Tag: Autonomous Vehicles

Testimony to joint committee on transportation on S.2379, “An Act relative to providing multimodal transportation technologies” (AVs)

Testimony to joint committee on transportation on S.2379, “An Act relative to providing multimodal transportation technologies” (AVs)

Thank you to Chairs Arciero and Crighton and members of the committee for holding this hearing today. My name is Brendan Kearney and I am the Executive Director at WalkMassachusetts, a statewide pedestrian advocacy organization founded in 1990 as WalkBoston. I’m also sharing comments on S.2379, “An Act relative to providing multimodal transportation technologies,” which would authorize the use of autonomous vehicles in the Commonwealth. 

Separately, I’ll be submitting written testimony against the sidewalk robot bills, H.3773/S.2372 (“An Act relative to mobile carrying devices”), and in favor of Rep. Vitolo’s H3804 to give pedestrians more walk time, and Senator Brownsberger’s S.2343 expanding truck safety requirements. 

In 2024, there were 369 reported total traffic deaths in Massachusetts. At least 78 pedestrians lost their lives as a result of traffic crashes, accounting for just over 21% of the total. 

It is possible that self-driving vehicle technology may help reduce that number, but there is no guarantee. This must not be rolled out without proper safeguards for our communities.

Since there are many unknowns with autonomous vehicle systems, we caution you to err on the side of more data sharing, local control, and consultation so that MassDOT, regional planning agencies, and local transportation departments will know more about vehicles operating on streets across the Commonwealth, and ensure we’re adapting them to our communities instead of the other way around – and so that municipal staff are able to respond to safety issues and resident concerns. 

Incomplete crash data is a known issue. I encourage you to require data to be collected and shared not only during any testing phases, but also during deployment of autonomous vehicles. Please lean on the team at the MassDOT Safety Division who maintains the IMPACT Crash Portal to get their feedback on what information would be most useful to be collected and shared. 

A few data points AVs could provide beyond traditional crash data might include:

  • When and where vehicles are deployed to potentially understand the weather and road conditions the vehicles are driving in.
  • Close calls. These might include hard braking incidents (when the AV had to suddenly stop), disengagements (when the AV requires a safety driver to take over)  and immobilization (when the vehicle does not have a safety driver and is stuck).

I’ll share two concerns to keep in mind with the software:

  • 1st/ Intentional lawbreaking written into the code. In a Washington Post article in December titled “On roads teeming with robotaxis, crossing the street can be harrowing” their tech columnist in San Francisco captured videos of Waymo self-driving cars failing to stop for him at a crosswalk. He sought to answer the question, “How does an AI learn how to break the law?” A spokesperson for Waymo told him that its car might decide not to stop if adjacent cars don’t yield. “So is it possible that Waymo’s AI is learning from the human drivers on the road who also act like jerks?” One of the theories posited is that Waymo cars were intentionally getting more aggressive to help shed a market reputation for being slower than competitors.
    It is unclear to me how this behavior – violating the law to yield to pedestrians at a crosswalk – should be allowed, or how it would be creating a safer street than human drivers. The intentional lawbreaking that has been on display in California has also included short term parking in crosswalks and bike lanes – not pulling over to pick someone up, but remaining there for upwards of 5-10min. Communities and the state need to be able to collect data on that and have the ability to regulate it to hold companies accountable for these software choices.
  • 2nd/ Bias in the software itself. A study a few years ago from Georgia Tech found that “the facial and body recognition technology built into many pedestrian detection systems does not recognize and react to darker-skinned people as consistently as it does lighter-skinned people.” Already, people of color are disproportionately represented in fatal crashes involving people walking. The technology should level the playing field, not reinforce existing shortcomings and biases.  

Thank you for your time, I appreciate the opportunity to comment. 

This testimony was shared as part of a panel w/ Pete Wilson of Transportation for Massachusetts (T4MA) and Seth Gadbois of Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) at a Joint Committee on Transportation Hearing on June 24, 2025.

Re: Comments on H3126/S2069 An Act Relative to Mobile Carry Devices

Re: Comments on H3126/S2069 An Act Relative to Mobile Carry Devices

March 28, 2019

Joint Committee on Transportation
Joseph A. Boncore, Senate Chair
State House, Room 112
Boston, MA 02133

Joint Committee on Transportation
William Straus, House Chair
State House, Room 134
Boston, MA 02133

Re: Comments on H3126/S2069 An Act Relative to Mobile Carry Devices

Dear Chairman Boncore and Chairman Straus,

WalkBoston is Massachusetts’ main pedestrian advocacy organization, working to make walking safer and easier in Massachusetts to encourage better health, a cleaner environment and more vibrant communities. LivableStreets Alliance advocates for innovative and equitable transportation solutions that create safe, affordable and convenient options for everyone in Metro Boston.  We write to provide the Committee with our comments on H3126/S2069, “An act relative to mobile carry devices.”

If we are to continue to build more livable cities and towns across Massachusetts, we must ensure the sidewalks are made for people of all ages and abilities. A 90-lb device that can carry up to 45-lbs of goods traveling at 12.5 miles per hour does not belong on the sidewalk, and instead should be in the street.

At a high level, we are also concerned that these regulations could open the door to the privatization of the public way: our sidewalks. The most sought-after space in our cities is at the curb. Cities on the West Coast continue to grapple with transportation technology issues a few months in advance of us, including the testing of autonomous delivery robots. The latest example we’ve heard from Walk San Francisco includes a proposal from a tech food delivery company to use robots to continuously operate on a sidewalk route to pick up multiple orders from a store and deliver them 2-3 blocks away to a waiting delivery driver in a car.

This legislation leaves many questions:

  • The language “primarily for transporting personal property,” and “primarily designed to remain within 25 ft of personal property owner” both indicate that there would be other uses.
  • “Personal property owner is actively monitoring navigation and operation” seems to indicate that a device could operate autonomously or via remote control as long as it was under the auspices of the owner. There are rigorous testing and reporting requirements for autonomous vehicles to use streets in the city of Boston; autonomous vehicles should not be allowed on sidewalks without similar care and attention.
  • The language “a mobile carrying device has the rights and obligations applicable to a pedestrian” will give more legal protection in a crosswalk to a 90-lb device than to a person using a bike or scooter.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment, and would be happy to work with any proponent to offer feedback.

Thank you,

Brendan Kearney
Communications Director, WalkBoston

Stacy Thompson
Executive Director, LivableStreets Alliance

Boston Herald – “Stop & Shop robot vehicles will bring produce aisle to driveways”

Boston Herald – “Stop & Shop robot vehicles will bring produce aisle to driveways”

Boston Herald: “Stop & Shop robot vehicles will bring produce aisle to driveways

But not everyone is sold on the idea of on-demand groceries. Brendan Kearney, spokesman for WalkBoston, has reservations about the new service.

“Are we having, all of a sudden, more and more vehicles that are just circling the streets aimlessly?” Kearney said.

“We are hopeful that the city of Boston will ensure that traffic signals are improved to focus on people walking … not prioritizing autonomous vehicles,” he said.

Posted January 17, 2019

Bloomberg Baystate Business – Self-Driving Cars

Bloomberg Baystate Business – Self-Driving Cars

Bloomberg Radio: “Bloomberg Baystate Business: Self-Driving Cars

We also talked about self-driving cars in the wake of the decision to allow Nutonomy to test its cars throughout the city of Boston. Nutonomy President Karl Iagnemma joined us to give us the details. We also spoke with MIT research scientist Bryan Reimer about the technology. Taking a more cautious tone was Wendy Landman of Walk Boston.

(Wendy’s segment is on the broadcast from 00:44:03-00:51:50)

Originally aired June 22, 2018

Imperfect technology, Boston’s ‘chaotic’ streets raise fears of self-driving cars

Imperfect technology, Boston’s ‘chaotic’ streets raise fears of self-driving cars

Boston Herald: “Imperfect technology, Boston’s ‘chaotic’ streets raise fears of self-driving cars
By Mary Markos

But keeping them vigilant is another concern, raised by Wendy Landman, executive director of WalkBoston.

“Generally speaking, when you have people in the vehicles who don’t have much to do except watch out for possible problems, you need to make sure people can stay alert and really be on top of things,” Landman said. “It’s hard to pay attention when you’re not doing much.”

The intricate street patterns of Boston aren’t easy to navigate, Landman added.

“Nobody really knows how this is going to work,” she said. “How good will these vehicles be at dealing with the incredibly complicated environment that is Boston streets?”

Posted June 21, 2018