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."

12 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. Liability by fluffernutter · · Score: 3

    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.
    1. Re:Liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Like those same drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians I see every day who don't obey traffic laws or have much common sense?

      I'd say they are their own worst enemies.

    2. Re:Liability by Art+Challenor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US road transportation system kills ~40k people per year and maims many more. To put that in perspective that's the equivalent of about 300 airplane crashes per year and yet it doesn't really make the news. Every car that is currently sold is threat to those same groups - humans as drivers are absolutely the worst. Some worse than others,but none are perfect. I suspect that any technology that will be deployed would be, statistically, safer than human drivers. So deploying the technology when it has matured a little more has the immediate prospect of reducing overall death rate, however that doesn't help the individual. It's a difficult problem because statistics don't matter if it's your loved one has been killed and yet we accept this of human drivers. Expecting to go from 40k to zero deaths just by deploying autonomous technology is unrealistic. Where's the cut off, 10k deaths (saving 30k lives per year), 1000 deaths, 100???

    3. Re:Liability by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      Why would an automated car not have the parking and emergency brake automated? I will grant you, if the owner doesn't change a damaged tire and it blows while driving, it may get a bit grey as to whether the automated car should have been able to handle the situation or not. However, those should only be in very rare cases. Probably the automated car should not work if the tire lacks pressure, or if the brake pads are worn, etc.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re:Liability by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      [Rumsfled] But it's a known unknown.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Liability by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 2

      You don't think this will be in the lease market and in wide adoption within 5 years of the technology being released? Look at the emergency breaking and the backup cameras....they are everywhere....30% adoption would be wide adoption and with 30% of the cars on the roads being autonomous you will see a significant decline in deaths.

    6. Re:Liability by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Ugg the caveman: I have discovered how to make fire.
      fluffernutter: Fire dangerous, you maybe burn down village. Me ban making fire.

      Defective cars (and other products) have killed people before, that's standard liability law and it's not going to change and all the traffic laws still apply too. The regulation they're exempted from sets requirements to divide responsibility between the car and the driver, which doesn't really make much sense when they're one and the same. Everybody in the car are passengers, doesn't matter if it's defective brakes or defective AI so it didn't hit the brakes. No matter what it's the car's fault, so you can just use liability law like on any other consumer product. True, they could in theory take out or disable safety systems but I think they'd have a very hard time explaining that both in their evaluations and in court after the crash. If there's new flaws they're likely to be in the AI, which wouldn't have been part of the existing regulation anyway.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:Liability by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

      Why should the law with regard to automation differ from established law?

      For the same reason that drivers are explicitly licensed in most places and what would normally otherwise be anyone's freedom to get into a vehicle and move around in it is curtailed until they have demonstrated their competence: we are literally talking about controlling dangerous machinery in life or death situations here, and just putting up with financial compensation for any damage after the fact isn't good enough.

      I'd rather see this left to the courts to determine than having some arbitrary and irrational law based upon nothing but emotion and fear.

      False dichotomy is false, but in any case, what useful compensation could a court possibly award retrospectively if some bug (or security flaw) in an automated system caused many thousands of vehicles of a certain model to exhibit the same dangerous behaviour resulting in the death or serious injury of hundreds of nearby people within a short period of time? There are risks of scale involved here that simply don't exist when we're talking about human drivers as we have at the moment, and there is ample evidence that those risks are significant.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  2. Re:I don't have a problem with this. by Jason1729 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The thing is, currently 50,000 people a year die on American roads. Even if self-driving cars could reduce that number 99%, rather than getting credit for saving 49,500 people a year, these car companies would be ripped apart for "murdering" 500 people a year. Rather than winning accolades for saving 10's of thousands of lives, they'd be sued for hundreds of millions a year for those hundreds of deaths.

    You need legislation to prevent that kind of liability, and it will save many, many lives. It just won't save everyone.

  3. Re:I don't have a problem with this. by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You need legislation to prevent that kind of liability, and it will save many, many lives. It just won't save everyone.

    No you don't. You just need insurance and actuaries to calculate and charge for the risks--which is exactly how we handle car accident deaths already.

    Nothing new is needed to deal with self-driving car liabilities. It's a solved problem. I will never understand why people cling to this idea that it's not.

  4. Re:I don't have a problem with this. by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

    Nope. In that case, the business controls the drivers who control the car so of course there needs to be insurance for liability. A business buying self driving cars from Google should not be liable either, since there is nothing they can do to control the car. Yes you may want to insure against external forces such as vandalism or fire, but why would anyone pay for liability for something they do not control?

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  5. No mention of what rules they aren't following by jfdavis668 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.