WASHINGTON — In a rare display of alignment, truck safety advocates and trucking’s largest lobbying group are urging the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to reject a request by a technology company to replace traditional roadside warning devices with a digital messaging system.
Paul Hutchins, the owner of Intelligent Motorist Alert Messaging System (IMAMS), is seeking a five-year exemption from federal safety regulations to allow autonomous trucks to use vehicle-mounted LED signs instead of the flares or warning triangles currently required for trucks that become disabled on the road.
IMAMS’s exemption application also touts the technology’s economic benefits: the same LED signs used to warn other motorists that a truck is disabled can also be used to collect revenue from advertisements.
“On a long haul through rural areas, IMAMS advertises nearby hotels, restaurants, or fuel stations – providing both valuable information to sleepy, hungry, or low-fuel drivers and new income for fleet owners,” the company states in marketing materials submitted to FMCSA, emphasizing earnings of up to $300 per month for each truck from commercial advertisers.
In comments filed with FMCSA, however, the American Trucking Associations and safety groups argue the proposal is “a recipe for disaster” that prioritizes advertising revenue over roadway safety.
“IMAMS provides no data on how any of their messages, colors, or other chosen parameters may perform in an experiment or in the real world,” ATA stated in their comments.
“Such data would not only help justify any potential safety benefits of their solution but would also justify why particular combinations of colors or messages may perform best. Without such data, there is little to base a judgement of potential safety benefits.”
In addition, the group asserted, “ATA does not believe safety-critical technologies should be used for advertising and that it is incumbent on IMAMS to demonstrate that any proposed advertising does not compromise safety. While we welcome innovation to address roadside safety and aid situations involving truck-involved crashes, such solutions must be supported by robust data and include safeguards to ensure they achieve the intended safety benefits.”
The Truck Safety Coalition warns that since IMAMS is a technology provider and not a carrier, it’s impossible for FMCSA to estimate how many trucks would eventually be exempted, making the request dangerously broad.
“In essence, a non-carrier is requesting exemption for any future user of its technology and preemptively requesting a regulatory exemption on behalf of the entire industry, referencing use cases and compatibility for both traditional carriers and AV [autonomous vehicle] trucks,” TSC stated in its comments to the agency.
TSC also pointed to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s crackdown on English proficiency requirements by placing out of service truck drivers who cannot sufficiently read and understand road signs.
“The inability of a not-insignificant portion of the truck driving population to read and understand English sufficiently is a known safety issue that U.S. DOT is actively taking steps to address,” TSC stated. “The idea of utilizing variable messaging signs to warn motorists and other truck drivers of a disabled vehicle in this current operating environment is nonsensical.”
In addition, TSC contended, because DOT has yet to issue automated driving systems (ADS) standards for commercial trucking, granting the exemption would in effect be approving high-level ADS-equipped trucks without having performance standards in place, thus making approval of the exemption “reckless” and “short-sighted,” the group stated.
