Lawmakers Want To Move Fast On Self-Driving Car Legislation (axios.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Members of Congress said Tuesday that they hope to move forward with a package of self-driving car legislation by the end of July. "We've got to keep moving, because again, this technology is moving away from us, you might say," said Republican Bob Latta, who is helping to lead the effort. That would move the bills out of the relevant committee -- but not out of the House entirely.

Comments

They're going to fast-track this

[Anonymous Coward]

and people will die. The terrible thing is it won't just be the early adopters, but the families that their out of control cars go rocketing into.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[MachineShedFred]

You do know that they aren't suspending laws about vehicular homicide and general liability with this, right? They're making a regulatory framework that allows you to have an autonomous vehicle that works properly, that doesn't stop at the state border and tell you it can't drive into Illinois* because Illinois doesn't have laws that allow it to drive you around.

If you never want to see a car that can drive itself, the best thing Congress could do to further your goals is to do nothing. Then we would end up with a patchwork of laws when every single state passes (or doesn't) varying laws making compliance impossible.

The action in Congress doesn't all of a sudden make autonomous cars work right, and it doesn't even define what "working right" is - it just allows the manufacturers to have a chance to succeed in the first place.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[ShanghaiBill]

and people will die.

Human driven cars kill about 3300 per day worldwide, and about 90 per day in America.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[R3d M3rcury]

They're making a regulatory framework that allows you to have an autonomous vehicle that works properly, that doesn't stop at the state border and tell you it can't drive into Illinois* because Illinois doesn't have laws that allow it to drive you around.

Ultimately, you are correct.

That said, I'm not convinced we're at that point, yet, where we really need one unified law so people can autopilot their Teslas across the country. I'd rather wait and see what the states come up with and then try to unify from there.

I'm not sure there's a huge hurry here.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[quenda]

It does not work that way, I hope.
The federal legislators do not need to concern themselves with technical details of safety. They merely provide a legal framework for a designated body to set regulations. The regulations are set by technical experts, not politicians, and can be updated very quickly. They cover the design and maintenance of self-driving vehicles.

State legislation will need more work, because road-rules are set directly by legislation, and will need to be reconsidered. State laws also cover liability in an accident, or breech of rules such as speeding.

Does the US have any federal legislation for road rules? (i.e. rules for drivers, rather than cars - manufacturers etc.)

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[xevioso]

There is a huge hurry, because a lot of the software engineering for how cars operate in different conditions depend on the laws that limit how cars can drive in individual states.

Re: They're going to fast-track this

[PoopJuggler]

Just what we need, a bunch of ignorant greedy politically-motivated old farts who know jack shit about science or technology making rash decisions about emerging science and technologies.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[cayenne8]

Does the US have any federal legislation for road rules? (i.e. rules for drivers, rather than cars - manufacturers etc.)

Actually, that's a good point...and I"d guess if there are Federal rules, they are few and far between.

Even the national speed limits, is by state law, not federal.....just that the Feds blackmailed the states by withholding funds to make them do this...just like they blackmailed the states to all raise the drinking age to 21.

It's sad that the states send money to the Feds, which then turn around and use said funds to blackmail the states into towing the line on issues that should not be mandated at a federal level.

Another example of this was the RealID (nationalization of drivers licenses) act.....which I think a few states still haven't complied with...I think LA and NH were two of the non-compliant states?

Re: They're going to fast-track this

[Anonymous Coward]

And they ought to televise each and every one. And kids killed by guns, while they're at it. Give people the data they need to make decisions.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[R3d M3rcury]

And they can't use a test track to figure this out?

I have nothing against autonomous cars. But I'd rather my epitaph not be delivered by some software engineer: "Oops! I guess we have a bug." Sure, my next of kin may be able to collect big money from these companies. But I'd still rather not be dead.

And, frankly, I'd rather let my local government decide the testing criteria going on because that's where I live, walk, and drive.

Re: They're going to fast-track this

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sad that the states send money to the Feds, which then turn around and use said funds to blackmail the states into towing the line on issues that should not be mandated at a federal level.

Even when they were writing the Constitution, they thought about post roads, it isn't a big leap at all. It is clearly a federal matter.

Another example of this was the RealID (nationalization of drivers licenses) act.....which I think a few states still haven't complied with...I think LA and NH were two of the non-compliant states?

If states are going to have ID, they have to recognize the ID of other states, another clearly Federal matter, .

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the amount of control freak lust that's pushing IoT (which is basically what these cars will be), it does not surprise me they want to fasttrack them. At this point, I don't want to see a 'self' driving car. It'll end up being a panopticonic hellhole just like current google/apple/cloud services, and I'm sure its remote control features will be abused by law enforcement as a carpet to yank out from under people.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[epyT-R]

In this Radiant Future where every car is 'autonomous', all it will take is one bored (or radicalized) 16 yo with a bunch of sploits on a laptop to turn 10000 of these cars into deathtraps.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[Rockoon]

The federal legislators do not need to concern themselves with technical details of safety.

What federal legislators are concerned about is that they make this a federal lobby issue before the next federal election cycle.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[Rockoon]

Adding:

This is how a New Jersey Senator (for instance, Frank Pallone) gets campaign donations from businesses in California and Detroit. Anyone running against him... not so much.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[Anonymous Coward]

> But I'd rather my epitaph not be delivered by some software engineer: "Oops! I guess we have a bug."
I think you have a lot more to fear from human drivers.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[edx93]

Exactly. For once I'm happy to see the congress actually take proactive action and move in a productive direction.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[mjwx]

You do know that they aren't suspending laws about vehicular homicide and general liability with this, right?

This.

They're talking about laws permitting it, not laws that absolve the driver of their responsibility. As the recent Tesla crash report demonstrated, even when the car was in autonomous mode, the driver was still responsible for what it did.

No-one will be changing the highway code over autonomous cars because the highway code was built to comply with the laws of physics and autonomous cars will not violate those.

So to burst some bubbles...
- Autonomous cars will not automagically arrive next year, they're decades off.
- They wont drive themselves without input.
- You wont be able to hop in and watch movies for your journey, you'll be required to pay attention to the road.
- Manual controls will be required for some time due to the above point.
- These cars will not drive bumper to bumper at Eleventy bazillion miles per lepton because they'll be programmed to obey the highway code which as I said above, is based on physics. So they will keep to the speed limit, they will slow down in adverse conditions, they will keep to the inside lane even when traffic is going slower than the speed limit, it will maintain a safe distance at all times, it will avoid overtaking and many other behaviours some people dont know are in the highway code.
- Manual controls will be used quite often due to the above point.
- Cars will not be programmed to make ethical decisions. It doesn't care that the car ahead contains a Nobel laureate and the car beside contains a meth addicted home invader, it'll crash into the car in front because a nose-tail collision is safer for the occupants of both vehicles.

Right now, autonomous cars are nothing but a fancy marketing term for the kinds of adaptive cruise control and lane assist that's been available for years in high end cars and are now options on the low end Hyundais.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[kelemvor4]

They're making a regulatory framework that allows you to have an autonomous vehicle that works properly, that doesn't stop at the state border and tell you it can't drive into Illinois* because Illinois doesn't have laws that allow it to drive you around.

Ultimately, you are correct.

That said, I'm not convinced we're at that point, yet, where we really need one unified law so people can autopilot their Teslas across the country. I'd rather wait and see what the states come up with and then try to unify from there.

I'm not sure there's a huge hurry here.

I am. There have been semi autonomous cars in full production for several years now. Many manufacturers were caught off guard and are far behind on the technology but it is here to stay. There are currently 43 car companies working on it.

Personally, I'd like to see lawmakers looking at legislation requiring autonomous driving features on all new vehicles in order to improve or pathetic road safety records here in the states.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[geekmux]

and people will die.

Human driven cars kill about 3300 per day worldwide, and about 90 per day in America.

And if shitty autonomous solutions rushed to market that prioritize revenue over security "only" kills half that many, we should welcome that as some kind of twisted improvement?

Gonna be hard to accept the death of a loved one at the hands of IoT-grade code driven by Greed. It's time we strive for better than that, and not allow Greed to continue to dismantle quality or safety.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[MachineShedFred]

Kentucky is one of those states - at the Cincinnati airport, there are signs posted at TSA stating that a Kentucky driver license will no longer be valid ID for passing TSA checkpoints in 2018.

That should get interesting in about 6 months...

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[gnick]

But I'd rather my epitaph not be delivered by some software engineer: "Oops! I guess we have a bug."

As opposed to, "Oops! I guess that text could have waited." Self-driving cars don't have to be 100% safe; they just have to out-perform the alternative.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[gnick]

I'm not sure there's a huge hurry here.

How many lives a day would self-driving cars have to save before there's a "hurry"? Even if self-driving cars can only decrease fatal accidents by 10% compared to meaty drivers, that equates to actual lives lost/saved. Of course if self-driving cars increase the number of fatal accidents then we've gone and killed people, but I don't think that will be the case.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[sycodon]

What about when it IS Tesla's fault?

Will someone at Tesla go to jail for manslaughter, just like a driver would?

If I drive recklessly or carelessly, and kill someone, I'm going to jail for vehicular manslaughter.

If Tesla (or other company) has a bug in their software that kills someone, who goes to jail?

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[religionofpeas]

If Tesla (or other company) has a bug in their software that kills someone, who goes to jail?

Over the years, we've had plenty of deadly accidents due to design mistakes in bridges, airplanes, cars, heavy equipment, tools, etc, etc... who went to jail for those ?

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[Anonymous Coward]

Will someone at Tesla go to jail for manslaughter, just like a driver would?

Possibly. Current regulation for automotive components is based on the regulation for safety critical industrial components.
If an accident happens the engineer responsible would have to show that the software was developed according to the regulation or he/she can be held liable and go to jail for it.
You will essentially have to show that you thought about everything and that the accident wouldn't have happened unless someone bypassed the safety control.

Bypassing safety control in this case could mean "Ignoring warning light that tells you that the car needs maintenance."
While everything might appear to otherwise be working many systems are supposed to have redundancy.
If one part breaks everything should still work, but you can't afford to wait for the last part to break.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[Anonymous Coward]

And if shitty autonomous solutions rushed to market that prioritize revenue over security "only" kills half that many, we should welcome that as some kind of twisted improvement?

OK, you are probably the only one I know who doesn't look at a car models safety record before buying a car.

Apart from Tesla shitty autonomous solutions aren't rushed to market.
If you scroll down a bit you will find an article about Volvos ongoing development.
They have non-lethal issues, but they causes concerns so they sort them out before they bring the technology to market.
OTOH Volvo have historically tried to brand themselves as the safe boring car so they might be on the end of the spectrum.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[religionofpeas]

Yes, just like bored 16 year olds routinely bring down planes... oh, wait...

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[religionofpeas]

Gonna be hard to accept the death of a loved one at the hands of IoT-grade code driven by Greed.

Yeah, so much better to be killed by someone playing on their iPhone while driving, or by someone speeding on icy roads because they wanted to be home a minute earlier.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[Delwin]

I believe the original quote was "I don't need to outrun the Ogre, I just need to outrun you."

I wish I could remember where I first read it though.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[geekmux]

Gonna be hard to accept the death of a loved one at the hands of IoT-grade code driven by Greed.

Yeah, so much better to be killed by someone playing on their iPhone while driving, or by someone speeding on icy roads because they wanted to be home a minute earlier.

Death is death; it's hard to accept, but at least in the examples you've provided, there is a very good chance justice will be served.

When autonomous networks get hacked by some anonymous person on the other side of the planet, there is no justice, which often brings decent closure to those who have suffered and lost.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[geekmux]

OK, you are probably the only one I know who doesn't look at a car models safety record before buying a car.

Wrong. I have loved ones to protect, as do many others on the road.

Apart from Tesla shitty autonomous solutions aren't rushed to market.

The fact that you had to make an exception in your statement tends to prove my point.

The fact that lawmakers are now in a hurry tends to validate the speed at which Greed wants to get shit moving (quite literally).

The fact that the infamous "cloud" will be practically inescapable in future designs (if for no other reason than cloud is still fashionably cool) tends to showcase the potential for vulnerabilities.

Above all, Greed always drive priority.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[Anonymous Coward]

What about when it IS Tesla's fault?

Will someone at Tesla go to jail for manslaughter, just like a driver would?

If I drive recklessly or carelessly, and kill someone, I'm going to jail for vehicular manslaughter.

If Tesla (or other company) has a bug in their software that kills someone, who goes to jail?

Do you go to jail when your code fails?

Do you pay large fines when your code contains bugs?

No? Maybe you should... or maybe you should fuck off.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[sycodon]

...according to the regulation...

And there is the problem right there. Regulations give cover to bad design.

Re:They're going to fast-track this

[sycodon]

When my code fails, people don't die

When my code fails, the only cost is my UNPAID overtime to fix it.

So, actually you need to fuck off and die in a car fire you sniveling piece of shit.

"Lawmakers want to move fast . . ."

[Tanman]

Those words . . . they are terrifying.

Re:"Lawmakers want to move fast . . ."

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the shitpile called Obamacare. Too fast, too many carve outs for special interests, and coverage sucks. Democrats were too wimpy to try for full on single payer, so they crafted a piece of shit that is causing all kinds of problems. But it's humorous to watch Republicrats dump all over each other trying to one up the damage with a psychotic president at the helm.

Re:"Lawmakers want to move fast . . ."

[fred911]

That's just because there's a steaming pile of feces on their desktops that they don't like the smell of, don't understand the application and don't care that they are actually making laws that effect the way new technology gets to be developed and implemented (and they're too scared to ask their 12 year old daughter what it means).

Re:"Lawmakers want to move fast . . ."

[sit1963nz]

Well they need to get somethings in place well before the mid term elections to ensure the "donations" are made into the election fund.

Re:"Lawmakers want to move fast . . ."

[Rockoon]

ding.

(A) holds a legislative influence over company or persons (B) that reside in district or region (C)
(A) is elected by the people of district or region (D)
(A) faces opposition in (D) but not in (C)

Isn't this the ideal recipe for assured corruption? (B) must solicit (A) but anybody that opposes (A) must solicit (B)

What is happening right now *is* the argument against broad federal powers.

Re:"Lawmakers want to move fast . . ."

[bluefoxlucid]

Maybe I'm crediting them too much with an understanding of economics, but the fact of the matter is you don't want the technology to move faster than the legal framework allowing said technology.

When tech is new, it's risky and expensive. Adopting new technology is a strategic shift, and that means businesses do it at different paces. Early adopters, late adopters, slower roll-outs, faster roll-outs. You get in early, you get ahead of the competition; you get in later, you get more-mature technology at a lower cost, a better total ROI, and a better long-term position against your competition.

If you drop a new, mature, cheap technology on the economy, you get a giant, rapid movement forward. Think Industrial Revolution: "New Technology" always means "reduction in total labor required to produce an output" (technical progress), which means jobs go away, and you made all the jobs go away at once. Mass-unemployment is the only outcome.

So normally, you'd get self-driving taxis, self-driving lorries, and self-driving delivery vehicles. Every taxi company, shipping firm, and Pizza Hut isn't going to jump on all at once. Uber is going to be an early adopter in the taxi sphere (which is game-changing: it's not a "taxi" if there's no certified, background checked cab driver at all; it's more like ZipCar). Even they'll need venture capital; other, established firms might add a few to their fleet, eventually, at different paces. The same goes for shipping firms; and delivery places aren't all going to spent $50,000 on a new self-driving car and a portable vending machine to hand out pizza right now.

That means your outflow of taxi drivers, truckers, and delivery drivers is buffered by a reduction of late retirement and a reduction of new entrants to the market, mainly. There's an adjustment in labor targeting. With the reduced costs, price competition brings down shipping prices and self-driving taxi prices, allowing consumers to buy more, which requires more shipping, and so will help retain some of the shipping labor. This accelerates as the technology matures, as does the market's response, thus minimizing the spot unemployment impact at any time.

So, what if you don't get legislation in to allow the technology to grow as such?

Technology fully matures. You pass legislation late. Suddenly: 3.8 million unemployed truckers, 1.2 million unemployed taxi drivers, and who knows how many unemployed pizza delivery dudes? Unemployment's going to jump up to 8%-11% over the span of 6 months.

Do you want a 0.2%-0.4% temporary increase in unemployment, or a six-year recession with a 5%-8% increase in unemployment?

Translation

[rsilvergun]

we've got a bunch of donations from companies and their owners who work on self driving cars. They want us to indemnify them legally.

Thousands already die on the roads

[Bruce66423]

The test for self driving cars should be: does it save a lot of lives overall? Unfortunately our infantilised unthinking proles, led by fear as a route to click bait tabloids will make rational thought on this issue HARD. 'Brave New World's' model of the infantilised as having no political power has its attractions...

Re:Thousands already die on the roads

[fluffernutter]

So you don't mind if your self driving car rockets straight into a brick wall with your family in it, as long as they save lives over all?

Re:Thousands already die on the roads

[fustakrakich]

So you don't mind if your self driving car rockets straight into a brick wall with your family in it...?

No more than I would if grandpa had a seizure and did the same thing. Who am I gonna sue then?

Re:Thousands already die on the roads

[fluffernutter]

The difference is, one situation is entirely preventable and the other isn't. So it's apples to oranges.

Re: Thousands already die on the roads

[Anonymous Coward]

Which situation is preventable? Autonomous car driving into brick wall or grandpa having a seizure driving into a brick wall.

Re:Thousands already die on the roads

[fustakrakich]

Which is which?

Re:Thousands already die on the roads

[fluffernutter]

Well it's very unlikely grandpa will be in a self driving car, if that's what you're thinking.

Re:Thousands already die on the roads

[Rockoon]

The test for self driving cars should be: does it save a lot of lives overall?

No matter the cost? Nice. You are part of the problem.

Re: Thousands already die on the roads

[geekmux]

Which situation is preventable? Autonomous car driving into brick wall or grandpa having a seizure driving into a brick wall.

Standing over the grave of your loved ones because an unpredictable medical event happened to a human driver vs. standing over the grave of your loved ones because some CEO decided to be cheap as hell and not spend the money necessary to ensure bugs were worked out and the autonomous solution was secure before going to market.

Multiply the latter impact by 1,000 when a DDoS attack happens against an autonomous WAN.

Yeah, I'd say one of those is a hell of a lot more preventable than the other, and "good enough" is not what I fucking call an acceptable validation with this technology.

I, for one

[marcle]

Welcome this whole thing. Way too many distracted, ego-driven, or just plain stupid drivers on the road. Driving a sporty vehicle on a challenging road can be a lot of fun, but that decribes about 0% of my driving, and besides, it's damn dangerous for any other vehicles or critters on the same road. Let's face it, do your race driver imitation in a video game, and leave real world transportation to a very conservative computer program.

Re:I, for one

[fluffernutter]

If you feel it is too risky to drive with these drivers, then don't. I choose to drive knowing the risks. The day there are imperfect autonomous cars on the road, I no longer know the risks.

Re:I, for one

[nasch]

How do you know the risk any better with imperfect human drivers?

Re:I, for one

[epyT-R]

A very conservative collection of programs (one could only hope) that will operate on a mesh network of millions of devices.. a fat target for terrorists and bored teenagers. Considering that half these companies pushing autonomous cars still can't secure their existing infrastructure (eg google, apple) made from much simpler devices..

Re:I, for one

[fluffernutter]

Because human drivers are predictable. You watch for the person hopping lanes in your rear view mirror and prepare to let them pass as safely as possible. Automated cars will do unpredictable things for some time, things like misunderstanding traffic markers and driving into construction zones, and it will be completely unpredictable.

Re:I, for one

[nasch]

You must drive around different humans than I do, because they surprise me now and then.

Re:I, for one

[fluffernutter]

Then you're not a very good driver.

Re:I, for one

[nasch]

Impressive! You can tell how good a driver I am without even knowing anything about me. But I can predict the future; I knew you would say something snarky and condescending.

Late already...

[HalAtWork]

Moving fast? Classic hail mary play for procrastinators...

Well, at least`

[taustin]

in the US we don't have to worry about the Kangaroo Problem..

Re: Well, at least`

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. Wyoming released a herd of wild kangaroos just this April, after they were told they could not gave a battleship, aircraft carrier or even the laundry ship, the Walter Mondale.

Estimates are the marsupial horde now outnumbers the people in Cheyenne.

Re:Well, at least`

[fluffernutter]

I still find it hard to believe that they have EVERY animal solved, but kangaroos are the only problem.

Re:Well, at least`

[nasch]

Since apparently the system is based on the assumption that the animal is going to stay on the ground, that doesn't sound that hard to believe.

Re:Well, at least`

[fluffernutter]

SO how does it know not to stop for a tumbleweed or a bag blowing along the ground?

Re: Well, at least`

[Anonymous Coward]

Silly troll is silly.

The US Navy doesn't operate "battleships" any more. Walter Mondale was from Minnesota - the only state he won when running for President in 1984. Gestation period for a kangaroo is 36 days, and nursing for a further 18 months.

Keep trying.

Re:Well, at least`

[nasch]

I have no idea. Does it?

Re:Well, at least`

[fluffernutter]

I have no idea either. But if we are going to be letting these things on the road, then shouldn't we all know exactly what it will do in certain situations?

Re:Well, at least`

[Anonymous Coward]

SO how does it know not to stop for a tumbleweed or a bag blowing along the ground?

Why would it have to?
Just slow down and stop for it like everything else, if the driver wants to override before it blows away, let him.
It's not like he wouldn't be able to take control and drive over children if he wanted to so we already trust him to make the right decision.

Re:Well, at least`

[religionofpeas]

Volvo is marketing this is a warning system for large animals:
http://support.volvocars.com/i...

Re:Well, at least`

[fluffernutter]

So I ask again, the only animals that matter are the ones that could wreck the car?

Re:Well, at least`

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do we all have to know?

The engineers who design them know. The people who buy them have an interest in knowing (hopefully). The rest of us... not so much.

stuck at 55 on the tri state tollway the horror!

[Joe_Dragon]

stuck at 55 on the tri state tollway the horror!

If the cars can only do the speed limit they are useless

criminal liability??? they need to work that out

[Joe_Dragon]

criminal liability??? they need to work that out as ford will not give a dam they want to cover up an fault with there hardware / software or even say you went to jiffy lube vs the dealer for an oil change so it's your fault. And do think for ford is going to shell out 20K-200K+ for your legal costs? or do you want to have your fate be up to the public defender?

Right to repair needs to be in there so you are no

[Joe_Dragon]

Right to repair needs to be in there so you are not stuck paying dealer prices and free software updates for at least 5-10 years even if hdd / cpu upgrades are needed.

Re: stuck at 55 on the tri state tollway the horro

[PoopJuggler]

So the only useful things in the world are those which allow you to speed..

Re: stuck at 55 on the tri state tollway the horro

[cayenne8]

So the only useful things in the world are those which allow you to speed..

Well, so far...it makes driving a bit more fun..and I get to my destination quicker.

Re:Right to repair needs to be in there so you are

[tempo36]

Reasoning?

I'm not sure I want every person who thinks they know how to fix a car to be messing with cameras, sensors, and the main computer. Especially if there's going to then be some argument over who is liable for an accident when they don't put the computer back together correctly but insist they did according to the spec sheet.

If the computer is able to perform self driving, why would upgrades be free unless it's a safety/bug in which case I agree it should be addressed just like any other critical safety issue.

Re: stuck at 55 on the tri state tollway the horro

[fluffernutter]

Cue the people who insist it doesn't matter if they drive slow, because they want to spend their lives in these things, don't have an actual life, and don't care about the drivers lined up a mile behind them.

Re: stuck at 55 on the tri state tollway the horro

[Anonymous Coward]

You can shoot your gun at the range. You can have your fun driving on the track. You shoot your gun and have fun on La Cienega Boulevard

Re: stuck at 55 on the tri state tollway the horro

[Joe_Dragon]

Ok why don't you try to drive that road at non peak times at 55 and see how it goes.

Re:Right to repair needs to be in there so you are

[Joe_Dragon]

upgrades need to be free so they can't lock into on star + map updates at $20-$30 /mo or say well to keep useing the car you need to buy an $250 1TB HDD + install costs at the dealer as DB + map data does not fit on to the stock 500 GB hdd.

You start with cameras, sensors and then move to non dealer tires and non dealer oil change at each 3000 miles.

Re: stuck at 55 on the tri state tollway the horro

[fustakrakich]

they want to spend their lives in these things

To be honest, a self driving Winnebago is not a bad idea.

Re: stuck at 55 on the tri state tollway the horro

[Anonymous Coward]

Cue the people who insist it doesn't matter if they drive slow, because they want to spend their lives in these things, don't have an actual life, and don't care about the drivers lined up a mile behind them.

I set my cruise control @ 65mph - kinda autonomous, if you think about it - and people simply pass me in the left lane. Lately though, it feels like I'm standing still. (Then again, Oregon is considering raising the speed limit, & cops don't pull you over unless you're doing about 75mph or so.). As I get older, I look forward to robocars-I'll probably spend more money on longer trips; & in a bit of techno-irony (sort of...), I will probably spend more money at brick & mortar stores, and less online, simply because I won't have to deal with the stress of driving on the same road with dickwads who shouldn't be behind the wheel in the first place.

Re: stuck at 55 on the tri state tollway the horro

[fluffernutter]

You raise a good point. What will happen when people realize they don't need to pay for land if they are in a vehicle that constantly drives itself around?

The Same Folks Who Fast-Tracked Trumpcare.

[westlake]

Forgive me for being skeptical of a GOP dominated House that has scant respect for science and engineering and whose gut instinct to de-regulate foretell a national disaster on the scale of Grenfell Tower.

Re:The Same Folks Who Fast-Tracked Trumpcare.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah because progressives are oh so open about objective fact and science that conflicts with their own ideological bent..

Re:The Same Folks Who Fast-Tracked Trumpcare.

[rtb61]

In the end it will be insurance that decides the fate of automated vehicles at particular stages of development. Some background https://www.businessinsider.co.... With manufacturers possibly accepting full liability for their automated vehicles in an accident, expect to be attacked by a team of corporate lawyers (who will according to the laws of corrupt capitalism, make deals with your insurance company, to shift liability from them back to you, when the automotive manufacturers basically scams the system by creating fault where none existed).

Consider a simple easy scam, pay law enforcers, who in the US already have shocking records, to claim the individuals blood alchohol was over the limit with cooked tests. Saves them tens of thousands of dollars, plenty to pay of corrupt law enforcers with a couple of thousand a go and they fill their DUI quota to boot.

Automated vehicles and the CIA, political activists will be dying like flies and not a problem for Insurance as proof will be provided that the Russians did it, with no more than a Russian IP address and Russian language in the code as proof.

Auto Literacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Now how are these cars supposed to read the legislation? Congress just doesn't think..

Re:Auto Literacy

[Dog-Cow]

Congress also doesn't read the legislation, so you can understand why they didn't consider the problem.

Re: stuck at 55 on the tri state tollway the horr

[Type44Q]

Good old Albuquerque; fun times...

Are we SERIOUS about ethics here?

[Bruce66423]

At the heart of any decent moral system is something about loving everyone others as much as yourself - something which Trump unambiguously fails to endorse, of course - but which we should all aspire to. Of course I would MIND if the programming of a self driving car caused the deaths of close family in preference to far more deaths of others. But if I am seeking to live a morally valid life - as opposed to a self indulgent selfish self absorbed life - then I should be willing to see such a disaster as the preferable outcome. You?

Re:Are we SERIOUS about ethics here?

[fluffernutter]

I'm fine with saving lives, I'm just not comfortable giving private industry an active hand in whether I live or die. This is an industry that has to be forced to put seatbelts into cars, and will let people die if it turns out to be cheaper for them than doing a recall. The days are coming where people driving a $20K car are actively sacrificed in an accident to save the people in the $100K car. Nor do I see a way that regulation can really stop it. But then you're probably fine with people going bankrupt because they didn't have the money to cure their cancer as well, so this is just more of the same for you.

Re:Are we SERIOUS about ethics here?

[religionofpeas]

I'm just not comfortable giving private industry an active hand in whether I live or die

They already do every time you step in a plane, cross a bridge, get in a CT scanner, board a train, use medication, and many other things.

Re:Are we SERIOUS about ethics here?

[fluffernutter]

And if automated driving becomes as safe as airliners or crossing a bridge then there is no discussion, because then they will be far safer then humans currently are. You have mentioned two industries that are safe primarily because of government regulations. Airliners are safe mostly because they are constantly checked and bridges are mostly safe because of physics and building standards. Neither of these will apply to autonomous cars, thus I am placing more trust in the programming for an automatic car than in either of those cases

Re: stuck at 55 on the tri state tollway the horro

[kelemvor4]

You raise a good point. What will happen when people realize they don't need to pay for land if they are in a vehicle that constantly drives itself around?

Sounds like something that would make for a good book or movie.

Re:stuck at 55 on the tri state tollway the horror

[MachineShedFred]

If all reaction times are reduced to nanoseconds with far more useful input than your two eyeballs and zero distractions, speed limits can be increased.

Re:Right to repair needs to be in there so you are

[MachineShedFred]

Well, for one thing, dealerships tend to juice the hell out of people in their service departments. Even at the 'premium' brand.

I had one dealership quote me $800+ dollars to fix something I did in my driveway in 5 minutes with the OEM $70 part. I don't know why they are charging $14,600 an hour for labor and diagnostic time, but clearly they were. This is an example of why I don't want to be locked into "stealership" service.

Sure, if it's something major, or some kind of code update that requires specific equipment and so on, the dealership service department is the way to go, and I'll do that every time. But some kind of chickenshit warranty void because I had the gall to save hundreds of dollars that they are overcharging for a simple interior part R&I? Fuck you.

They are going to Kill People.

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't ever want to see a car that can drive itself.

Computers fuck up. And you mark my words, the laws and regulations will protect Tesla and the like when they do fuck up. You will have dead people and the responsible party just says, "whoops, my bad, here a wad of cash, sorry for your loss".

In those circumstances, I wouldn't be surprised or especially bothered by a bunch of assassinated "industry leaders" who started all this,

Re:They are going to Kill People.

[Alan R Light]

Of course, the first version of Tesla's autopilot reduced actual fatalities by 50% compared to the history of human drivers, and the current version may well be ten times safer than human drivers. At what point do we accept the occasional machine-caused fatality as preferable to the greater number of fatalities caused by human error?

I am more concerned about malicious hacking than accidents, as malicious hacking could target specific individuals or large numbers of individuals. For that, I would like to see a system where at least three computers running separate operating systems and programs computed everything necessary for driving safely, and only operated when all three returned results that agreed within tolerances. If results differed, the incident would be recorded and reported for analysis, and the two computers that were in closest agreement would guide the car safely to a stop.

Could use state non-involvement legislation

[mysidia]

E.G.

The production and sales of autonomous and self-driving vehicles shall be permitted, and individual states may not regulate, tax, or require licensing for the production, distribution, or operation of vehicles on the basis of autonomous or self-driving capability, but autonomous self-driving cars may be required to digitally authenticate active up-to-date liability insurance for the manufacturer and owner and authorization of users by the property owner, and "fitness" according to insurer and manufacturer policies before allowing uses of the vehicle.
 
The operation of self-driving features and vehicles capable of self-driving shall be permitted with no additional taxes, levies, or other charges, or restrictions on their use or on their human passengers on any public and private roadway where a human-operated vehicle of the same type would be permitted, And no competent or licensed human driver, human controller, or attentive observer or operator may be required or requested at any time for a vehicle that has been operated on solely in a self-driving mode, when the vehicle drives on its own, there is no operator.

The vehicle manufacturer and producers of each unit shall be responsible for all non-parking traffic violations other than failure to maintain equipment, outside the cabin which are caused by the manner the vehicle is driving or maneuvers in driving while a vehicle is operating in self-driving mode, and management executives, board members of the vehicle producer shall be responsible as individuals for any civil or criminal penalties for any unpaid citations or egregious acts of negligence, with no recourse to the end user.

Duh...make a buck

[p51d007]

Trust me...congress is "moving quickly" to find out a way to TAX these things more. Safety is the FARTHEST thing from their minds.

Re:Right to repair needs to be in there so you are

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure I want every person who thinks they know how to fix a car to be messing with cameras, sensors, and the main computer.

The computer already have (Or at least current regulation requires it to.) the capability to detect that the camera and sensors aren't working properly.

Especially if there's going to then be some argument over who is liable for an accident when they don't put the computer back together correctly but insist they did according to the spec sheet.

That is why you have methods to show that something has been tampered with.

I don't see a problem with the driver attempting to do repairs himself, as long as he has to take responsibility for it afterwards.
Sure, the manly men who thinks they are great with cars right now might not be able to get it back together and will have to ask the skinny nerd who can't get a nail in straight to help them out with the wiring, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to try.

A small dose of reality

[Anonymous Coward]

The purpose of the law is to force self-driving cars down the throats of states that prudently are not keen to give people like Travis Kalanick free rein to do whatever they damn well please. Commie California tried to stop him; California bad, so Kalanick good.

Meanwhile, this will have a beneficial effect on population via natural selection, as distracted walkers get wiped out by self-driving cars.

Re:stuck at 55 on the tri state tollway the horror

[Anonymous Coward]

stuck at 55 on the tri state tollway the horror!

If the cars can only do the speed limit they are useless

The solution is not to break the law, but to raise the fucking speed limit you idiot!

There's ALWAYS a trade off

[Bruce66423]

This is trivially demonstrated by the fact that cars are not speed capped at 10mph to ensure that all crashes are injury free, and that motor bikes are still legal. The trick is to determine what is reasonable - and enforce it. Yes, of course private industry will go for cheapest implementation, however given the record of the public sector in failing to achieve rapid innovation, there is no alternative. And if self driving cars do save TENS of THOUSANDS of lives and injuries every year, a few glitches are tolerable if the alternative is years of additional delay.

Re:There's ALWAYS a trade off

[fluffernutter]

There are many alternatives. America is just too one-demensional to consider them.

Like Mama always said...

[OfMiceAndMenus]

It's better to be fast and hurry through things than to be thorough and fair!

If it's anything like their drone regulations, you'll be lucky if you can still drive a normal car without a special extra permit by the time they're done.