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.

6 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. Re:So much for states' rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    50 different laws and regulatory frameworks, many based on fear and conjecture. Sounds great.

  2. Re:So much for states' rights by GLMDesigns · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You realize incorrectly.

    States rights are an essential check and balance on the concentration of power. The fact that some racists took it up as a rallying point no more indicts states rights than a KKK or Final Call newsletter indicts Freedom of the Press.

    Imagine how much further along we would be if we, as a nation, respected states rights. You want weed legal. Good do so in your state. You think universal health care should exist. Good do so. Pass it in your state. That is the only way we, as a continent sized country, with a lot of different sides (it's way more complicated than left/right) can coexist without much friction. You want to allow women to walk around topless, allow anyone to use any bathroom, x,y,z. Pass it your state. If others find it to be a good idea they'll adopt it.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  3. Re:So much for states' rights by skids · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Recently Sessions is on a tear to prevent states from banning civil asset forfeiture without a conviction by amping up the federal asset forfeiture adoption program. So much for Republican support for "states rights." Which is what GP is getting at: states rights are only a political convenience... when they disagree with federal policy because it doesn't let them keep the brown folks in the ghetto: "STATES RIGHTS!". When they want to beat up on poor people in blue states or do something to earn corporate campaign contributions, not so much.

  4. Re:So much for states' rights by The+Snowman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It needs to go to the Supreme Court to delineate how state law can limit asset forfeiture on debts owed to the Federal Government.

    Civil asset forfeiture has nothing to do with owing debt. It is charging property with a crime so it can be confiscated: by the way, property does not get a day in court, it just belongs to the police now. In other words, it allows police at any level of government to be highway robbers, quite literally. Pulled over for speeding and your brake light was burned out? I think your car is being used for illegal purposes, so I am entitled to all of the cash in your car, including in your wallet, because that cash is guilty of being involved with a crime and it cannot legally defend itself.

    This has everything to do with a gross violation of the fourth amendment and nothing to do with paying debts. The fact that when people fight it in court the police decide to settle rather than go to trial is very telling of the fact that nobody thinks this practice will pass Constitutional muster.

    --
    24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
  5. Re:So much for states' rights by subanark · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The question is not whether driverless cars will kill people, but if they do so less frequently than human driven cars.

  6. Re:So much for states' rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The fact that someone's never been in an accident doesn't magically put them in a 0% risk bucket.