Category: Transportation

Lemon Laws: Potentially a Sour Future for Manufacturers of Autonomous Vehicles

lemon lawsLemon laws have existed for several decades to protect consumers from permanently defected vehicles. Though they may vary state to state, lemon laws generally require manufacturers to replace or reimburse consumers for vehicles that have either undergone three to four unsuccessful repairs within two to four years or were out of use due to repairs for more than 30 days within the shorter of one year or warranty. Additionally, courts have generally required that the defect under repair is the same defect each time. In other words, repairs for a transmission, power steering, brakes, and suspension cannot be grouped together to satisfy the limit.

New technology often brings new challenges to the legal arena, and autonomous vehicles are taking center stage. Autonomous vehicles present a unique scenario regarding the applicability of lemon laws. Unlike hardware, software updates are frequent, and even major software updates can occur several times a year. Current semi-autonomous vehicles, like Tesla’s, have received updates that have significantly affected vehicle functionality. When first released, Tesla vehicles were traditional, albeit all-electric, cars, but after an over-the-air update (OTA), Tesla has given certain vehicle models the ability to utilize an “autopilot” feature. The autopilot feature allows the driver to release control of the vehicle in certain conditions, and the vehicle can, among other things, switch lanes, brake, and change speeds. Consumer demand and a shifting automotive landscape indicate that autonomous vehicle technology will continue to gain traction.

It would not be surprising if the lemon laws of the future hold manufacturers of semi-autonomous and autonomous vehicles to more stringent standards.

Automotive repair has traditionally involved taking a vehicle to a mechanic for issues with “hardware.” Yet, unsurprisingly, the laws have not anticipated the impact software has upon the functionality of such vehicles. Say, for example, a Tesla or other similarly-equipped vehicle with similar semi-autonomous or autonomous features, has a consistent and specific software bug that requires more than four updates to fix in over a two-year period. There is a line-drawing problem, which forces the industry and legislators to grapple with several questions. What constitutes a repair? Is the vehicle subject to replacement or reimbursement from the manufacturer? If the software bugs exist on the entire platform of vehicles, are all of the vehicles subject to recall, or is the public expected to wait for a software fix to come in an OTA update?

Recently, in late June, Tesla seemed to answer such a question. The company settled a claim with an individual over issues he had with his newly purchased Model X SUV. At the beginning of the Model X’s rollout, it was plagued with several issues involving its falcon-winged doors and auto-parking software features. Given his frustration, the individual filed a lemon law claim against Tesla, after which Tesla agreed to repurchase his $160,000 vehicle. Yet, around the same time the company settled the lemon law claims, it rolled out an OTA software update that fixed the issues. So, it might be the case that companies are not expecting consumers to wait for an OTA software update if they are willing to repurchase vehicles, even with a remedy via update in the works.

While the recently-settled Tesla claim involved luxury features, the company has been subject to investigations involving at least two fatalities in connection with its autopilot feature. These circumstances are clearly far more troubling, and they help illustrate the importance of ensuring that autonomous vehicles are performing safely.

Autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicle manufactures are taking control away from drivers, and it is currently unclear what role lemon laws should play in the presence of such circumstances. It may be necessary for legislatures to revisit existing lemon laws to include non-traditional repairs such as OTA software updates to incentivize better care on the part of manufacturers. Ultimately, it would not be surprising if the lemon laws of the future hold manufacturers of semi-autonomous and autonomous vehicles to more stringent standards.

ARTICLE BY Fermin M. Mendez of Varnum LLP
This article was co-written by Paul Albarran, a summer associate at Varnum in 2016. Paul is currently a student at University of Notre Dame Law School.
© 2016 Varnum LLP

Self-Driving Ride Sharing Cars on Road in 2016 (!)

Self-Driving Ride SharingYou know how flying cars, jet packs and things like that always seem way off into the future? Many feel the same about self-driving cars being on the road in the United States. However, Volvo and Uber are out to prove them wrong. As the Automotive News reported, the existing vehicles plus some Uber modifications “will enable the seven-seat SUV to drive itself…” Wow!

Pittsburgh gets to be the guinea pig for this project. Who had Pittsburgh high on its list of locations for self-driving cars to premiere? Volvo developed its self-driving hardware and software at its Pittsburgh tech center, so the location makes some sense. As reported all over, Uber will put two employees in the front seats when the vehicles debut. Volvo will provide tech support. These vehicles reportedly could be on the road in a matter of weeks – by the time you read this they could be rolling out.

Of course, “self-driving” with two employees in the front seat is not quite autonomous. Volvo is working toward a new version of its XC90 to enable level 4 autonomy, which still requires a driver in the driver’s seat. Consequently, while we are not quite at the moment of having the “Johnny Cab” found in Total Recall, before the end of the year, the automotive industry looks to be one large step closer.

ARTICLE BY Jeffrey A. Soble of Foley & Lardner LLP

© 2016 Foley & Lardner LLP

Distracted Driving vs. DUI: The Legal Consequences

Distracted DrivingWith the explosion of cell phones in the consumer marketplace, texting and driving has emerged as a national health crisis for individual motorists, the public, and the courts. In 2013, 10 percent of all fatal crashes involved distraction, resulting in the deaths of 3,154 people. Additionally, it is estimated that another 424,000 people were injured in accidents involving distracted drivers.1 In addition to texting while driving, other types of distracted driving include talking on cell phones, eating, using in-dash electronics, and any other activity that takes a driver’s attention away from the road.2

In response to the problems presented by texting and driving, 46 states and the District of Columbia have instituted laws forbidding the action, criminalizing texting and driving as at least an infraction.3 At the same time, other forms of distracted driving, including using social media applications such as Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, SnapChat and recently, Pokemon Go, have emerged as major problems in their own right.4 In a study recently completed by Liberty Mutual Insurance, a survey of 2,500 teenagers revealed that almost 70 percent admitted to using social media apps while they drive.5 In another survey completed by the National Safety Council of 2,409 drivers of all ages, 74 percent of those who were surveyed indicated that they would use Facebook while they drove.6

Distracted Driving vs. DUI: Levels of Impairment

A 2006 study looked at the impairment levels of people who were using cell phones versus people who were intoxicated while driving. The University of Utah researchers used a driving simulator and compared study participants who were talking on their cell phones versus those who were legally intoxicated. The researchers looked at results using the simulator involving 49 adult participants who ranged in age from 22 to 45. They first obtained baseline driving results, then looked at driving while using cell phones and finally, driving with blood alcohol concentrations of 0.08 percent over a 3-day period.7 By looking at data obtained from driving profiles the researchers created using 10-second epochs, the researchers found that cell phone users, regardless of whether or not they were using hands-free or handheld devices, showed greater levels of driver impairment than did the drivers who were intoxicated by alcohol.8

Injury and Fatality Statistics for Distracted Driving Vs. Drunk Driving

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that distracted driving injures 1,161 people and kills eight every day in the U.S.9 By comparison, the agency reports that 28 people are killed every day in accidents involving drunk drivers.10 While the percentages of people using cell phones while driving has increased, drinking and driving has decreased.11, 12

Overview of State Laws: Distracted Driving vs. DUI Penalties in California and Alaska

The penalties for texting and driving vary from state to state. While the act is banned in 46 states, some jurisdictions, such as California, make texting and driving only an infraction. In California, a first offense is punishable by a fine of $20, and subsequent convictions are punishable by fines of $50.13

By comparison, Alaska treats texting while driving quite harshly, along with using other electronic devices while operating a motor vehicle. If a person does not injure another while texting and driving, he or she may still be convicted of a class A misdemeanor carrying a fine of up to $10,000 and imprisonment in a county jail of up to one year.14 If a person is injured in an accident caused by someone who was texting while driving in Alaska, the driver may be convicted of a class C felony, and if a person is killed, the driver may be convicted of a class A felony, making the felony sentencing range anywhere from 5 years for a class C conviction up to 20 years for a class A conviction and a fine of up to $50,000 for a class C conviction and up to $250,000 for a class A conviction.

As compared to its treatment of texting while driving, California takes a much harsher approach to people who are convicted of driving under the influence. For a first offense, a person may receive up to 6 months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.If the DUI offense resulted in an injury, then the person may either be charged with a misdemeanor or a felony as a wobbler offense. A felony conviction can result in up to 3 years in jail along with a fine of up to $5,000.16

Distracted Driving: Does the Punishment Fit the Crime?

In states like California, which make texting while driving only a traffic infraction carrying very minimal fines, it is interesting to note the disparity between it and a DUI conviction in the same state. While texting and driving may cause greater driver impairment and potentially serious injuries or deaths, it is treated as a much less serious offense. In Alaska, by contrast, texting while driving is treated very seriously, potentially carrying penalties that are as great or greater than those for various levels of drunk driving offenses. The remainder of the states represents a mishmash, ranging between the four with no penalties at all to Alaska with the potential for a serious felony conviction.

Conclusion

Distracted driving is potentially just as or more dangerous than driving while under the influence of alcohol. With millions of people routinely texting while driving or using social media applications while driving, the roads are becoming more dangerous. Still, the states have yet to catch up to the dangers posed by these forms of distracted driving with a majority treating them as minor infractions. States should review the research and consider bringing parity between their DUI statutes and penalties with their statutes criminalizing texting and driving. An added emphasis on educational campaigns about texting while driving along with campaigns about using social media apps while driving may also be added steps that states should consider. Failing to take further action to curb these forms of distracted driving could be potentially disastrous.

ARTICLE BY Steven M. Sweat
Copyright © 2016 · Steven Sweat

1. NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATISTICS AND ANALYSIS, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, [hereinafter NHTSA 2013 report] available at http://www.distraction.gov/downloads/pdfs/Distracted_Driving_2013_Resear….

2. CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, INJURY PREVENTION and CONTROL, MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY, DISTRACTED DRIVING, 1 (2016)[hereinafter CDC report] available at http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/distracted_driving/.

3. Governors Highway Safety Association, Distracted Driving Laws (2016), available athttp://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html.

4. Liberty Mutual Insurance, Teen Driving Study Reveals “App and Drive” is New Danger Among Teens, New Worry for Parents (2016), available at https://libertymutualgroup.com/about-lm/news/news-release-archive/articl….

5. Id.

6. National Safety Council, Distracted Driving Public Opinion Poll (March 2016), available at http://www.nsc.org/NewsDocuments/2016/DD-Methodology-Summary-033116.pdf.

7. David L. Strayer et al., Fatal Distraction? A Comparison of the Cell-Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver (2006), available athttp://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/DrivingAssessment2003.pdf.

8. Id.

9. Supra note 2.

10. CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, INJURY PREVENTION AND CONTROL, MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY, IMPAIRED DRIVING, 1 (2016), available at http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_fact….

11. Distraction.gov, What is Distracted Driving?, http://www.distraction.gov/stats-research-laws/facts-and-statistics.html (last visited Aug. 2, 2016).

12. Matthew Chambers et al., UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS, DRUNK DRIVING BY THENUMBERS (2016), available at http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/by….

13. Cal. Veh. Code § 23123.5(d).

14. Alaska Stat. §§ 28.35.161, 12.55.035, 12.55.135, 12.55.125.

15. Cal. Veh. Code §§ 23152, 23153.

Copyright © 2016 · Steven Sweat

Obama Administration Announces Plan to Promote Electric Vehicles

Electric VehiclesIn late July, the Obama administration announced a collaboration with 50 federal and state agencies, electric utility companies, vehicle manufacturers, electric charging station companies, and others in the private sector to promote faster development of electric vehicle charging infrastructure and increased numbers of electric cars on the roads.

This announcement, made in partnership with the Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Transportation (DOT), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Air Force and Army, comes just after the DOE’s first-ever Sustainable Transportation Summit. To learn more about the collaboration, continue reading!

This collaboration aims to promote consumer adoption of electric vehicles and increase the accessibility of charging infrastructure across the country. Major goals include:

  • Guaranteeing $4.5 billion in loans to finance a national network of electric vehicle charging infrastructure to increase consumer access;

  • Utilizing funds from the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation(FAST) Act, signed into law by Obama in December 2015, to identify zero emission and alternative fuel corridors and developing a 2020 vision for the optimal placement of fast charging infrastructure; and

  • Encouraging state, county, and municipal governments to partner with the Federal government to procure subsidized electric vehicle fleets.

Additionally, the collaboration has agreed to a set of Guiding Principles to Promote Electric Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure to encourage market growth and spur adoption of electric vehicles by developing vehicles and charging infrastructure that are accessible, affordable, reliable and convenient for consumers.

The market for electric vehicles has grown significantly in recent years, with battery costs falling 70%, more than 20 plug-in electric vehicle models now on the market, and more than 16,000 charging stations deployed – up from fewer than 500 in 2008.

ARTICLE BY Sahir Surmeli of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

©1994-2016 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Electric-Vehicle Infrastructure: Fertile Ground for P3’s

Electric-VehiclesIn 2006, the documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car?” hit the theaters. Ten years later, there remains substantial disagreement on the answer to that question, but one truth has emerged: the electric car lives again. As Electric-Vehicles (EV) range steadily increases while both charging times and prices continue to fall, it appears inevitable that an EV will someday be in every driveway. Yet one critical obstacle to widespread EV adoption remains. All of those EVs will need to be charged–not only at home, but at work, and on the go. And that requires brand-new infrastructure on a massive scale.

Public-private partnerships are proven model for delivering new infrastructure in a reduced timeframe and, in many cases, at a reduced cost. Because the public sector will inevitably play a significant role in EV use and EV infrastructure, there are many opportunities–now and on the horizon–for P3s. State and local governments will no doubt be procuring fleets of EV vehicles in the near future, and concessions for rapid charging stations (along with restaurants and other services to keep drivers occupied while their vehicles charge) will be needed along highways throughout the country. Although governments are beginning to plan for these procurements and facilities, Florida’s P3 statute permits interested private-sector partners to jump start the process by submitting an unsolicited P3 proposal.

At the federal level, the Obama Administration has just released a framework for fostering the adoption of electric vehicles, called “Guiding Principles to Promote Electric Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure.” Although the details have yet to be worked out, the framework contemplates P3s and innovative methods of procurement for federal, state, and local governments. Although federal funding and federal assistance will be a valuable asset (the results achieved through the Canadian federal government’s aid to provincial and local P3 procurements provide a vivid example of what can be accomplished), in many cases, the right P3 structure and procurement approach, along with the right private partner, will permit state and local governments to move forward with EV adoption and infrastructure right now.

© 2016 Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP

Congress to Vote on Short-Term FAA Reauthorization This Week

Congress FAA reauthorizationThis week, Congress will vote on a short-term Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) authorization that will reauthorize FAA programs through September 30, 2017. The short-term authorization includes some policy changes, but avoids many significant changes the House and Senate had been pursuing. While the Senate passed a long-term FAA reauthorization bill this year, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2016 (S. 2658), the House did not take up the bill reported out of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act of 2016 (H.R. 4441). Both the House and Senate are expected to pass the highly-negotiated short-term extension, before FAA authorization expires on July 15.

The short-term extension does include provisions related to safety and security, as well as some unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) provisions. Among the policy changes, the bill will increase funding for bomb-sniffing dog teams, direct FAA to detect and mitigate UAS operation near airports, and require airlines to refund baggage fees if luggage is delayed or lost, among other provisions.

It appears that House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) successfully kept many policy changes out of the short-term extension, in order to keep pressure up on Congress to pass a long-term extension next year that includes Chairman Shuster’s controversial air traffic control reform proposal.

This Week’s Hearings:

  • On Tuesday, July 12, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security will hold a hearing titled “Intermodal and Interdependent: The FAST Act, the Economy, and Our Nation’s Transportation System.” The witnesses will be:

    • Patrick J. Ottensmeyer, Chief Executive Officer, Kansas City Southern Railway Company;

    • Major Jay Thompson, Arkansas Highway Police; President, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance;

    • David Eggermann, Supply Chain Manager, BASF; and

    • Stephen J. Gardner, Executive Vice President and Chief of NEC Business Development, Amtrak.

  • On Wednesday, July 13, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness will hold a hearing titled “NASA at a Crossroads: Reasserting American Leadership in Space Exploration.” The witnesses will be:

    • William H. Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator of Human Exploration and Operations, NASA;

    • Mary Lynne Dittmar, Executive Director, Coalition for Deep Space Exploration;

    • Mike Gold, Vice President of Washington Operations, SSL;

    • Mark Sirangelo, Vice President of Space Systems Group, Sierra Nevada Corporation; and

    • Professor Dan Dumbacher, Professor of Engineering Practice, Purdue University.

  • On Tuesday, July 12, the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Department and USAID Management, International Operations, and Bilateral International Development will hold a hearing titled “Public-Private Partnerships in Foreign Aid: Leveraging U.S. Assistance for Greater Impact and Sustainability.” The witnesses will be:

    • Eric G. Postel, Associate Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development; and

    • Daniel F. Runde, William A. Schreyer Chair and Director, Project on Prosperity and Development, Center for Strategic and International Studies.

ARTICLE BY Timothy W. Drake & Patricia Doersch of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

© Copyright 2016 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

First Reported Tesla Autopilot Fatality in Central Florida

model S tesla autopilot fatalityIn a recent blog post, Tesla revealed that the Model S vehicle that was involved in a fatal accident on May 7 in Williston, Florida was in Autopilot mode at the time of the collision. This marks the first known fatality in a Tesla vehicle where Autopilot was active. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration is currently in the midst of an investigation of the cause of the collision which is believed to include a determination of whether the Autopilot system was working properly at the time of the accident.

According to various news sources, the accident occurred when a tractor trailer drove across a divided highway and in front of the Tesla vehicle. Due to the height of the trailer, the Model S actually passed under the trailer with the initial impact occurring to the vehicle’s windshield. Tesla CEO Elon Musk stated on Twitter that the radar system used by the Autopilot feature did not help in this case because of the height of the trailer. According to Musk, the system “tunes out what looks like an overhead road sign to avoid false breaking events.” Tesla believes that the Autopilot system would have prevented the accident if the impact had occurred to the front or rear of the trailer.

This accident represents the first in what will undoubtedly be many similar accidents that will raise questions regarding the safety of Autopilot systems. Tesla is one of the first automakers to utilize such technology and they have reiterated that they require customers to sign an agreement acknowledging that the system is in a “public beta phase” before they can use it. Some driving experts have criticized Tesla for introducing an Autopilot feature too early believing that the system gives drivers the false impression that the car can handle anything it encounters. By way of contrast, GM has only tested their Autopilot feature privately and Volvo has indicated that they intend to take full liability for their cars when the feature is activated.

ARTICLE BY Ian S. Abovitz of Stark & Stark

COPYRIGHT © 2016, STARK & STARK

Lawmakers Continue Focus on TSA Wait Times, While House Spending Panel Approves TSA Funding for FY 2017; Government Officials React to Deadliest Shooting in US History, Worst Terror Attack Since 9/11

TSA wait linesLawmakers Continue Focus on TSA Wait Times, While House Spending Panel Approves TSA Funding for FY 2017

The House Appropriations Committee approved it draft FY 2017 homeland security appropriations measure on Thursday, June 9, including $7.6 billion for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), $163 million more than in FY 2016 and $21.8 million greater than the Obama Administration’s FY 2017 budget request.  The House Appropriations Committee has yet to approve a request from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for an additional $28 million to help keep airport security lines under control during the ongoing summer travel season.  The Senate Appropriations Committee, which has already approved of its FY 2017 homeland security spending measure increasing funds for TSA, has also signed off on the reallocated funds, the second such request from DHS this year.

On June 7, the House of Representatives approved legislation, the Checkpoint Optimization and Efficiency Act of 2016 (H.R. 5338), aimed at shortening TSA wait times.  The measure would direct both the TSA Administrator and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review TSA’s staffing allocation model.  The Act also requires the TSA Administrator to take a number of actions related to the agency’s staffing and resource allocation.  Across the Capitol, TSA Administrator Peter Neffenger testified before a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing last week, where lawmakers encouraged the agency to increase access to PreCheck, an expedited security screening program.

This Week’s Hearings:

  • Tuesday, June 14: The House Homeland Security Committee Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security will hold a hearing titled “Overstaying Their Welcome: National Security Risks Posed by Visa Overstays.”

  • Wednesday, June 15: The Senate Homeland Security Committee will hold a hearing titled “America’s Insatiable Demand for Drugs: Examining Alternative Approaches.”

  • Thursday, June 16: The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a meeting to consider pending legislation and nominations.

Executive Branch Activity

Government Officials React to Deadliest Shooting in US History, Worst Terror Attack Since 9/11

President Barack Obama, senior Administration officials, and lawmakers reacted to the shooting at a crowded Orlando nightclub filled with members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.  As of Sunday night, the shooting, which ended with police storming the club after a three-hour stand-off, had left 50 dead and at least 53 injured.  Reports indicated the alleged shooter had pledged allegiance to ISIS, making it the United States’ worst terror attack since September 11, 2001, and the deadliest mass shooting in the country’s history.

President Obama delivered remarks from the White House early in the day, confirming he had met with his homeland security and national security advisors and assuring Americans that he has “directed that the full resources of the federal government be made available for this investigation.”  Congressman Mike McCaul (R-TX), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, offered thoughts and prayers for the victims and thanked local law enforcement for their efforts responding to the attack, calling it “a sobering reminder that radical Islamists are targeting our country and our way of life.” Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, echoed his House colleague, confirming that his committee “will work to support the federal role in investigating this terror attack and protecting against further threats.”  Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson stated that senior agency officials “are dedicated to investigating this tragedy, along with the FBI and our state and local partners, and supporting the Orlando community in the tragedy’s aftermath.”  Secretary Johnson canceled planned travel to Beijing in light of the attack.

ARTICLE BY Ludmilla L. Savelieff & Clark Kent Ervin of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

© Copyright 2016 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

FAA Rules for Drones: The Waiting is the Hardest Part

drone operations

The May edition of “Unmanned Systems” magazine printed interviews with Earl Lawrence and Marke Gibson, two administrators at the Federal Aviation Administration who are focused on drone integration.  While the FAA currently authorizes commercial drone operations on a case-by-case basis, it is anticipated that a new rule will be finalized this year and will be comprehensive enough to fulfill the public desire for commercial drone operations.

Lawrence predicted that performance-based standards, rather than weight and speed classifications, may be used in the new rule because they provide a more effective response to safety risks posed by drones. Lawrence also believed the new drone rule will require a certification for commercial drone operators.

Gibson noted that testing has revealed drone pilots are able to see other aircraft approaching at a distance of two and one half miles in daylight hours, more than the one mile estimated for operations within visual line-of-sight.  Gibson found this, and other testing data, valuable as the FAA continues its rulemaking for drones.

At least until the new rule is passed, however, commercial operators must still follow the Section 333 exemption process.  Those that wish to operate drones for business purposes must convince the FAA to issue an exemption.  The FAA requires information like the intended use of the drone; its design and operational characteristics; and how its operation will be done safely.

Neither Lawrence nor Gibson told the magazine when the new rule would actually be rolled out by the FAA.  Last Friday at a drone seminar though, Gibson hinted that the new rule may be announced this summer.  Hopefully, the waiting, not the rule itself, is the hardest part.

ARTICLE BY Jeffrey K. Phillips
© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

Ride Hailing: Will We Continue to Uber and Lyft, or Will We Start to “VW?”

Volkswagen’s $300 million investment in ride hailing service Gett is not exactly earth shattering news these days for the automotive industry. But what did catch our eye was what Volkswagen said,

Ride-hailing will be at the center of our new ‘mobility on-demand’ business, which we are building as the second pillar alongside the classic automobile business.

“Second pillar.” Let that sink in a second. The first pillar, we assume, is the design, manufacture and sale of vehicles of every kind. But that second pillar is a service industry. For now that service includes people driving cars. What happens when we no longer need the drivers because the cars are autonomous?

ride hailing Gett VWOf course, Gett drivers will have the opportunity to buy Volkswagens at “attractive terms” – all the better to put more Volkswagens on the road. And, of course, this is not the first relationship of its kind. GM and Lyft already have a partnership going on. Uber is leasing Toyotas to drivers.

With autonomous vehicles coming, with every OEM partnering with a ride hailing/sharing company, and in a world where Uber attracts $3.5 billion (with a “B”) investment from the Saudi Public Investment Fund, it might be worth asking whether some day we will not go to the “Toyota” dealer to buy a car, but, instead, to the Uber dealer – presuming we buy a car at all. In just a few years, Uber has obtained a valuation that may exceed GM and many others. Based on all that information, maybe Volkswagen should refer to its new service industry venture as the “First pillar.”

Article By Jeffrey A. Soble of Foley & Lardner LLP

© 2016 Foley & Lardner LLP