On May 6, the MIT AgeLab’s Advanced Vehicle Technology (AVT) Consortium, part of the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics, commemorated a decade of its worldwide academic-industry partnership. AVT was established with the purpose of generating new insights that aid automotive manufacturers, suppliers, and insurers in their real-world comprehension of how drivers engage with and react to increasingly advanced vehicle technologies, such as assistive and automated driving, while expediting the applied knowledge required to enhance design and development. The celebratory event convened stakeholders from throughout the industry for a series of keynote speeches and panel discussions on pivotal topics that are vital to the industry and its future, such as artificial intelligence, automotive innovations, collision repair, consumer behavior, sustainability, vehicle safety regulations, and international competitiveness.

Bryan Reimer, the founder and co-director of the AVT Consortium, inaugurated the event by noting that over the past ten years AVT has amassed hundreds of terabytes of data, shared and discussed research with its more than 25 member organizations, supported strategic and policy initiatives of its members, published selected results, and developed AVT into a global influencer with significant impact in the automotive realm. He pointed out that current opportunities and challenges for the sector encompass distracted driving, a deficit of consumer trust and concerns regarding transparency in assistive and automated driving features, alongside high consumer expectations for vehicle technology, safety, and cost-effectiveness. How will the industry react? Major figures present offered their insights.

In a compelling discourse on vehicle safety regulation, John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, and Mark Rosekind, former chief safety innovation officer of Zoox, previous head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and former member of the National Transportation Safety Board, urged industry and government to embrace a more strategic, data-centric, and cooperative approach to safety. They asserted that regulations must progress in tandem with innovation, rather than lag behind it for decades. Appealing to the automakers present, Bozzella cited the success of voluntary commitments regarding automatic emergency braking as a template for future advancements. “That’s a way to accomplish something significant and impactful ahead of regulations.” They advocated for shared data platforms, anonymous reporting, and a unified regulatory vision that establishes safety benchmarks while permitting room for experimentation. The 40,000 annual road fatalities require urgency — a shift away from tactical solutions toward a systemic safety strategy is crucial. “Safety delayed is safety denied,” Rosekind asserted. “Tell me how you’re going to enhance safety. Let’s be specific.”

Taking inspiration from the exemplary safety history of aviation, Kathy Abbott, chief scientific and technical advisor for the Federal Aviation Administration, highlighted a culture of stringent regulation, ongoing improvement, and cross-sectoral data sharing. The aviation model, founded on highly trained personnel and rigorous predictability standards, sharply contrasts with the fragmented methodologies in the automotive sector. The keynote underscored that a safety culture—one that understands that technological capability alone does not justify deployment—must direct the automotive industry forward. Just as aviation does not correlate the lack of failure with success, vehicle safety ought to be measured comprehensively and proactively.

With assistive and automated driving prominent in the industry, Pete Bigelow of Automotive News provided a pragmatic assessment. With companies such as Ford and Volkswagen stepping back from full autonomy initiatives like Argo AI, the industry is now concentrating on Level 2 and 3 technologies, which pertain to assisted and automated driving, respectively. Tesla, GM, and Mercedes are testing subscription models for driver assistance systems, yet consumer confusion remains substantial. JD Power reports that many drivers do not understand the distinctions between L2 and L2+, or whether these technologies provide safety or convenience features. Safety advantages have yet to materialize in diminished traffic fatalities, which have surged by 20 percent since 2020. The recurring dilemma: L3 systems require human drivers to take control during technical malfunctions, although driver disengagement is their primary benefit, potentially exacerbating outcomes. Bigelow quoted Bryan Reimer as offering one of the most insightful comments in his career: “Level 3 systems are an engineer’s dream and a plaintiff attorney’s next yacht,” highlighting the legal and design complexities of systems that necessitate transitions between machine and human.

Regarding the implications of AI on the automotive sector, Mauricio Muñoz, senior research engineer at AI Sweden, emphasized that despite AI’s revolutionary potential, the automotive industry cannot depend on broad AI megatrends to address domain-specific challenges. While groundbreaking milestones like AlphaFold showcase AI’s capability, automotive applications require domain expertise, data sovereignty, and focused collaboration. Constraints in energy, data barriers, and the hefty costs of AI infrastructure all pose challenges, making it essential for companies to invest in purposeful research that can lower expenses and enhance implementation fidelity. Muñoz cautioned that while enthusiasm is high—some anticipate artificial superintelligence by 2028—real advancements necessitate organizational alignment and a profound understanding of the automotive context, not merely computational prowess.

Shifting attention to consumers, a collision repair panel featuring Richard Billyeald from Thatcham Research, Hami Ebrahimi from Caliber Collision, and Mike Nelson from Nelson Law examined the unintended effects of vehicle technology advancements: soaring repair expenses, labor shortages, and a lack of repairability standards. Panelists cautioned that even minor repairs for advanced vehicles increasingly necessitate expensive and intricate sensor recalibrations — compounded by inconsistent manufacturer directions and no clear alerts for consumers when systems are misaligned. The panel urged for enhanced standardization, consumer education, and repair-friendly designs. As insurance premiums rise and more individuals forgo claims, the disconnect between automakers, regulators, and service providers jeopardizes consumer safety and erodes trust. The group warned that until Level 2 systems operate reliably and cost-effectively, progressing toward Level 3 autonomy is premature and risky.

While the repair panel spotlighted today’s pressing issues, other speakers contemplated the future. Honda’s Ryan Harty, for instance, accentuated the company’s vigorous strides toward sustainability and safety. Honda aims for zero environmental footprint and zero traffic deaths, with plans to become 100 percent electric by 2040 and to spearhead energy storage and clean power integration. The company has created tools to mentor young drivers and is investing in charging infrastructure, grid-aware battery usage, and green hydrogen storage. “What consumers choose in the market drives what manufacturers produce,” Harty observed, emphasizing the significance of aligning product strategies with consumer desires and environmental responsibility. He stressed that manufacturers can only decarbonize as swiftly as the industry permits and underscored the necessity to transition from cost-based to life-cycle-based product approaches.

Lastly, a panel featuring Laura Chace of ITS America, Jon Demerly of Qualcomm, Brad Stertz of Audi/VW Group, and Anant Thaker of Aptiv discussed the imminent, intermediate, and distant future of vehicle technology. Panelists highlighted that consumer expectations, infrastructure investment, and regulatory modernization must advance in unison. Despite record bicycle fatality rates and ongoing distracted driving, features like school bus detection and stop sign alerts remain underutilized due to skepticism and cost concerns. Panelists stressed that we must design systems for proactive safety rather than reactive responses. The gradual integration of digital infrastructure—sensors, edge computing, data analytics—arises not only from technical obstacles, but also from procurement and policy difficulties.

Reimer concluded the event by urging industry leaders to refocus on the consumer in all discussions—from affordability to maintenance and repair. With rising ownership costs, widening gaps in trust in technology, and misalignment between innovation and consumer value, the future of mobility hinges on restoring trust and reshaping industry economics. He called for global collaboration, enhanced standardization, and transparent innovation that consumers can comprehend and afford. He highlighted that global competitiveness and public safety both depend on these efforts. As Reimer remarked, “success will come through partnerships”—among industry, academia, and government—that work toward shared investments, cultural transformations, and a communal commitment to prioritize the public good.