Hello, my name is Monica Jones and I'm an Associate Research Scientist in the Biosciences Group at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. I conduct research in a variety of areas related to anthropometry and biomechanics, including vehicle ergonomics and occupant crash protection. Most recently, my focus is on the safety and human factor considerations associated with automated solutions and future mobility solutions. Safety always matters. As we look ahead to the next 50 years with increasing automation and future mobility trends, the need for occupant protection and injury prevention will continue to influence vehicle design. It is noteworthy, though, that the general objective for automation of future mobility solutions is to drive better than humans. To provide context on this challenge facing the future mobility solutions, the following graphic plots motor vehicle fatalities over the past century. Vehicle miles traveled marks a significant increase over the past century with the dark blue line. The US population simultaneously also has increased over the past century. However, it's important to note that the deaths per vehicle miles traveled has decreased significantly, as shown by the red line. This really questions then whether the objective for future mobility solutions is really motivated by safety. The challenge for the automation of future mobility is steep. The current US risk is approximately one fatality per 100 million miles traveled. Driving is an exceptionally challenging or complex activity or task. Going from easy driving to difficult driving is much easier for humans than it would be for computers. The infrastructure is also not well-designed for automation. AI systems do not respond well to unusual and highly variable events. For example, a police officer directing traffic after a crash or sporting event in many other weather conditions. Additional caution with respect to automation should also be taken from fields such as aviation. A result of automation has been shown to de-skill the pilots, add to mode confusion, and humans are often called upon in extreme conditions that lead to automation failure or low acceptance of machine failure. With increasing automation, the driver will be removed out of the loop. Here, federal policy matters. The current NHTSA has said that the policy, regardless of whether an automated driving system is operated by the vehicle or the vehicle is being driven by a human driver, the occupant protection should maintain its intended level of performance in the event of a crash. Crash protection requirements are unlikely to be relaxed as we progress into the future. As well FMVSS standards, so Federal Motor Vehicle standards, will still apply to future mobility solutions. The success of currently available crash avoidance technologies such as electronic stability control, automatic emergency braking, forward collision warning, adaptive cruise control, and then the more recently available L2, so Level 2 kind of increasing automation levels of advanced driving systems, such as lane departure warning, lane keeping assist, low speed, traffic jam assist. These have already demonstrated comparative advantages. There are also new emerging safety challenges and opportunities associated with automation of future mobility. As the drivers transform to passengers, it is hypothesized that the range of postures and activities will increase. The promise of AVs is also an opportunity to provide a more equitable solution for special populations who may currently be disaccommodated by human-driven vehicles. First, let's ponder, what will passengers do in future AV or mobility solutions? For reasons that seem unclear, there's a consensus that has emerged that an important change in future vehicle interiors will be an increase in rearward facing or reclined and/or sleeping postures. What's the best way really to predict, though, ultimately what future passengers will do? Data was recently gathered on passenger postures and activities in a study conducted by UMTRI. Ultimately, the results suggested that passengers adopt non-nominal postures. By this, I'm referring to engagement with your device, if you will, or engagement in conversation with a subsequent passenger. The head would be tilted downward, possibly you have some torso rotation in the seat. Another observation within the dataset was poor belt fit, given the non-nominal postures. Importantly, highly reclined postures tended to be fairly rare, so greater than a 35-degree angle on the seat back. Therefore, this wide range of non-nominal postures could ultimately really challenge the current restraint system design, so your seat belt design, and non-seat belt use may become an even bigger problem than it is in current vehicles today, suggesting that monitoring and interlocks may be required. Importantly that non-airbag-equipped seatings, such as the second row, maybe less safe for adults. Current research and development efforts are also focused on improving protection for people that do not look like crash test dummies. Vehicle occupants come in all diverse body size and shape. So design optimizations, as we move forward both today and in the future mobility solutions, need to consider and adapt to the occupant characteristics, adapt to the crash conditions, and, importantly in the future, be able to be customized to have an active-passive restraint system that is truly personalized for that occupant. Unique considerations must also be given to child passengers who are injured in crashes when their bodies are subjected to high rates and magnitudes of loading. Due to their small size, children are also at high risk of being ejected from the vehicle if not properly restrained. Consistent and proper use of child restraint systems has shown to be highly preventative and effective in preventing injury and fatality. However, if you think of future mobility solutions such as ride-sharing or shared vehicle mobility services, there may be some unique challenges for our littlest occupants. Difficulties may be with verifying that the child restraint system is properly installed in the vehicle or restrained relative to the vehicle. Every new vehicle will be a little different and we need to question whether parents would be given the time to read the vehicle manual and ensure proper installation. Both the time and the patience is required. So parents would need and caregivers would need to be considering that. As well we need to question whether children would be able to be transported without caregivers. So considerations for our youngest participants or our youngest occupants. For individuals who have physical mobility impairments and perhaps use a wheelchair, there are several critical design requirements to ensure safe, equitable mobility for these wheelchair users in particular. One, the automated solutions really need to consider whether a proper lift or ramp is available to that user to ingress and egress the vehicle, so both the access to the doorway as well as the lift from the curb to the vehicle. Whether they are provided access routes, so this is the ability and space to maneuver the wheelchair within the vehicle, and also whether there's appropriate floors to accommodate the height difference and head contact clearance room required with a wheelchair. Importantly, we need to also consider the securement systems. It has been proposed by both NHTSA and researchers at UMTRI to consider universal docking systems which require that the interface geometry between both the wheelchair and the vehicle match. Also is consideration for the donning of the seat belt for individuals, for example, that have upper mobility challenges. Self-donning of seat belts can pose to be a very difficult challenge. Finally, we need to consider accessible door handles and storage spaces, and places to stow the wheelchair in the event that that individual is transferring from the wheelchair to the vehicle. The caveat with all of these are the current most paratransit solutions and public transit solutions comes with a human in the vehicle such that this caregiver or individual can help with a lot of these activities. As we move forward, the idea of automation, there would be no additional caregiver or human in the loop indeed. So for pure autonomy and independence, these individuals need to be accounted for or these design considerations need to be accounted for. For those individuals with vision, auditory, or cognitive impairments, automated solutions also need to consider whether they've really minimized complex directions or control identifiers. Is there voice control systems such that an individual or an occupant could change the route, unlock the door, or raise or lower the windows on their own? Is there compatibility between their device and the vehicle or even customized assistive technologies such as paperless Braille display for deaf and blind users? Also for those individuals who may have intellectual disabilities, we may want to enable remote destination selection or trip monitoring and video GPS for users that need to have their routes monitored or overseen. To ensure safety and equity, future mobility services including AVs, public transit, and other forms of transportation will need to meet accessible requirements for information and communication technologies covered by Section 508 in the Rehabilitation Act. Some examples of these include accessible apps and micro-navigation needs for blind riders and other underserved populations. Finally, transportation or safe equitable solutions need to not only consider the in-vehicle exposure, but the curb-to-curb access for the mobility service. Some examples being provide alternative accessible drop-off points for access. For example, near a curb or a ramp access and providing information about the environment and the surrounding the vehicle, whether that's provided visually and in audio form as well. Lastly, providing information about location, route, certain landmarks, weather road conditions, any deviations from the road that may have required the ride to be stopped. All of this helps to orient the user as to the drop-off points and include access to features that might be of relevance or importance. Future mobility solutions have the potential to provide safe and equitable transportation for all, including special populations that are currently underserved. However, careful consideration and need for occupant protection will continue to influence vehicle design with increasing automation.
