Skip to main content

US DOT releases new automated driving systems guidance

The US Department of Transportation and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have released new federal guidance for Automated Driving Systems (ADS): A Vision for Safety 2.0. The new Voluntary Guidance focuses on levels 3, 4 and 5 automated driving systems (ADS).
September 14, 2017 Read time: 2 mins

The US Department of Transportation and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have released new federal guidance for Automated Driving Systems (ADS):  A Vision for Safety 2.0.

The new Voluntary Guidance focuses on levels 3, 4 and 5 automated driving systems (ADS). It clarifies the guidance process and says that companies do not need to wait to test or deploy their ADS and revises what it says are unnecessary design elements from the safety self-assessment. The guidance also aligns federal guidance with the latest developments and industry terminology and clarifies state and federal roles going forward.

According to US Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao, the new Guidance supports further development of this important new technology, which she says has the potential to change the way we travel and how we deliver goods and services. “The safe deployment of automated vehicle technologies means we can look forward to a future with fewer traffic fatalities and increased mobility for all Americans,” she continued.

However, John M. Simpson, US Consumer Watchdog’s privacy project director, says, “This isn’t a vision for safety. It’s a roadmap that allows manufacturers to do whatever they want, wherever and whenever they want, turning our roads into private laboratories for robot cars with no regard for our safety.”

He pointed out that the guidance omits Level 2 technology where only some driving technology is automated. “This is a serious short-coming and ignores the fact that Level 2 technology, like Tesla’s Autopilot, has killed people,” said Simpson. “How the human driver monitors and interacts with Level 2 technologies is potentially life threatening and requires Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.”

USDOT emphasises that the guidance is flexible and will be amended as automated technologies advance.

Related Content

  • January 24, 2012
    In-vehicle automation of safety compliance and other traffic violations
    David Crawford explores new initiatives in enforcement. Achieving the EU’s new road safety target of reducing road traffic deaths by 50 per cent by 2020 depends on removing legal and institutional barriers to the deployment of new enforcement technologies, stresses Jan Malenstein. The senior ITS Adviser to Dutch National Police Agency the KLPD, and a European-level spokesperson on road and traffic safety, points to the importance of, among other requirements, an effective EUwide type approval process for fr
  • October 22, 2018
    MaaS transit does Dallas
    What started five years ago as a mobile ticketing app is evolving towards a full MaaS offering for the US city of Dallas, Texas. Colin Sowman finds out why and how. When it was launched in September 2013, GoPass was the first multimodal, multi-agency transit fare payment app in the US. Introduced by the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (Dart), GoPass combines a mobile ticketing app with a trip planning function and it is also accepted by Trinity Railway Express, Trinity Metro and the Denton County Transportation
  • May 24, 2018
    ITSA Detroit 2018: a must-attend transportation event!
    The 2018 ITS America Annual Meeting Detroit, from 4-7 June, is the must-attend transportation technology event in North America this year. The theme of the meeting, “Transportation 2.0,” will be weaved throughout the three days of plenary sessions, demonstrations, and exhibits. Discussions will centre around the future of transportation, intelligent mobility, and managing risk. “Changes happening today will fundamentally affect how people interact with transportation in the months and years ahead,” said Sh
  • December 4, 2012
    Assessing the potential of in-vehicle enforcement systems
    Jason Barnes considers the social and ethical ramifications of using in-vehicle safety technologies to fulfil enforcement functions. Although policy documents often imply close correlation between enforcement, compliance and safety – in part, as a counter to accusations that enforcement is rather more concerned with revenue generation – there is a noticeable reluctance among policy makers and auto manufacturers to exploit in-vehicle safety systems for enforcement applications. From a technical perspective t