Autonomous Vehicles:

Navigating the legal and regulatory issues of

a driverless world
 Table of Contents
Introduction
 SAE Levels
 Physical Ecosystem
 Strategic Partnerships
Legal Issues
 Regulatory
 Product Liability
 Cybersecurity and Data Privacy
 Intellectual Property
Case Study
 Keolis – AVs in Public
Transportation

2
Introduction
Introductio

• 10 million autonomous vehicles will hit the roads by 2020

• In 10 years fully autonomous vehicles will be the norm
• AVs will generate a $7 trillion annual revenue stream by 2050

• Widespread adoption of AVs could lead to a 90% reduction in

vehicle crashes

Sources:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliviergarret/2017/03/03/10-million-self-driving-cars-will-hit-the-road-by-2020-heres-how-to-profit/#45627b757e50
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/01/the-7-trillion-promise-of-self-driving-vehicles.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-autos-autonomous/self-driving-cars-could-generate-billions-in-revenue-u-s-study-idUSKBN0M10UF20150305
History of Autonomous
Uber hires 40 Carnegie
Mellon robotics
researchers to work on
Google’s autonomous vehicles;
FCC allocates 75 autonomous Tesla Ford begins testing its NHTSA issues
MHz of spectrum Google car passes a releases its self-driving cars in CA, revised safety
Introduction to Dedicated Short begins self- 14-mile Auto-Pilot AZ, MI guidelines for
of Cruise Range driving car driving test in self-driving autonomous
Control Communications project Nevada mode vehicles

1948 1999 2009 2012 2015 2015 2017

2007 2013 2013 2016 2016

Mercedes and Major acquisitions and

Teams create Infiniti produce NHTSA partnerships (GM and NHTSA
cars with radar Cruise Automation; issues
vehicles that self- sensors and releases GM and Lyft; Toyota guidelines for
navigate a 60-mile some initial policy and Jaybridge testing and
course as part of autonomous on Robotics; Uber and deployment of
DARPA “Grand driving features autonomous Volvo) autonomous
SAE Levels of

Source: https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/automated-vehicles-safety
Basic Physical Ecosystem of an Autonomous
• Global Positioning System (GPS)
• Light Detection and Ranging
(LIDAR)
• Cameras (Video)
• Ultrasonic Sensors
• Central Computer
• Radar Sensors
• Dedicated Short-Range
Communications-Based Receiver
(not pictured)

Source: The Economist, “How does a self-driving car work?”

Key Physical Components of Autonomous
• Cameras – Provide real-time obstacle detection to facilitate lane departure and track
roadway information (like road signs).
• Radar – Radio waves detect short & long-range depth.
• LIDAR – Measures distance by illuminating target with pulsed laser light and measuring
reflected pulses with sensors to create 3-D map of area.
• GPS – Triangulates position of car using satellites. Current GPS technology is limited to a certain
distance. Advanced GPS is in development.
• Ultrasonic Sensors – Uses high-frequency sound waves and bounce-back to calculate
distance. Best in close range.
• Central Computer – “Brain” of the vehicle. Receives information from various
components and helps direct vehicle overall.
• DRSC - Based Receiver – Communications device permitting vehicle to communicate with
other vehicles (V2V) using DSRC, a wireless communication standard that enables reliable data
transmission in active safety applications. NHTSA has promoted the use of DSRC.
Companies Investing in Autonomous Vehicles
Vehicles operating in SAE levels of automation 1-3 are already in commercial use and
many companies are investing further in developing highly and fully automated vehicles

44+
Strategic
Recent
• January 2017 – Keolis and NAVYA, in partnership with the city of Las Vegas,
launched the first autonomous, fully electric shuttle to be deployed on a public
roadway in the United States.

• January 2018 – Toyota announces “e-Palette” concept vehicle which is a fully electric
autonomous vehicle that can be customized by a partner for applications such as food
deliveries (Pizza Hut), ride-sharing (Uber), or store fronts (Amazon).

• January 2018 – Udelv, a Bay Area tech company, completed the first delivery of goods
by a self-driving car when it delivered groceries in San Mateo.

• February 2018 – Hyundai announced that a fleet of its fuel cell electric cars made a
successful fully automated trip from Seoul to Pyeongchang. This is the first time a Level 4
car has been operated with fuel cell electric cars.
Legal Issues Around Autonomous Vehicles
• Regulations
• Liability
• Personal Injury
• Cybersecurity and data breaches
• Intellectual property ownership
Federal and State
Regulations
Federal Regulation of Autonomous
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
• The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) within the Department of
Transportation (DOT) specifies minimum safety performance requirements for motor
vehicles and equipment. Automakers must certify compliance before selling vehicles.
• Fully autonomous vehicles (and some highly autonomous vehicles) would not meet current
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) (i.e., if manufacturers seek to design
vehicles without mirrors, bumpers, braking pedals, and other featured required by the
FMVSS).
• NHTSA can approve a limited number of exemptions from the FMVSSs.
• NHTSA also can approve importation of autonomous vehicles that do not meet
FMVSSs for testing, subject to conditions.
Federal Regulation of Autonomous
• DOT released new guidance on autonomous vehicles in September 2017, titled
“Automated Driving Systems (ADS) 2.0: A Vision for Safety”. Replaces guidance
issued in 2016 by Obama DOT.
• Guidance identifies 12 safety elements: (1) system safety; (2) operational design
domain; (3) object and event detection and response; (4) fallback (minimal risk
condition); (5) validation methods; (6) human machine interface; (7) vehicle
cybersecurity; (8) crashworthiness; (9) post-crash ADS behavior; (10) data recording;
(11) consumer education and training; and (12) federal state and local laws.
• Recommends that entities involved in ADS testing and deployment demonstrate how
they address the 12 safety elements by publishing a Voluntary Safety Self- Assessment.
Federal Regulation of Autonomous
• NHTSA, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) have sought comments related to autonomous vehicles
• NHTSA requested comments on regulatory barriers to Automated Safety
Technologies, and testing and compliance certification
• FHWA requested comments on what is needed to accommodate ADS technologies and
maximizing their potential benefits in the transportation network
• FTA requested comments on current and near-future status of automated transit buses and
related technologies, with the goal of informing FTA’s efforts to promote development of
ADS in the public transit sector
• Deadline for filing all comments was March 5, 2018
Federal Legislation Governing Autonomous
Susan – This conten
• Congressional efforts underway to amend current law regarding regulation of different than the sa
autonomous vehicles shortened version. D

• House and Senate bills have similar objectives: replace this with the
slide 10 of the other
• Authorize NHTSA to issue more exemptions from FMVSSs (up to 100,000 vehicles per
year within three years after enactment)
• Require NHTSA to update FMVSSs to accommodate autonomous vehicles;
• Require mandatory safety assessment reporting of the elements similar to those in
DOT’s voluntary safety assessment report
• Include cybersecurity and privacy requirements
• Preempt state regulation of safety but preserve state role to regulate licensing,
registration, insurance, and other traditionally state functions
• House passed its bill in late 2017
• Senate bill is on hold while senators work through issues regarding privacy,
cybersecurity and safety
State Laws Governing Autonomous
• 23 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation governing autonomous
vehicles (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, and
Washington D.C.).
• 10 additional states have executive orders in place issued by their governors relating
to autonomous vehicles (Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Ohio, Washington, and Wisconsin).
• Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, and Nevada have been most active.
• For a comprehensive review of state laws enacted see:
Product Liability
Liability for Autonomous Vehicle
• Will courts l treat autonomous vehicles as drivers and apply a negligence standard
or as sophisticated technology and apply a product liability standard?
• How will liability be apportioned?
• Fleet Operator/Service Providers
• Vehicle manufacturers
• Technology companies/software manufacturers
• Local government’s responsible for maintaining infrastructure
Product Liability: State
Florida, Michigan, Nevada and the District of Columbia
shield manufacturers from liability for damages resulting
from third party conversion of vehicle into autonomous
vehicle, except where damages are caused by defect
present in vehicle as originally manufactured.
Managing Liability Among
• Warranties and indemnifications should clearly define scope, responsibility and
liability
• Responsibility for maintenance, repairs and updates should be defined
• Liability between automaker, technology company and vehicle owner/operator
should be defined
• Responsibility for compliance with federal, state and local laws and regulations
should be defined
Cybersecurity
Potential Attack
• Electrical Control Units (ECUs)
• Airbag, Advanced Driver Assistant
System, Engine, Steering & Brakes,
etc.
• On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) II
Diagnostic Port
• Dedicated Short-Range
Communications-Based Receiver
• USB Ports
• Passive Keyless Entry/ Remote Key
• Remote Link Type App
Source: Telematics Wire: Cybersecurity – A Gating Issue for Safety in A • Tire Pressure Monitoring System
Connected and Automated Vehicle Future (TPMS)
Explanation of Key Attack
• Electronic Control Units (ECUs) – ECUs are embedded systems that control one or more
electrical systems or subsystems within a vehicle and are connected via an internal network. They
control systems like the engine and transmission, steering and brakes, infotainment, lighting, etc.
Risks arise when access to ECUs (usually peripheral ECUs like an infotainment system) are
breached and malicious actors are able to access certain ECUs or the whole network. Vehicles today
have up to 100 ECUs onboard.

• OBD II Diagnostic Port – Every car manufactured after 1996 and sold in the U.S. must have an
OBD II installed. The port was originally mandated to permit monitoring of emissions, etc. It is
increasingly used to facilitate non-diagnostic features like enabling Wi- Fi, or enabling an insurance
company to track usage through attachment of a “dongle” to the port. These ports can provide a
means of access for attackers into an otherwise secure system.

• DSRC-Based Receivers – DSRC is being promoted as a means of encouraging V2V and

vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communications. The short-wave communications can be subject to
spoofing and other attacks. There’s now a push to move to more advanced 5G- based
communications.
Common Security
• Software Glitches – Connected vehicles today contain more than 100 million lines of code.
More code means more opportunity for bugs and mistakes. Glitches, even when inadvertent,
can be exploited.

• No Single Source of Knowledge of or Control Over Source Code – Software for

different components of connected vehicles is being written by different developers, installed
by different supplies, and no one source has knowledge of or control over the source code.

• Increase Use of Apps Leave Vulnerabilities – Consumers are using an increasing number
of smartphone apps to interface with their connected cars and help run certain functions.
Researchers have already demonstrated weaknesses in some of these apps. Likely to see spread
in use of malware.

• Need for Constant Updates May be Overlooked – With the increased use of connected
features comes an increased need for continuous updates to fix glitches and help protect vehicles.
There is a risk these updates could be overlooked or that malicious actors could infect routine
updates.
Cybersecurity Threats and
• The same types of attacks that are possible in
any connected device are generally possible in
connected vehicles once access is gained.

• For example – Denial-of-service (DoS) attacks

(e.g., utilizing the Controller Area Network
(CAN) Bus system), remote access and control
(e.g., the 2015 Jeep event), man-in-the-middle
(MiM) attacks, etc.

• The difference between attacks like these

against common IoT devices and attacks within
Source: CNN: Jeep remotely carjacked, shut down on a connected or autonomous vehicle is the
highway likelihood for increased risk to life and property
The 2015 white hat attack on a Jeep in the vehicle context.
Cherokee led to the recall of 1.4 million
vehicles and highlighted risks.
Consumers Desire and Fear
In 2014, McKinsey conducted a survey of 2,000 new-car buyers in Brazil, China, Germany,
and the U.S. about connected car issues. The survey remains interesting for the disjoint it
highlights between consumer desire for connectivity and consumer fear of the possibility of
attacks as a result of that connectivity.

• 13% of car buyers are no longer prepared to even consider a new vehicle without Internet access.

• More than ¼ of car buyers now prioritize connectivity over features like engine power and fuel
efficiency.

• 45% of U.S. car buyers are reluctant to use car-related connected services because they want to
keep their privacy.

• 43% of U.S. car buyers are afraid that people can hack into their cars and manipulate the systems
if the car is connected to the Internet.

Source: McKinsey’s Connected Car Consumer Survey, 2014.

Key Regulator – Dept. of Transportation and National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• The key regulator with regard to cybersecurity and safety concerns is NHTSA
• NHTSA has incorporated the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s
(NIST) Cybersecurity Framework as part of the multi-layered approach it
recommends for vehicle cybersecurity
• NHTSA works closely with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on issues related to
consumer privacy in connected and autonomous vehicles, but its mandate is safety
Litigation Risks –
• Car manufacturers that release vehicles later found to contain defects and cybersecurity
vulnerabilities, along with the suppliers that provide flawed subparts, could face
significant lawsuits in the U.S. and elsewhere.
• In 2015, after Chrysler recalled the Jeep Grand Cherokee to fix a flaw highlighted in the
dramatic hack of the vehicle, the company and Harman International, maker of the flawed
Uconnect dashboard computer, faced a high-stakes consumer lawsuit.
• The recent flurry of lawsuits against Apple, Intel, and others in connection with allegations that
they sold defective products containing the Meltdown and Spectre flaws, could be a foretaste of
similar actions that could be brought in connection with later- discovered weaknesses within
internal networks and systems.

• Manufacturers or suppliers that fail to push timely updates may face regulatory
enforcement actions or consumer lawsuits.
• In 2016, Dutch regulators sued Samsung over a lack of consistent updates to its Android- powered
phones. The regulator contended that Samsung should be responsible for pushing updates two
years after the sale of a phone. There is a possibility similar reasoning could be applied to
connected vehicle features.
 Key Cybersecurity
• Provide Multi-layered protection – Beginning at level of individual ECUs, moving up a
level to include software to protect vehicle’s internal network by examining all network
communications, and building in mechanisms to stop attacks from advancing within network.
• Defend against externally-facing potential gateways – Ensure weakest links in car’s
security are viewed as potential threats and defenses are built into system. This is particularly true
to infotainment or similar externally-facing mechanisms that are developed or utilized by multiple
external entities.
• Ensure vendors and suppliers have strong security – Connected and autonomous
vehicles are made up of subparts and subsystems. It is critical to review and monitor vendor
and supplier policies and practices.

Promote timely updates – Companies should push timely and effective fixes as soon as problems are identified.
Data Privacy
Privacy Concerns
“GPS monitoring generates a precise, comprehensive record of a person’s public movements
that reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, profession, religious, and sexual
associations. . . . I would take these attributes . . . into account when considering the
existence of a reasonable societal expectation of privacy in the sum of one’s public
movements.”

“[I]t may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable
expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. This approach is ill
suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to
third parties in the course of carrying on mundane
tasks.”

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (Sotomayor, J. concurring).

Multiple Players are Collecting Data from Multiple
Points Within Connected and Autonomous Vehicles
Common Data Privacy
• Data related to vehicle journeys – Car makers, app developers, on-board assistance
systems, etc. collect data regarding movements of vehicle. Length of time data is kept, who has
access to it, and whether consumer has right to opt-out are key issues.
• Data on consumer habits and preferences – Data ranging from music preferences,
news and radio selections, and other features is being used to target consumers. How this is
done and whether consent is obtained will dictate potential ramifications.
• Data from or related to children – Collection, use, and storage of children’s data is
governed by special rules which should be considered.
• Differences in regulations between markets – Privacy regulations vary widely by region
and market. For example, the EU is set to implement its groundbreaking data privacy and
protection law, the GDPR, this May. The law includes a broad definition of personal
information and strict requirements for consent and use and protection of such data. Companies
working in the European market need to be prepared.
Key Regulator –
• The FTC has authority to bring actions against companies or individuals that engage in unfair or
deceptive acts or practices, including those involving vehicle data privacy and security. The
agency uses law enforcement, policy initiatives, and consumer and business education to
accomplish its mission.
• As the primary agency with authority over consumer privacy, the FTC has ongoing efforts related
to protecting the privacy of consumers who use connected devices, which includes connected
vehicles.
• For example, the FTC could use its enforcement authority in appropriate circumstances to bring an
action against an automaker that uses a consumer’s data in a way that violates the manufacturer’s
stated privacy policies. We have as yet to see the FTC focus on in-vehicle privacy protections,
although this may be a coming development.
• The NHTSA released a streamlined version of its automated vehicle policy framework in the fall
of 2017. That revised policy does not address privacy issues, leaving governance of privacy in
this field largely to the FTC.
• FTC and NHTSA held a joint workshop in June 2017 concerning connected cars, with a
particular focus on privacy issues.
Litigation Risks – Data
• Breach of vehicles’ systems that store consumer data, or breach of manufacturers’ systems
containing such data, and the subsequent release of sensitive information may trigger
notification obligations under state data breach notification laws and could, in some
circumstances, lead to private lawsuits in some states.

• Collection and use of consumer behavior data to facilitate additional marketing efforts
could also lead to lawsuits where that data is collected and used in this manner
without consent and without informing consumers.

• Data on vehicle location and tracking could lead to increase requests from U.S. or other
law enforcement agencies for assistance in locating or tracking suspects in criminal cases.
Companies’ responses to such requests could lead to consumer distrust of such tracking
features, or could lead to conflicts with law enforcement similar to those taking place
regarding iPhone access.
Key Privacy
• Build privacy protections into system designs – Consumer privacy protection should be
considered at each stage of system development and implementation.
• Obtain consent – Collection of some forms of consumer information is improper absent
consent. Build mechanisms into systems to obtain consent and update consent as necessary.
• Recognize that children pose special risks –Collection, storage, and use of children’s data
is protected by the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA) and other laws and
regulations.
• Limit collection of sensitive information – Collect only such information as necessary and
protect what is collected. Do not collected personally identifiable information if not necessary
for business purpose.
• Plan for and be ready to notify consumers in the event of an incident – Best protection
against costly consumer litigation is timely and accurate notification, and having proper policies and
procedures in place.
Protecting Intellectual
Property
Patent
• Industry traditionally occupied by OEMs for 100+
years now includes IP-conscious tech companies

• One obvious way to protect is through patents, but there

are some considerations before doing so – is invention
hardware or software related?

• Software centric technology companies working with

OEMs are leading to increased joint ventures and
strategic partnerships

• Give away patents? Tesla has made available limited

open source patent pool for electric vehicles
Who Filed the Most
Automakers are the leaders in autonomous vehicle related patents
Who Owns the Most
• Toyota is the global leader in the number of autonomous vehicle patents with more
than 1,400 patents

• Google is the tech company with the most autonomous vehicle patents, but ranks
26th when compared to all companies with autonomous vehicle patents

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tech-ces-autos/automakers-not-silicon-valley-lead-in- driverless-

car-patents-study-idUSKBN0UJ1UD20160105; The 2016 State of Self-Driving Innovation, Thomson
Reuters.
Areas of

Source: Thomson Reuters 2016 State of Self-Driving Automotive Innovation

Areas of
• Autonomous Driving: Navigating a vehicle without human input from
passengers using sensory (LIDAR), control, and navigation equipment that
responds to the environment when traveling.

• Driver Assistance: Enhances vehicle systems for safety and improved

driving when the driver is in control. Technology includes blind-spot
detection, pedestrian detection, lane-departure warnings, intelligent braking,
traffic-sign recognition, automatic braking, and adaptive cruise control.

• Telematics: Includes telecommunications, vehicular technologies, road

transportation, road safety, electrical engineering (sensors, instrumentation,
wireless communications, etc.), computer
science (multimedia, Internet, etc.), GPS technology, DSRC, V2V, and V2I.

Source: https://www.herrmanandherrman.com/blog/vehicle-vehicle-communication/
Key Technology
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) – In order for the AV to operate in a full range of
environments with millions of changing aspects that will need to be accounted
for, it will require AI, which will allow the base level software to be developed
and tested with a self-learning capability.

• GPS – These global positioning systems will be a critical link for AV to

determine their location as they move.

• Dedicated short range communications (DSRC) – The ability for vehicles

to communicate with each other (“vehicle-to-vehicle” or “V2V”) and
infrastructure (“vehicle-to-infrastructure” or “V2I”).

• LIDAR – LIDAR is a radar system that emits a laser in a pattern similar to a

rotating radar, only in more discrete and densely-spaced increments. The reflected
laser light is used to provide the AV information on the distance for each discrete
laser emission.
Sample Autonomous Vehicle
• U.S. Patent No. 9,475,491
• Titled: Lane Changing for Autonomous Vehicles
• Directed to a method for changing travel lanes by identifying and accepting
a target gap between a pair of vehicles in an adjacent travel lane.

• U.S. Patent No. 9,244,462

• Titled: Vehicle Trajectory Planning for Autonomous Vehicles
• Relates to a method for describing the current the state and a goal state of the
autonomous vehicle and determining a vehicle trajectory from the current state to
the goal state.

• U.S. Patent No. 9,428,163

• Titled: Autonomous Vehicle Emergency Braking Method
• Describes a method for autonomous emergency braking in a to avoid or reduce
the severity of an accident by measuring the speed of the vehicle during
autonomous emergency braking and determining vehicle speed independent of
the wheel rotational speeds of the vehicle.
Patent
• Patent infringement suits
• Most from non-practicing entities and not true competitor lawsuits
• Seeing both at the district court level and IPRs recently

• Examples of recent AV related patent suits

• Quanergy Sys., Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar Inc. (N.D. Cal.)
• Collision Avoidance Technologies v. Ford Motor Company (E.D. Tex.)
Future Areas of
• Lawsuits will likely increase once there is a robust autonomous vehicle
market to support them.

• The automaker and tech company partnerships will limit the extent some
companies get accused.

• The area of patent innovation with the least amount of patents filed are in
telematics and is an area likely to be litigated.
Protecting IP –
• Defense Strategies
• Participate in joint defense groups where possible
• Inter partes reviews (like in Quanergy and CAT case)
• Potential Section 101 motion for patent ineligibility
• Assess potential exposure/damages early on

• Licensing Patents
• Increase standard-essential patent licensing campaigns for connected cars
• Potential for standard-essential patents in autonomous vehicles but technology is still
developing
Protecting IP – Trade
• Intellectual property for autonomous vehicles may be protected as a trade secret
• Trade secret protection applies to “information including a formula, pattern,
compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process”
• DTSA now provides federal cause of action for misappropriation of trade
secrets
• Trade Secrets v. Patents
• Trade secrets can remain a secret and will not be published like patents
• Trade secrets are protected at time of conception
• Patents are limited to a 20 year term and trade secrets can last until they become
public
• Trade secrets may require joint venture agreements to keep confidentiality
• Trade secrets not as appealing for technology that can be reverse engineered
Protecting IP – Trade
• Waymo v. Uber Case
• Waymo sued Uber for trade secret
misappropriation alleging that former engineer
took 14K documents
• Alleged that after Uber acquired the Otto, it used
more than 100 trade secrets to develop its Lidar
solution

• Case settled in February 2018 for $245 million or

.34 percent equity in Uber
Protecting IP – Trade
• Take reasonable precautions to maintain secrecy
• Confidentiality agreements
• Non-disclosure agreements
• Non-compete agreements or clauses in employment agreements
• Clearly identify and define trade secrets and continue training employees
• Stay current and revisit!

• Manage employees
• Manage access to sensitive information
• Keep detailed procedures when onboarding and offboarding employees
• Conduct exit interviews and ask employee to return equipment and files
 Insurance
Considerations
Case Study
Autonomous Vehicles in Public Transportation
Public transportation agencies are showing interest in incorporating autonomous vehicles into
their service, and looking at pilot programs using AVs
• Use of AVs for “micro-transit” or “last mile” service could reduce costs and expand
accessibility
• Reduction in costs – maintenance is less expensive and operators may be unnecessary
• Safety benefits
• Driver/operator jobs will be impacted; operators will need to be retrained to become
“computer technicians
• ADA compliance requirements means on-bus presence of an operator probably cannot be
eliminated
• Infrastructure maintenance and interactivity with vehicles
• Traffic lights and vehicles must talk to each other and roads must be pothole free
Case Study –
Case Study –
• Keolis Pilot Project in Las Vegas
• Las Vegas and Nevada are leading the way in legislative and regulatory
changes to facilitate the introduction of autonomous and connected vehicles
• Keolis operates Navya-supplied Arma Shuttle that seats up to 8
passengers, 6 days a week up to 8 hours a day, in traffic, in a pilot
sponsored by AAA
• Finalizing agreements highlighted range of issues, including roles and
responsibilities of the parties, regulatory requirements, intellectual property,
cybersecurity, vehicle maintenance, vehicle attendant roles and responsibilities
and risk management
Thank You!