On May 6, the Advanced Vehology Technology (AVT) Consortium of MIT Agelab, which was part of the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics, celebrated 10 years of its global collaboration in the academic industry. AVT has been founded in order to develop new data that contributes to automobile manufacturers, suppliers and insurers of real world of the way in which drivers use and react to increasingly sophisticated, such as assisted and automated driving, while accelerating the applied information necessary to advance design and development. The celebration event brought together the stakeholders of the whole industry for a set of open addresses and group discussions on important critical subjects for industry and its future, in particular artificial intelligence, automotive technology, repair of collisions, consumer behavior, sustainability, vehicle security policy and global competitiveness.
Bryan Reimer, founder and co -director of the AVT consortium, opened the event by pointing out that, during the decade, AvT collected hundreds of data teraoctes, presented and discussed research with its more than 25 member organizations, supported by strategic and political initiatives of members, published automobile and built -in -law results in a global influence. He noted that current opportunities and challenges for industry include driving distraction, a lack of consumer confidence and concerns related to the transparency of assistant and automated driving characteristics, and high expectations of consumers in vehicle technology, safety and accessibility. How will the industry react? The main players present weighed.
In a powerful exchange on vehicle safety regulations, John Bozzella, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, and Mark Rosekind, former director of innovation in innovation in Zoox security, former administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and former member of the National Transportation Safety Board, of the industry and government more definitively. They claimed that the regulations were to evolve alongside innovation, and not lagging behind it by decades. Calling on car manufacturers present, Bozzella cited the success of voluntary commitments on automatic emergency braking as a model of future progress. “It is a way of doing something important and impact before regulations.” They pleaded for shared data platforms, anonymous reports and a common regulatory vision which establishes basic safety lines while allowing room for experimentation. The 40,000 annual deaths on the road require urgency – what is necessary, is to move away from tactical corrections and to a systemic security strategy. “Security delay is refused security,” said Rosekind. “Tell me how you will improve safety. Let's be explicit.”
Inspired by the exemplary security file of aviation, Kathy Abbott, scientific and technical advisor in chief of the Federal Aviation Administration, underlined a culture of rigorous regulation, continuous improvement and sharing of interventional data. The aviation model, built on highly qualified personnel and strict predictability standards, strongly contrasts with the fragmented approach to the automotive industry. The principal stressed that a foundation of security culture – which recognizes that technological capacity alone is not the justification for deployment – must guide the automotive industry in the long term. Just as aviation does not assimilate the absence of success to success, vehicle safety must be measured in a holistic and proactive manner.
With assistance and automated driving in the industry, Pete Bigelow of Automobile news offered a pragmatic diagnosis. With companies like Ford and Volkswagen which are backing up with complete autonomy projects like Argo AI, industry is now focusing on level 2 and 3 technologies, which refer to assisted and automated driving respectively. Tesla, GM and Mercedes experience subscription models for driving aid systems, but the confusion of consumers remains high. JD Power reports that many drivers do not take differences between L2 and L2 +, or if these technologies offer safety or convenience characteristics. Security services have not yet expressed in the reduction of traffic deaths, which have increased by 20% since 2020. The recurring challenge: L3 systems require that human drivers take over during technical difficulties, although the disengagement of drivers is their main advantage, which worsens the results. Bigelow cited a quote from Bryan Reimer as one of the best he has received in his career: “Level 3 systems are the dream of an engineer and the next yacht of an plaintiff lawyer”, highlighting the legal and design of systems that require transfer between machine and human.
In terms of IA impact on the automotive industry, Mauricio Muñoz, principal research engineer at IA Sweden, stressed that despite the AI ​​transformer potential, the automotive industry cannot rely on AI general mega -patterns to resolve specific challenges to the domain. While historical achievements like Alphafold demonstrate the prowess of AI, automobile applications require expertise in the field, data sovereignty and targeted collaboration. Energy constraints, data firewalls and high costs of IA infrastructure pose all limitations, which makes companies funding objects focused on the objective that can reduce costs and improve the loyalty of implementation. Muñoz has warned that if excitement abounds – with some predicting artificial superintendent by 2028 – real progress requires an organizational alignment and an in -depth understanding of the automotive context, not just computer power.
Turning attention to consumers, a collision repair panel pulling Richard Billyeald from Thatcham Research, Hami Ebrahimi of caliber collision, and Mike Nelson de Nelson Law explored the unexpected consequences of vehicle technology progress: spiral repair costs, labor shortages and the lack of repair standards. Panelists have warned that even minor repairs for advanced vehicles now require recalibrations of expensive and complex sensors – composed by inconsistent advice from the manufacturer and no clear consumption alert when the systems are out of calibration. The panel provided for greater standardization, consumer education and a design adapted to repair. While insurance premiums are climbing and more people give up insurance complaints, lack of coordination between car manufacturers, regulators and service providers threatens consumer security and confidence. The group warned that until level 2 systems operate reliably and affordable, evolving towards level 3 autonomy is premature and risky.
While the repair panel highlighted today's urgent challenges, other speakers are turning to the future. Ryan Honda Harty, for example, underlined the aggressive thrust of the company towards sustainability and security. Honda is targeting a zero environmental impact and zero traffic deaths, with 100% electric plans by 2040 and to carry out energy storage and the integration of clean energy. The company has developed tools to train young drivers and invests in load infrastructure, use of the grid battery and storage of green hydrogen. “What consumers buy on the market dictates what manufacturers do,” noted Harty, stressing the importance of aligning the product strategy with user demand and environmental responsibility. He stressed that manufacturers can only decarbonize as quickly as the industry allows, and highlighted the need to pass products based on cyclists.
Finally, a panel involving Laura Chace of his America, Jon disorienting Qualcomm, Brad Stertz of Audi / VW Group and Anant Thaker of Aptiv covered the near and long -term future of vehicle technology. Panelists have stressed that consumer expectations, infrastructure investment and regulatory modernization must evolve together. Despite the mortality rates by record bicycle and persistent distracted driving, characteristics such as detection of school buses and arrest panel alerts remain underused due to skepticism and cost. Panelists have stressed that we have to design systems for proactive security rather than a reactive response. The slow integration of digital infrastructure – sensors, IT Edge, data analysis – follows not only technical obstacles, but also from supply and policy challenges.
Reimer concluded the event by urging industry leaders to refocus the consumer in all conversations – from affordability to maintenance and repair. With the increase in property costs, increasing gaps in confidence in technology and the disparagration between innovation and the value of consumers, the future of mobility depends on the reconstruction of the confidence and the reshaping of the industry economy. He called for global collaboration, greater standardization and transparent innovation that consumers can understand and afford. He stressed that global competitiveness and public security are both in balance. As Reimer noted, “success will come from partnerships” – between industry, the academic world and the government – which works for shared investments, cultural change and a collective desire to prioritize the public good.
