks of surface water flooding, and ways to make our electricity distribution network fit for net zero.
The terms of reference for the self-driving study are, broadly: How the government should plan, operate and maintain the UK’s road network (and related digital infrastructure) to ensure that CAM technologies are accounted for in strategic transport plans.
The Commission takes the government’s definition of a self-driving vehicle – one that has at least one self-driving feature, such that it meets a legally-defined threshold and is capable of safely driving itself with no human input.
The Commission assumes that most automated vehicles will also be connected – able to communicate with the driver, other vehicles, roadside infrastructure and other services via the cloud. It is therefore also interested in the benefits that connectivity can bring separately or in addition to self-driving.
Commissioner Michele Dix said: “This technology enables us to think differently about how we could manage the country’s congested roads, transforming the experiences of drivers and public transport users and giving business productivity a real boost.
“The study is a chance to understand the full implications of the technology for future infrastructure design and operation, and to identify the policies government will need to ensure it succeeds.”
Key questions the NIC is seeking to address include:
What opportunities and risks could self-driving vehicles present for freight and logistics? For example, regarding cost savings for retail and business customers.
What are the opportunities and risks that self-driving ride-hailing services could bring to households and wider society? For example, whether they might prompt greater use of shared transport services.
What are the opportunities and risks for public transport from self-driving vehicles? For example, whether interventions may be needed to ensure the provision of affordable transport options in certain areas.
Are there specific interventions in relation to physical highway infrastructure and/or digital connectivity that could enable greater benefits from the use of self-driving vehicles? For example, whether there is sometimes a case for dedicated lanes or other segregation.
To what extent could self-driving vehicles help address existing inequalities and improve transport inclusion? For example, for people who are unable to drive due to a disability or age.
Responses should be sent via email to [email protected] by the end of Monday 3 June 2024.
An interim report is expected in summer 2024, with the Commission’s full conclusions due in February 2025.
For further info please see the NIC website.
Gordon McCullough, CEO of the Research Institute for Disabled Consumers, talks self-driving.
With improved accessibility consistently quoted as a key benefit of self-driving, it was shocking to hear Gordon McCullough, CEO of the Research Institute for Disabled Consumers (RiDC), warn Zenzic CAM Innovators 2024 of rising disillusionment.
So, in the spirit of Prof Paul Newman’s challenge to “ask difficult questions”, we invited McCullough to expand on his assertion that the disabled community feel excluded when new technologies, like connected and automated vehicles, are introduced.
“Self-driving can clearly be a transformative technology for a lot of disabled people, particularly those who find public transport inaccessible or cannot drive. In a world where you are unable to drive, whether that’s due to a vision or dexterity impairment, or a learning disability, the first and last mile is a huge issue. An on-demand self-driving service, taking you from your door to wherever you need to go – a transport hub, hospital or shopping centre – could be a gamechanger, theoretically a wonderful step forward.
“The problem is nobody’s really talking about how to design these things to make them accessible, and nobody’s really talking to disabled people about their concerns. We’re actively working to address that now – doing research with TRL into disabled peoples’ attitudes to connected and autonomous vehicles, and doing webinars and panels with Zenzic to engage more with the self-driving industry.”
“For starters, the Motability Foundation found that disabled people are 38% less likely to use UK public transport than non-disabled people. That’s a damning statistic and it hasn’t changed in over a decade. The fact is our public transport services have structural, financial and attitudinal issues which act as barriers to disabled people.
“There are approximately two million people registered blind or partially sighted people in the UK. Street environments alone present enough challenges for them, things like travelling on the tube can be fraught with difficulties – from annoyances like people petting their guide dogs, to the lack of audio feedback on contactless payment terminals, to anxieties like ‘what if something goes wrong?’
“As we’ve seen with charging points for electric vehicles, the anxieties are multiplied for disabled people. To try and understand the pain points, and then to use design to build trust and acceptance, that’s still a fanciful concept for a lot of people. It should be considered best practice.”
“Regardless of whether you’re disabled or not, there will initially be a degree of anxiety about travelling in a driverless vehicle, even if there’s a member of staff on board. The existence of very responsive support is vital, but we don’t yet know what level of assurance is enough. If there’s a special assistance button – somebody on the end of the line who knows where you are, understands your impairments and can sort the problem quickly, or get somebody out to help you – is that enough?
“How does the provision of such clear customer service affect the business case? Profit margin aside, what about the social case? Time and again we find that when a technology runs away with itself, disabled people almost inevitably get forgotten. Companies then go back and try to put fixes in place, and end up spending a lot more money than they would if they had started by asking: how do we make this accessible for everyone, not just 80% of the population?”
Any disabled readers interested in joining The RiDC Panel, the charity’s 4,000-strong research group, please visit ridc.org.uk
rFpro joins ASAM to set standards for simulation-based self-driving testing
In late March, rFpro announced that it had joined the prestigious Association for Standardization of Automation and Measuring Systems (ASAM).
Working with OEMs, Tier 1 suppliers, research institutes and engineering service providers, the Germany-based non-profit has a mission to establish common standards for the development and testing of all automotive systems.
Of particular interest to self-driving is the OpenMATERIAL project. Initiated by BMW, it aims to create a complete set of standards for the simulation-based testing of automated driving functions.
Peter Daley, Managing Director of rFpro, said: “Defining material properties is a key strength for rFpro so we are keen to be involved in OpenMATERIAL to help direct and progress this standard.
“Material definitions have been loosely structured to date, so standardising this would bring huge benefits, particularly for the development of virtual sensor models.”
ASAM CEO Marius Dupuis added: “We are pleased to accept rFpro as a member and welcome their active participation in the OpenMATERIAL project.”
For more on rFpro please see our recent feature: CCAV turn to F1’s rFpro for super realistic self-driving simulation software
Cars of the Future self-driving event report: Zenzic CAM Innovators 2024
A perennial highlight of the self-driving calendar, mid-March means Zenzic Connected and Automated Mobility (CAM) Innovators’ Day at the IET in London.
If 2022 celebrated the shared vision of societal benefits, and last year focused on global R&D leadership, CAM Innovators 2024 majored on the self-driving business case.
With Minister of State for the Investment Security Unit, Nusrat Ghani MP, as the first keynote speaker, there was an immediate sense that UK self-driving had truly arrived. Not in theory, but in Parliament, in international finance markets, and in providing quality services to the paying public.
In a short welcome speech, self-driving industry legend Prof. Paul Newman CBE, described the process of gaining National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) approval for the Oxa Driver-powered Beep shuttles in Florida.
He highlighted the extraordinary progress in AI over the last three years, the importance of the AV Bill, and the need to progress beyond R&D to real-world issues like where to deploy.
He then introduced Ghani, who also focused on commercialisation. “Self-driving represents an enormous opportunity,” she said. “The AV Bill provides a comprehensive framework for British firms to lead the world in greener, safer and more reliable transport.”
Following a ‘fireside chat’ with Ghani covering the necessity to build trust and the role of local authorities, Newman then introduced the second keynote speaker: Sir John Armitt CBE, Chairman of the National Infrastructure Committee (NIC).
Sir John opened with the famous quote by Peter Drucker that “culture eats strategy for breakfast”. He explained that the NIC exists to provide the UK government with impartial, expert advice on major long term infrastructure challenges. “The opportunities offered by these technologies are amazing,” he said, “and uncertainty should not be a reason to do nothing.”
Us journos were then whisked off for a ‘media huddle’ with the Minister, Sir John and Newman, at which we were encouraged to ask difficult questions.
Ok. So, how are hard-pressed local authorities expected to fund investment in self-driving services? What is the likely timescale for widespread UK rollout? Has the Cruise incident in America changed the thinking over here?
There was broad agreement that the commercial market doesn’t always work for essential public transport. Without putting a date on it, Newman likened self-driving adoption to water flowing downhill – it will quickly find its way and there will be countless second order effects.
Taking a helicopter view, Sir John pointed out that complexities were only to be expected in such technically advanced engineering, and that even Brunel delivered late and over budget!
Unfortunately, these media duties meant we missed the shaping regulation session, notably featuring George Ivanov, Head of International Policy at Waymo. He apparently expressed frustration at the lack of legislative progress in the UK and refused to be drawn on when Waymo might begin operating here.
After a short break, Mark Cracknell, Program Director at Zenzic, walked us through “12 months of success”, including the announcement of Cohort 4, the expansion of CAM Testbed UK (now including Catesby Tunnel and Tees Valley), and the launch of PAVE UK.
Alan Walker of Syselek then moderated a panel on developing the CAM supply chain featuring Dr. Martin Dürr of Dromos, Laura O’Neill of Belfast Harbour, Steven Russell of Stagecoach, and Steve Sutcliffe of Nissan – at least two more Self-Driving Industry Award winners there!
Dürr was the first, but not the last, speaker to praise CCAV and Zenzic for their commercial acumen. “We moved to the UK because of their support,” he said. “We are now close to our first deployment, are involved in an exciting project to revitalise old railways using the Dromos system, and are also looking at manufacturing our vehicles here.”
Next up, Agnessa Spanellis, senior lecturer in systems thinking at Edinburgh University, hosted a panel on trust and acceptance with Jonathan Smith of MFM, Ed Houghton of DG Cities, Gordon McCullough of the Research Institute for Disabled Consumers (RiDC), and urban designer Helen Ng of Jacobs.
Although improved accessibility is one of the most frequently quoted benefits of self-driving, McCullough reported that the disabled community are already starting to feel excluded. This cannot be ignored and we will bring you more from the RiDC in the coming weeks.
Following a short morning wrap-up by Kate Jack, of Standec, it was lunchtime. Amidst intense networking, the fish and chips was undoubtedly the dish of choice.
Far from a post-lunch lull, the afternoon kicked-off with probably the best panel of the day – on insurance. Charlotte Greenacre, of Thatcham Research, laid the groundwork. For starters, some insurers are now refusing to insure EVs, much of our legislation is “not fit for the modern world”, and that’s before we even get into the different liabilities.
Over to Jonathan Fong, of the Association of British Insurers (ABI), to moderate a panel featuring Matt Daley of rFpro, Chris Jones of Admiral Pioneer, Rebecca Marsden of Oxa, Sam Tiltman of Marsh, and Jamie Wilson of Alexander Dennis.
Wilson outlined the challenges of evaluating risk in the continually changing environment of a bus route, and the considerably more difficult task of doing similar for free-roaming cars.
“Insurance is mission critical in preparation for mass market adoption, and will look very different from personal lines,” said Marsden. Tiltman predicted that self-driving would “terraform” insurance over the next two decades, resulting in less accidents, less deaths and dramatically increased logistical efficiencies.
On the requirement in the AV Bill for data sharing in the event of an accident, Daley raised the enticing prospect of using simulation to literally show exactly what happened.
In the home straight now, Eman Martin-Vignerte, Government Affairs Director at Bosch UK, explained how a partnership with WeRide enabled them to develop a Level 4 car in just 18 months. The three key challenges now, she asserted, are complexity, homologation and scalability.
The final panel of the day, “Getting the show on the road”, provided pleasing evidence of multiple viable UK self-driving businesses. Moderated by Amy Marshall of PA Consulting, it featured Miles Garner of Aurrigo, Jim Hutchinson of Fusion Processing, Ben Jardine of eVersum, Louise Lawrence of WSP, and Ian Pulford of Ohmio UK.
Not only a leader in self-driving passenger vehicle manufacturing, Coventry-based Aurrigo is enjoying commercial success in automated baggage handling, notably at the multi-award-winning Changi Airport in Singapore. “We now have paying customers, and we thank Innovate, CCAV and Zenzic for their help in getting us here,” said Garner.
Fusion, of course, provided software to our reigning Self-Driving Vehicle of the Year champion, CAVForth, which has already given tens of thousands of passengers their first taste of self-driving public transport in Scotland. “The next step is taking out the safety driver and moving to commercial success,” said Hutchinson.
Summarising the info-packed day, former Minister of State for Digital and Creative Industries, now executive chair at WMG, Margot James, reflected on the ability of CAM to improve safety and “bring about a more inclusive society”. She emphasised the urgent need to pass the AV Bill to enable UK self-driving to flourish.
We certainly hope that will be in place by this time next year, for CAM Innovators 2025. In the meantime, let’s finish with this intriguing snapshot – traffic on the Embankment as we arrived at the IET for CAM Innovators 2023, when there was a tube strike, and this year. Spot the difference!
For more on accelerating the self-driving revolution, and to apply for CAM Scale-up Cohort 5, visit the Zenzic website.
