Then National Association of City Transportation Officials (“NACTO”) released its policy recommendations for automated vehicles on June 23, 2016. Although much of the discussion to date has focused on the safety and technology of automated vehicles, NACTO wants the conversation to include the impact of automated vehicles on existing infrastructure, driving parameters on city streets, and the potential for additional congestion.
NACTO’s policy recommendations include:
- Shift to fully automated vehicles, rather than partially automated vehicles. According to NACTO, partially automated vehicles could “encourage unsafe driving behavior.” Because of this, NACTO encourages regulators to bar partially automated vehicles from city streets.
- Carefully plan the increased capacity of streets and expressways. Automated vehicles have the potential to increase the number of vehicles on the road. This could overwhelm existing city streets and parking facilities.
- Set safe driving parameters in the vehicles, including a maximum city speed of 25 miles per hour.
- Encourage ride-sharing and carpooling through incentives and regulations. This would reduce the number of vehicles on the road.
- Require data-sharing by automated vehicles. Automated vehicles will gather substantial amounts of data. Sharing this data with cities and other stakeholders will permit a “data-driven” approach to transportation, accidents, and congestion.
As the representatives for economic centers across the country, NACTO also has a concern for the impact on transportation funding, which often comes from fuel taxes and other vehicles fees. NACTO is considering alternative sources of funding as automated vehicles may change the base of that funding. Overall, it remains to be seen how automated vehicles could impact commutes in dense, urban areas like many of those that are part of NACTO.
Disclaimer
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.
Author(s)
Related Insights
10 September 2024
Health Care Law Today
California: Five Things You Need to Know About AB 3129
The California legislature recently passed a bill targeting private equity and hedge fund transactions with health care providers.
10 September 2024
Health Care Law Today
BIOSECURE Act: Anticipated Movement, Key Provisions, and Likely Impact
Last week, House Republican leadership notified members that they should expect to vote on the BIOSECURE Act when Congress comes back into session on September 9th. BIOSECURE would prohibit contracting with certain biotechnology providers headquartered in China and other adversarial countries.
09 September 2024
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
No More Chevron Deference: What Does This Mean for Employers?
From 1984 until June 2024, a reviewing court had to defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutes, even if the court would have interpreted the statute differently.