Comments Concerning the Public Meeting: Automated Vehicle Policy Summit

March 9, 2018

U.S. Department of Transportation
Docket Operations
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590

Re: Comments concerning the Public Meeting: Automated Vehicle Policy Summit
Docket Number: DOT-OST-2018-0017

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) is pleased to submit comments in response to the US Department of Transportation Office of the Secretary’s public meeting to seek input regarding automated vehicles (AV) 3.0. DREDF thanks Secretary Chao for her comments and commitment to ensuring improved mobility for disabled travelers. DREDF also commends the Office of the Secretary and all agency staff for the particular attention paid to disability and accessibility mobility concerns during the March 1st meeting. DREDF was impressed with the breakout group exercise issue brief and questions provided for discussion. Thank you.

DREDF is a leading national civil rights law and policy center directed by individuals with disabilities and parents who have children with disabilities. Our mission is to advance the civil and human rights of people with disabilities through legal advocacy, training, education, public policy and legislative development. DREDF demonstrated an early interest in the development of equitable autonomous vehicle policy in its drafting of the 2015 National Council on Disability report, Self Driving Cars: Mapping Access to a Technology Revolution. The report examines the challenges and advances in autonomous vehicle (AV) technology, and proposes directions for research, development, and necessary infrastructure changes. The report also explores potential policies and legislation needed to ensure full access.

AVs have the potential to dramatically improve the lives of people with disabilities and increase the safety of our streets. More than half a million people with disabilities never leave home and cite transportation difficulties.[i] Children with disabilities are more than 5 times as likely to be hit by a motor vehicle as a bicyclist or pedestrian than children without disabilities.[ii] Many people with disabilities cannot drive or lack access to a personal vehicle. Only 45% of rental households with individuals who use wheeled mobility devices have access to a personal vehicle.[iii]

The promise and safety of AVs will only be realized if AVs are fully accessible, and the safety elements take into account the needs of people with disabilities. To that end, we ask you to consider the following.

• When safety exemptions are granted to further the advancement of testing and deployment, attention must be paid to ensuring the accessibility of the surrounding infrastructure: in closed environments such as campuses or parking lots, as well as city, suburban and rural communities.
• Ensuring audible pedestrian signals, accessible crosswalks, well-maintained sidewalks, curb cuts, and accessible bus stops (available in good and inclement weather) can and should be a priority as we move forward.
• Data must be kept private. Passengers’ health and disability status, and locations visited must not be shared without permission.
• As fully autonomous passenger vehicles are developed (and we urge OEMs, NHTSA, USDOT and all stakeholders to work towards that goal), strenuously tested and automatic wheelchair securement, lifts and ramps must be available. Additional research and development could lead to universal, functional, reliable, and safe automated securement systems. These systems would not require an on-board operator for power or manual wheelchair users. Developers must address the issues of whether wheelchair users can reach and operate seat and shoulder belts, and any controls needed to deploy automatic securement.
• Standards should be set and factors such as cost, maintenance requirements, quality, the need for mobility device standards, whether the systems would provide adequate safety, and crashworthiness for all wheelchair users should be determined.
• Standards should be set and crashworthiness safety features studied and adopted for any vehicles where the current driver or front passenger seats are not facing forward. In addition, crashworthiness standards should be also set and studies completed on safety features for passengers who travel in their wheelchairs in the vehicle.
• Emergency controls accessed through unconventional means such as a smartphone or multi-purpose display should be accessible for people who are blind or low vision, Deaf or hard of hearing, and should be user-friendly with text and instructions written in plain English. The same should hold true for any telltales that remain or are provided.
• In addition, DREDF recommends that NHTSA works in consultation with the US Access Board and representatives from the disability community as new technology, vehicle designs and safety features are developed to ensure full accessibility and safety for all.

• The ADA and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and Executive Order 12898 provide essential protections against discrimination and provide a roadmap for ensuring access to public transit. Exceptions should not be granted for development and testing of any AV vehicles meant for transit, paratransit, microtransit, first mile/last mile or circulator service that are not fully accessible.
• Equivalent, integrated service must be the standard in transit versus tiered service that would lead to segregation and lower quality service for mobility device users and those who are the most transit dependent. Without equivalent service the gap between those who have access and those who do not will continue to grow. Those in the most need will be left without transportation during emergencies when traditional fixed route or rail breaks down or needs repair, or in times of inclement weather. Compliance with the ADA and Title VI is necessary for a truly resilient transit system.
• Guidelines from USDOT must be clear: equivalent service and equal access must be baked into the requirements at the outset. These requirements will save time and money in the long run and encourage development of needed technology.

• All AVs, buses and shuttles of all sizes, vehicle fleets partnering with transit must be fully accessible.
• In addition, the promise of AVs will only be realized when OEMs and industry stakeholders are manufacturing fully accessible vehicles, including wheelchair access. Any safety exemptions granted should prioritize testing and deployment of vehicles for OEM’s that prioritize access for all in their designs. DREDF has compiled a working checklist of features that may be needed to ensure a fully accessible vehicle. That checklist, which could serve as a starting point, is attached.
• DREDF recommends development of a template for an accessibility assessment to be used by OEMs and shared with the public.

• DREDF recommends highlighting and enforcing existing ADA requirements that prohibit refusal of service because of insurance company conditions coverage or rates.  (49 CFR § 37.5(g))
• DREDF recommends research, discussions and steps taken to ensure higher insurance rates for vehicles with ramps, lifts and additional accessibility features are not prohibitive and do not stall testing and deployment.
• DREDF recommends research and discussions that would identify liability issues that may arise in the case of a crash when people with disabilities are a passenger or pedestrian. Issues that might be considered include, but are not limited to: who is liable if the wheelchair securement did not function properly, who is liable if the vehicle left a passenger off at an unsafe or inaccessible stop, who is liable if an assistive device is damaged as the result of a crash?
• If passengers of Level 5 passenger vehicles are ultimately required to obtain insurance, rates and coverage must not discriminate against those who might not otherwise drive (including blind and low vision passengers).

• USDOT should begin to engage and include cross-disability community representatives and the U.S. Access Board in all discussions and decisions regarding fully accessible vehicle design, transit station and facilities, and infrastructure needs. The Access Board has the technical knowledge and expertise on access to weigh in and provide valuable guidance and input.
• The National Council on Disability should also be engaged.

DREDF has responded to requests for comment from the Federal Transit Administration regarding removing barriers to transit bus automation (FTA-2017-0025) and the automated transit buses research program (FTA-2017-0024), from the FHWA regarding automated driving systems (FHWA-2017-0049), and NHTSA in response to the ADS 2.0 safety guidelines (NHTSA-2017-0082). As the USDOT develops and fine-tunes the 3.0 framework we hope you will take these recommendations into account.

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to attend the AV 3.0 Public Listening Summit and to provide comment. Please contact Carol Tyson, Government Affairs Liaison, at (202) 878-9186 or ctyson@dredf.org with any questions. DREDF looks forward to continuing to work with the USDOT Office of the Secretary and the broader AV stakeholder community to ensure access, safety, and equity are realized.

Sincerely yours,

Susan Henderson
Executive Director

Human Machine Interface

• Accessible Apps to hail a car (Section 508 compliant)
• Both print/visual (adjustable size/contrast by user) and audio I/O
• Voice-controlled systems (e.g, change route, unlock doors, lower/raise windows)
• Where’s my ride, including finding it when it arrives (how will the car know you are blind? Could it detect a dog, or a cane?)
• Micro-navigation needs for Blind riders — how will you know the car has arrived?
• Minimally complex directions and control identifiers
• Compatible w/ portable devices (phones, tablets, ‘smart-glasses’) w/ customized assistive technology, such as paperless Braille display for deaf/blind users
• Accessible operating surfaces (within reach; tactile cues, etc.)
• User enabled remote destination selection and trip monitoring with video and GPS for users with intellectual disabilities
• Alternate (accessible) drop off points for access (eg, near curb ramps)
• Provides information (visual and audio) about environment surrounding vehicle
  • Location, route, certain landmarks (e.g., Bay Bridge Toll Plaza), etc.
  • Weather, road conditions
  • Accidents, incidents (how will car communicate in an emergency?)
  • Deviations from route or why the ride may be stopping
• Orients user to drop off point including access features, directions to destination with orientation landmarks, construction, etc.

Hardware

• Compatible with existing hand controls (Levels 2 and 3)
• Space to stow wheelchair if transferring
• Lower floors to accommodate wheelchairs (don’t put tech under the floor)
• Lift/ramp and securement system, or support for aftermarket modification
• Accessible securement for non-disabled people with limited upper body mobility, e.g., seat belts
• Accessible door handles, storage spaces (opening and closing the trunk or hood)

Policy & Legislation

• Anti-discriminatory licensing, insurance & liability requirements (No licensing for Level 5 passengers)
• Anti-discriminatory data & privacy requirements (not sharing disability/health status, or locations visited)
• Ethical considerations (whose life is prioritized in a crash?)
• Funding for fully accessible vehicle R&D
• Fully accessible infrastructure development (sidewalks, curb ramps, complete streets)

Note: Anything that a car maker includes as a feature or enhancement for people without disabilities should be designed to be accessed by people who are blind, Deaf, have mobility disabilities, cognitive disabilities, etc.

---

[i] USDOT Bureau of Labor Statistics [Issue Brief #3] (2003). Transportation Difficulties Keep Over Half a Million Disabled at Home.

[ii] Xiang, Huiyun. (2008). Secondary Injuries Among Individuals with Disabilities. Center for Injury Research and Policy (PDF).

[iii] University of Kansas Research & Training Center on Independent Living [Infographic] (2014). Housing for People with Disabilities: The On-ramp to Community Participation.