I noticed something different at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) this year: the discussion around autonomous vehicles (AVs) shifted from “when will the technology be ready?” to “how do we deploy the technology in the best way?”.
I sat on two panel sessions discussing near-term applications of AVs, one focused on metropolitan deployments (like Pittsburgh, one of the emerging centers for AV development), and the other on rural cities (like Grand Rapids, MN, a town of 12,000 people where May Mobility already provides service).
This shift towards applications reflects an underlying change: AV technology is ready. Multiple autonomous vehicle companies are providing great rides in the United States– with a few, like Waymo, Cruise, and May Mobility, having launched service without safety operators.
While not perfect, AV technology now outperforms human drivers. In short, our cities would be safer places if human-driven vehicles were replaced with autonomous vehicles.
But should AVs be deployed, and if so, within what limits? This is where two key CES themes came out: data transparency, and socially responsible deployments.
Data transparency is critical to making the safety argument. Sure, AV companies themselves might claim to be safe, but should the public take their word for it? The resounding answer was no: AV companies should “show their work” and bring receipts. One challenge to transparency is that AV companies have often viewed cities and regulators as a barrier– after all, it’s the regulators that can say “no” to a company’s plans and ambitions. At May Mobility, our business model (selling transit services to the cities, rather than to riders directly) flips this relationship around: our customer is the city itself, so rather than the city being a barrier, it is a champion and facilitator. With our business model, sharing data with cities and regulators drives the business– it’s not only the right thing to do, but it helps close deals.
The second theme at CES was around socially responsible deployments. Most AV companies are pursuing a ride-hail business model: think autonomous Ubers and Lyfts. But these rideshare companies’ deployments have often cannibalized public transit ridership while failing to provide services to those with disabilities and neglecting riders in less profitable, less financially-advantaged areas. Again, May Mobility’s business model flips this around– we go where cities need us, not where the most affluent riders live.
These themes show how the conversation has shifted from “when will the technology work?” to “how do we deploy the technology in the best way?”. And for many at CES, doing it right means addressing data transparency and social needs. As I’ve argued here, the choice of business model (e.g. ride-hail vs transit) has a big impact on how an AV company approaches these issues: a transit-oriented approach naturally aligns the interests of cities and AV companies.
Executive Coach and Author of “The Great Engagement “ How CEOs create exceptional cultures.
2yCongratulations Tom!