IntelliDriveSM for Commercial Vehicles

April 21, 2010

San Antonio, TX

Draft Meeting Notes

INTRODUCTION

Dan Murray, ATRI (TIMTC)

Dan Murray, Vice President of Research for the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), welcomed participants.

• ATRI is working with the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) through the Trucking Industry Mobility and Technology Coalition (TIMTC) to define the commercial vehicles sector’s role in IntelliDrive,^SM based on maximizing benefits for both the private and public sectors. (TIMTC’s web site is http://www.freightmobility.com/index.htm).

• Three stakeholder workshops will be conducted to explore services that IntelliDrive^SM might deliver to the Commercial Vehicles sector:

• Safety Services (today’s workshop)
• Mobility Services
• Later in 2010
• Will work with AASTHO, ATA, and the Private Sector
• Environmental Services
• Also later this year
• Will work with EPA and NHTSA

• Results will be published in late 2010 in the 2010 Truck IntelliDrive^SM Program Services Report

INTELLIDRIVE^SM OVERVIEW

Kate Hartman, U.S. DOT RITA

Kate Hartman, Program Manager, Truck and Program Assessment for the U.S. DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) ITS Joint Program Office, provided a general overview of IntelliDrive,^SM followed by a brief overview of the U.S. DOT’s 2010-2014 ITS Strategic Research Plan, which describes a research program aimed to achieve the following vision:

“A national, multi-modal surface transportation system that features a connected transportation environment among vehicles, the infrastructure, and portable devices to serve the public good by leveraging technology to maximize safety, mobility and environmental performance.”

The IntelliDrive^SM research program is designed to answer the following critical research questions:

• Are applications available and benefits validated?
• What is the minimum infrastructure needed for the greatest benefit? How much, where, when and what type?
• What is the degree of market penetration required for effectiveness?
• Is technology stable, reliable, secure and interoperable?
• Are international standards available to ensure interoperability?
• What policies/governance/funding are required for sustainability?
• How to address public concerns for privacy and ensure that applications do not cause driver distraction?

Ms. Hartman noted that the U.S. DOT sponsors additional, mode-specific research that is not part of the IntelliDrive^SM research program, but is closely related, including:

• FHWA & FMCSA’s Smart Roadside Initiative http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/art-technology-smart-roadside-for-commercial.htm
• FMCSA’s Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) Program http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/cvisn/index.htm
• FMCSA’s International Border Technologies Program

Ms. Hartman noted that IntelliDrive^SM Research Program is actively seeking input from the commercial vehicles industry in order to design research to address the industry’s key concerns, and deliver benefits to address the industry’s most pressing needs.

A copy of Ms. Hartman’s slides, including text, is available at http://www.freightmobility.com/Presentations.html

THE CONTEXT

Steve Williams, Maverick Transportation

Steve Williams, founder and chairman of Maverick Transportation, Little Rock, AR, described how the current economic climate is affecting his firm’s commitment to investment in safety and operations technologies. Some key points:

• Maverick Transportation has been an early adopter of technology.
• The primary motivation for technology investment has been to improve productivity and safety.
• As president of ATA in 2004-2005, Williams learned that, due to the failure to invest in infrastructure to keep pace with development, the basic challenge that will face the trucking industry in the future is to move more freight in a congested environment, with the need to improve highway safety.
• Investments in technology have benefited his firm, but it is still discretionary spending.
• With the economic downturn, it is more important than ever that technology investments show a return on investment (ROI).
• For safety technologies such as stability and rollover controls, Williams believes that government mandates should be imposed because waiting for carriers to make investments in them based on ROI won’t work.
• Canada has adopted speed limiters and mandatory electronic on-board recorders.
• CSA 2010 has much support, but it is important to get it right. It will have a tremendous impact on the carrier community.
• The motor carrier industry must incorporate the costs of new technologies and pass them on, and the only way to do that is to have a mandate.
• Every generation has had a challenge that it has tried to meet with regulations. In the 1920s, trucking was a farm-to-market enterprise. The Fifties and Sixties was the Interstate Era. 1980-2010 has been an era of deregulation. Now, we are in an era defined by much more freight with much more congestion.
• We need a reaffirmation that investments in communication, safety, and environmental technology will be the foundation of the solutions to the challenges we face in years ahead.
• The marketplace will be slow to recognize the benefits of technology. Only government will be in a position to implement technologies to benefit both the public and private industry.

Following Mr. William’s presentation, there was a question-and-answer period.

Q: What technologies does your fleet use?

A: We invested as an early adopter in roll stability control, lane departure alert, rear-end collision avoidance, wide-based tires, automatic air inflation (APUs not EPUs) and a number of other technologies on all our trucks. Since 1981 we have had the QualComm satellite system. We match our logs to Qualcomm. We haven’t had the money to invest in the next generation of satellite. Next we will do an electronic logging. We have multiple driver simulators, and mobile units and a sprinter van to do remedial training. We continue to teach drivers how to drive to improve fuel economy. The safety performance of our fleet has improved dramatically with investments in this technology. Rollovers, rear-end crashes—you can look at the statistics and identify when we invested in the technology. That’s why I believe in it. It all works—it is just really expensive.

Q: You said that some other carriers have taken technology off their trucks. Why?

A: It was used against them in litigation—“If your driver got an alert, why didn’t he stop quicker?”

On the other hand, technology has saved us—when an attorney learns that we have the technology to document what actually happened, they leave us alone.

We are moving toward a technology that will actually not just deliver an alert but depower the truck—an active system. WE also will have the ability to control road speed and RPM selection on trucks remotely. Buying technology is one thing and having people who know how to run it is another. That’s going to be a market differentiator.

Q: How does the technology influence driver behavior?

A: Our drivers are very receptive. We are doing a better job today of meeting the needs of customers with much less experienced drivers—better safety, better performance overall. We spend $10,000 to train them. They come from all walks of life, and they expect to be put in a safe vehicle. Electronic onboard reporters are embraced; Qualcomm is something they are looking for.

Q: What are the incentives or disincentives of shippers to use companies that use safety technologies?

A: I know of only one example of a shipper that has any awareness of the companies who have chosen to invest in environmental technology. But the mood has shifted and the economy is coming back. This is the opportunity we have to invest in the technology that will make the world a better place before we spend it on additional capacity.

Q: What has your experience been with the reliability of the on-board systems? Have you found it can be difficult to troubleshoot when something fails?

A: You’d be amazed. The communication and safety technologies that we’ve invested in have been relatively trouble-free. I can’t say the same about the new technologies in the truck itself, like the diagnostics.

COMMERCIAL VEHICLE INTELLIDRIVE^SM

Federal Government Speakers: Alrik Svenson, U.S. DOT NHTSA; Jon Mueller U.S. DOT FMCSA

State Government Speaker: Rick McDonough, NY State DOT

Industry Panel: Tom Richter, Volvo; Brett Graves, Maverick Transportation; Steve Maupin, Con-way Freight

Alrik Svenson, Research Engineer, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) presented an overview of the IntelliDrive^SM Vehicle-To-Vehicle (V2V) Safety Applications Research Plan.

He handed out copies of the Plan.

• Track 7 of the V2V Research Plan is the Commercial Vehicle (CV) V2V Safety Applications Research Plan.
• The CV research will build on the results of previous research conducted under the Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety Systems (IVBSS) program.

• A Field Operational Test (FOT) was conducted under the IVBSS program that tested the following V2V safety systems on light vehicles and heavy trucks:
• Forward Collision Warning
• Lane-Change/Merge Warning
• Lane Departure Warning
• The results of the FOT indicate that V2V technologies enhance the drivers’ situational awareness by providing a 360 degree view around the vehicle; which delivers safety benefits, and has a positive impact on driver behavior and performance.
• What V2V can do better than existing technologies:
• Replace onboard sensors
• Replace GPS and positioning maps
• Provide extra effectiveness in mitigating crashes—particularly crossing-path collisions.
• The purpose of the V2V Safety Research Plan is to accelerate the implementation of the next generation of safety improvements through the widespread deployment of V2V-equipped vehicles of all types (truck, transit, auto and fleets)
• A key objective of the V2V Research Plan is to answer questions needed to support the NHTSA regulatory decision in 2013.
• Another important objective is to accelerate implementation of technologies that can ensure there is a value for early adopters of V2V.
• The goal of Track 7, the CV V2V Safety Applications Research Plan, is to develop a plan that is responsive to the needs of the stakeholders in the commercial vehicle industry.
• Under Track 7, DOT will develop some safety applications for commercial vehicle applications and analyze the safety benefits.
• The research program will include testing of prototype vehicles as well as developing performance requirements.
• 2010 Research Tasks

· Updating crash scenarios

· Initiating driver interface work -- the driver-vehicle interfaces in commercial vehicles differs significantly from passenger vehicles.

· Developing performance requirements

· Identifying interoperability issues that are specific to commercial vehicles

• Approximately 75 percent of crashes for all vehicles could be addressed by V2V and V2I
• For heavy vehicles there are about 375,000 crashes annually—a subset of the U.S. total of 5.9 million annual crashes.
• The Volpe Center has analyzed the CV crash scenarios that can be addressed by V2V, V2I, and autonomous vehicles. The top 3 CV crash scenarios that can be addressed by V2V and V2I are:
• Changing lanes/Driving Same Lane –69,000 a year
• Rear-end-64,000 a year
• Crossing paths-32,000 a year
• A full report on CV crash scenarios that can be addressed by IntelliDrive^SM is coming out soon.
• The IntelliDrive^SM human factors research is focused on ensuring that IntelliDrive^SM technologies do not introduce unforeseen problems. The probable outcome will be adoption of voluntary standards and guidelines.
• IntelliDrive^SM policy research is focused on developing investment and business models, legislative/regulatory options, governance structures, and addressing institutional issues in order to facilitate deployment.
• The IntelliDrive^SM Safety Pilot Program is still under development. It will involve the demonstration of safety applications to increase awareness of the value of IntelliDrive^SM among larger audiences. The demonstrations will be multi-modal—involving cars, trucks, buses, pedestrians and bicycles.

Mr. Svenson’s slides are available at http://www.freightmobility.com/Presentations.html

Jon Mueller, General Engineer, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Office of Analysis, Research and Technology presented additional information about three of the research tasks: Identification of CV driver-vehicle interface needs; development of commercial vehicle performance requirements; and identification of commercial vehicle interoperability issues.

• Both V2V will enable safety applications that have the potential to compete for the drivers’ attention.
• The operator of a commercial vehicle is presented with information that is unlike that of other vehicles on the road. It is a unique environment that comes with unique considerations.
• The objective of the CV driver-interface research is to determine the specific needs of commercial vehicles and operators with respect to the driver-vehicle interface and to establish metrics for the DVI that will facilitate the development of IntelliDrive^SM applications.
• The performance requirements portion of the research will:
• identify applications that map to real-world crash scenarios
• Identify CV end user needs
• Describe functional system requirements for applications, and
• Establish a minimum performance standard for these applications.
• The interoperability research will identify the technical issues that are unique to CV interoperability and prioritize the resolution of those issues. The scope will include standards and communication, security, and data.

Mr. Mueller’s slides are available at http://www.freightmobility.com/Presentations.html

Chris Flanigan, General Engineer, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Office of Analysis, Research and Technology provided an overview of IntelliDrive^SM Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) as it relates to commercial vehicles.

• IntelliDriveSM V2I and the Smart Roadside Initiative are closely related. A White Paper on how the Smart Roadside Initiative relates to IntelliDriveSM is available at http://www.freightmobility.com/Presentations.html
• FMCSA would like to dramatically increase the Wireless Roadside Inspections Program and is exploring options for doing so, because this technology offers the benefits of improved motor carrier safety (reduction in crashes) due to increased compliance (change in motor carrier and driver behavior) caused by higher frequency of roadside safety inspections using wireless technologies.
• Truck Parking Program projects started in 2005 and 2006. These provide commercial vehicles parking information, and allow commercial drivers to make advanced route planning decisions based on hour-of-service constraints; location and supply of parking; travel conditions; and loading/unloading logistics. FMCSA’s role in this project is to demonstrate new technologies for providing information to drivers. FHWA is working with states to determine ways to increase the parking capacity of their facilities.
• E-Permitting enables the carrier to obtain required permits for a given shipment across multiple states electronically. The roadside compliance system wirelessly requests from the truck an electronic copy of its credentials.
• Virtual Weigh Station equipment verifies the size and weight of the vehicle and shipment wirelessly.
• FMCSA is looking at a number of viable technology options for universal identification for commercial vehicles, including RFID, DSRC, CMRS and optical readers.
• New York State DOT’s (NYSDOT’s) Commercial Vehicle-Infrastructure Integration program is developing and testing commercial vehicle DSRC applications, including driver ID verification; wireless vehicle safety inspection; and commercial vehicle to maintenance vehicle communication.
• Currently, the commercial vehicles V2I program is developing a Concept of Operations document that will be based on a dialogue with stakeholders regarding how FMCSA can conduct enforcement activities in a way that will help both the government and commercial vehicles operate more efficiently.

Mr. Flanigan’s slides are available at http://www.freightmobility.com/Presentations.html

Rick McDonough of NYSDOT provided a State DOT perspective on V2I.

• State DOTs are experiencing a major budget crunch.
• While carriers want State highway agencies to loosen load restrictions, heavy loads damage pavements.
• Hopefully deploying V2I technology will be a viable way for DOTs to help carriers operate more efficiently.
• NYSDOT is investing, as an owner-operator and as a fleet owner, to determine the pros and cons of V2I technology.
• NYSDOT has already deployed V2I on maintenance vehicles with good results, and is considering deployment on transit buses (most of which are state-funded).

John Harding (NHTSA), (moderator of the panel discussion) asked other carriers to share their experiences with technology. Comments included the following:

• Shippers need to understand that technology is expensive. It has to be mandated, because in this economy it would take years for it to be implemented otherwise. Technology needs to be simple, and something that can be installed as an aftermarket device. The whole industry must be forced to buy into it.
• A participant asked, “What happens if the technology ever fails? Are drivers going to survive that, if they have come to rely on the technology? When this is deployed eventually, the system seems to be quite intrusive—what happens if a bright kid hacks the system and can stop trucks or buses on the roads? We have some telematic systems already—what are we doing to integrate the technologies?”
• In response to the questions above, an FMCSA spokesperson said that FMCSA has extensively explored integration of technologies, and a plug-and-play approach would be possible. He said the systems can provide the driver with valuable information, but the information is merely and enhancement of their existing knowledge regarding what is going on around the vehicle. DOT recognizes that system security is a major issue, and is addressing this issue in the research program.
• A representative from Volvo said they are exploring how to make the communications platform built into the truck work with other systems. They have had numerous conversations to explore interoperability with aftermarket systems and with DSRC.
• Steve Williams of Maverick said that once the driers understand the systems and work with them, they will complain if the systems become inoperable.
• Alrik Svenson (NHTSA) said that whenever new safety systems are introduced, additional training may be necessary, for example anti-lock brake systems (ABS).
• Bill ____ of the University of Alabama asked who owns the data coming out of the vehicle, which may contain information that could potentially generate violations.
• John Harding (NHTSA) said that data ownership and data rights are major issues being explored in the IntelliDrive^SM Policy Initiative.
• John Mueller (FMCSA) said data issues will be resolved through a dialogue with stakeholders as part of the Concept of Operations development.
• Dan Murray (ATRI/TIMTIC) said that federal laws and data regulations conflict and there is not a lot of guidance on the topic. Almost all shipper carrier contracts with wireless communications providers state that the data belongs to the carriers. It is a challenging situation regarding data ownership.
• Different data frameworks may be needed for different messages.
• An early quick look at radio compatibility issues between different sizes of vehicles could determine whether there are issues with large vehicles blocking communications signals.
• Will owner/operators be at a greater competitive disadvantage because they cannot afford the technology?
• How long will we keep the data before it is deleted?
• Steve Williams (Maverick)—“If I am rolling around with an open truck where you can see everything we’ve got—is it an inspection, or a screening tool? Because if it is a screening tool, I’m being penalized for being an early adopted of the technology.”
• Representative from University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) – it would be best to concentrate on implementing technologies that can be integrated with existing equipment in vehicles; utilize GPS mapping and GPS data.
• The overall approach needs to be based o cost-benefits based on actual data from carriers—a before and after assessment.
• The insurance industry may give a credit? (Maybe when the stock market comes back.) Perhaps congressional action—tax credits for systems that have been proven on the road.
• Stakeholders who should be included that aren’t here: The Owner Operators Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), which represents dump truck drivers, and farm to market haulers; Shippers; Insurance Industry
• Dan Murray—real fleet turnover is 10-12 years. Need quick, short-term financial incentives for the small guys.
• Accident types that should be focused on: rollover and rear-end.
• Maybe a ConOps from the drivers’ point of view?
• ConWay—This year every driver and every truck will have a handheld device. We did it for mobility, but there are some safety attributes, such as hazmat. Drivers cannot operate the handheld devices unless the parking brake is set.
• Steve Williams (Maverick)—We need something plug-and-play. Like the i-Phone. If I had a device that could be removed in case of an accident—all the data for the accident report would be right there, and be able to send it into HQ.
• Data shows 55-75 percent of the time the car is at fault (in crashes involving heavy vehicles). So are we going to get ahead if the trucks are instrumented and the cars are not?
• V2V will help the trucking industry because you will know the stupid things the lighter vehicles are doing.
• Send a message from large trucks to small vehicles—you are in my blind spot.
• What about the motor coach side? Motor coach industries have concerns about the definition of the data and systems to be monitored with onboard data loggers. Driver fatigue monitoring systems are of interest. Another concern is the bandwidth of high-speed data lines—already telematics are starting to tax them.
• Dan Murray (ATRI/TIMTIC) Let’s identify the services needed prior to any mandates. Fed Ex and UPS build their own systems. Give us the functional requirements—not a technology mandate.
• It is very important to show the safety benefit of the new technologies.

DISCUSSION GROUPS

Breakout discussion groups identified the following issues and concerns related to V2V and V2I safety.

Applications

1. What application(s) of technology(ies) do you think would be most useful to improve commercial vehicle safety?

Team Name: “Brake Guys” (Leigh Merino)

• Air disc Brakes
• Stability Control
• Blind Spot Detection
• Lane Departure Warning
• “Building blocks of technologies” interventions may put vehicle in an over/under steer condition

Team Name: NAFTA (Len Dunman, Brad Driedger, Andy Alden, Darrell Bowman, Leonardo Lisogorsky)

• Driver monitoring technology (drowsiness, EORR)
• Driving assistance technology (collision avoidance)
• Driver control (speed limiting)

Team Name: Team Murray

• Crash avoidance
• Prioritize crashes (Focus limited resources on the most severe and costly type of crashes)
• ID Vehicle
• ID Driver (must be wireless-e.g. e-screening)

Team Name: Tom

• Forward collision warning with sufficient forward range
• Blind spot monitors
• Lane change (how to deal with wide loads)

Team Name: Wolverines

• ESL and active collision braking
• Lane Departure and Road Departure Warning
• High Accuracy GIS Mapping (intersections, curves)

2. What safety applications for commercial vehicles should be a top priority?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• Passive safety—easiest to implement/tech here
• Passive Safety detection systems

Team Name: Team Murray

• Crash avoidance-document/prioritize crash
• Wireless communicate

Team Name: Tom

• Geo-specific information
• S & W are safety issues as much as mobility.
• Stability, rollover

Team Name: Wolverines

• Stationary vehicle detection

• See #1

3. What safety applications for commercial vehicles have the most value to fleets?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• Loss of control events—ESP
• Roll event—roll stability
• Forward collision warning—active braking/cruise control
• V2V
• TPMS

Team Name: NAFTA

• Those that reduce liabilities and increase profits.

Team Name: Team Murray

• E-Screening

Team Name: Tom

• ECM info if vehicle is instrumented to support level 1 with exception of cracks

Team Name: Wolverines

• See #2

4. What applications would provide an incentive for adopting aftermarket or retrofit devices?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• Warning devices

Team Name: Tom

• Tax incentives-must be immediate
• Get insurance rates lowered

Team Name: Wolverines

Explain(?)

5. How should safety applications be “decided” upon that are the most promising, and who should be involved in that process?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• The whole trucking industry, suppliers, government
• Tested and proven out
• Data will point direction—interoperable; private info
• Government incentives?

Team Name: Tom

• OEMs to create “packages” with technologies
• Address retrofit

Team Name: Wolverines

• Cost-benefit analyses for various fleet types
• Suppliers, OEMs, fleet

Driver/Vehicle Interface

6. What issues related to the commercial vehicle’s driver interface need to be addressed?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• Easy interpretation of warning/information
• Succinct, clear messages

Team Name: NAFTA

• Standardization of data and HMI

Team Name: Wolverines

• Integrated and fully engineered display and prioritization of messaging scheme

7. What type of information is most critical to provide to a commercial vehicle driver?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• Imminent warning
• Congestion—for planning

Team Name: NAFTA

• Availability of parking
• Situational awareness of critical situations
• Routing data (bridges, traffic, weight, hazmat

Team Name: Wolverines

• Abnormal driver behavior (learning-based systems)

8. On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being strongly interested), how interested are you in receiving, in real-time, imminent crash avoidance information (verbal or text format)?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• 9/10 verbal

Team Name: NAFTA

• 11 trick question

9. With more technology coming into the vehicle and roadway, what concerns do you have as to how it impacts on driver safety and performance?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• Information overload; over time, some warning systems may positively influence driver behavior to avoid potential situations

Team Name: NAFTA

• Very simple warnings (heads up, audible, etc.)
• Avoid info overload—report only critical events

IntelliDrive^SM

10. What is your primary concern about the Commercial Vehicle IntelliDrive^SM program?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• Regulation/mandates
• Information overload fro driver
• Is this realistic long-term for implementation
• Will saturation be meaningful

Team Name: NAFTA

• Delays in implementation
• Conflicting interests between regulators, drivers, carriers, shippers

11. If IntelliDrive^SM were to become a reality, who should pay for it and how do you suggest revenue be raised to do so?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• Public/Private partnership
• Highway infrastructure user costs/value driven

Team Name: NAFTA

• Insurers
• Government (initially) (tax breaks, loans)
• Carriers (and shippers by default, owner/operators

12. Should IntelliDrive^SM be a mandate, voluntary, or a mix?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• A mix. Vehicles have to be fitted to support—need to understand the ROI

13. How should the government approach the design, development and deployment of the IntelliDrive^SM program?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• ITS funding
• Highway bill
• Research
• Public/Private partnerships
• Stakeholder input along the way

14. Should IntelliDrive^SM be predominantly a federal program, should it be left to the states to decide, or should it be a mix? What is industry’s role?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• Feds set priorities
• States implement
• Market drives it

Team Name: NAFTA

• Federal
• With augmentation by state
• Can’t be in conflict with federal regulations

15. How is it envisioned that the IntelliDrive^SM roadside/communications infrastructure will be built, maintained, and operated? Is it publicly owned? Private? A mix?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• A mix
• NHS-FHWA
• All rest-states/local allocation

Team Name: Wolverines

• Mix

Priority Concern/Challenge

16. What are you most concerned about in terms of truck and bus safety on the highways?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• Passenger cars’ behavior
• Congestion (driver culture)
• Larger, heavier CVs

Team Name: Wolverines

• Driver error

17. What are problematic operation conditions specific to commercial vehicles that may affect reliability of V2V, V2I?

Team Name: Wolverines

• Coverage area, weather

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• Load variability/configurations
• Consistencies are difficult
• Replacement/maintenance

Team Name: NAFTA

• Radio frequency interference
• Data integrity
• Physical transmission issues (antenna obscuration)

Team Name: Wolverines

• Coverage area, weather

18. What are your primary commercial vehicle safety concerns (e.g. truck-car crashes, ability to comply with HOS regulation due to lack of available truck parking)?

Team Name: Wolverines

• Truck-car is biggest concern

19. In your opinion, what is the #1 priority for the trucking industry regarding government supplied data?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• CSA 2011

Team Name: NAFTA

• Reliability/redundancy
• Standardization
• Hacking (security)

Team Name: Wolverines

• Verifiable-field generated

20. Can you list other priorities for government to prepare and provide information to the trucking industry, in descending order of relative importance and need, in your view?

Team Name: Wolverines

• Legal, privacy and data ownership liability
• Solid cost-benefit studies

21. What are enforcement’s most significant safety challenges for the future?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• Vehicle maintenance
• Roadside inspections
• Liability issues (can’t touch, see)
• Diagnostics

Team Name: NAFTA

• Uniformity of enforcement

Team Name: Wolverines

• Distracted driving—telling how to do it (put phone or ADA in lap)

22. What are industry’s most significant safety challenges for the future?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• VMT
• Congestion

Team Name: Tom

• Use of technology for litigation

Team Name: Wolverines

• Implementation of existing technologies

23. What data security needs are specific to commercial vehicles?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• Compromising of competitive data (e.g. trailer contents, destination)
• Driver privacy

Team Name: Wolverines

• Load and routing information

24. What data privacy needs are specific to commercial vehicles?

Team Name: Wolverines

• Ratings of drivers (company-specified driver performance and record in the hands of a lawyer)

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• See above.

25. Do you think it is feasible for government and industry to openly exchange data and information on the roadside? If so, what rules would need to be applied to such a data-sharing scheme so that your interests toward integrity, confidentiality and security are satisfied?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• Yes it is feasible
• Too much at the roadside
• Specific enough to protect data-owner
• Foster improvement in fleet operations
• Information falling into nefarious hands.

Team Name: Wolverines

• Complex and limitation

Technology

26. What are the compatibility issues regarding commercial vehicles communicating with other vehicles (V2V including light vehicles and/or infrastructure (V2I)?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• Certification—need to define architecture, priorities, process.

Team Name: Wolverines

• Differences in physical properties
• Accurately describing vehicles current [illegible]

27. What are the benefits of adoption of vehicle communications technology in commercial vehicles?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• Productivity
• Efficiency
• Safety
• Positive ROI
• Fuel economy/environment

Team Name: Wolverines

• Mobility
• Safety
• Security

28. What are the barriers to adoption of vehicle communications technology in commercial vehicles?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• Cost, acceptable ROI

Team Name: Wolverines

• Standardization & Integration, cost

29. What incentives would promote adoption of vehicle communications technology in commercial vehicles?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• Lower insurance rates
• Tax credits
• Lower cost to society
• wear & tear on infrastructure

Team Name: Wolverines

• Direct benefits

30. What are the issues for aftermarket or retrofit devices in commercial vehicles?

Team Name: “Brake Guys”

• Proper installation
• Compatibility/integration
• Driver adoption

Team Name: Wolverines

• Complexity
• Feasibility
• Standardization
• Achieving true system integration from HMI
• Limit functionality of aftermarket devices might make sense

Additional Comments

Team Name: Tom

• Overdimensional carrier needs wide-angle camera on right side
• Increase of data can help or hurt carriers in litigation, depending on POV
• Coordinating construction with road geometry, height, width
• Maintaining accurate date and real-time dissemination of data to the carriers (road infrastructure changes)

Top 3 Issues/Concerns/Recommendations

Team Name: Brake Guys

Issue #1: Driver interface w/ vehicle.

• Passive safety systems are a good place to start, or aftermarket.
• Succinct, clear messages to driver
• Easy to interpret
• 9/10 verbal (imminent)
• Vehicle interface w/ different configurations and loads
• Replacement, maintenance

Issue #2: Partnerships (public/private)

• Reduce the need for a mandate/regulatory solution; should let market drive process
• Need to understand ROI
• Feds set priorities, states implement, market drive

Issue #3: Data Certification

• Compatibility
• Ownership
• Privacy/Security
• CSA 2011?
• Vehicle maintenance, diagnostics, liability

Team Name: Tom

Issue #1: Cost—Carrier

• Capital
• O & M
• Carrier ROI (short term)
• Training
• Back office

Issue #2: Data Ownership & Control/Use

• Enforcing with this data

Issue #3: Adoption/Education

• Protecting business model of big carriers
• Mandate or incentives to encourage/right thing to do
• Smaller carriers least likely to adopt

Issue #4: Difference between passenger vehicles & CV

• Physical
• Policy

Team Name: Rick Says

Issue #1: Governance & Certification

Issue #2: Rate of Return on Investment

Issue #3: Human/Machine Interface

• Minimize distraction

Issue #4: Data Security

Team Name: NAFTA

Issue #1: Standardization—Plug & Play

• Human/machine interface
• Data protocols
• Sensors
• Quickly adopt a core platform and scalable architecture

Issue #2: Leveling the Playing Field

• Mandate a baseline requirement for IntelliDrive^SM
• Allowing industry to exceed baseline

Issue #3: How to Pay for It

• Government (taxes)
• Loans
• Insurance

Issue #4: Tort reform if #w not adopted

Team Name: Wolverines

Issue #1: Standardization & Interoperability & Mandate

Issue #2: Direct Benefits

Issue #3: Policy, Security, and Business Model Issues

Issue #4: Retrofitting may require compromised functionality

Team Name: Murray

Issue #1: What applications

• Objective: Crash Avoidance
• Prioritize crashes (to address limited resources)
• ID
• ID Vehicle
• ID Driver
• Must be wireless (e.g. e-screening (WRI)
• Fleet Benefits
• Lower costs to improve ROIs
• Bulk purchases by govt, ATA

Issue #2: Who Pays?

• IVBSS=Carriers Pay ($ incentives are critical)
• DSRC = Gov’t Pay (incentive is here)

• Mandatory, Voluntary, Mix?
• Phased Mandatory
• Start with Gov’t fleets
• Evolve Passive to Active (when cars are installed)
• Program should be federal to fund/standardize

Issue #3: Federal First Steps

• Outreach/Education
• Funding
• Standards Development

Issue #4: Big Brother

• A major impediment to many small carriers
• Collect only the data that is needed