Obama Proposes $4 Billion Investment In Self-Driving Cars (transportation.gov)

An anonymous reader writes: The Obama Administration has unveiled a proposal for a 10-year, $4 billion investment in the adoption of autonomous car technology. The money would fund pilot projects to, among other things, "test connected vehicle systems in designated corridors throughout the country, and work with industry leaders to ensure a common multistate framework for connected and autonomous vehicles." The administration says it has an interest in cutting the death toll — over 30,000 people each year in the U.S. — associated with traffic accidents. The proposal also calls for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to work with industry to resolve regulatory issues before they inhibit development of self-driving cars. "This is the right way to drive innovation," said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.

Comments

Why

[JackieBrown]

Why is he getting involved in this at all? We already have several companies working toward this goal. The only answer that makes sense is that he wants to fund those companies closest to him or his party.

Re:Why

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if government doesn't get in from the start and set up the rules of the road (pun intended), you will have Big Auto cutting corners, pumping out death traps, and assuming they can fix things with a recall like they always do. Problem is, recalls can't fix dead people. This is an important, life and death technology that has the potential to change life in America more than anything since the smart phone. It needs to be done correctly and there needs to be corporate accountability and oversight. That is exactly what the government is for.

Re:Why

[Z00L00K]

I agree, self-driving cars seems to be pretty useless and a waste of money overall.

Governments shall stick to maintaining the infrastructure itself, not the users of it.

Re:Why

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, if you're not going to RTFA, at least RTFS before making a stab...

It says it right in the summary, the entire sentence is a setup for one of three links, and starts with "The administration says it has an interest in...".

So you're agreeing with GP poster that this will be typical crony capitalism?

Re:Why

[drinkypoo]

If they want to cut the death toll, the answer is obvious: spend the money on public transportation. I prefer PRT (e.g. Skytran), because it offers all of the common practical advantages of automobiles yet also uses the best and most highly-developed technology for automated vehicle guidance: rail. As long as we continue to use vulcanized pneumatic tires for the bulk of our transport needs, we are failing.

If the Obama administration is planning a handout for self-driving cars, it's because they are planning another Solyndra. Some of the money will actually be spent on the stated goal (perhaps even the majority of it) and a large portion will be deliberately handed to someone who has no actual plans to return anything, and who will pocket it.

Re:Why

[smooth wombat]

for automated vehicle guidance: rail.

Because what I want when traveling across the country is to be jammed in with a horde of unwashed masses, unable to stop when and where I want.

Maybe you like to be live like a rat in a cage but I prefer to have the freedom to do what I want, when I want without having to rely on someone else's schedule.

Re:Why

[Chacharoo]

As someone who has had a family member who died in a car accident, (my mother, Buffalo, icy February roads, in a hurry, her Escort crushed under an SUV, thanks for asking) I will stand up and say in a clear voice that it is reasonable for the government to invest money in safer roads, cars, and automation. Government is one way we organize those tasks we agree everyone in the country has an interest in. I think it's great that private companies are working in this also, but I think there's often an incentive for competitive entities to create several disparate systems that have complicated, sometimes incompatible interactions (just like computers.)

Re:Why

[drinkypoo]

PRT is a wonderful boondoggle for privileged middle-class snobs like you.

Privileged? I was born poor as shit, I was raised by a single parent... I'm a more-or-less white male, born in the first world, and who learned to read as a child... and that's pretty much the end. That's not inconsiderable, but calling me "privileged" like I'm unusually so is beyond ridiculous.

However, when it comes to cost-efficient, sensible urban transportation that actually helps people who need public transit, buses are the right choice.

You know, that's funny. Really, really funny. Because I grew up using buses, because my mother refused to own a car, in fact as far as I know she still can't drive at all. And I know personally how many hours of your day that consumes. I regularly had to spend an hour or even two on a bus to get to some shitty minimum wage job... and then just as much time to get back. Since most front doors are multiple blocks away from a bus stop, they are shit in inclement weather; you bundle up to get to the bus, then you overheat in the bus, then you get off again and have to walk some more. PRT can reasonably get closer to destinations than the bus.

Of course, they are cheap and unglamorous, so people like you don't support them.

I've been poor as fuck, mustard sandwiches and all that shit. I've ridden the bus. The bus is shit. That it is better than walking is not an endorsement.

Buses also don't need massive federal spending.

Bullshit, and also, bull fucking shit.

Re:Why

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! It's hard to argue with a straight face that Google, Ford, Tesla and others need a handout from the government to push autonomous vehicles.

Re:Why

[cayenne8]

I think you need to read up a little more on how the Skytran concept works.

Does it go door-to-door where I am and where I want to go on my schedule?

That's what I don't like about public transportation, even if they did get rid of all the smelly bums, etc.

Also, how am I supposed to do shopping, particularly grocery shopping, say if I want to do a BBQ on the weekend? I have often bags of wood for my smoker, if I want to do a brisket and ribs..well, that's at least a 14b whole untrimmed brisket plus beer, and other goodies I'd have to be somehow schlepping around by hand from home, to transport pickup, to drop off place to store, back to transport pickup and then to drop off and then to actual home. But hell, even on weeks I don't do that...I buy my groceries for the whole week, hitting several grocery stores in the area to pick up the best deals, etc. Public transportation just is not convenient for me, nor practical.

I won't even get into having to travel to/from work on very hot, humid often rainy days where by the time I get to my office I'd be sweat soaked at the very least by the non-door to door travel, and not very professional looking.

Re:Why

[ArmoredDragon]

This.

Private industry is already throwing billions at it. Why do the taxpayers need to throw even more at it? All he has to do is tell the NTSB to work with them rather than against them, which I'm sure can't cost more than a few million, nevermind billions.

2.5 powerballs

[rmdingler]

Without government involvement and support, maintaining and upgrading the highways & byways to accommodate driver-less vehicles,the whole enterprise is an exercise in futility. Smart highways are the next logical step.

Like it or not, government giveaways of your tax dollars will likely christen even the projects you support.

WTF???

[yodleboy]

Clearly the most pressing issue the U.S. has at this point are those damn human controlled cars! I'm sure there's no better use for $4 billion than this. Nope, none at all...

What we're seeing here folks is an outgoing president going into full "my legacy" mode. This frequently looks similar to "full retard" but the prez gets a pass...

Re:WTF???

[Whorhay]

It could amount to a very shrewd investment. We have about 30K traffic fatalities a year, which over the span of this proposal would amount to 300k deaths. If autonomous cars cut that number in half it'd cost us about $27k per life, again over the course of the ten years. The extra taxes you get to collect from those people over the course of the rest of their lives could quite possibly pay back that investment. And it's not like once the decade of funding is over autonomous cars would stop saving lives.

I'm curious what other areas you feel we as a society would be better served by investing $4 Billion in? Personally I'd suspect some medical research avenues might have better potential, but are likely already well funded. Even if there are better ways to spend the money, it isn't like we can only fund one such area at a time.

Re:WTF???

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking a page out of the gun-control book. Spend money, gain new government powers, enact new taxes and fees, reduce civil liberties, then after a decade claim the already existing downward trend was because of your efforts all along.

Re: Good

[tompaulco]

He takes from the poor to give to the rich.

Obamacare was more like taking from the middle class and giving to the poor and the rich. The rich insurance company owners now get dollars from everyone at gunpoint. The poor get insurance paid for by the government (note that insurance is not healthcare. They still can't afford healthcare), and the middle class can no longer afford insurance OR healthcare, let alone both.

Taxpayers - I *order* you to cough up $4 billion!

[King_TJ]

It's always easy to make yourself look good when you get to spend other people's money to do it.

Last I checked, we had this little problem of a "national debt" and weren't exactly making ANY progress on paying it down. Yet Obama thinks he can just snap his fingers and pull another $4 billion out of the air, because he'd like to see driverless cars get some help from Federal government? (And let's face it.... whenever Federal government decides they can't bear to stay "hands off" of something any more, it means they want to micro-manage it and control it. That's the only kind of "help" they know how to dole out.)

Last I checked, they already handed companies like Tesla Motors some pretty big subsidies to promote what they're working on. How about govt. just steps back and lets private industry continue working on that?

Sky not falling

[StatureOfLiberty]

1. I drive 40 minutes to work every morning and up to an hour and a half driving home in the evening. I would love to hand this boring and wasteful task to my car. I could certainly do something much better with the time.

2. This technology will certainly become commonplace (look at aerospace, for example). It is going to take research to figure out how best to do this. It is going to require adjustments to how transportation is regulated. It may require changes to our infrastructure. You certainly don't to put these vehicles on the road without some thought to the implications of doing so. This costs money. What is the alternative?

3. The part that does concern me is what will happen when autonomous commercial vehicles become common. Talk about a job killer. How many hours each year do long haul trucks sit idle because the driver is required by law to stop to rest? That issue would completely disappear (along with a whole lot of decent jobs). Of course, this also could eliminate those accidents caused by drivers falling asleep.

As in almost all change, there are good points and bad points. There is also cost.

Who would care if the US spent 4 billion dollars on research, regulatory updates and infrastructure updates if the benefits far outweigh the cost? Unfortunately, sometimes you have to spend money just to find out if spending more is warranted. Consider the trillions we've spent recently that had almost no prospect of providing any benefit to the average American citizen. I'd much rather see spending on something like this.