Slashdot Mirror


Michigan Lets Autonomous Cars On Roads Without Human Driver (go.com)

Companies can now test self-driving cars on Michigan public roads without a driver or steering wheel under new laws that could push the state to the forefront of autonomous vehicle development. From a report on ABC: The package of bills signed into law Friday comes with few specific state regulations and leaves many decisions up to automakers and companies like Google and Uber. It also allows automakers and tech companies to run autonomous taxi services and permits test parades of self-driving tractor-trailers as long as humans are in each truck. And they allow the sale of self-driving vehicles to the public once they are tested and certified, according to the state. The bills allow testing without burdensome regulations so the industry can move forward with potential life-saving technology, said Gov. Rick Snyder, who was to sign the bills. "It makes Michigan a place where particularly for the auto industry it's a good place to do work," he said.

15 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. Bitch texting on her phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    With the rising number of idiots texting on their phones while behind the wheel, I have already seen hundreds of driverless cars on the road.

    1. Re:Bitch texting on her phone by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Cite your evidence that a self driving car is safer than the aggregate of all people who choose to text while driving?

      Knock down your own straw men - he made no such claim.

  2. Band aid fixes by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "It makes Michigan a place where particularly for the auto industry it's a good place to do work,"

    Yeah except for the shitty roads, expensive labor, unsupportive government, hostile unions, etc. Other than that it's awesome. I find it hilarious that the state most closely associated with the auto industry has some of the worst roads in the country. Good place to test handling and suspensions I guess. Anyway this doesn't really matter much unless they can keep the companies that own the technology doing it in Michigan. Who cares if Google develops self driving tech in Michigan if Michigan doesn't see any of the financial benefit from that.

    The thing that Michigan (particularly SE Michigan) has going for it is that the auto industry has a lot of residual talent left in the area. There is a ton of engineering and production capability. Michigan can be a great place to work on some really interesting technology. Seriously, it's hugely underrated as a tech hub but Michigan is one of the best places to be for high tech jobs. Too bad the state has dropped the ball in so many other areas. It's a beautiful place to live and work (outside of Detroit City proper anyway) and it's kind of a shame what has happened to the state in the last several decades.

  3. Good for everyone. by Mal-2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is actually good news for everyone, not just people in Michigan. If self-driving vehicles can deal with the weather conditions there, they should be able to deal with them in the rest of the country, and most other countries as well. Sunny days in California don't expose the hazards posed by rain, snow, slush, and black ice.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    1. Re:Good for everyone. by mrlinux11 · · Score: 2

      Not just the weather conditions, the seriously poor road conditions :)

    2. Re:Good for everyone. by danbert8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As opposed to the barely tested teen drivers learning how to drive in hazardous conditions while playing Pokemon Go?

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    3. Re:Good for everyone. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your entire existence and life is built on previous generations making the exact same gamble. If you don't like it go live in a hut in the woods.

      Unless you think that Steam boilers were the pinnacle of human safety systems.

    4. Re:Good for everyone. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2

      untested

      Where do the detractors continually get the idea that this is all 'untested'?

    5. Re:Good for everyone. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2

      How many humans went the wrong way down a one way street in the same amount of time?

    6. Re: Good for everyone. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2

      They've been driving for around 10 years and can already drive better than humans have learned to in the last 100. I'd say that's damn good.

      Self driving cars and software is cumulative knowledge. You can't just hand off the knowledge of the best driver in the world when they turn 16. By 2020 it'll be no question of who is a better driver. Our 2016 Subaru is already automating "80% of the boring stuff" of driving. It'll keep lanes and come to a full stop when the human behind the wheel fails to. Germans have had the auto stopping technology working and working in Germany since 2012. Every rental car came with it because it saved that much in claims with German drivers.

      No one cares about the home car owner anymore. These are for Uber and Fleets. The F150 is the best selling truck in the US because of fleet sales. When companies can order a F150 that can drive 24/7 and is safer than the people that they can hire the entire industry is going to switch over. People are not profitable, corporations are. Look at who John Deere and Case selling equipment to. It's not the small town farmer. It's corporate farms that are going to buy their newest and most expensive AI tractors.

      Not saying personal car ownership is going away. There are still people that stable horses and own horse farms. The Amish didn't even pick up Electricity. You are going to be more than free to own your own car. I'm sure there are companies that will cater to you as well. The question is how much is it worth to you?

    7. Re:Good for everyone. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      If self-driving vehicles can deal with the weather conditions there, they should be able to deal with them in the rest of the country, and most other countries as well. Sunny days in California don't expose the hazards posed by rain, snow, slush, and black ice.

      Do you have any idea how many lines of latitude California crosses, or what range of elevations we have in this state? We have all of that stuff. I've literally dealt with all of it within fifteen minutes of Santa Cruz. You know nothing about California. Do you know anything about cars?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. Re:Who is responsible when by MBGMorden · · Score: 2

    If it's the fault of the manufacturer then sure, sue them. If however it's just a freak accident - and I know this may be a hard pill to swallow - perhaps you sue no one. It sort of saddens me a great deal when new tech is always confronted with "But who do I sue if something goes wrong!?!?!".

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  5. Re:Who is responsible when by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

    >> who do I sue

    I'm sure there are equally large groups of lawyers trying to simplify that equation to either "act of god" or "the auto manufacturer" right now. And it will surely take a few court cases to get this hammered out, and then hammered out again. In the meantime, what people like the local governor are trying to do is make it clear that "it's OK to experiment here without having all the bureaucratic/legal answers (you want) in place" by sweeping some regulations to the side. Yeah, his call favors new technology research over human life, but if it really saves human lives in the future, he'll be up on that score too. (The alternative is really to let countries like China - who really do have a "fuck you" attitude toward human life - figure this out first.)

  6. Re:Who is responsible when by Moof123 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Guilt when it comes to corporate entities is already severely murky and depressing, and getting worse.

    How many people went to jail for all the mortgage fraud, forged notary signatures, and crap sandwich CDO's from the 2008 bust? Still waiting for all the pending investigations by Eric Placeholder are you? Yep, lies, delay tactics, and no actual justice.

    So yes, companies will get sued. They have lawyers by the bushel on staff who will drain the resources of the victims, draw out lawsuits for years, if not decades, and eventually wear down the victims until they settle or go away. If there is sufficient outrage the Justice Department (sort of like calling your propoganda department the Ministry of Information)will launch a very public investigation that mostly just fades away, maybe nailing a token peon or two in case anyone pays attention long enough.

    In other words, the victims will get "American Justice" at its finest. How satisfied was anybody over the Toyota "unintended acceleration" debacle? No real guilt was admitted, and no proper post-mortem was divulged, just denial and smoke screens. We got new floor mats and a software update along with some payouts to shut people up. Only outside independent investigation confirmed their software was horrendous. Nobody went to jail for killing and maiming a few of their customers.

    No CEO or high ranking person will ever go to jail simply because their policies pressured underlings to release dangerous products onto the street. At best we might get a recall and a settlement, maybe an empty public apology or resignation with golden parachute if absolutely necessary. We little people are not important, protecting CEO's careers is a higher priority than protecting our miserable lives.

  7. Can't wait by Charcharodon · · Score: 2
    So what they are saying is soon very expensive cars that will not run you over will be available for theft.

    Step 1: Step in front of car.
    Step 2: Box the car in and then hook up to tow truck
    Step 3: Profit!