The legality of Otto’s tests of self-driving trucks on California public roads may hinge on how involved its test drivers are during the driving process. Although company co-founder Anthony Levandowski has assured officials with the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles that Otto’s test drivers are “actively and physically pressing the accelerator” during testing, an internal document suggests that’s not the case.
The document, obtained via a public records request, details the operations policies for Otto, a San Francisco–based subsidiary of Uber formed to pursue self-driving-truck technology. The policies instruct test drivers to prepare for disengagements of the driving system by keeping “a hand near the wheel while hovering your foot over the pedal,” which runs contrary to Levandowski’s description.
Written in April 2016 by Ryan Espinosa, an Otto operations manager, the policy explicitly directs drivers to avoid making any control inputs while the system is running. “Do not apply steering, throttle, or brake input while in cruise without disengaging,” it reads.
Reached Friday afternoon, an Otto spokesperson said the company would have no further comment.
Whether drivers are actively involved or merely passively monitoring the system is a crucial distinction, one that is part of a broader examination of whether Otto’s testing runs afoul of the state’s autonomous-testing regulations. Otto does not hold a permit to test autonomous vehicles on California public roads, nor is it eligible to apply for one, because state regulations prohibit the testing of autonomous vehicles with a gross weight of more than 10,001 pounds.
Although Otto has a stated goal of eventually creating software that runs self-driving trucks, Levandowski maintains the company is only testing advanced driver-assist features in California, not autonomous vehicles. In conversations with regulators, one of the ways Otto has supported this claim is by arguing its drivers remain actively involved in the driving process.
“
“The tech we are utilizing in California requires a driver in the driver’s seat with his foot actively and physically pressing the accelerator pedal.”
—Anthony Levandowski, Otto, May 2016
”
“The tech we are utilizing in California requires a driver in the driver’s seat with his foot actively and physically pressing the accelerator pedal in order for the truck to operate,” Levandowski wrote in a May 2016 email to DMV officials. “So long as the active physical control of the human driver is confirmed by the pedal mechanism, the technology we’re building prevents the truck from getting into collisions by slowing down . . . Therefore, we see this technology as a collision-avoidance system.”
Otto officials reiterated this position Wednesday in a meeting with regulators, according to a DMV spokesperson. But the policies written by Espinosa mention neither a collision-avoidance system nor advanced driver-assist features. Instead, they instruct drivers, “Before driving autonomously, check that all methods of disengagement work properly.”
Previously, a separate Otto document detailed the testing of a “self-driving system” on California public roads that could be disengaged by a driver “grabbing the steering wheel, applying the brake, applying throttle, flipping an engage button on the dash, or hitting a large red button next to the steering wheel,” a description that implied drivers may not keep a foot on the accelerator as a matter of routine.
Officials with the California DMV continue to examine Otto’s testing. A spokesperson for the agency said Friday that representatives of the DMV and the California Highway Patrol (CHP), which regulates commercial trucking in the state, held a “productive meeting” with Otto representatives on Wednesday. She said that DMV and CHP officials will follow up with a visit to Otto’s truck terminal “in the near future.”
These are not the only legal hurdles that Levandowski, Otto, and Uber have recently encountered. Waymo, the company under which Google’s self-driving-car project now is organized, filed a lawsuit Thursday alleging that Levandowski stole more than 14,000 confidential documents from the company before he quit last year to help form Otto. Waymo is alleging patent infringement and theft of trade secrets.
from Car and Driver BlogCar and Driver Blog http://ift.tt/2l97Q8Z
via IFTTT
0 comments:
Post a Comment