Federal Highway Administration National Dialogue on Highway Automation: November 14-15, 2018 Infrastructure Design and Safety Workshop Summary

Breakout Session I: Safe Integration of Automated Vehicles

This section summarizes stakeholder discussion from the first breakout session. The following questions were asked:

• What can stakeholders do to assess and support safety as a priority when incorporating AVs into the roadway and highway systems?
• What safety challenges could be encountered by vulnerable road users, pedestrians, bicyclists, roadway workers, and emergency responders when sharing the road with AVs?
• How could existing roadway safety evaluation and safety planning tools be changed to address AVs? For example, how could crash modification factors be affected by the introduction of AVs?

Safety Is and Must Remain a Priority

Safety must remain a primary factor as AVs are widely introduced onto public roads. Yet, there was discussion among workshop participants regarding the right approach to ensuring the safety of AVs as they move through testing and deployment. Safety guidelines or standards for AVs could be developed and may provide guidance to State and local agencies wanting to ensure the safety of their roadways. Workshop participants stressed the safety mission of State and local transportation agencies and the need to balance potential safety benefits offered by AVs with any potential risks.

Safe Interaction with All Human Road Users Is a Key Challenge

The ability of AVs to interact safely with all road users is critical for public safety and acceptance. Yet, there was significant discussion around whether an AV can effectively and consistently recognize the intent of human drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. Workshop participants asked for more information about the capability of AVs to safely detect and respond to other road users and to abnormalities in the roadway environment (e.g., damaged traffic signs, potholes). Other suggestions included possibly creating standards for the interactions between AVs and other road users, saying that such standards would help enable AVs and humans to abide by an agreed-upon set of rules.

AVs May Not Be Able to Navigate Complex Roadway Conditions

Certain complex infrastructure designs, road conditions, and operational environments may be challenging for AVs to navigate safely and efficiently. Several participants cited inclement weather, work zones, and railroad crossings as probable challenges to AVs and their object detection and navigation capabilities. Rail representatives specifically discussed the need for AVs to be able to recognize at-grade crossings, because these are complicated roadway environments that are challenging to navigate. During the discussion, examples of suggestions to address these challenges included equipping work zone personnel with sensor vests detectable by AVs and providing access to standardized, accurate, and real-time data regarding roadway conditions.

Data Is Critical for Evaluating the Safety of AVs and Its Implications for the Roadway

Data is an important component in the safety evaluation of AVs. Workshop participants discussed a range of data that could help identify the safety benefits and performance of AVs. Some noted how this information could help support improved infrastructure planning and assess investments in existing or planned safety countermeasures. In addition, some suggested that AVs also represent an opportunity for broader data collection, and AVs can be a significant source of safety and road quality data for IOOs. For example, AVs could identify through their driving patterns where unreported crashes have occurred and where potential hazards in the road are located.

Existing Roadway Safety Evaluation and Safety Planning Tools May Need Updates for AVs

Current safety models and tools may need updates to incorporate the safety benefits of AVs. Updated models and tools can help IOOs better understand the safety impacts of AVs and plan for future infrastructure improvements. Several participants mentioned the need to develop new crash modification factors, particularly in areas with high levels of AV fleet penetration. A crash modification factor is used to estimate the expected number of crashes after implementing a countermeasure on a road or intersection.

Safe Incident Management Practices and Protocols for AVs are Needed

Automated vehicles should have the ability to conduct safe interactions with emergency response vehicles and other incident management personnel as they operate on public roads. For example, an AV should be able to recognize an oncoming emergency response vehicle and move safely to the side of the road. To address these types of scenarios, workshop participants suggested that emergency responders have clear protocols and incident management practices for interacting with an AV at the incident site.

Workshop participants also noted how an AV without a human operator present should be able to navigate potential failures safely on public roads. There was significant discussion regarding the ability of AVs to transition to a 'fail safe' mode that does not disrupt traffic flow or create a safety hazard. For example, an AV should know to pull over to the side of the road or shoulder rather than stopping in the middle of the road. Key questions asked by participants included:

• Can AVs identify an upcoming or current maintenance concern? Can AVs tell the difference between critical and non-critical system failures?
• In the event of a critical failure, how will AVs navigate away from the road? Where can malfunctioning AVs safely stand by for assistance?
• To whom does the AV communicate this failure? Who is responsible for responding to AV failures?