Collaboration key to introduction of autonomous vehicles

This according to a new report from the Boston Consulting Group, titled 'Revolution Versus Regulation: The Make-or-Break Questions About Autonomous Vehicles'.

The advent of AVs also confronts original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), suppliers, regulators, infrastructure operators, and the public at large with urgent technical, societal, and regulatory questions that must be addressed before AVs can hit the road. The report emphasises that solutions require the close cooperation of all stakeholders, including the public.

In the US alone, widespread adoption of AVs could eliminate more than 30,000 road fatalities annually, cut travel time by as much as 40%, recover up to 80 billion hours lost to commuting and congestion, and reduce fuel consumption by as much as 40%. Those societal benefits could be worth as much as $1.3 trillion in the US, according to various studies.

Technology challenges

"To accelerate AV adoption, industry players must collaborate to overcome technology challenges - including those involving cyber security, high-definition maps, and vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication," said Nikolaus Lang, a BCG senior partner and one of the report's coauthors.

"But there are equally pressing questions about liability, vehicle certification, and regulatory frameworks. Multi-stakeholder collaboration is key to developing win-win solutions - and to managing the disruption that will inevitably occur as the automotive industry is reshaped before our eyes."

Societal acceptance is crucial to AV adoption. "Consumers are very excited about the promise of AVs, yet remain concerned about safety, reliability, and cybersecurity," said Xavier Mosquet, a BCG senior partner. "A single fatal accident, even one in which the AV is not at fault, could delay AV adoption by a generation or more." Moreover, affected third parties, such as taxi drivers, could be a source of opposition - just as they have resisted the Uber ride-sharing service's expansion in Europe.

Disparate agendas

Policy makers welcome the societal benefits of AVs in theory but have disparate agendas, depending on whether their role is to regulate or to provide services. Regulators, for example, are more cautious, questioning the technology's viability in real-world settings. "Yet mayors of mega cities welcome AVs to address the ever-growing urban mobility," said Antonella Mei-Pochtler, a BCG senior partner and one of the report's co-authors.

"They see driverless robo-taxis as the mobility provider in the city of the future." Both groups recognise the fragile public sentiment, which could easily be swayed by those negatively affected by AVs. Thus, OEMs, new entrants, and other players in the AV ecosystem must proactively work with governments to reconcile potential information asymmetries and collaborate closely on pilot programs to demonstrate the viability of AVs.

Recent exploits by 'white hat' hackers have exposed the vulnerability of automotive systems. Because such cyber security threats are impossible to eliminate, AV stakeholders need to focus on managing these risks. They have to collaborate to recognise threat patterns, develop proactive defense strategies, and coordinate responses. 'Bug bounty' programs could help by making threat-related information tradable.

HD maps

AVs can tolerate only small differences between their digital maps and the physical world. To make sense of their environment, they depend on high-definition (HD) maps that are accurate within less than ten centimetres. Yet road configurations change frequently, owing to construction and other factors. HD maps must therefore be constantly updated.

As adoption rates for AVs increase, V2x (the collective term for vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-industry communication technology) will likely become increasingly necessary as a substitute for driver-to-driver visual communication. But stakeholders must collaborate to ensure trustworthy V2x communication, resolve uncertainty over liability, and ensure data privacy.

Regulatory challenges are vastly different by region: