In this episode, we talk with Nick Reed, founder of Reed Mobility.

In the UK, the Automated Vehicles Act, passed into the law in 2024, expects Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) to behave carefully and competently.

But what does “Careful and Competent” driving entail? And where does the phrase come from?

In the United States, on one hand, we hear lots of statistical safety claims by AV companies. On the other hand, we know very little of the public’s perception and expectation of AV safety.

Instructive is the results of the deliberative survey research conducted by the U.K. government. Nick assisted the research efforts. The survey, involving six cities—both big cities and rural areas, zoomed in on the public perception on careful and competent driving, and how they see it to be applied to autonomous vehicles.

As Nick unpacks in this podcast, we will learn that the public and AV companies use a very different lens from ordinary human drivers when they discuss AV safety.

This episode is a follow-on to Phil’s written piece on Careful & Competent Computer Drivers.

You can listen to this episode on Spotify and iTunes Podcasts. Clickable topic links below point to the YouTube version:

02:14 Nick Reed intro

04:37 The origin of the phrase: Careful and Competent Driver

06:03 The UK Police defines “driving offenses” (See this web site)

07:26 Equivalent to “Careful and Competent Driver” in the US?

11:41 The U.K. government research project on the public’s perception of “Careful and Competent”

12:48 How the public discussed Careful and Competent Driver

13:22 Two different views on Careful and Competent Driver

14:38 It’s the law in the UK: AVs must behave carefully and competently

16:51 Different AV concerns were raised by city dwellers and those in the rural areas in the U.K.

21:00 No “free pass” for AVs

22:28 For AV safety assurance, what evidence would be persuasive?

24:03 What safety evidence can AV companies provide to regulators?

28:21 Vehicles’ behavior vs. Statistical benefits

28:41 Why smart motorways did not take off

30:35 There is more to safety than numbers

33:06 Data sharing is the key

36:57 How do you respond to the argument against “Careful and Competent”?

37:30 Risk meter

39:20 Use the UK police enforcement guidelines on “Careful and Competent”

40:37 Challenge round 1: What about human drivers getting away with bad driving?

43:39 Challenge round 2: If AV companies just did Careful & Competent, would that be enough?

45:52 MHTSA vs. States: Two different regulatory roles

47:39 Persuasion vs. Calibration

52:58 Digital Commentary Driving

This week Phil & Junko talk about what an edge case is, and why autonomous vehicles will need the help of remote human assistants to resolve edge case issues.As robotaxi operations have begun to scale, the public is seeing more incidents in which autonomous vehicles caught in edge cases struggle to get out of the bad situation. The conversation covers:- What is an edge case?- What humans perceive as edge cases can be different from what machines are struggling with.- Edge cases being rare doesn’t mean they don’t matter. The risk is not about frequency: it’s about frequency and severity.- Edge cases can also be a combination of ‘normal’ things with special meaning that autonomous vehicles have never seen or been trained before.- Robotaxi companies can get more data, but more data is never going to get rid of enough of the edge cases.- Just as edge cases won’t go away, remote assistants — who are there to handle the edge cases encountered by robotaxis —will not go away, either.- The AV industry is at a critical juncture, as it is being tested how well their autonomous vehicles are prepared to handle edge cases.

This week Phil & Junko talk about what it means for Autonomous Vehicle to be safe enough.
At a high level, in addition to net statistical safety, acceptable safety also requires an absence of risk hot spots. It’s not about perfection; it’s about acceptably safe:

• As safe as a human driver on a net statistical basis (accounting for which car, which driver, which road, etc.)

• Avoiding reckless driving

• Avoiding shifting risk onto vulnerable populations

• Absence of unreasonable risk (AUR)

• Standards conformance

• Avoiding negative externalities (e.g., not blocking fire trucks)

• Accountability for breaking road rules

• Meeting all stakeholder safety requirements

A single-metric approach does not work due to multiple stakeholder concerns. A multi-constraint satisfaction approach is the way to go. The bottom line: acceptable safety is meeting the threshold requirements of all your stakeholders.

This episode is a follow-on to Phil’s written piece on How Safe Is Really “Safe Enough” for Autonomous Vehicles?

In this episode we talk with Kristin Poland, Deputy Director, Office of Highway Safety, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

We cover safety issues with Level 2 supervised automation vehicles in general. The NTSB’s recent findings on a pair of Ford BlueCruise crashes motivate a discussion that covers lidar, false alarms, performance limitations, alcohol impairment, telematics, automated emergency braking (AEB), driver monitoring, system integration issues, and the role that NTSB plays in improving transportation safety.

This episode is a follow-on to Phil’s written piece on Level 2 Automated Vehicle Safety.

Mr. Otto Nobetter, meet Mr. Jay Walker

Historian Peter Norton joins Phil & Junko in a discussion of the surprisingly rich history of the slogan "Safety First."

We discuss the history of multiple cycles of adoption and repudiation of the concept of Safety First in industrial and automotive safety. We also cover cautionary tales from the history of safety regulations in other industries. Perhaps it is time for the autonomous vehicle industry to re-think its Safety First messaging.

Substack episode info: https://open.substack.com/pub/avsafety/p/podcast-the-evolution-of-safety-first

Phil & Junko on AV Safety / S1 ep01

Accountability of Remote Assistants