As cities prepare for not only the return of every park-visitor’s favorite seasonal bird, the menace known as the Canadian Goose, cities are also bracing for the seasonal arrival of scooter sharing services like Lime, Bird, Spin and their competitors along their curbs and on street corners throughout urban cores. Unlike the Canadian Goose, which does what it wants, when it wants, to whomever it wants to, cities are looking to not only reign in usage and set rules for operations, but also work with scooter sharing services as they struggle to tackle the Last Mile Issue plaguing cities around the world. A major component of this initiative includes maximizing the potential revenue cities and scooter companies can generate in an already congested urban fabric through fees and optimized usage patterns. We discussed the Last Mile Issue in our May 2018 blog post, Ride Sharing and Cities Team Up on Transit, Last Mile Issues. Unlike our recent post on Congestion Pricing, cities and scooter companies are looking to use data not to necessarily discourage usage in certain areas, but rather identify usage patterns and optimize placement in a way to be both effective for consumers and commuters, alike. In recent weeks, the cities of Detroit, Charlotte and Omaha have announced their plans to begin aggregating and studying use and traffic patterns associated with scooter sharing services. This will include ride duration, scooter usage, parking patterns and curbside utilizations throughout their cities. Lime has noted that the intended goal of this partnership is “to both determine the right fleet size through data and jointly achieve mode shift, sustainability and accessibility objectives” in their partner cities. In forming a partnership between Lime, Passport, and City of Detroit, Detroit was looking to tackle the high concentration of scooters in the urban core, at the expense of surrounding neighborhoods. Realizing that scooters cater to both urban tourists and commuters, Detroit and other cities are struggling to optimize their distribution while still catering to all interested parties. Although Detroit has capped any one scooter company at 400 total scooters within the city limits, the city plans to use the data to monitor “how our citizens are using these new forms of mobility and be more strategic about managing scooters using supply/demand economics”. Although Detroit’s initial policy required at least 100 scooters be placed outside of the Downtown and Midtown neighborhoods, noticed that most scooters would concentrate around the urban core by mid-day, often creating a transit vacuum in surrounding neighborhoods. By incentivizing riders and companies to redistribute scooters throughout the city, Detroit hopes to “create a fee scheme for where the scooters are dropped that would incentivize companies to more strategically locate their scooters” in areas that would better serve consumers in both a transit and tourist approach. It has yet to be seen if optimized pricing and incentives will alter company and consumer behavior towards a more equitable and efficient transit marketplace, but the cities are hopeful for future initiatives. Cities hope that with more data and better management through Congestion Pricing of city-center traffic and Dynamic Pricing of Transit 2.0 initiatives will not only be better for consumers overall, enable cities to optimize the “design [of] infrastructure that can help shared mobility services grow safely and sustainably”. April Showers Bring May … Scooters? published first on https://888migrationservicesau.tumblr.com via Tumblr April Showers Bring May … Scooters?
0 Comments
The transition from traditional manufacturing techniques and technologies to techniques leveraging automation and data exchange technologies, cyber-physical systems, the Internet of things, cloud computing and cognitive computing, sometimes referred to as “Industry 4.0,” holds great promise for manufacturers but, like any change, also holds dangers for the unwary. In the same way that the transition of supply chain and manufacturing operations to a digital, interconnected environment requires new tools, or the use of old tools in new ways, the transition to this new digital environment requires manufacturers to be aware of the expansion of intellectual property rights relevant to a manufacturer’s operations. Failure to carefully monitor and manage intellectual property considerations in this new environment may result in significant risks. Traditional manufacturing techniques typically rely on shipping raw materials and hardware from one physical location to another and assembling a finished product using stand-alone machines before, again, shipping the finished product to its ultimate destination. In this environment, it is natural to rely on trade secrets to protect proprietary aspects of the manufacturing process by, for example, limiting personnel access to the production floor and requiring employees and suppliers to enter into non-disclosure agreements because the manufacturing processes are inextricably associated with a specific physical location. The growth of additive manufacturing techniques is one aspect of Industry 4.0 that has the potential to affect operations across the production chain and broadens the intellectual property issues that a manufacturer must consider. Additive manufacturing changes the business calculus around lead time, shipping cost, inventory requirements and transport uncertainty because a digital file can be sent nearly instantaneously to a party that is close to a manufacturing site or customer, rather than shipping sub-assemblies or completed products over large distances. In the same way, however, that additive manufacturing changes the business calculus, it also changes the intellectual property considerations incumbent on a manufacturer. A recent example of this kind of change is United States Patent No. 10216171, “3-D Printing Protected by Digital Rights Management,” issued February 26, 2019 to Accenture Global Services Limited. The ‘171 patent purports to cover methods, systems and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on a computer storage medium, for managing 3-D printing. Independent claim 1 of the ‘171 patent is quite long, prohibiting its verbatim recitation here, but the ‘171 patent is available online from the www.uspto.gov or www.patents.google.com. In broad summary, the ‘171 patent claims a computer-implemented method that associates a digital rights file with a printable object that keeps track of the number of times an object has been printed and only allowing the object to be printed as long as the number of prints is below an allowed threshold. It is self-evident that ability to control the number of physical items manufactured from a digital file is of vital importance to entities that manufacture replacement parts or subassemblies. It is also possible that a manufacturer could use such techniques to allow customers to buy a product and 3-D print it themselves, since the file can be used only a certain number of times. With the issuance of the ‘171 patent, a manufacturer should now consider whether their deployment of a system that limits the number of times a file can be used to create a physical item through additive manufacturing may infringe the claims of the ‘171 patent. A manufacturer may want to receive an opinion of counsel that their system does not infringe the ‘171 patent, as well as whether the ‘171 patent has, in fact, been validly issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Invalidity of a patent is also a defense to infringement and that defense can be raised not only in litigation, but in reexamination proceedings before the US Patent Office, as well. Moreover, manufacturers may want to consider, in view of the issuance of the ‘171 patent, whether they are doing enough to generate intellectual property protecting their own proprietary techniques. Some may argue that these sorts of considerations are not new to manufacturers. However, the environment for manufacturers is changing and it may not always be readily apparent when an “old” tool needs to be used in a new situation. Manufacturers must remain vigilant for opportunities and threats presented by Industry 4.0. Right Tool, Right Job: Smart Manufacturing Requires Focus on Intellectual Property published first on https://888migrationservicesau.tumblr.com via Tumblr Right Tool, Right Job: Smart Manufacturing Requires Focus on Intellectual Property On March 21, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers employers in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama) issued a decision that helps us answer this question: How do employees prove they were victims of unlawful discrimination in the workplace? Lewis v. City of Union City, Ga., No. 15-11362 (11th Cir. Mar. 21, 2019). For those of you with lots of time on your hands, you can click on the hyperlink and read the 100-page decision. Yawn. For everyone else, here’s the skinny on this case… The plaintiff, Jacqueline Lewis, worked as a police officer for Union City, Georgia Police Department. She had a heart condition, but was cleared to work in law enforcement. Her department acquired Tasers and required all officers to carry them and submit to a five-second Taser shock as part of their training. Officer Lewis was not cleared by her doctor to submit to such testing, was placed on administrative leave until she was cleared to submit to a Taser shock, and ultimately terminated for exhausting her leave. She claimed that this decision was discriminatory because two other White, male detectives [which in legal-speak are called “comparators”], all of whom failed a physical fitness test, were afforded greater opportunity to correct their failures or obtain alternative employment. Consequently, Officer Lewis filed a lawsuit claiming that her employer treated her co-workers outside of her protected classes (African American, female) more favorably. In her lawsuit, she asserted claims under several federal statutes, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The issue in this case was how “similarly situated” must a plaintiff be to a comparator in the workplace to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII. “Prima facie” is just a fancy Latin term that means “on its face” or “at first sight.” In other words, the employee’s evidence must be enough to allow a judge or jury to infer that discrimination took place. According to the recent Eleventh Circuit decision: One way that she can do so is by satisfying the burden-shifting framework set out in McDonnell Douglas. When proceeding under McDonnell Douglas, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination by showing (1) that she belongs to a protected class, (2) that she was subjected to an adverse employment action, (3) that she was qualified to perform the job in question, and (4) that her employer treated “similarly situated” employees outside her class more favorably. Let’s focus on the fourth prong of this test. How does a plaintiff establish that he/she is similarly situated to a comparator? According to the Eleventh Circuit, the plaintiff must show that he/she and the comparator(s) are “similarly situated in all material respects.” This does not mean that the plaintiff and the comparators need to be “nearly identical.” Rather, the court indicated that a “similarly situated” employee is someone who, when compared to the plaintiff: (1) engaged in the same basic conduct (or misconduct); (2) is subject to the same employment policy, guideline, or rule; (3) reports to the same supervisor; and (4) shares the same employment or disciplinary history. Applying this standard, the court dismissed Officer Lewis’s claims because it found that she and her White, male comparators were placed on leave years apart and pursuant to different personnel policies. Furthermore, the White, male officers’ medical conditions were deemed remediable, while her heart condition was not – it was chronic. When deciding on appropriate discipline, it is prudent for employers to examine how they have disciplined similarly situated employees. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision reinforces the importance of keeping accurate performance records and consistently applying policies to ensure that no matter how you slice it, similarly situated employees are treated in a uniform fashion. Comparing Apples to Apples: How Do You Prove Discrimination? published first on https://888migrationservicesau.tumblr.com via Tumblr Comparing Apples to Apples: How Do You Prove Discrimination? Anyone following electric vehicle news in the past several months may feel like they are watching a yo-yo: first one analyst will predict an EV boom, and then another analyst will predict an EV sales slowdown. However, despite the differences of opinion on short term sales, signs continue to point to long term sustained growth in EVs sales. This trend is supported by the current global race for EV and battery cell production. One research analyst predicted EV sales to grow from 1.5 million units in 2018 to 10.79 million units in 2025. This provides a significant market opportunity for those companies and countries that can plan for the shift ahead. The hot bed of electric vehicles has long been China, largely buoyed by generous government subsidies of EVs. As discussed in the Economist, China is betting big on EVs, and is eyeing the predicted decline in internal combustion engine sales as an opportunity to dominate future car sales through EVs. Beijing Electric Vehicle Co. is now the world’s No. 2 manufacturer of electric vehicles behind Tesla. China saw a 62% increase in EV sales in 2018. Although the news in the last several months has proclaimed China as slashing EV subsidies, the truth is China is reallocating resources to globally expand. As previously discussed on this blog, China revised its generous domestic EV subsidies to reduce (and eventually phase out) subsidies on vehicles that go less than 150 km, and instead to focus more subsidies on vehicles with at least 400 km in range. This effect should increase China’s EV sales around the world by pushing Chinese manufacturers toward EVs that can ultimately be exported. Now, as reported in Fortune, Germany is entering the EV race by betting on the electric car batteries that fuel this boom. Currently, Chinese firms sell the vast majority of global EV batteries. But last fall, the German government set aside 1 billion euros to support German manufacturing of battery cells, with a goal of 30% global market share by 2030. Germany is looking to leverage its automotive industry and chemical manufacturing expertise to catch up to Asian battery makers, and is now entertaining approximately 30 bids for the government aid. And of course, no EV discussion is complete without discussing the biggest player in the market—Tesla. Although Tesla reported a 61% sales drop in the United States in the first quarter, Tesla Model 3 was the top selling luxury car in the United States in 2018. At least in part, the sales drop was due to logistical challenges, rather than a decrease in demand. Tesla’s executives remain optimistic about meeting the company’s projections for 2019. However, if the Untied States wants to remain competitive, it will need to focus on incentives to spur EV investment and production. Although certain tax incentives are already in place, a recent paper by Progressive Policy Institute proposes a framework to expand and improve tax credits for consumer purchases of EVs—not unlike the subsidies already used in China to spur growth in EVs there. Who will win the global EV race remains to be seen. However, the long term outlook for EVs is almost universally acknowledged, and companies that invest in the industry stand to reap significant rewards. Electric Cars: Charging Ahead or Losing Speed? published first on https://888migrationservicesau.tumblr.com via Tumblr Electric Cars: Charging Ahead or Losing Speed? Positive online reviews have become essential for any business marketing goods or services over the internet, especially for trendy services like food delivery and custom health product sales. But the FTC’s newly-announced settlement with startup healthy snack service UrthBox reminds marketers that online praise must be freely given, not bought—even if the compensation offered isn’t monetary. UrthBox, Inc., a San Francisco company offering direct-to-consumer snack deliveries on a subscription model, drew the FTC’s ire by maintaining an incentive program that offered free snack boxes to consumers who posted positive reviews on the BBB’s website. According to the FTC’s complaint, the plan was simple: when a consumer reached out to UrthBox, customer service representatives would offer to send free products to the consumer in exchange for a screenshot of a positive review. The program began with the customer service department at UrthBox, where representatives were paid bonuses based on the number of consumer complaints they were able to turn into positive online reviews. The impact was significant: where UrthBox’s BBB profile had only nine reviews (all negative) in 2016, by the end of the next year, the company boasted 695 reviews, 88% of them positive. Emboldened by its success with the BBB, UrthBox then expanded its program to apply to reviews on TrustPilot.com and also took steps to begin a nascent influencer campaign without any compliance policies as to the FTC’s endorsement rules. All the while, the FTC alleges, UrthBox’s websites employed sales funnels and checkout pages that failed to comply with ROSCA and improperly signed users up and charged them for recurring shipments of products to which they had never consented. The FTC’s complaint also noted that UrthBox’s compensation practice violated BBB policy that prohibits offers of or actual compensation to reviewers. Among the crowded world of influencer and negative-option online marketing, UrthBox likely drew the FTC’s particular attention because of the review site it targeted: the Better Business Bureau itself. The FTC and the BBB, as two of the oldest consumer protection entities, enjoy a storied public-private partnership representing both government policing and industry self-regulation. Just as the FTC gives special scrutiny to advertisers who refuse to participate in the BBB’s voluntary arbitration programs like the NAD and CARU, it shows here that it will take a strong stance against companies that, in its view, try to improperly influence the BBB’s online review program. The Commission’s pursuit of penalties for alleged ROSCA violations and negative-option practices also demonstrates the FTC’s attitude that consumer protection violations rarely occur in a vacuum, and that when a company feels emboldened enough to game the system in one way, it is likely to be similarly offending in another. For its part, UrthBox was hit with a $100,000 fine and a host of onerous compliance and reporting requirements going forward. Marketers should take note that the FTC’s prohibition of compensated consumer reviews extends beyond influencer marketing and cash payments and includes free samples, bonuses, gifts, and anything of value. FTC’s Snack Service Settlement Reminds DTC Companies Not to Incentivize Reviews published first on https://888migrationservicesau.tumblr.com via Tumblr FTC’s Snack Service Settlement Reminds DTC Companies Not to Incentivize Reviews Unless you recently woke up from a cryogenic slumber, your biometric information is out there. In today’s world, devices scan our palms before taking standardized tests. We unlock our phones with our fingers and our face. And we bicker with our named audio speakers in order to turn down the tunes. But whatever the method, biometric identification devices are mainstream, and employers will have to decide whether using this technology is worthwhile. What are the benefits? Biometrics refers to the measurement and statistical analysis of a person’s physical and behavioral traits. The most common biometric devices are thumbprint scanners, retina or iris scanners, voice recognition, facial recognition, and signature verification technologies. More and more, employers are using these devices to accurately track employees in order to stop “buddy punching,” where employees clock in and out for each other. Systems like this can severely limit employee time theft and increase the accuracy of time records, facilitating employers’ making with the FLSA and other employment laws. Another benefit is that employers can better ensure that authorized employees are the only ones accessing certain information, equipment, software, and areas of their facilities. This can help save costs for employers who use passwords or key cards which may be lost or stolen. The benefits of biometrics fall to a company’s bottom line, but employers looking to improve profits will have to face a changing legal landscape. What are the risks? The legal risks stem from privacy concerns. While there is no specific federal law banning biometric scanners, several states have passed laws protecting their citizens from biometric data mining. Illinois, Washington, and Texas have passed laws requiring varying levels of notice, consent, and other restrictions on the types of permitted biometric devices. So far, these are the only three states with legislation applicable to employers and other commercial actors, but more states, including Florida, have taken action to preserve privacy. In 2014, Florida banned public schools and school districts from collecting or retaining any biometric information—specifically fingerprints, hand scans, retina or iris scans, voice prints, and facial geometry scans. Fla. Stat. § 1002.222(1)(a). And, currently pending before the Florida legislature is a bill (S. 1270) called the Florida Biometric Information Privacy Act, fashioned after the Illinois law, which would create restrictions on private entities’ ability to collect, use and maintain biometric information. Among other things, the proposed law would require private entities seeking to collect such information to inform people of their intention to do so, identify the purpose for which the information is to be collected and the length of time the biometric data will be collected, stored and used, and obtain a written release from the individual whose biometric data is to be collected. Additionally, a private entity in possession of biometric information would be required to publish policies establishing retention schedules and guidelines for deleting such information from their systems. The proposed law also would require private entities to develop procedures to ensure that they store, transmit and protect from disclosure all biometric data using a reasonable standard of care, one that is at least as protective as the manner in which the entity safeguards is confidential information and other sensitive information. The bill would permit persons claiming to be harmed by a violation of the law to assert claims in court where they could recover actual damages or liquidated damages up to $5000 per violation as well as recovery of attorneys’ fees, if successful. The patterns are clear to see. While Biometric technology will continue to grow in its use, employers should be aware of laws regulating the use of biometrics. Even though it currently may be legal for Florida’s employers to collect biometric information from their employees it would be wise to implement policies and procedures that protect your employees’ privacy and biometric information if you are collecting such data. Here are some of the measures that employers should consider implementing:
Register Here for our 2nd Annual Tampa Labor & Employment Law Seminar from 8am-4pm on Friday May 10, 2019 at the Tampa Bay History Museum. Register Here for our 29th Annual Miami Labor & Employment Law Seminar from 8am-4:15pm on Friday, May 17, 2019 at the Hard Rock Stadium. *Special thanks to Thomas Raine, who assisted in the drafting of this post. Thomas is a third year Juris Doctor Candidate at the University of Miami School of Law. Biometric Time Keeping and Employee Tracking – Thumbs Up or Down? published first on https://888migrationservicesau.tumblr.com via Tumblr Biometric Time Keeping and Employee Tracking – Thumbs Up or Down? Machine Learning. Deep Learning. Data Mining. Predictive Analytics. Natural Language Processing. These are the buzzwords used to describe the pivotal artificial intelligence (AI) space. Companies in every industry, from automotive and electronics to financial services, health care and life sciences, are working to deploy these advanced technology methods in order to bring their innovations to the next level. AI can help pathologists identify diseases, and physicians better assess brain health. It can help bankers automate back-office processes, create more lifelike chatbots, and improve fair lending practices. It can process and collect data more efficiently, protect from cyberattacks, and improve driver safety. As with any disruptive technology, however, this AI race to the moon comes with its share of risks and challenges. Are you prepared to address the various issues that this new technology may bring? That is just the tip of the iceberg. As one security professional put it: “For large countries, growing and investing in AI is now a matter of national security and longevity. It’s the next natural resource.” Developing AI safely, legally, and efficiently is an uphill battle that — if navigated incorrectly — could result in a disappointing, if not outright dangerous, assortment of missed opportunities, according to Foley & Lardner LLP’s AI Report, which features qualitative research and conversations with startup founders, business executives, and attorneys at Foley working with AI on:
At the end of the day, AI, like all technology, is resolutely human. But that doesn’t mean it can’t improve society. If we seize the AI opportunity thoughtfully — with humanity, ethics, education, testing, and due diligence across organizations and functionalities — perhaps we can, as Michael Campos, research scientist and director of IP at NetraDyne Inc., suggests, “make systems that are a little better than we are.” To access Foley’s full AI Report, please click here and follow the instructions provided. AI is Here to Stay: Are You Prepared? published first on https://888migrationservicesau.tumblr.com via Tumblr AI is Here to Stay: Are You Prepared? Winding down the 67th Antitrust Law Spring Meeting last week, Andrew Smith, the Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection (the “Bureau”), provided an overview of the FTC’s consumer protection priorities. Director Smith reiterated that Chairman Simons’ focus on law enforcement applies across the Bureau’s five major areas: marketing, finance, advertising, privacy, and enforcement. In deciding who to sue, the FTC plans to look beyond just alleged “fraudsters and scammers,” and will also focus enforcement on the individuals who promote frauds. Director Smith gave as an example how the FTC recently went after an individual who created a robocall software that scammers used, even when that software was also being used for legitimate robocalls. He also noted the FTC went after a Belizean bank that was involved with the Sanctuary Belize scam. In short, Director Smith made it clear that the FTC will go after those the FTC believes are perpetrating fraud and those who facilitate it. Not surprisingly, Smith did not address that the FTC lacks aiding and abetting authority except under the Telemarketing Sales Rule. Director Smith also addressed recent hearings on data security and consumer protection. He expressed his view that there exists a market failure regarding companies’ investments in data security due to a lack of incentive to invest. According to Smith, giving the FTC the authority to impose civil penalties may provide the incentive companies need to rectify this failure. Director Smith also noted that if the FTC had the authority to promulgate new regulations requiring companies to disclose more on their data use and security, consumers would be able to comparison shop based on those factors. Next, Director Smith addressed the Shire case. Director Smith and Director Hoffman—of the Bureau of Competition—explained that the outcome in Shire is inconsistent with other courts’ interpretations of the FTC Act. Although the Shire case will not affect the types of cases the FTC brings, they acknowledged it will cause the FTC to bring these cases more quickly to avoid the issue of likelihood of reoccurrence when the conduct happened years prior. According to Smith, the Shire decision may also affect forum selection, and cause the FTC to bring more cases administratively when the conduct has ceased. Whether the FTC gets the enhanced authority it plans to seek from Congress and how the Shire case and its progeny play out in the courts remains to be seen. Fraudsters and Facilitators, Privacy and Penalties, Shire and Selection: The FTC’s Plans for Consumer Protection published first on https://888migrationservicesau.tumblr.com via Tumblr Fraudsters and Facilitators, Privacy and Penalties, Shire and Selection: The FTC’s Plans for Consumer Protection Over the last half century, urban centers have been combating the blessing and curse that is the automobile and freeway system. While historically providing means and opportunity for people to move themselves at high rates of speed over long distances, this also meant people no longer had to live close to their area of work. As a result, suburban sprawl gripped many American cities as residents sought more and more land and freedom from the chaos of city life. This trend has changed in recent years, with city centers experiencing a renaissance that has long been stifled by suburban sprawl, fed by an ever growing freeway system. This gradual trend of residents back towards big-city downtowns has been driven largely by empty-nester baby boomers and newly graduated millennials. These recovering suburbanites are starting to realize the allure of walking outside their house to their local coffee shop, bar, restaurant, and shopping district, without the need to hop in their car for even the simplest errand. Instead, they’re trading in their riding mowers and backyard pools, for commercial and entertainment districts walking (or stumbling) distance from their high-rise apartments and condominiums. But, increased population density has brought with it negative externalities as well. This increased interest in the live, work, and play lifestyle of big-city downtowns have brought with it the unintended externalities of congestion, pollution, and other negative health and environmental impacts. In an effort to mitigate congestion, increase traffic flow, and optimize urban transit platforms, cities are increasingly looking towards data to provide this panacea so as to not stifle their newfound popularity. In confronting an issue every driver is ever so familiar with, cities like London, Stockholm, New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco are in different stages of evaluating a “congestion-pricing system” to monetize high traffic areas of their commercial and residential corridors. Not only is the goal of this system to raise funds for vastly underfunded public transit systems, but to act as a deterrent in an effort to change commuter behavior and trends alike. The types of systems being evaluated by many cities, plan to incorporate static and dynamic pricing to drive commuter decision making towards less negative-externality generating activities. These systems will analyze traffic trends, and when appropriate, raise prices on drivers as congestion is prone to increase and similarly drop prices at low congestion times. The goal of this system is to force commuters to realize for the total cost of their commute, beyond the fuel cost and direct wear and tear on their car. In fact, most drivers only pay for a small percentage of the “cost” associated with their commute, often ignoring or not accounting for their impact on other commuters, including bicyclists, public transit riders, and pedestrians as well as their impact on the health of the community and the environment. In fact, following the implementation of congestion pricing in Stockholm, city air quality saw an improvement of 5-15% in air quality and a dramatic decrease in the level of acute asthma attacks among small children at the same time. While New York is in the early stages of implementing congestion pricing, and San Francisco and Los Angeles are still in the evaluating stages, Stockholm and London have been enforcing these fares on drivers since the early 2000s, so far with positive results. Since 2003, when London incorporated congestion zone pricing into certain areas of the city, commuter “average speeds [have] increase[ed] by 30% and [almost] 11% [of commuters have] shift[ed] from car use to mass transit, cycling, and walking”. Despite the promises of robo-taxis and ride-sharing being the elusive kryptonite to urban congestion, some urban planning experts forewarn that the rise of autonomous vehicles might actually exasperate the issue, further necessitating the need for congestion pricing schemes. As Uber, Lyft, and other ride-sharing companies have cannibalized the local taxi markets and existing infrastructure faced cost cutting and disinvestment, many consumers have opted for the convenience of ride-sharing over the dilapidated and delay prone infrastructure, like subways, elevated rails, and bus routes. In turn, cars utilized for ride-sharing in urban corridors has surged, with new York seeing 80,000 vehicles for that purpose over the past five years. As a result, cities are looking to recoup lost revenue and declining federal subsidies through congestion pricing taxes that can both drive tax-revenue from drivers, and drive commuters towards alternative forms of transit. Cities Evaluate Congestion Pricing Systems published first on https://888migrationservicesau.tumblr.com via Tumblr Cities Evaluate Congestion Pricing Systems On March 19, 2019, NHTSA published General Motors’ petition seeking a temporary exemption in order to field a fleet of its fourth generation Cruise AV vehicles without traditional vehicle controls. When the vehicle was first announced by GM in early 2018, images depicted a Chevy Bolt interior, absent a steering wheel, pedals and mirrors, which are required under current U.S. vehicle regulations. Dan Amman, former president of GM and now-CEO of GM subsidiary, Cruise Automation, quipped at the time that “a car without a steering wheel can’t have a steering wheel airbag… What we can do is put the equivalent of the passenger side airbag on that side as well. So it’s to meet the standards but meet them in a way that’s different than what’s exactly prescribed, and that’s what the petition seeks to get approval for.” Amman’s comments, however, gloss over the real significance of the exemption being sought, which is that GM is intent on producing a vehicle in which “human occupants in GM’s [zero-emission autonomous vehicle or] ZEAV will not have access to vehicle driving controls.” The petition rightly concludes that “[w]ith the ADS as the driver, there is no need for features designed to interface with a human driver, such as manual human driver controls (e.g., steering wheel, brake pedal and accelerator pedal), human‐driver‐specific information systems (e.g., telltales and indicator lamps), human‐driver‐oriented visibility features (e.g., rearview mirrors), or human‐driver‐specific occupant protection (e.g., steering‐wheel‐mounted airbag).” However, the real question that should be reviewed in the petition is not whether human-driver-based requirements should be exempted if there is no human driver, which appears quite logical, but rather, if we should effectively forbid human intervention in the first place by removing the only means of manual control from the vehicle. The petition makes a case that 94 percent of vehicle crashes are attributable to human error, but it fails to fully support the argument that the presence of manual controls in an automated vehicle will result in occupants taking manual control and lead to vehicle crashes. Similarly, the petition does not seem to clearly indicate how the elimination of manual controls “would make easier the development [and] field evaluation of new motor vehicle safety features” under 49 U.S.C. § 30113(b)(3)(B)(ii), since the same automated driving system (ADS) could still be run on a vehicle with manual controls present, as is the case with test drivers today. GM also hints at its plans for implementing its Cruise AV into commerce by describing conditions under which NHTSA has provided favorable variances:
GM makes it clear that it intends to maintain title and control over its Cruise AV vehicles during the two-year duration of the exemption, indicating that individual or fleet sales of its automated vehicles are at least two years away, which should not come as a surprise. Perhaps more interestingly, buried in the footnotes, the petition notes that the vehicles are expected to travel at speeds above 40 mph and that top speeds will increase over the course of testing. Further, while weather restrictions will be in place at the outset, GM clearly envisions testing in rain, snow, and winter driving over the course of the exemption. Ultimately, GM suggests that by maintaining title and direct control over its Cruise AV fleet, “[if] an incident were to occur, GM could promptly analyze the situation in depth and address it,” still ignoring that each of these bulleted factors still apply equally to an automated vehicle that keeps backup manual controls. The petition remains open for comments until May 20, 2019. GM’s NHTSA Petition for Cars without Steering Wheels Open for Comments published first on https://888migrationservicesau.tumblr.com via Tumblr GM’s NHTSA Petition for Cars without Steering Wheels Open for Comments |
Who We AreAt GoViza we make information available to you and that keeps the process of Immigration simple and straightforward. It’s more convenient and practical to work with our list of consultants. We recommend only registered immigration advisors and lawyers who possess extensive years of experience in immigration law.
Social Links |