Will driverless cars need remote human supervision?

Over the last few years autonomous vehicle start-ups have raised tens of billions of dollars based on their cars being truly self-driving.

Yet, international news agency Reuters reported in September 2022 that they may not in the end be totally autonomous. Industry experts and executives believe there may be a need for remote human supervisors to help the ‘robot drivers’ whenever they are in trouble.

This begs the question about why a need for autonomous vehicles is there if a human being is able to remotely drive and take control of a vehicle, when a human driver could be sitting the driving seat in full control of the car, van or even a lorry. With increasing interconnectedness, and with a third-party becoming potentially responsible for the vehicle, it also raises privacy and personal autonomy concerns that a journey could be interrupted or prevented remotely for nefarious reasons. Having a third-party in remote control of a vehicle also raises insurance liability, risk and premium questions.

In its Executive Summary, the Association of British Insurers’ response to the Law Commission’s Remote Driving Issues Paper says that it supports the development of automated driving technologies. However, it concurs that there may be a need, in certain circumstances, “to have these vehicles remotely driven for part of their journeys and we know of several companies looking to trial this technology in the UK”.

The ABI would, nevertheless, like to see more robust regulation and clearer guidance on the use of “remote driving technologies for automated vehicles for use in specific and limited operational design domains”. It believes it’s an imperative, let alone a prerequisite, for the regulations to be developed. It also wants the “responsibilities of the Entity for Remote Driving Operation to be more specifically defined to prevent the misuse of these technologies”. Among other factors, the ABI says insurers have serious concerns about the use of remote driving technologies to operate manually driven vehicles including issues related to connectivity, situational awareness and vehicle capabilities.

Raising questions

Bruno Taratufolo, marketing and product strategy, AGC Glass Europe agrees with the ABI, stating that the idea of a having human supervisor with the ability to take control of a vehicle remotely raises a few questions. This includes the potential for the abuse of power.

He explains: “If the remote supervisor overrides the autonomous vehicle, who’s responsible for any negative outcomes or damages that may result from such a decision? The second observation is a privacy concern. Inside the autonomous vehicle, there may be individuals who may not be aware of the actions or controls being taken, so this is potentially the Big Brother issue.”

He wants to see regulations put in place to ensure the ethical and responsible use of human supervisors. This is to ensure the existence of transparency, privacy, and accountability protection for the individuals using the vehicles. He adds: “There is a need for a strong framework to ensure these three critical factors. I have concerns about the privacy side but human supervision could help with safety in terms of the large-scale use of autonomous vehicles.”

Improving economics

Dr Benedikt Kloss, associate partner, McKinsey Center for Future Mobility (MCFM) stresses that he is enthusiastic about autonomous vehicles. He says at Level 4 of autonomy vehicles are able to operate at a level of 99% of all use-cases. Most of the vehicle will operate within a constrained environment. This may be a highway, or a whole city. He adds that the last 0.1-1% may require increased level of investment, making it potentially economic to have a remote human driver supervising the vehicles. The remote driver could, he suggests, supervise 1-5 vehicles at the beginning and then advance to handling 20-30 vehicles in the future, like someone in Air Traffic Control would do to ensure the safe flight of passenger jets across a particular airspace. “The question is then about what the human being in the background does: this could range from the remote human driver steering the vehicle or telling the vehicles whether it is safe to go on,” he says. This may occur when the vehicle doesn’t recognize a traffic sign or a situation, and so it would depend on the remote human driver for instructions.

Varun Krishna Murthy, industry analyst for connected and autonomous driving, Frost & Sullivan adds a potential use-case could be about ensuring the operational efficiency of fleet vehicles. He explains: “If an autonomous vehicle is stuck behind a broken-down truck, it is required to follow traffic, and it can only do what it has been taught. So, it will require a remote operator to know what to do. The teleoperator will instruct the vehicle to do make certain maneuvers and continue the journey – circumstantial actions based on road, environment and traffic conditions. Teleoperations will find an application in robo-taxis and shuttles to start with and may be used in automated parking.”

To read the complete article, visit TU-Automotive.