US Senate Panel Approves Self-Driving Car Legislation (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee on Wednesday unanimously approved a bill to speed self-driving cars to market without human controls and bar states from imposing regulatory road blocks. The bill still must be approved by the full Senate. The U.S. House passed a similar version last month unanimously. General Motors Co, Alphabet Inc, Ford Motor Co and others have lobbied for the landmark legislation. Despite some complaints from Republicans, the Senate bill does not speed approval of self-driving technology for large commercial trucks after labor unions raised safety and employment concerns. The measure, the first significant federal legislation aimed at speeding self-driving cars to market, would allow automakers to win exemptions from current safety rules that prohibit vehicles without human controls. States could still set rules on registration, licensing, liability, insurance and safety inspections, but not performance standards.

Comments

All I need to Know...

[clonehappy]

General Motors Co, Alphabet Inc, Ford Motor Co and others have lobbied for the landmark legislation.

Enough said to know where I should stand on this.

Re:All I need to Know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Write down the names of the guys in charge so you know who to hang when accidents start happening.

Re:All I need to Know...

[gweihir]

Accidents happen all the time. The only thing needed for this to be a good idea is less average damage to people in accidents with self-driving cars than in human-controlled ones. That should not be hard to achieve...

Re:All I need to Know...

[rmdingler]

People like you who don't have the education or direct experience working with the specific technology in this case are not in any way shape or form qualified to be commenting on how safe or beneficial it'll be. You're just one more bobble-head believing and agreeing with the nonsensical hype you're being spoon-fed about this. The FACT of the matter is this isn't even real "AI" to start with, it's shitty half-assed "machine learning" crap, and at current it has to 'phone home' to have a remote HUMAN operator take over from it when it runs into something it can't handle. This reveals it to be a PIECE OF SHIT that should not be allowed on public roads. There will be traffic problems because of this garbage, there will be DEATHS that need not have occurred and that nobody will be held responsible for. DO NOT WANT!

Similar logical fallacy, circa 1900, used by folks wanting to demonize the horseless carriage.

Re:All I need to Know...

[Vermonter]

He never said how safe it was, he just said how safe it needs to be. But please, don't let reading comprehension get in the way of your talking point.

Re: All I need to Know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apples a and oranges my friend. Apples and oranges. Nice try tho.

Re:All I need to Know...

[Anonymous Coward]

People like you who don't have the education or direct experience working with the specific technology in this case are not in any way shape or form qualified to be commenting on how safe or beneficial it'll be. You're just one more bobble-head believing and agreeing with the nonsensical hype you're being spoon-fed about this.

The FACT of the matter is this isn't even real "AI" to start with, it's shitty half-assed "machine learning" crap, and at current it has to 'phone home' to have a remote HUMAN operator take over from it when it runs into something it can't handle. This reveals it to be a PIECE OF SHIT that should not be allowed on public roads. There will be traffic problems because of this garbage, there will be DEATHS that need not have occurred and that nobody will be held responsible for.

  DO NOT WANT!

Yea.. keep driving for Uber until machine takes your job. May be get some training to be a truck driver since their union is vocal enough to prevent autonomous truck happening too fast.

Re:All I need to Know...

[rtb61]

"Similar logical fallacy, circa 1900, used by folks wanting to demonize the horseless carriage." and look how many people died (millions) or where injured (hundreds of millions, many more than once) as a result. Now what was your argument again ;P.

Re:All I need to Know...

[swillden]

The FACT of the matter is this isn't even real "AI" to start with, it's shitty half-assed "machine learning" crap, and at current it has to 'phone home' to have a remote HUMAN operator take over from it when it runs into something it can't handle.

So what?

If it reduces accidents, and the evidence we have so far is that it does, then bring it on. BTW, we have two forms of evidence: the numbers on accidents that we get from companies making self-driving systems and the willingness of at least some of those companies to accept full liability for any accidents caused by their systems. The former could possibly be dismissed. The latter is pretty compelling.

Re:All I need to Know...

[goose-incarnated]

People like you who don't have the education or direct experience working with the specific technology in this case are not in any way shape or form qualified to be commenting on how safe or beneficial it'll be. You're just one more bobble-head believing and agreeing with the nonsensical hype you're being spoon-fed about this. The FACT of the matter is this isn't even real "AI" to start with, it's shitty half-assed "machine learning" crap, and at current it has to 'phone home' to have a remote HUMAN operator take over from it when it runs into something it can't handle. This reveals it to be a PIECE OF SHIT that should not be allowed on public roads. There will be traffic problems because of this garbage, there will be DEATHS that need not have occurred and that nobody will be held responsible for. DO NOT WANT!

Similar logical fallacy, circa whenever, used by folks wanting to demonize the Perpetual Motion Machine

FTFY. Just because something unrelated succeeded in the past does not mean new unrelated thing will succeed.

Re:All I need to Know...

[goose-incarnated]

The FACT of the matter is this isn't even real "AI" to start with, it's shitty half-assed "machine learning" crap, and at current it has to 'phone home' to have a remote HUMAN operator take over from it when it runs into something it can't handle.

So what?

If it reduces accidents, and the evidence we have so far is that it does,

Wait, what? When did "we" get that evidence? All we have evidence of is that the group of alert drivers ready to take over at a moments notice coupled with a rule-based driving software that is only allowed to drive in perfect conditions results in less crashes than the group of all other drivers in all other conditions.

Let's wait until they put general-population drivers in with the software before calling it a success, okay? I want to see science done with a proper control group, which is group of alert drivers driving in perfect conditions, not everyone else.

Re:All I need to Know...

[gweihir]

Invalid AdHominem. The rest of your comment is not even worth reading...

Re:All I need to Know...

[gweihir]

Automation is actually better for these types of tasks, than strong AI (if we had that) would be, because it is much faster and does not try to understand the situation. If it encounters something not in its profile, it just goes to a safe state as fast as possible.

Re:All I need to Know...

[gweihir]

Thanks, nice to know that _some_ people here are not functionally illiterate.

Re:All I need to Know...

[gweihir]

Indeed. The thing is that as soon as safety is adequate, the next thing they will tackle is cost, as in reducing wear&tear, reducing fuel consumption, reducing damage to transported goods, etc. One thing they already have is increased flexibility, because of no rest times and no other biological limitations. Pretty soon a human driver will be entirely outclassed and hugely more expensive.

This stuff is coming. The only sane thing for those it will replace is to make sure they have other marketable skills when it comes. Trying to fight the tide just does damage to everyone and will eventually fail anyways.

Re:All I need to Know...

[rmdingler]

* {I think} we're just arguing that vehicles piloted by software, sensors, and cameras are likely to be safer and more accident-free, in the long run, than vehicles piloted by humans using their organic computers and variable-speed reflexes.

If this doesn't resonate with you, the human drivers where you live must suck considerably less than the ones we are exposed to daily.

*I've been distracted since last posting by a whiskey, some sleep, a dog on the wrong side of a door, and a mosquito bite; so in fairness, I could've lost the thread entirely. ;^)

Re:All I need to Know...

[Paradise Pete]

Enough said to know where I should stand on this.

That's a bit simplistic. Of course they would lobby for it. That by itself doesn't make it wrong. Sometimes the opposing side wants an artificial restriction. For instance, the labor unions opposed it because they don't want truckers to lose their jobs. Well of course that's what will eventually happen. But stopping progress to preserve legacy jobs is little different than extended government welfare. The people who would benefit (i.e. everyone else) are deprived of the progress.

Re:All I need to Know...

[swillden]

You're ignoring all of Google's self-driving data (which includes lots of driving with general-population drivers). And my second -- and more compelling -- point.

I want to see science done with a proper control group, which is group of alert drivers driving in perfect conditions

That's not a proper control group, that's an unrealistic fantasy group.

Re:All I need to Know...

[swillden]

Automation is actually better for these types of tasks, than strong AI (if we had that) would be

Yeah, strong AI might get bored and decide to focus on its poetry composition, rather than drive.

Re:All I need to Know...

[goose-incarnated]

You're ignoring all of Google's self-driving data (which includes lots of driving with general-population drivers). And my second -- and more compelling -- point.

I want to see science done with a proper control group, which is group of alert drivers driving in perfect conditions

That's not a proper control group, that's an unrealistic fantasy group.

The "evidence" you referred to in your OP was gained from -always-alert drivers correcting the SD software in perfect conditions. The control for such a group would always-alert drivers in perfect conditions.

It's not unrealistic - whoever is making the claims of "we drove X million miles with Y accidents" should divide their pool of drivers in half and have the control group drive around the same routes with SDC software turned off: that's the only way to tell if the SDC software is an improvement or not. There isn't any other way.

Re:All I need to Know...

[swillden]

The "evidence" you referred to in your OP was gained from -always-alert drivers correcting the SD software in perfect conditions.

Nope. I've seen how the Google testing is done. And you're still ignoring the more compelling second point.

Re:All I need to Know...

[goose-incarnated]

The "evidence" you referred to in your OP was gained from -always-alert drivers correcting the SD software in perfect conditions.

Nope. I've seen how the Google testing is done. And you're still ignoring the more compelling second point.

I haven't ignored it - I addressed it specifically:

It's not unrealistic - whoever is making the claims of "we drove X million miles with Y accidents" should divide their pool of drivers in half and have the control group drive around the same routes with SDC software turned off

All science is done using a control group in which only a single variable is changed, not one where multiple variables are changed. If studying the SDC capabilities then the control group has to be identical but without the actual SDC. As all the current SDCs in existence require a human anyway it is trivial to simply turn the SDC off and leave the human in place.

Re:All I need to Know...

[swillden]

The point that you're ignoring is that the relevant companies have expressed their intent to accept full liability for any accidents caused by their systems. That's the truly compelling argument.

As all the current SDCs in existence require a human anyway

Google's doesn't.

Re:All I need to Know...

[goose-incarnated]

The point that you're ignoring is that the relevant companies have expressed their intent to accept full liability for any accidents caused by their systems. That's the truly compelling argument.

As all the current SDCs in existence require a human anyway

Google's doesn't.

Perhaps I am being unclear: google has many millions of miles logged with a driver+sdc. To display that the sdc drivers better than the human they should log an equal number of miles on the exact same routes during the same seasons with the same cars and same drivers, but with the sdc turned off.

remember that your claim was that we already have evidence that sdcs are better drivers than humans, my claim was that there was no control group so that doesn't constitute any kind of scientific evidence. My claim still stands.

But not self-driving trucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not trucks?

A totally-unmanned truck has a lot more life-saving options open to it in a bad situation than a car presumably carrying people.

Unions

[JBMcB]

Because of unions. Next question?

Re:Unions

[viperidaenz]

Self driving trucks don't go on strike

Re:Unions

[Xenx]

That's really more of a statement. But, I think the point was unions lobbying against it.

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

Source? K, thx.

Re:Unions

[JBMcB]

Source? K, thx.

Uh, the article?

Re:Unions

[Anonymous Coward]

The article is about Dreamers not cars. K, thx.

Re:Unions

[tomhath]

Click on the reuters.com link next to the headline. K, thx.

Neither the House nor the Senate bill would speed approval of self-driving technology for vehicles over 10,000 pounds, a step pushed by trucking organizations. Labor unions raised safety and employment concerns, and Democrats resisted that part of the proposal.

Is there a need?

[DaMattster]

Is there really a need for self-driving cars? I guess the answer is yes if you stand to profit from removing the human element of your business. It's true that you can have self-driving cars delivering pizzas or Chinese food but what happens when there aren't humans to order these goods and services because no one earns enough money to buy them. I know that Uber and Lyft positively get wet dreams over not having to pay a driver and worry about said driver's reliability. But, what happens when there are few humans to purchase the services?

Re:Is there a need?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there really a need for self-driving cars?

Yes. Human-driven cars kill 30K people every single year in the United States. That is like the recent Las Vegas shooting, two times every day of the year.

Self-driving won't be perfect, but if it is a major improvement on human-driven, then yes, we do need this. It needs to be phased in and eventually legislated to outlaw the extremely dangerous human driven cars.

It won't take that much to beat humans. It may not be immediate, but it WILL happen. That is a matter of when not if.

Re: Is there a need?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of those 30K people are doing dangerous things though. Is it better if they only kill 25K people but these accidents happen totally out of the blue to people who are doing nothing but trusting a technology is safe? I guess as long as corporations keep profiting, we tend to not worry about these things.

Re: Is there a need?

[Anonymous Coward]

When it gets down to 5K per year, which it will, then it's worth it no matter what.

Incremental improvement of self driving cars is going to make humans its bitch.

Re:Is there a need?

[bluefoxlucid]

I guess the answer is yes if you stand to profit from removing the human element of your business.

Wages are paid from revenues. Revenues come from price. Consumer buying power is increased by technology. Technology has a single purpose: reduce the working hours put in to get a particular result.

Nations with a high standard-of-living and high GDP-per-capita are operating on high technical progress: they invest fewer labor-hours to produce the same goods. For example: poorer nations may invest 10-20 times the human working hours to produce the same amount of food, and must expend more of their income on food. India's economy was brought up-to-speed over about 20 years, cutting out around 96% of the cost of producing rice--that is, 96% of the human labor.

Now, if you want to spend 40% of the median income on food instead of 12% (and that 12% includes a lot more eating out-of-home than home-cooked meals, so you're paying servants to cook and clean for you, too), you can just give me a third of your paycheck.

Re:Is there a need?

[Anonymous Coward]

It won't take that much to beat humans

Yes it does. It doesn't take that much to fool AI.

Who's the bigger fool? AI, or the fool that follows it?

Nope.

[CanHasDIY]

unanimously approved a bill to speed self-driving cars to market without human controls and bar states from imposing regulatory road blocks.

So, defacto unconstitutional, then.

The federal government has no authority to bar states from passing laws for items not specifically named in the Constitution.

Re:Nope.

[msauve]

I'm sure they do it the same as always - suck great amounts of tax out of the states, then give it back (federal highway funds, etc) only on the condition that the states kowtow to the feds.

Re:Nope.

[DickBreath]

The Federal government effectively prevented states from setting speed limits above 55 mph for a long time. Some of us had to suffer with that absurdity for fifteen years. Then an additional ten years to get things back to normal.

So how did they do this? By tying it to federal highway funding. "Hey, state legislatures, that looks like some nice roads you've got there in your state. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to them because you lose your federal highway funding and are unable to maintain your roads."

In order to keep everyone safe, states should be able to ban self driving cars, because they kill people. And require everyone to carry guns, because . . . um . . . because the NRA tolds us that . . . um . . . that they bring people back to life, that's what!

Re:Nope.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for that "interstate commerce clause", which happens to be how every car manufacturer sells vehicles and most consumers tend to drive...

>So, defacto unconstitutional, then.
>>and bar states from imposing regulatory road blocks.

Re:Nope.

[Anonymous Coward]

Falls under interstate commerce, and thank the Lord. These vehicles are way too dangerous to leave it up to the states. I certainly don't want any self-driving trucks near my family. It is the height of recklessness.

Re:Nope.

[Dorianny]

That used to be the case until the definition of "interstate commerce" was expanded with the blessings of the Supreme Court to include pretty much any commercial activity at all

Re:Nope.

[Xenx]

Interstate trucking would be the least dangerous type of self-driving vehicle usage.

Re:Nope.

[Anonymous Coward]

The federal government has been given great leeway to regulate interstate commerce so it probably is constitutional. Is this wise time will tell. I share skepticism as to whether the vehicles will work well. Self driving vehicles have much potential to improve peoples lives.

Re:Nope.

[drinkypoo]

That used to be the case until the definition of "interstate commerce" was expanded with the blessings of the Supreme Court to include pretty much any commercial activity at all

The ICC has certainly been abused plenty, but we have federal motor vehicle standards for a reason, and that reason really is interstate commerce.

Re:Nope.

[Obfuscant]

Interstate trucking would be the least dangerous type of self-driving vehicle usage.

Since interstate truck drivers are already heavily regulated for safety, probably also one of the lowest returns on investment based on safety concerns. But also one of the the highest potentials for damage when the AV fails. Interstate triple-bottom freight haulers going wacko on the interstate highways could take out a lot of humans and infrastructure.

Trucking AV would be a windfall for shipping companies, with no clear guarantee that shipping rates would reflect the savings.

Re:Nope.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if car models were only sold in one state and could not drive across state lines, you may have an argument. Otherwise, automobile regulation neatly fits into the realm of interstate commerce.

Re:Nope.

[Anonymous Coward]

Assume that self-driving cars are even slightly less safe than your average decently aware defensive driver. Such technology, when fully implemented, will still see vast increases in vehicle safety. Issues like agressive driving/road rage, impaired driving (drugs/alcohol), people falling asleep at the wheel dry up overnight.

The thing I am excited for is when hundreds of autonomous vehicles at a stop light are able to accelerate in lock step. This is so much better than the first car goes, then the second car goes, then the third car sits there until the 4th car honks at it, then the 4th car goes at the same time the 5th car starts to go, but the 5th car can't go, so he jams on the breaks to a full stop before going, then... Plus, all the traffic congestion that occurs because of selfish driving habits. There are situations where it is clear that the one person agressively trying to weave through the gridlock traffic is exasterbating the gridlock behind him/her.

Re:Nope.

[Xenx]

Yes, damages would be greater if/when there is an accident. However, given the relatively less complex nature of it, it would still likely be easier to maintain a higher safety record than in other sectors. As to the savings, I would imagine there would be savings passed down. You have to entice people to change. However, I would assume most of the savings would end up in the pockets of the company/investors.

Where's your republic now?

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee on Wednesday unanimously approved a bill to speed self-driving cars to market without human controls and bar states from imposing regulatory road blocks.

Is this the same Senate who says marriage rights are a state right and that individual states can do as they please, including allowing being a bigoted douchebag?

Sorry, for those of us unclear on your so-called Republic, how is this any different than that? Oh, wait, your Senate has been bought and paid for by lobbyists and don't actually care.

Amazing, the US Senate is really just a bunch of industry shills.

Re:Where's your republic now?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is time to repeal the 17th Amendment and give back the states' representation in the federal government.

Republicans are hypocrites

[Kludge]

It is amazing how Republicans complain about Democrats passing laws that restrict "state's rights", but then do the same when they want.

Re:Republicans are hypocrites

[Weaselmancer]

Yes, by all means mod me troll for quoting RationalWiki. Morons.

Yesterday I asked! Today we have an answer!

[oldgraybeard]

Yesterday I asked some questions like:
"Do they have any liability protections built in to the laws to protect the companies deploying these vehicles?"

What are the Liability ramifications

Today we have some answers, and one could maybe? think the public "IS" being used as test dummies ;)
Who in the event of accidents, issues, problems "MAY" have to live with arbitration ;)

Self Driving in Winter

[Anonymous Coward]

When self-driving cars can navigate a snow covered road, with other snow covered cars, snow covered trees, and a layer of ice at night, I will consider letting it drive for me.

Re:Self Driving in Winter

[Anonymous Coward]

Most humans can't do this. It probably wouldn't take much training to get an AI to do this better than most human drivers.

Re:Self Driving in Winter

[rmdingler]

When self-driving cars can navigate a snow covered road, with other snow covered cars, snow covered trees, and a layer of ice at night, I will consider letting it drive for me.

Well, the autonomous terrain vehicles will communicate with other snow-covered vehicles, the snow covered trees should be out of the roadway, and it seems reasonable that regions prone to inclement weather would incorporate sensors into the roadways.

Re:Self Driving in Winter

[Anonymous Coward]

They will be able to do that better than humans. Self driving car can employ a wide range of sensors including radar and other things that humans cannot. Self driving car can have much more information in bad weather, including immediate knowledge of other cars motions by cooperative engagement, to prevent the huge accident cascades of 50+ cars that humans get in in bad vis.

Re: Self Driving in Winter

[Anonymous Coward]

Where i live, thousands of humans do this for 60% of the year.

Re: Self Driving in Winter

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes because all sensors work great under a foot of snow and ice after being outside in a storm.

Re:Self Driving in Winter

[Obfuscant]

Well, the autonomous terrain vehicles will communicate with other snow-covered vehicles,

Explain how your Ohlenhausen Smugmobile 3100 AV car will communicate with my 2017 Subaru that is parked on the side of the street covered by snow.

and it seems reasonable that regions prone to inclement weather would incorporate sensors into the roadways.

Based on quotes one and two here, I am assuming you think that AV will only be allowed on the road after all other vehicles are removed from service and every municipality has invested millions of dollars in embedded sensors for all their roads. Until that happens, both of your solutions to the problem do not exist.

Re:Self Driving in Winter

[jezwel]

There are many countries where snowfall is simply not a factor. Let AV get a foothold first where the climate is less harsh, and it can extend into the more difficult regions as the technology matures. There may be areas where it just does not make sense - doesn't mean it cannot be used elsewhere.

Re: Self Driving in Winter

[Anonymous Coward]

Hundreds of thousands.

Re:Self Driving in Winter

[drinkypoo]

Explain how your Ohlenhausen Smugmobile 3100 AV car will communicate with my 2017 Subaru that is parked on the side of the street covered by snow.

Your 2017 Subaru will (eventually) be required to carry a V2V beacon which uses GPS and whatever the current communications standard is to communicate vehicle position and speed, as well as throttle position and the state of the brake light switch. All of this is trivial to report from most vehicles — whether via OBD-II or simply tapping the relevant signals with high-resistance probes that won't affect the vehicle's behavior. The only vehicles which will be at all difficult to support will be those like my 1982 MBZ 300SD, which doesn't have anything like that except when operating under cruise control (which doesn't work anyway.) They will need an accelerator position sensor added, which is less trivial.

Based on quotes one and two here, I am assuming you think that AV will only be allowed on the road after all other vehicles are removed from service and every municipality has invested millions of dollars in embedded sensors for all their roads. Until that happens, both of your solutions to the problem do not exist.

Stop pretending that vehicles buried in snowdrifts is a problem everywhere. It isn't.

Re:Self Driving in Winter

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you never been somewhere that is snows? Where I live, it doesn't snow much. But on several occasions I've seen a drift melt and a car appear.

Re:Self Driving in Winter

[Doctor Memory]

Apparently you're unaware that radar is actually used to detect snow, and this works because snow reflects radar. So in a heavy snowstorm, your radar is going to be pretty much useless. Same for lasers or other optical means. You need the ability to create models of object moving at high speed in real time based on incomplete information. You also have to compensate for changes to those models using controls that suddenly exhibit non-linear behavior and responses, with the nature of the non-linearity changing dynamically. And good luck with your "cooperative engagement" when a gust of wind hits a car on ice and it suddenly changes lanes with no changes to the controls.

Re:Self Driving in Winter

[drinkypoo]

Have you never been somewhere that is snows? Where I live, it doesn't snow much. But on several occasions I've seen a drift melt and a car appear.

So SDCs will be suitable there last. So what? Nobody is pretending it isn't a problem. But it is a solvable one, given enough time.

Re:Self Driving in Winter

[Obfuscant]

Your 2017 Subaru will (eventually) be required to carry a V2V beacon which uses GPS

By "eventually" you mean "never". Another example of impossible requirements being required before AV work well in all situations.

Stop pretending that vehicles buried in snowdrifts is a problem everywhere. It isn't.

It is a problem that you were presenting a solution for, a solution that is clearly impossible until two impossible things happen (and now three). It doesn't matter if it doesn't happen everywhere, it will happen and your solution is not.

Dear Senate, approval for 2 wheels vehicles.

[Anonymous Coward]

A motorbike doesn't need a controller of self-driving vehicle because the motorbike's driver doesn't need it.

No commercial truck provisions?

[Dorianny]

This is stupid, long-haul trucking is the industry that would benefit most from self-driving vehicles and it is also one of the easier challenges for the auto-industry. You can expect many states to start throwing roadblocks disguised as safety concerns that are meant to delay roll-out for the purpose of "saving jobs"

Re:No commercial truck provisions?

[drinkypoo]

This is stupid, long-haul trucking is the industry that would benefit most from self-driving vehicles and it is also one of the easier challenges for the auto-industry.

It is not time to have fully automated class 8 trucks driving around. They are just too big and thus too dangerous. Normally sized vehicles are dangerous enough. Give it a few more years, and you'll see similar legislation for heavy trucks.

It is also not easier to do self-driving trucks, because they have to be able to handle all the same situations that self-driving cars have to be able to handle. Or have you never seen a person or a deer running across a freeway? How about stuff sitting in the road, like a cardboard box, chunk of a tire, mattress, stack of lumber, scissor jack, bag of trash, burning vehicle, half a deer, jumper cables, a rock the size of my head, a wheel with a tire, or a wheel without a tire? How's about stuff flying above the road, like a plastic bag floating every which way, a goose taking off, or a vulture taking off trailing a disintegrating "mass" (I use the term loosely) of roadkill? These are all things I've seen on the freeway, except the goose. The moment you take the human out of the truck, or even take the human's eyes off of the road, the truck has to be able to deal with all of that stuff, and more.

Re:No commercial truck provisions?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe machine that constantly scans the 360 degree of road every 10 milliseconds and has reaction time in millisecond would be safer than sleep deprived human who sometimes get depressed for his job and family situation (because his job is going to go away in a few years).
Deer running across a freeway? machine would have spotted it hiding behind that bush half a mile away with radar scan and already calculated all possible outcomes. Human driver would be too busy to spot it while fiddling with GPS jammer trying to jam out its own tracking system so he can take a nap somewhere.

Re:No commercial truck provisions?

[fluffernutter]

It's cute how you think AI is strong enough to pick out a deer behind a bush *and* anticipate that it is about to run out into the road. Is this x-ray vision radar with human-like intelligence? Exactly how expensive will these vehicles be with x-ray infrared radar vision sensors with enough on board CPU for human thinking? Car companies have to be forced to put seat belts in at $5 a car as it is. Or do you think there will be internet access to the 'mother ship' from every dark road with deer in America and the connection will happen quickly enough to send the image, detect the deer in mid-lurch, and stop the car in time without injuring the occupant?

Re:No commercial truck provisions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Long haul trucking should not exist. If it does in your country, that's a wakeup call that you should be investing more in rail. Which is easier to automate, too.

Re:No commercial truck provisions?

[swillden]

It's cute how you think AI is strong enough to pick out a deer behind a bush *and* anticipate that it is about to run out into the road

Well, I actually experienced something similar while riding in one of Google's self-driving cars. It wasn't a deer, he was a cyclist, and it wasn't a bush, it was a hedge, but the car saw it and delayed entering the intersection to let him go past, even though no human driver could have known the cyclist was coming.

I'll grant that knowing which way a deer is going to jump is not achievable with AI -- it's not achievable with human intelligence, either. But what AI could do is to decide to slow a bit, or perhaps change lanes to put more distance between it and the potentially-running deer. Of course, in the case of a semi-tractor, the right decision would be to just maintain course and speed. If the deer jumps in the road, well, too bad for the deer. Semis have big and very strong bumpers for just such occasions.

Re:No commercial truck provisions?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the human is going to have 'intuition' that will not be found in the first few versions of the machine (although the reverse will be true also). I think the machine is going to have much better reaction to a well formed obstacle suddenly entering the roadway (although for small items it likely can't try to avoid them any more than a human could).

I think the real mistake is not restricting this to the Interstates and some well-maintained state highways (and safe places to park when exiting same) for the first couple years. They are limited enough that: the car can know exactly how many lanes and where they are, the car can probably get daily updates road construction and lane shifts and get by-the-minute or even by-the-second updates on traffic conditions... and especially have a little subroutine that compares what the car would have done if it didn't know in advance of something. (For example, the lane tracking routines would have gone straight, but the car happened to know a lane shift was occurring, or there happened to be another car ahead that it decided to mimic - if those with- and without- special help decision trees produce different results, the car maker needs to know that without special help the car would have done the wrong thing and in a different situation could have caused a fatal crash.) I have a funny feeling that upon getting 10^3 or higher number of would-have-made-the-wrong-choice reports from a well known roadways, the carmakers would thank their lucky stars for being able to improve their road/decision analysis without it coming from a fatality. And of course, the interstates always separate opposing traffic, and limit chances for objects, animals, and people to appear from nowhere.

This would also have had the benefit of still getting most of the benefit of taking over the boring part of long drives, and assuming that non-autonomous brake assist would still have avoided a large share of crashes in other situations. Unfortunately what we have now is blind hope placed in an industry that can't program well enough to not have OS patches each and every month.

Re:No commercial truck provisions?

[fluffernutter]

Again, there has been no publicity on how realistic it would be for Google's self driving array to be put into, let's say, a Chevy Spark, so it is unknown whether the vast population will ever be able to afford such functionality. Even if it does work perfectly.

Re:No commercial truck provisions?

[drinkypoo]

Of course, in the case of a semi-tractor, the right decision would be to just maintain course and speed. If the deer jumps in the road, well, too bad for the deer. Semis have big and very strong bumpers for just such occasions.

Nope. A deer can still take out the radiator, if you catch it in mid-jump. The right answer is to brake as much as possible before you hit it, to minimize damage.

Re:No commercial truck provisions?

[swillden]

Again, there has been no publicity on how realistic it would be for Google's self driving array to be put into, let's say, a Chevy Spark

Why would it not be realistic? The Google-made test cars are even smaller than a Spark. All the system requires is some sensors around the perimeter, the lidar unit on top and a smallish CPU case inside.

so it is unknown whether the vast population will ever be able to afford such functionality.

I doubt that most people will ever buy a self-driving car. Not because they'll be priced out of it -- there's nothing inherently expensive in any of the self-driving equipment; it's expensive now but by the time it's made in volume it won't be -- but because fleets of self-driving taxis will make it so that owning a car is simply not necessary the way it is in most of the country today. Calling a car with your phone when you need it will be cheaper and in some cases even more convenient. This will be especially true for the next generation (probably not born quite yet) who will grow up with self-driving taxis and becomes accustomed to having that sort of mobility even before they are old enough to have a car of their own.

Even if it does work perfectly.

It doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be good enough.

Re:No commercial truck provisions?

[fluffernutter]

Well if no one can afford it then it's not going to make a lick of difference to the safety of roads anyway whether it is perfect or not. So that's why this is all hype. Companies are doing this to make money, not to make driving safer. It will probably not ever make driving safer.

Re:No commercial truck provisions?

[fluffernutter]

Oh and it does have to work pretty much perfectly. No one would give a brand of toasters a pass if only one out of a million caught fire and burned someone's house down. They must be engineered to exact specifications so that it can't happen. Why would we be more lenient with a $60,000 vehicle than we are with a $50 toaster? Consumer products should not kill consumers, period.

Re:No commercial truck provisions?

[swillden]

Nope. It just has to work better than the average human driver. And that's a pretty low bar.

Re:No commercial truck provisions?

[swillden]

Your reading comprehension is poor.

Re:No commercial truck provisions?

[fluffernutter]

So you're willing to save drunk drivers and chronic texters, possibly at the cost of people who are driving safely right now. I say leave most of the deaths and injuries with the people that are the problem.

Re:No commercial truck provisions?

[fluffernutter]

I guess I missed the analysis of how self driving safety becomes statistically relevant if they only consist of 2% of all vehicles.

Re:No commercial truck provisions?

[swillden]

Are you commenting on some other thread now? Your responses are increasingly unrelated to what we've been talking about.

Re:No commercial truck provisions?

[swillden]

No, I'm willing to accept a solution that lowers highway accidents across the board. Keep in mind that being a good driver does not keep you safe on the road.

Re:No commercial truck provisions?

[fluffernutter]

We are talking about how safe self driving cars will be in the future.

Re:No commercial truck provisions?

[fluffernutter]

But being a good driver increases your chances of being safe. That is all that matters. By introducing imperfect automatic driving you're giving everyone an equal crap-shoot whether they are traditionally safe drivers or not. Therefore you are putting people at a higher risk than they otherwise were.

Re:No commercial truck provisions?

[drinkypoo]

I doubt that most people will ever buy a self-driving car. Not because they'll be priced out of it -- there's nothing inherently expensive in any of the self-driving equipment;

It's not that the self-driving car is going to be expensive, it's that people won't be able to afford a car, period; their prices are rising faster than inflation, and wages are rising slower.

Terribly Wrong Link

[aneroid]

Did they even check? Obviously not.

Here's the actual article: http://www.reuters.com/article...

Re:Terribly Wrong Link

[Anubis IV]

I'd mod you up if I had points. Not sure how they missed the link in the summary that leads to something Trump related.

Great article there, but what about cars?

[eepok]

Here's the linked article: http://www.reuters.com/article...

I'm guessing that was a copy/paste error.

Barring states from regulatory road blocks

[mi]

... and bar states from imposing regulatory road blocks.

Can we have a similar ban to protect health-insurance providers from regulatory road blocks?

Unlike the transportation industry in general and the private cars in particular, health insurance is, actually, a disaster in need of addressing.

What argument is there to justify prohibiting me from purchasing health insurance from another state, that would not also justify my state imposing additional requirements to self-driving cars?

Re:Barring states from regulatory road blocks

[Dorianny]

Products that are sold across state lines are subject to regulations of the state they are sold in. Most of the insurance industry would likely move to the state that offers the most lenient regulations, just as credit card companies congregated to to South Dakota.

Re:Barring states from regulatory road blocks

[Obfuscant]

Most of the insurance industry would likely move to the state that offers the most lenient regulations,

Except under ACA we have federal regulations preempting state. Tell us why insurance that meets the federal standards from a company in Mass., e.g., should not be available to someone in California.

I heard this discussion on a talk program last week, and the person trying to defend state limits tried using the excuse that insurance from other states would probably not provide coverage for the providers in our state. I.e., the Mass. insurance would not have a provider network that included doctors in California. Well, then, don't buy that insurance, dummy. You wouldn't buy health insurance without knowing what doctors you could use, would you? Well, yes, a dummy would.

Considering that there is insurance in my own state that doesn't cover all providers and there are at least three "networks" available, you already have to figure out who is "in network" and "out of network" to buy in-state insurance; this is no different were out of state insurance allowed.

Re:Barring states from regulatory road blocks

[Dorianny]

Except that every proposal put forward by Republicans that includes selling health insurance across state lines also includes provisions that gives states leeway to water down requirements and waken protections mandated by the ACA

Re:Barring states from regulatory road blocks

[drinkypoo]

Products that are sold across state lines are subject to regulations of the state they are sold in. Most of the insurance industry would likely move to the state that offers the most lenient regulations,

Each state has its own laws regarding automobile insurance, and they apply to vehicles registered within the state. Insurance companies can be located anywhere, and it's quite irrelevant. You get a policy which is written for you, and it takes the state of registration into account.

Re:Barring states from regulatory road blocks

[mi]

Products that are sold across state lines are subject to regulations of the state they are sold in.

Yes, this is true about both cars (human or computer-driven alike) and insurance policies.

Most of the insurance industry would likely move to the state that offers the most lenient regulations

Yes, this is also true about car-makers.

My question remains, if my state is disallowed to impose "regulatory road blocks" on sellers of self-driving cars, why is it allowed to impose such blocks on sellers of insurance?

Re:Barring states from regulatory road blocks

[Dorianny]

Actually many health-insurance companies operate across many states just as at-insurance companies. Just like auto-insurance companies the products must be tailored to the laws and regulations of the state they are being sold in. What the Republicans want is in-fact to make selling health-insurance the opposite of car-insurance and subject to the rules and regulations of the state the Company is incorporated in

across state lines? with differnt rules?

[Joe_Dragon]

across state lines? with differnt rules?.

So what will happen with a car that is ok under sate A rules but not sate B rules?

Re:across state lines? with differnt rules?

[Vermonter]

What happens when a car without insurance leaves New Hampshire (where it is legal to drive without insurance) and enters Vermont, Maine, or Massachusetts (where it is illegal to drive without insurance)? The driver gets a ticket. I guess the only difference here is that instead of "the driver" it will be "the person responsible for the car"

Re:across state lines? with differnt rules?

[Doctor Memory]

And the ticket will be issued automatically when the vehicle crosses the state line. Fortunately, with our new self-driving overlords, the ticket will also be paid automatically (just like tolls) by the car when the citation is issued.

Personally, I'd vote for cars that automatically stopped and refused to drive if there was no insurance policy registered against them. Bet we won't see any legislation like that, though.

Re:across state lines? with differnt rules?

[Obfuscant]

Bet we won't see any legislation like that, though.

Because it is not mandatory to have insurance to drive a car. To use it on the public roads, perhaps.

The speed limit had very low compliance,

[Joe_Dragon]

The speed limit had very low compliance and some states replaced traditional speeding fines with $5–$15 energy wasting fines

the first child that dies by self-driving truck

[WillAffleckUW]

This will all fall apart the first time a wealthy white family loses a child to a legal self-driving truck.

Mark my words.

Insurance?

[thedarb]

If I'm not driving it, it should only need to be insured against damage caused by others. If it causes an accident, that's the manufacturers liability, not mine, as I wasn't driving it. If it's any way made to be my liability, I'm not going to buy it. I'd rather hire a self driving taxi than own the liability of my own self driving car.

Re:Insurance?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can think more like an earthquake insurance. So, your insurance rate won't increase with more accidents you have. Your insurance will depend on which software it uses. So, manufacturers still have huge incentive to develop very safe autonomous cars. If they do a bad job, their car insurance rate goes up, and people won't buy it.
On the other hand, I think I read somewhere that Tesla was going to offer their own insurance, probably attached to the price of car.
One way or the other, consumer will pay for the insurance either by directly paying insurance company or to higher MSRP.

Re:Insurance?

[swillden]

If I'm not driving it, it should only need to be insured against damage caused by others. If it causes an accident, that's the manufacturers liability, not mine, as I wasn't driving it. If it's any way made to be my liability, I'm not going to buy it. I'd rather hire a self driving taxi than own the liability of my own self driving car.

Volvo, Google and Mercedes-Benz have all publicly stated that they will take full liability for accidents caused by their self-driving systems. I expect that this will become the norm, because it just makes sense. If the self-driving system is in control and makes an error that causes an accident, the system is faulty and not fit for its stated purpose, and the maker of the system bears the liability.

However, I predict that many people will never buy a self-driving car. Instead, they'll go from owning a manually-driven car to using a self-driving car fleet, on a pay per use basis.

Re:Insurance?

[crtreece]

However, I predict that many people will never buy a self-driving car. Instead, they'll go from owning a manually-driven car to using a self-driving car fleet, on a pay per use basis.

If manufacturers are taking on the liability for self driving cars, they are going to want control of maintenance, repairs, and especially modifications. They'll surely not want to be on the hook for an accident that could have been avoided with better maintenance or if the car had not been modified by the owner. I'm expecting manufacturers to either create a rental service (bonus points for the first one to call it Johnny Cab), or partner with someone like Lyft or Uber, so they have better control of maintenance, but don't have to carry all those depreciating assets on their books.

In addition to the per-use option, I wouldn't be surprised to see subscription based plans similar to "unlimited" cell phone plans, with family based grouping options. Make sure you don't go over your mileage for the month, those overages get expensive.

What?

[Ol Olsoc]

States Rights baby! Being protected by the Republican majorities in the House and senate.

ILLEGAL

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, the 10th Amendment clearly indicates any power not granted to the Federal government by the U.S. Constitution is reserved to the States and the people.

Federal government has no authority to bypass any restrictions on roads, only the states can do that.

what about "safety concerns"

[Anonymous Coward]

for us normal folks.. the people on the streets in regular cars and walking on sidewalks and crosswalks? i guess we don't matter.

the tech isn't there. nope. sorry. won't be for at least another 10-20 years. there are just too many fucking variables and unknowns when driving to leave it all to a damn computer - 'cloud' connected or not.

Re: what about "safety concerns"

[Anonymous Coward]

How about off-road driving, gravel roads, bridges on interstates that collapse, analysis of driver behavior to aid in defensive driving....

Insanity

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever tiny shred of respect I had left for our government just went out the window. This is greed, pure and simple. America is done, folks.

Lobbied

[Anonymous Coward]

Was all I had to read. That is no different than saying, 'bribed'. What a joke. Of the people, for the people, by the people, my ass. This isn't about ludditism, it's about personal freedom. All of Silicon Valley and all of its cronies can go to h***. If you have never watched the show, 'Continuum', now would be a great time to start.

Taxation without representation

[Anonymous Coward]

More Indirect Taxation without representation, a boon for everyone but US citizens who will pay for all of this.