Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US House Panel Approves Broad Proposal On Self-Driving Cars (reuters.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the hands-off dept.

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.

9 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. So much for states' rights by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.'"
    1. 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
    2. 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.

      --
      Someone had to do it.
    3. 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!
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

  2. Re:Who gave them the money? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

    All the major automakers want to start producing autonomous vehicles ASAP, and I do mean all. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about commuter econoboxes or class eight trucks, there is immense customer demand for AVs. AVs are seen as the solution to reducing (some claim "eliminating") road fatalities, which is making them desirable to government. How plausible eliminating driving fatalities actually is remains to be seen, but it's difficult to imagine accomplishing it without virtually one hundred percent adoption.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Does Raise a Question... by sycodon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Does Raise a Question... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Who is responsible for injuries when the fault is clearly with the self driving car?

      I think that would depend on what caused the injuries. If it was linked to something ridiculous and programming error (like it mistakes black cars for asphalt) then it would be the fault of the manufacturer.

      If the incident was due to a tyre bursting whilst driving, a maintenance issue, or something typically referred to as "an act of God" then the owner of the vehicle would be liable for any damages.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch