The legal issue of consent in autonomous driving

With autonomous and semi-autonomous systems gaining traction in today's automobile landscape, the issue of legal liability is become more relevant.

Human Factors research has shown time and again that driving assistance technology -- including more "archaic" systems like Adaptive Cruise Control and Lane Keeping Assistance Systems, is far from being error-proof. Recent studies have demonstrated that a limited understanding (or mental models) of how these systems operate can in fact lead to system misuse.

A recent study published on the Humanities and Social Science Communications tackles the issue of driver over trust and system misuse from the legal viewpoint.

Every time we register for a new social media account, or install a new smartphone app, the always-present consent message pops up: BY REGISTERING FOR THIS SERVICE YOU ACCEPT ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

Typically, very few people ever bother to skim over this information, let alone read it in its entirety. However, the issue of consent and its implications on liability, will become more relevant as we entrust the autonomous system with our safety and the safety of the all vehicle passengers.

The authors of the study suggest that automakers may use the already-existing in-vehicle digital interfaces as a way to obtain consent from the driver (and possibly all passengers). However, this decision is far from being ideal or even safe.

It is argued that using the car touchscreen may not provide nearly enough information to the driver. Also, the authors suggest that "individuals may misunderstand the nature of the notices which grant permissions".

"Warning fatigue" and distracted driving are also causes of concern.

All in all, given the sizeable limitations of using digital interfaces for obtaining consent, it is suggested this won't shield automakers from their legal liability should the system malfunction or an accident occur.

Similarly to what I described in a recent article, training is seen as a potential aid in ensuring that drivers fully understand system capabilities and limitations.

Whatever the solution may be, this is yet another challenge that all autonomous vehicle stakeholders (including automakers and transportation agencies) needs to address if they wants to take a proactive (rather than a reactive) stance on the issue.

Reference

Pattinson, J. A., Chen, H., & Basu, S. (2020). Legal issues in automated vehicles: critically considering the potential role of consent and interactive digital interfaces. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00644-2

How to make vehicle tech less distracting

In a recent entry, I talked about the role of training for automated vehicle aids.

In a study published in 2017 in collaboration with the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety and the University of Utah, I investigated driver interaction with in-vehicle infotainment systems, which are those systems that allow drivers to, e.g., make phone calls or send text messages without using mobile devices.

One of the most striking findings from that study was that, although technology like touchscreens and voice interaction systems have been around for many years, they are still challenging to use, at least for some groups of drivers.

Issues that we found with this touchscreens included relatively low responsiveness, cluttered menu designs, and long interaction times. In certain cases, for examples, primary functions were buried deep in menus or the design of the menu made frequently-used features almost invisible to the driver.

For voice technology, certain systems were overly verbose, and, as a result, imposed large memory load and required long interaction times.

One possible solution to this problem is using off-the-shelf systems like Android Auto and Apple CarPlay, which, in a later research, were shown to burden driver’s attentional resources to a lesser degree.

Another possible solution is to encourage drivers to familiarize themselves with this technology when the vehicle is stationary. which may help them find and utilize frequently-used functions more quickly and efficiently.

References

https://aaafoundation.org/visual-cognitive-demands-using-vehicle-information-systems/

https://aaafoundation.org/visual-cognitive-demands-apples-carplay-googles-android-auto-oem-infotainment-systems/

How to reduce distraction

As we all know, driver distraction is among the top causes of road collisions. It is in fact estimated that 1 every four crashes involves phone use. While reducing the use of personal or vehicle technology is needed and feasible in many cases, there are however some exceptions to this rule.

Emergency vehicle operators like ambulance or police car drivers are in fact exempt from many restrictions, according to the Highway Traffic Act. There are also professions like commercial driving where the use of portable dispatch devices is part of the job description.

This brings us to the question of how can we reduce distraction in these workplaces?

One way could be by providing better training. Despite there being virtually no evidence that distraction can be fully trained away, cognitive research shows that extensive practice can reduce the attentional component of completing simple experimental tasks. Hypothetically, training programs could be developed that reduce the cognitive component of certain driving tasks.

A second possibility would be to design down the distracting effect of using communication technology. What I mean by this is to design technology that adopts modalities that require lower cognitive, manual, or visual demand. In a recent study, we found that certain off-the-shelf infotainment systems were in fact "better" than vehicle's native technology.

These offer possible avenues that should be explored when attempting to tackle the disruptive effect of distraction on road safety.

References

https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/AAA-Phase-6-CarPlay-Android-Auto-FINAL.pdf

Distracted driving uptick since the COVID-19 lockdown

A recent study published by ZenDrive shows an uptick in distracted driving and speeding since the beginning of the COVID-19 lockdown in March.

While this is not surprising per se, there may be two important factors determining this.

First, with possibly fewer cars on the road, some motorists may feel like they can take more risks, and, perhaps, convinced of the lower police presence, they are less at risk of being caught.

The second and frankly more disturbing contributor is remote working. As suggested in the ZenDrive report, the ‘mass migration’ to remote working and virtual conferencing has made us even more dependent to communication technology. This, possibly combined with the difficulty to distinguish between work and leisure time during remote working, may have made motorists more inclined to attend work meeting while driving.

Altogether, this evidence suggest that distracted driving may have gotten worse since the beginning of the COVID-19 lockdown in March.