Slashdot Mirror
US Consumer Groups Warn 'Robot Car Bill' Threatens Safety (consumerreports.org)
"If you don't place a Capable Engineering crew to oversee a project that involves lives, you're asking for trouble," writes Slashdot reader Neuronwelder. Consumer Reports writes:
Congress is moving ahead with plans to let self-driving cars be tested on U.S. roads without having to comply with the same safety rules as regular vehicles... The House passed its version of the legislation earlier this month with little opposition. The Senate is expected to vote on its bill in the coming weeks... "Federal law shouldn't leave consumers as guinea pigs," said William Wallace, policy analyst for Consumers Union. "We were hopeful that this bill would include much stronger measures to protect consumers against known emerging safety risks. Unfortunately, in the bill's current form, it doesn't."
The legislation, which would take effect in 18 months, would allow the deployment of up to 50,000 self-driving vehicles per company in the first year of its application, rising to 100,000 vehicles annually by the third year, exempt from essential federal safety standards... Automakers might be able to go beyond the limits by getting exemptions for more than one model. The bill also creates a means to go beyond 100,000 cars for each company, by allowing automakers to petition the NHTSA after five years for more vehicles.
"The bill pre-empts any state safety standards," argues the group Consumer Watchdog, "but there are none yet in place at the national level."
The legislation, which would take effect in 18 months, would allow the deployment of up to 50,000 self-driving vehicles per company in the first year of its application, rising to 100,000 vehicles annually by the third year, exempt from essential federal safety standards... Automakers might be able to go beyond the limits by getting exemptions for more than one model. The bill also creates a means to go beyond 100,000 cars for each company, by allowing automakers to petition the NHTSA after five years for more vehicles.
"The bill pre-empts any state safety standards," argues the group Consumer Watchdog, "but there are none yet in place at the national level."
Not only does it leave consumers as guinea pigs, it makes every non-participating driver, cyclist, and pedestrian a guinea pig. When someone dies from a flaw in self driving, will they consider it a good trade off if maybe fifty years down the road we start to see a decrease in road deaths from the technology? Will they understand why their family paid the price? Full liability on the part of the vendor introducing a self driving technology should be a minimum requirement.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Imagine having all of these self driving cars on the road just begging to be hacked by Russia.
So long that the companies of the self driving cars are wholly liable for any and all injuries, deaths, and emotional distress to the tune of $10 million plus.
Doubt the law actually places liability on the companies testing these and we're just expected to take the deaths as the inevitable cost of progress!
He's a man who is completely concerned for the public safety, in touch with the needs of the common man, and totally not used to flying by private helicopter so that he doesn't have to associate with us peons driving Yugos.
Proof positive - as if further proof were needed - that the Republican party have their collective tongue so far up the backside of big business that they now don't care who knows. A 1+ ton of metal - carrying fuel to intensify any resulting explosion, lest we forget - allowed to use the same roads as J Random Driver without even a basic roadworthiness test? The only other logical explanation is that they're all high.
In the not too distant future we see a whole bunch of democratic drivers and Antifa activist-terrorists die in head-on collisions with 50,000 vehicles owned by a Trump company. And with this new law, there is no liability. Win-win scenario.
I can only see more litigation in this future time line.
But you may really want to take that time in County Jail and demand the right to a jury trial and don't take any deals
What safety standards?
Why do they think those standards shouldn't apply?
They call this reporting?
Make clear that federal requirements necessary for human operation, like steering wheels, won’t be required for self-driving cars
That seems normal. Where's the beef?
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
We do what we must because we can. For the good of all of us... except the ones who are dead. For there's no use crying over every mistake.
The world has always been just one big Aperture Science.
Same Shit, different Day. Just like CU did the roll over tests on the Suzuki Samari with the damn Pontoons being angled at 45 degrees and weighing 100 pounds each (200 pounds per side) to show the Roll Over Potential. Talk about a failed safety test? Should have done the same to the Jeep CJ5/7/Wrangler of the same year and seen how fast they tipped over.
No where in the proposed regulation allowing the Self-Driving Cars is there anything that over-rides current DOT/NHTSA safety standards. Oh you mean the Driver license requirements that in same states are so piss poor even a multiple DUI can have a license until they kill the fucking mayor of their town? Guess that'll show them.
In this case, it's the Insurance Industry wanting to kill the self driving cars simply due to profits because once we see major reductions in injuries and accidents involving them, they will have to lower their rates but that's not what they want since it cuts their fucking profits.
Of course there are none yet. Congress is kicking the can to the administrative agencies to figure out how to review submissions to determine if the vehicles are at least as safe as cars are now. Whether the federal agency will succeed in carrying out its mission, it will be in a better position to figure that out than congressmen are. It sounds like the "watchdogs" are asking for the self-driving vehicle equivalent of the Clipper chip: something that will be an antique before it is even passed, and then will be almost impossible to update because laws are not easily changed.
If a state decides that the Federal safety standards for a self driving car isn't adequate, can that state refuse to register that car in that state? Can a state mandate that the manufacturer of the self driving vehicle indemnify the owner of said car?
It is fine as long as it puts safety standards in place itself and sets up a regulatory body to monitor compliance.
Does whatever their corporate masters decide.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
...to oversee a project that involves lives, you're still asking for trouble.
>> 'Robot Car Bill' Threatens Safety
Is this Bill Gates? Who is this Bill person and why hasn't he already been arrested?
i don't want to ride in a self-driving car where the computer has to be in the front seat wearing a seatbelt.
We can't expect technology to be fully viable and 100% safe from the start. By imposing such expectations we are making a lot of things commercially not viable. This is why we don't have flying cars, not because we can't build them, but because we can't make them perfectly safe.
in this technology. I wonder why.
captcha: degree
You're going to need laws like this. Because it's just not going to be possible to make self-driving cars under a regulatory system designed for human-driven cars. Or indeed under any "mature" regulatory system (that is, one that has managed to fix the industry in question in place). It would be like taking today's regulatory system and insisting Ford follow it for his first Model A.
Personally, I'm not a fan of self-driving cars, so by all means oppose this law.
TENS OF THOUSANDS of people die in car accidents every year in the United States.
Look, like the rest of you, I'm arrogant enough to think myself a great driver. But the numbers are irrefutable, we fucking suck as a species, at driving. Humans have FAILED.
Given the length of development thus far, if every car was immediately switched out for a self driving car, there is no way they'd match even a substantive fraction of the number of deaths.
ANY delay will cost MORE lives than those being saved. It's absolutely asinine to take policy in that direction. It's born from a luddite mentality, and not any desire for safety. It should be shunned!
This is a poorly written article. There is no mention, except for lack of steering wheel, of the rules self driving cars don't have to follow. If you are getting up in arms over this, at least point out the problem.
if you want to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs.
First off can we stop being so whiny about a little risk? its getting annoying.
second, its not like they are forcing people to get in these cars and if your concerned that one may hit you in your vehicle on the road, well they will probably be doing the speed limit instead of 20 over the speed limit while checking their instagram posts. your car is perfectly capable to absorb that crash. thats why you pay for insurance, let your insurance company go after the manufacturer for damages. after all, they have better lawyers
Does anyone have a good car analogy?
This William Wallace guy. I knew he was just a stickler for the man. Freedom my ass. Boo, I say. Boo!
Until then, regs for human directed cars are more likely to get in the way of development than they are to do any good.
'U.S. Consumer Groups' apparently have some intelligent people in them that see, as do I and many others, that so-called 'self driving car' technology is not even close to ready-for-prime-time, and that legislators, who notably are technologically ignorant and incompetent, have been taken in by all the hype and actually believe that they're going to have K.I.T.T. to have a delightful conversation, in an English accent, on the way to their destinations. So-called 'self driving cars' are not going to do much of anything to prevent collisions and deaths, they'll probably add to them. Keep them off my roads, don't want them around me.
Given the amount of money these companies are [probably] throwing at federal, state, and local government in order to make this happen. Safety be dammed, as long as the money is rolling in.
The cited article didn't differentiate between self driving vehicles designed for human beings and self driving vehicles designed for freight only. I think it makes a difference. Who needs air bags and passenger roll bars if there are no living passengers?
Self driving cars lacking the safety requirements of a steering wheel, brake pedal, emergency brake, etc. might be acceptable for a car that can't be moved under manual control. But, it will be a while before I would trust a vehicle with no way to take manual control and get it out of a dangerous locale.
What safety requirements would be waived for self driving cars? The cited article seemed to be FUD mongering on the issue with no specifics on what is on the supposed waivers of safety features.
NRRPT/RCT