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.

Comments

So much for states' rights

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:So much for states' rights

[skids]

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.

Re:So much for states' rights

[The Snowman]

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.

Re:So much for states' rights

[subanark]

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