Slashdot Mirror
US House Panel Approves Broad Proposal On Self-Driving Cars (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: A U.S. House panel on Wednesday approved a sweeping proposal by voice vote to allow automakers to deploy up to 100,000 self-driving vehicles without meeting existing auto safety standards and bar states from imposing driverless car rules. Representative Robert Latta, a Republican who heads the Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee overseeing consumer protection, said he would continue to consider changes before the full committee votes on the measure, expected next week. The full U.S. House of Representatives will not take up the bill until it reconvenes in September after the summer recess. The measure, which would be the first significant federal legislation aimed at speeding self-driving cars to market, would require automakers to submit safety assessment reports to U.S. regulators, but would not require pre-market approval of advanced vehicle technologies. Automakers would have to show self-driving cars "function as intended and contain fail safe features" to get exemptions from safety standards but the Transportation Department could not "condition deployment or testing of highly automated vehicles on review of safety assessment certifications," the draft measure unveiled late Monday said.
If a"Self Driving" car injures one of my family, I will murder the people in it, and then burn down the fucking dealership.
Consumers Union, a public advocacy group, said the bill needs more changes and must "ensure that automakers demonstrate automated vehicles' safety and don't put consumers at greater risk in a crash." The group opposes "restricting states' safety authority without strong federal safety standards in place."
I realize that states' rights is usually used as a truncheon in the war for racist symbology (or worse) but I, for one, find it a bit chilling that anyone is contemplating forcing standards on the states in this case, especially at this time. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to do that, because in this phase (testing) there is no need to drive farther than can be accomplished within a single state. If you're testing a long-haul truck, it can just drive a loop, or if it's in some state that's so crap that they don't even have a suitable loop, it can turn around.
It's not clear that it will ever be necessary to force states to adopt self-driving vehicles, either. If their concerns are actually addressed (this is a "union", right?) then it should be possible to get them on board.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
To have such sweeping regulation come through a republican congress, someone with lots of dough must be "contributing" to get this through.
I'm not sure that "put something on the market, safety be damned" is going to get us there any faster although I do support the sentiment of less regulation.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
The Removal of government regulations that the Republicans like, so they can kill off progressive people who are more apt to ride in these.
The advancement in technology that the Democrats like, so they can make more middle class people useless.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG.
Cars are really dangerous. You can pretty much guarantee this will mean more injury and loss of life than if it was properly assessed and regulated.
and those other pesky safety features which literally saved the US auto industry from becoming another grave.
Extra! Extra! Read all about it. Trump passes first law he's ever passed and it has nothing to do with his election promises. #fakeNews
Who is responsible for injuries when the fault is clearly with the self driving car?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I can't wait to fuck them! My body is ready!
Good luck... I think most of them are electric so they won't have an exhaust pipe. They also don't have a fuel tank. I'm not sure how you expect to have sex with one. Electric cars are lacking the holes that ICE vehicles had to allow auto-erotic moments.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Current federal motor vehicle safety rules prevent the sale of self-driving vehicles without human controls. Automakers must meet nearly 75 auto safety standards, many of which were written with the assumption that a licensed driver will be in control of the vehicle.
Why not just revise the standards with the possibility of automated control in mind? I feel like this is subverting safety measures that are still relevant.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Whatever happened to "Citizens United"? That act that gave corporations the same rights as all other citizens?
None of the accountability or culpability.
So when will they tell me, HUMAN, I cannot legally drive, MY MANUAL TRANSMISSION vehicle!!? We gotta take the riots to the streets!
Congress just wants to be able to drive to work without taking their heads out of their ass.
and those other pesky safety features which literally saved the US auto industry from becoming another grave.
Where are you getting that information. I don't see anything in the article or this thread that says you don't have to have a seat belt on in an automated car or that other safety devices are being disabled.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I find the charger socket to be more satisfying than the average gasoline inlet. Especially when the battery is well charged.
If I were a drug company, I'd be irate at self driving cars getting a free pass while I have all kinds of crappy FDA requirements to meet for every drug that goes to market. If I were an airline manufacturer, I'd be irate at all the testing I have to do for every new model. These companies have more than enough money to set up realistic testing campuses. This is all about profits.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Right but there are a lot of safety standards that might not make ANY SENSE AT ALL for AVs. Should an AV for example be required to have a side and rear view mirrors for example? What about a rear backup camera with a display for the driver who does not exist?
There are current safety requirements that don't make sense when a human isn't the driver.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
it will be an criminal case if there are real bad injuries / deaths.
Now we need the my cousin vinny judge to put the CEO's in there place if they try some NDA / EULA bs in court.
The DEALERSHIP will lock in there oil changes / any other service with auto drive cars. and if you want to be very evil put the can bus on the lights so you can pay $10-$20 + labor to have them changed at the dealership
maybe some states will pass laws like the ones where you can't pump your own gas to save jobs!
Right but there are a lot of safety standards that might not make ANY SENSE AT ALL for AVs. Should an AV for example be required to have a side and rear view mirrors for example? What about a rear backup camera with a display for the driver who does not exist?
There are current safety requirements that don't make sense when a human isn't the driver.
Unless, of course there is a manual override feature. If a human is able to take over at any point a rear view mirror and side mirrors become important again.
Even on a fully automated car that a human cannot take control on they'll probably have a rear view mirror so that women can apply makeup! ;)
Unless they do the sensible thing and have all seats facing backwards for safety. If a human never takes over the driving then there is no technical reason to face forwards; since facing backwards is safer, an AV could have passengers face towards the rear for extra safety in a collision. The only reason they would still face forwards is for "preference" of seeing where you're going- that's why airplane seats face forwards despite it being safer for airplane seats to face backwards too.
(they could also have all seats in the car face the centre for a more intimate setting where half the group is safer).
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I know that's a well worn phrase in air transport or train transport and I'd bet it's in the medical field too. Every rule or regulation in those industries is there because VERY careful analysis proved someone is dead who would be alive if the rule had been followed.
The press should not mince words here : Congress has voted to kill people in order to save money for some corporations.
Modern Airbus planes are essentially AVs in the sky. An equivalent to much every one of your 'almost impossible' and 'highly unlikely' scenarios has actually happened to those AVs already.
And *that* is with an AV whose systems had to pass safety measures thousands of times more stringent than the simple automobile safety rules that Congress wants to exempt on-road AVs from meeting.
Wouldn't necessarily even matter for manual override. If the vehicle is designed to be used with cameras and there is some kind of HUD, you may be better off with a few redundant cameras in place of mirrors (no blind spots, could automatically adjust the image with filters for light, etc.).
The reality is this probably does need to be done at the federal level, and waiving safety standards for current cars makes a lot of sense giving how dramatically different cars can be designed with these technologies. And no automaker is going to seriously innovate like that when there is the possibility that every single state will have different rules, fragmenting the market to the point of it be unviable. So you end up with basically the same dumb meatsack boxes we have now, with some generic lane assist type technologies, rather than a new and clearly superior design.
As I see it, industry experts need to come up with a series of dynamic tests that simulate the vast majority of real world conditions and do away with specific safety requirements altogether. It shouldn't be insurmountably hard to extrapolate how the car performed on the course in 1000 iterations to specific safety measures. Want to build a car without seatbelts? Fine, but your wheeled box better be supernaturally good at avoiding things to stay below our accepted fatality rate of 0.000001 per accident, or whatever.
The problem with the "saving jobs" argument is essentially the reason we need social safety nets: any attempt to do any such thing as people tend to think of it is detrimental and damaging when successful.
We're always going to have more job seekers than jobs, thanks to Malthusian growth: population expands in abundance. The more economic pressure on the population, the more delays you have in starting families, and the less immigrant labor you draw. People are myopic about this and point to the poorest individuals and their higher breeding rate, while failing to account for the middle-class deciding when they're emotionally and financially ready for a family--and the middle-class is a lot bigger. There are far more planned pregnancies than unwanted pregnancies, and those planned pregnancies go on hold when economic security is in question.
Because of this, preventing the turn-over of jobs (practically-impossible: 40% of all jobs turn over every year in the US) would just condemn the unemployed population to unemployment forever. It's not really any different, from a philosophical sense, than deciding to help the unemployed by firing someone who seems like he has better savings so as to give the other guy a chance.
Due to pigeon hole principle, the unemployed don't necessarily share households with the employed. A job-seeker may not be the spouse or roommate of a job-holder, so that makes this even worse.
Worse, though, is the larger economic effect.
Many efforts to retain or (especially) recreate jobs cause widespread poverty. Both trade and technical progress reduce poverty.
Bringing back manufacture jobs from China, for example, would produce identical products for a much-higher price; making higher-quality products domestically would increase the price even further than that, just like high-quality Made-in-China goods cost more than bargain-bin Made-in-China shit. That means the American consumer, given a certain wage, will have to work more hours to afford the same goods (poorer). This means a lower total purchasing power--more of your total wages go to the same goods--and thus fewer total goods purchased.
Fewer of the now-made-in-America goods are purchased, so fewer American jobs are created than Chinese jobs lost (i.e. you can't say "179,000 Chinese do this, so we are creating 179,000 American jobs!" You'll get 58,000). With less stuff being purchased--even less stuff that was made in China--there's less shipping and fewer retail scans. Shipping and retail are directly tied to the specific good being moved, so fewer truck drivers doesn't mean a savings per-good; it just means lower employment. Now you lose retail and logistics employment. Even at minimum wage, this loss can easily exceed the number of jobs created at the factory; and the factory workers--regardless of wage--will still have to work longer to buy the goods they're making than they did to buy the ones they were importing!
Technical progress has a similar impact. A few people lose their jobs when you get new technology (that's what technology is: labor-reducing techniques), and the rest of us get to enjoy lower prices. This takes some time to filter through the market, and often just ends in prices lagging wage inflation (i.e. prices still increase, but not as fast as the median income). Thus there aren't immediately new jobs for those recently-unemployed--who, besides, have to contend with the long-unemployed for any open jobs, and so may not get the new jobs that pop up in a few months's time.
High rates of technical progress, as I said, cause unemployment faster than this replacement rate. That's very, very bad. Safety nets such as a Universal Social Security would slow the technical obsolescence rate to a degree and speed the recovery of the employment market, as well as help maintain the economic stability of the middle-class and lower-class who lose their jobs in the process. It won't fund a middle-class lifestyle, but it'
Support my political activism on Patreon.
We are looking at you NJ!
The house subcommittee has done nothing yet. They only allowed a proposal to be debated in committee en route to a vote by the full committee. Even if approved by the committee, the legislation has to be approved by a house vote, then a senate vote, then signed by Trump.
This initiative is still a long way from becoming law. No point in getting excited until it gets a lot closer to reality.
Exhaust pipe, but you gotta have a remote throttle. Having you wrenching buddy work the gas for you would be _gay_.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I wish to already address my condolences to the pedestrians and bikers who will suffer the severe downsides of this rushed deployment of what is an "automated driving assistant" under the disguise as autonomous driving.
OK, so how do you handle corporate responsibility? Take the Firestone Explorer case as a well documented and typical example. Neither company comes out covered in glory or demonstrates superb engineering skills, at the same time if you aren't going to sue the corporations which guy are you going to sue/send to prison/kill?
I was told of a round table where it was proposed that industrial exemption for engineers should be removed so that ultimately an actual PE signs off for each safety critical system (the particular context was AV software, but it would apply generally). I think that would be terrific, ethically. I also think it would put all domestic automakers out of business soon after. If I have to sign off for SUVs rolling over and will be held liable, my name ain't going on that document until EVERY aspect of that event had been tested. Not cost effectively, absolutely.
Also the insurance industry would laugh its socks off, as all these new PEs would have to be insured.
What would you do about imports? other countries don't bother with the archaic PE model, by and large.
Finally, the necessary influx of grandfathered PEs (remember a PE can't practice out of their known competence, and has to have direct personal supervision of the work) would completely dominate the state PE system and destroy the old boys club.
It's not worth responding to him...
The whole point of incorporation is to avoid personal responsibility. It is a practical trade off of people being too scared to ever do anything and the public accepting there own levels.
We're always going to have more job seekers than jobs, thanks to Malthusian growth: population expands in abundance.
Several nations are now experiencing negative population growth. Careful with that "always".
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Are they getting richer or poorer? Which nations?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
https://www.google.com/search?...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
United States is in there because some collapsed local economies have vacated population; United States population is increasing.
Despite ever increasing population in the US, some American municipalities (city limits) have shrunk due to white flight and urban decay.
Japan is in there, due to a recent inflection. 128.1 million in 2010, 127 million in 2016. It's more horizontal than downward.
Russia went from 148.7 million in 1992 (collapse of the USSR) to a decline bottoming at 142.7 in 2008. It's up to 144.3 million now, slowly climbing. A comparison to their unemployment rates is interesting: as Russia's population fell initially, unemployment ramped up; the inflection point where population begun to climb again came at 2007, and population continued to climb even though unemployment spiked again in 2009 and then immediately begun to fall again (it's lower in 2010 and 2011, and has recovered by 2012).
It looks like the sudden difficulty in finding employment after the 1992 collapse of the USSR is directly time-correlated to the sharp collapse in Russian population. That's a trend in the poverty- and conflict-stricken Eastern European Bloc:
Much of Eastern Europe has lost population due to migration to Western Europe. In Eastern Europe and Russia, natality fell abruptly after the end of the Soviet Union, and death rates generally rose.
Ukraine also experienced an unemployment spike in 2009, right after recovery; they have only recovered to 2005 levels, and are still in decline. Between 2003 and 2009, they lost 1.7 million population; between 2009 and 2016, only 1 million. That decline is slowing, but Ukraine is a war-torn country with a poverty-stricken economy. Ukraine's GDP fell 50% between 2013 and 2015; so did its GDP-per-capita. It is currently 20% below 2009 levels of economic production and productivity.
Gerogia and Armenia have declining population. Georgia's unemployment rate is 12.5%; Armenia's unemployment rate remains at 18%. Armenia and others in the region experienced a drop in GDP-per-capita and the beginning of population decline in 1990; the decline slowed around 1996, although it didn't reverse to follow the great growth of GDP and GDP-per-capita. Armenia's low point was 2.876 million in 2011,and is 2.925 million now. Georgia flattened its decline in 2014, but has not begun progressing. Peoples in this country struggle for jobs.
Compare that to Azerbaijan's growing population. Their unemployment rate was 6.3% in 2007, and fell continuously to 4.9% in 2014. It's 5.1% now.
So, nations with high unemployment, falling GDP-per-capita, or both have falling populations; many of these nations began their decline after crippling economic collapse. Nations with stable unemployment and growing GDP-per-capita have stable and growing populations. United States population isn't in decline; Japan's has leveled, but hasn't started a visible trend of negative growth yet.
The data seems to confirm Malthusian growth, unless you want to go day-by-day and claim that population doesn't fluctuate up and down in absolute lockstep with the daily GDP--because of course it doesn't. The fact is a nation's population will expand if the nation grows in wealth--not the same day, but over time, growing toward that goal. Likewise, its population growth will slow when it reaches carry capacity, and shrink if the economy falters over a long enough time scale.
That means, yes, if you manage to make a nation of such wealth that there are more jobs than people, just wait a few years: you'll have more people than jobs again soon. It's not even just fertility rate; folks will flee the crippled Eastern Bloc to come to America for all those jobs, and American corporations will cite t
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Well, if a self-driving car hits and kills me, I'll never speak to you again!
(Unless it's my fault.)
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.