Following this first (and rather limited) round of reactions, the Chair suggested collecting the reactions from stakeholders on the preliminary conclusions stemming from the discussions between Member States. Main outcomes of the discussions as follows, on specific topics in the beginning followed by a general discussion: On road safety: presented its expectation that automated vehicles would respect all rules, including speed limits. Volvo Group reminded that there were different types of automation, e.g. for platooning the first benefit would not be safety (but platoons would follow the rules). Other top benefits: ACEA underlined the expected better throughput of vehicles and the optimal use of infrastructure, but highlighted as well the challenge of the cohabitation with non-automated vehicles. Following a mention to areas (ports of the future), DG MOVE reminded that private roads had been taken into account in the analysis, and that most of the conclusions were valid for freight as well, with also the aspect of integration of automated vehicles with other modes. Nokia noted that the list of use cases made sense. ACEA noted that sustainability aspects were a bit missing. DG MOVE replied that "less emissions" was identified in the conclusions as part of high value benefits, as well as public health. Focus on automation level 4: POLIS noted that level 4 influenced the use cases. DG MOVE underlined that level 4 implied sufficient road allowing automated vehicles, to bring users close enough. The impact on public transport and on users was highlighted by several participants, with the issue of general interest vs personal interests. Luxembourg stressed that a possible transfer from public transport to private transport was difficult to support, and that there was a lack of interest from and service providers on transport policy and strategy. It is still not clear if solutions such as MaaS, transport on demand will compete with or complement public transport. Nokia informed about its involvement in projects for automated subways, which led to increased frequencies and increased usage of public transport. Tesla subscribed to Luxembourg's rationale and noted that use domains (e.g. highways) may have different use cases. Tesla expressed perplexity about the large list of use cases, noting that it was hard to predict, based on customers
Following this first (and rather limited) round of reactions, the Chair suggested collecting the reactions from stakeholders on the preliminary conclusions stemming from the discussions between Member States. Main outcomes of the discussions as follows, on specific topics in the beginning followed by a general discussion: On road safety: presented its expectation that automated vehicles would respect all rules, including speed limits. Volvo Group reminded that there were different types of automation, e.g. for platooning the first benefit would not be safety (but platoons would follow the rules). Other top benefits: ACEA underlined the expected better throughput of vehicles and the optimal use of infrastructure, but highlighted as well the challenge of the cohabitation with non-automated vehicles. Following a mention to areas (ports of the future), DG MOVE reminded that private roads had been taken into account in the analysis, and that most of the conclusions were valid for freight as well, with also the aspect of integration of automated vehicles with other modes. Nokia noted that the list of use cases made sense. ACEA noted that sustainability aspects were a bit missing. DG MOVE replied that "less emissions" was identified in the conclusions as part of high value benefits, as well as public health. Focus on automation level 4: POLIS noted that level 4 influenced the use cases. DG MOVE underlined that level 4 implied sufficient road allowing automated vehicles, to bring users close enough. The impact on public transport and on users was highlighted by several participants, with the issue of general interest vs personal interests. Luxembourg stressed that a possible transfer from public transport to private transport was difficult to support, and that there was a lack of interest from and service providers on transport policy and strategy. It is still not clear if solutions such as MaaS, transport on demand will compete with or complement public transport. Nokia informed about its involvement in projects for automated subways, which led to increased frequencies and increased usage of public transport. Tesla subscribed to Luxembourg's rationale and noted that use domains (e.g. highways) may have different use cases. Tesla expressed perplexity about the large list of use cases, noting that it was hard to predict, based on customers
draft-summary-record-worskhop-of-20-april-2018-of-on-ccam-testing.docx