Elisabeth
Uhlemann
Elisabeth Uhlemann
It has been said that the progression toward fully autonomous cars was slowed down when the complexity required was fully realized. However, one should not underestimate the driving forces behind different business models and the impact of legislation. For the investments toward fully autonomous cars to pay off, there needs to be a market drive, implying that customers need to be asking for the service. This can happen either due to new legislation (as was the case with seat belts and airbags) or due to establishing a benefit that the new technology has. Paying for continued safety or for not being injured is a business model few can pull off. Further, autonomous vehicles aim at providing safety not only for their owners but also for vulnerable road users, which, e.g., may prevent the cars from speeding outside a school. When considering the comments the U.S. government received regarding the notice of proposed rulemaking to mandate vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) technology on all light-duty vehicles, in 2017, I would argue that many customers are behaving like teenagers, being annoyed with their parents, the vehicle manufacturers, who want to enable safety by enforcing traffic regulations.
However, just like the parents need to care for the safety of the car users (even when they behave like teenagers), the teenagers also need to “raise their parents” not to supervise more than the law requires. This is why legislation is so important. It provides guidelines to the parents and aims to prioritize safety over profit while still providing a framework that reduces the risk of investing in technology that saves lives. In some sense, the legislators are also parents, but parents at a meta level. The legislation needs to provide security of investments toward more safe, more autonomous, more fuel-efficient vehicles with lower carbon footprints [1].
However, legislation regarding connected vehicles for increased traffic safety has, so far, only been trying to select a favorite among its many children. First, the favorite child was dedicated short-range communications (DSRC) as illustrated when reserving a large chunk of frequency at the 5.9-GHz band for V2V communications [2] and proposing a law to mandate DSRC on all light vehicles [3], and now it is cellular vehicle-to-everything (C-V2X), by taking away most of the previously reserved frequency [1] and giving it to a technology claiming to be cellular without a cellular network (see the “Cellular Communications” section). However, rather than trying to select one child to survive and thereby killing all others, legislation should favor safety through technology-neutral means, without building in a dependence on a specific business model. C-V2X may look like it can survive without base stations just because it is possible to send a message directly between two nodes, but this special “direct mode” is retrofitted into a network with a completely different purpose.
Moreover, it is unnecessary and slightly irresponsible to bring all the security issues inherent to Internet connectivity into V2X safety systems. For safety, a stand-alone wireless network is needed. Inside a vehicle, tasks of mixed criticality would never be allowed to use the same network. Imagine mixing safety with services and infotainment in a vehicle and let data traffic on the controller area network (CAN) bus, e.g., the brakes compete with data traffic regulating the air conditioning, the wipers, and the stereo. Similarly, there is no added benefit to connect the airbag via V2X to a back office or to reroute data concerning traffic safety via a commercial base station.
Wireless technology for ride sharing and goods delivery is another type of application area that needs to be connected to the Internet and the digital infrastructure that commercial base stations provide. These types of applications may very well be using C-V2X, but this does not need to be legislated, as there is a market drive. The company that provides the best package deal for ride sharing will get the customers, and here, the product and service developers will decide themselves how much money it is meaningful to spend on security issues, data protection, and resilience toward spoofing.
Legislation should not be selecting the “best” technical solution for solving the problem. Nor should it require vehicle manufacturers to be dependent on help from the more experienced big brother, the cellular industry. Legislation should formulate the requirements in collaboration with the vehicle industry, provide a framework that is focused on safety, and then allow experts to design the systems while following the requirements. It is understandable that the cellular industry has high credibility with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and that it therefore is very tempting to assume that the big brother will solve the little brother’s problem. However, it should also be quite clear that the cellular industry must build its business model into the systems so that it can survive, and this will hamper safety. It is time for the teenagers to tell their parents to back off.
On 19 September 2022, Qualcomm published a press release promoting C-V2X as a technology operating “without involvement of a cellular network” [4]. What is “cellular” about a cellular technology without a cellular network? Maybe more importantly, why would anyone want cellular technology without a cellular network? Well, it is all about business models. If the cellular industry can make the FCC and other regulators believe that traffic safety enabled by V2X communications can be realized using cellular technology, it will already have included its base stations in the deal, and it will be easy to charge for all kinds of traffic efficiency and cloud access services via the traditional base station business model. Using C-V2X to boost the intelligent transportation eco-system is for sure attractive for both the vehicle manufacturer and the legislators. Also this would enable the cellular industry to get access to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act with “more than US$1 trillion in funding for projects that incorporate new and innovative transportation technologies.” However, all the benefits of V2X enabled safety come from not using a cellular network at all, and there are no clear benefits of mixing traffic safety and traffic efficiency applications in the same network.
I will be very impressed if U.S. legislators manage to see though the market strategy and the fine line between using “connected vehicle technology” and using cellular without cellular and instead allow for a V2X technology without cellular and without a business model that includes charging for communication, an ecosystem that supports safety and only safety. You could still connect your vehicle to the cellular infrastructure and benefit from route and speed guidance for better fuel efficiency, and the mobile network operators could charge for those services and benefit from employment growth.
Autonomous trucks, transporting goods in driverless vehicles within a hub-to-hub system between different logistic centers, have, in many cases, less complexity, a clearer business model, and fewer trust issues compared to driverless cars and taxi services. There is less complexity because several major players have built large logistic centers close to freeways. There are clearer business models, as it is easier to charge for transportation as a service (TaaS) compared to safety and quality time while commuting. Driver shortages and high fuel costs are also incentives for development. Fewer trust issues result because no humans need to be on the road. However, to enable autonomous trucks, legislation also needs to be in place, and this has come slightly further in the United States, so it is not surprising that this is where autonomous TaaS is starting to take off.
Aiming to address the growing demand for goods movement in North America, Volvo Autonomous Solutions (VAS), in collaboration with Aurora, has been working on a technical solution to offer autonomous trucks configured to different customer segment requirements. The goal is to offer a hub-to-hub autonomous transport solution, which is more than a few autonomous trucks but rather a complete TaaS solution. VAS will also partner with logistics provider DHL as its first customer to pilot the hub-to-hub solution.
In Europe, legislation enabling hub-to-hub communications between different countries is still lacking, but there is a higher incentive to save fuel and reduce emissions. The Swedish freight technology company Einride will begin the rollout of 110 fully electric Scania trucks in the second half of 2022. The full fleet of trucks will be built to Einride’s hardware specifications and operating system, with the ambition to scale up electric road freight and decarbonize heavy transport. Einride’s order is the largest deal to date for electric heavy-duty vehicles in Europe for Scania.
The Norwegian Communications Authority is providing opportunities for authorities, industry, and experts to test Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) equipment and expose it to jamming in controlled conditions in Andøya. Between the mountains in Vesterålen lies Andøya, with minimal air traffic, which makes it a great place to test ways to counteract the jamming and spoofing of GNSS. This is a timely test, as more and more equipment is or will become dependent on localization data. Unless appropriately addressed, GPS jamming can be used to hijack trucks and take down drones.
Fully driverless cars providing rides on open roads to paying customers is a development the industry has been longing for. Permits to do just this were granted in June 2022 to Baidu’s Apollo Go, an autonomous ride hailing service. The permits were granted to Baidu by government agencies in two of China’s largest megacities and allow providing and charging for fully driverless taxi services in designated areas in Wuhan, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and in Chongqing, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., with five vehicles operating in each city. The times were selected to ensure that driving conditions will be favorable: during daylight and avoiding rush hours.
Also in June 2022, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) issued its first permit allowing the company Cruise to conduct and collect fares for passenger service in automated vehicles (AVs) without a safety driver present. The CPUC regulates the use of AVs in providing passenger service throughout California. It does so through the permitting processes for programs, data collection, and analysis as well as potential investigative and enforcement actions. The CPUC has adopted specific goals for AV programs: 1) protect passenger safety; 2) expand the benefits of AV technologies to all Californians, including people with disabilities; 3) improve transportation options for all, particularly for disadvantaged communities and low-income communities; and 4) reduce greenhouse gas emissions, criteria air pollutants, and toxic air contaminants, particularly in disadvantaged communities.
Cruise is a U.S. self-driving car company, headquartered in San Francisco, CA, that was acquired by General Motors in 2016. With this permit, Cruise may offer passenger service to the general public in its fleet of 30 all-electric AVs without a safety driver present on select streets in San Francisco at a maximum speed of 30 mi/h, from the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. daily and when weather conditions do not include heavy rain, heavy fog, heavy smoke, hail, sleet, and snow. Cruise is also authorized to collect fares for these rides but cannot offer shared rides among passengers from different parties at this time. If Cruise intends to change its driverless deployment operations in a way that materially affects the strategies outlined in its passenger safety plan, it must submit an updated plan to the CPUC for approval. This includes, but is not limited to, expansions of the hours, geography, roadway types, speed range, and weather conditions of its operations.
The U.K. Center for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles, which is part of the U.K. Department for Transport, believes that self-driving vehicles should be held to the same high standard of behavior as that expected of human drivers. Current law expects human drivers to be competent and careful. Self-driving vehicles should therefore be expected to achieve an equivalent level of safety compared to a competent and careful human driver. This will result in self-driving vehicles that are safer than the average human driver.
A plan for realizing the benefits of self-driving vehicles in the United Kingdom was presented in August 2022, highlighting that the potential benefits of connected and self-driving technologies are considerable, ranging from better integrating rural communities and reducing isolation for people with disabilities to helping deliver essential goods and improving access to education, work, and leisure. Intelligent vehicles will communicate not just with one another but also with road infrastructure, such as traffic lights, helping to minimize congestion.
These technologies could also make roads safer, reducing the number of collisions involving human error, which is currently a factor in more than 80% of collisions that result in personal injury. Self-driving vehicles will not get tired and distracted. They will not worry about the children in the back seat, stress about their next meeting, and be anxious to get home for dinner. They are likely to react more quickly than a human, remaining consistently able to assess how to drive safely in a fraction of a second. However, the current legal framework was not designed with self-driving technologies in mind. The U.K. government is now unveiling a plan to roll out self-driving vehicles on U.K. roads, at the same time that it seeks consultation on the proposed safety ambition.
An interesting project with the goal of introducing commuting with electric-powered aviation is now on the way at Skellefteå airport in Sweden. The vision is a complete “reimagining” of short-distance transport by air. The project aims to accelerate the shift to sustainable electric aircraft, but it will not develop the actual technology. Rather, the aim is to establish the foundation for those who do by using Skellefteå as a demonstration hub for electric regional air transportation solutions. The aim is to commercialize electric aviation and the project has already gained attention from private electric aviation makers, public groups, and local industry.
Skellefteå airport is really nothing more than a single airstrip set among Nordic pine forests in northern Sweden, supporting domestic flights and short hops over to neighboring Norway and Finland. However, with the establishment of the company Northvolt’s battery factory, new flight routes are being added, and new industry is emerging in the region.
Most fossil-free domestic flights launched until 2030 will be powered with biofuel, but moving into the 2030s, a rising share for battery electric aircrafts is expected. For short distances, electric looks really promising, but there is still much work to be done. One important component is vertical takeoff and landing of the aircraft, which has a lower cost footprint and is also very quiet thanks to small electric engines. These characteristics also open up options for using the aircraft in urban and residential areas and for reaching previously unconnected remote regions.
The towns of Kokkola and Jakobstad on the west coast of Finland are home to residents who commute weekly into Sweden. This implies a car journey of 580 km, which corresponds to 7 h to take the north passage around the sea to reach Skellefteå. If the project is successful, commuters could be making the trip by air, flying 200 km directly across the water and cutting the travel time down to some 30 min in the process.
[1] K. Sjöberg, “Activities on legislation for autonomous vehicles take off [Connected and Automated Vehicles] ,” IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 149–152, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1109/MVT.2021.3091393.
[2] E. Uhlemann, “Introducing connected vehicles [Connected Vehicles] ,” IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 23–31, Mar. 2015, doi: 10.1109/MVT.2015.2390920.
[3] E. Uhlemann, “Continued dispute on preferred vehicle-to-vehicle technologies [Connected Vehicles] ,” IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 17–20, Sep. 2017, doi: 10.1109/MVT.2017.2717324.
[4] “C-V2X technology to transform intelligent transportation: Qualcomm report,” Qualcomm, San Diego, CA, USA, Sep. 19, 2022. [Online] . Available: https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2022/09/c-v2x-technology-to-transform-intelligent-transportation--qualco
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MVT.2022.3210715