Conclusions and recommendations
Vision and strategy
1. The
DfT has not implemented a coherent, joined-up strategy to link
the development and implementation of new automotive technology
to the achievement of its wider policy goals. (Paragraph 12)
2. The DfT should
develop a comprehensive, accessible vision to shape motoring of
the future in partnership with other Government Departments and
agencies. This needs to convey a coherent set of objectives, describe
a co-ordinated set of actions necessary to deliver those objectives
and make links to the delivery of wider policy objectives. We
recommend that the strategy includes six key objectives:
· reduced
or eliminated fatalities and serious injuries on roads;
· reduced
emissions from road transport;
· increased
road capacity through the use of technology rather than road building;
· protection
for citizens against the risk of cyber-attack;
· enhanced
social inclusion through more accessible road transport; and
· support
for economic growth. (Paragraph 14)
Safety
3. It
is clear from the evidence that the DfT needs to conduct further
research on the technical and behavioural aspects of safety systems
in vehicles. The initiative to eliminate fatalities and injuries
on Sweden's roads demonstrates how government can link technological
development to increase safety by setting targets. We recognise
that this approach could deliver benefits in vehicle safety, vehicle-to-vehicle
communications and vehicle-to-infrastructure networks. The DfT
should consider what impact setting targets to reduce serious
injuries and fatalities might have on road safety in the UK. (Paragraph
26)
Autonomous and connected vehicles
4. The
DfT should prepare for a transition period when manual, semi-autonomous
and autonomous vehicles are all running together on UK roads.
During the transition period only some of the benefits promised
by autonomous vehicles and the application of modern communications
technology to motoring will be realised. The full benefits cannot
be realised until there is wide uptake of such technologies. It
is also important that the DfT clarifies how liabilities will
be apportioned in such circumstances. (Paragraph 31)
5. The DfT should
identify technologies whose introduction needs to be accelerated
and devise a range of fiscal and other incentives to increase
their rate of adoption. Such an approach would build on current
policy in relation to vehicle emissions, where low-emission vehicles
are subject to lower rates of vehicle excise duty. In the past,
the gradual tightening of certification and testing requirements
has reduced engine emissions, and a similar approach could be
used now to accelerate take-up. Potential levers to nudge behaviour
include type certification, road worthiness standards, mandating
the fitting of particular technologies to new and existing vehicles
by a specified date, scrappage schemes and fiscal incentives.
Some of those levers may be helpful in tackling more than one
issue—a scrappage scheme could see improvements to emissions
and safety—and the DfT might wish to prioritise measures
which help to secure more than one benefit. The DfT should also
take account of the relative efficiency and effectiveness of these
measures in delivering the changes required. (Paragraph 32)
Big data
6. Telematics
offers an invaluable source of data to inform policy making to
improve driving behaviour and safety. For example, information
derived from telematics could be used to manage traffic flows
or to inform highways design. Fleet managers are using telematics
to improve the driving of their vehicles and insurance companies
are collecting data from a growing number of drivers. There is
no evidence to suggest that the DfT has taken steps to determine
how such new sources of information could be used to inform policy
making. The DfT should work with representatives from the whole
of the insurance industry and others who hold data on driving—for
example, motor manufacturers, manufacturers of satellite navigation
systems and fleet owners and operators—to see what use it
might make of anonymised data from vehicles and how this can be
combined with existing information from the Highways Agency to
inform policy. In analysing such data, the DfT must take into
account the nature of the information and the extent to which
its source may skew the conclusions that can be drawn from it—for
example, telematics data from insurance companies may be drawn
from self-selecting group of drivers and material from fleet operators
who have large numbers of delivery drivers may be atypical. (Paragraph
37)
Data governance
7. The
vast quantity of transport data now available presents tremendous
opportunities to provide smarter, more efficient and more personalised
transport systems. However, greater clarity is required on the
practical application of data governance legislation. The DfT
must ask the Information Commissioner to review the current rules
and guidance on access to fleet and driver information and the
rights of drivers and other interested parties to access vehicle
data and to publish updated guidelines on the collection, access
and use of vehicle data. (Paragraph 40)
Role of OLEV
8. Low
carbon vehicles are set to make up an increasing proportion of
the vehicle fleet and will form a key part of the UK's motoring
future. Adoption has been slower than projected, but it is now
starting to accelerate. Different technologies are becoming available,
but drivers need more incentives to switch to low emission vehicles,
confidence that refuelling infrastructure will be available and
certainty in the Government's long-term policies on investment,
subsidy and taxation regimes. The creation of OLEV has been a
positive step, but implementing its strategy will be challenging.
Future fuels can contribute to UK decarbonisation and air quality
targets. Government cannot pick a winner, but it can provide certainty
for market participants to incentivise investment. (Paragraph
51)
9. The DfT should
ensure that OLEV:
· clarifies
long-term policies on investment, subsidy and taxation regimes
for ULEVs;
· sets
out an action plan for accelerating the uptake of ULEVs, including
an assessment of how different incentives could contribute to
that objective; and
· defines
a strategy to meet European Commission targets on refuelling infrastructure
in UK. (Paragraph 52)
Regulatory framework
10. Legislation
covering driving, road use and vehicle type approvals—vehicle
type approval confirms that a design will meet a particular performance
standard—must be revised if autonomous vehicles are to operate
on UK roads. The DfT must not allow UK legislation to fall behind
both the pace of technological change and legislation in other
countries. (Paragraph 58)
11. A failure to update
legislation in line with the development of new technology may
disadvantage the UK automotive industry. (Paragraph 58)
12. We welcome the
publication of the Government's regulatory review, The pathway
to driverless cars, and the roadmap that it sets out for changes
to the legislative and regulatory framework. However, this high-level
consideration will need to be supported by further work to identify
exactly which legislation requires amendment if it is to have
a significant impact. (Paragraph 59)
13. The DfT should
provide underpinning detail to support the legislative and other
changes that it identified in its regulatory review. In doing
so, it should articulate what changes it expects in the processes
and systems for checking and enforcing compliance, and how it
intends to ensure that its motoring agencies have the appropriate
skills and knowledge to maintain and update testing and certification
regimes. (Paragraph 60)
14. It is important
that the certification and testing regimes keep pace with developments
in technology. These regimes have been used successfully in the
past to encourage the take up of particular technologies and they
have a role to play now. The DfT must bear in mind that new technologies
are already being deployed in production vehicles and that some
of the issues that the evidence to our inquiry and the review
have identified, such as clarification of liabilities, are already
live issues. (Paragraph 61)
Research and trials
15. We
welcome the trials of driverless cars announced in December 2014
and the leadership shown by Innovate UK on ensuring the UK is
well positioned to seize the commercial opportunities created
by new automotive technologies. (Paragraph 66)
16. Public confidence
will depend on knowing that these technologies can be deployed
safely on real roads and with all the unpredictability of real
traffic flows. (Paragraph 66)
17. We welcome the
approach set out by the DfT in The pathway to driverless cars
and look forward to seeing the proposed code of conduct. (Paragraph
67)
Driver training
18. As
well as updating the regulatory framework, the DfT will need to
examine how drivers are taught and how driving standards are monitored
and enforced. New technologies open up possibilities for monitoring
driving and periodically testing drivers, but those technologies
also raise serious questions about privacy. The DfT faces the
challenge of ensuring that drivers keep up with evolving technology
and maintain an appropriate standard of driving. The DfT should
undertake research on emerging models for driver training and
the role new technologies might play in improving driving standards.
Such research would need to address privacy, data ownership and
data protection. (Paragraph 69)
eCall
19. The
Government should engage positively in setting European and international
standards to allow UK manufacturers to exploit new technology
by developing products that are suitable for export and to secure
the benefits of new technology for UK drivers. (Paragraph 75)
Other barriers to adoption
20. The
DfT should set out how it will address barriers to the adoption
of new technology other than the regulatory ones it has identified
in The pathway to driverless cars. (Paragraph 76)
| 
