Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Because of unions. Next question?
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
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?
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.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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!
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
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
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
Interstate trucking would be the least dangerous type of self-driving vehicle usage.
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"
Did they even check? Obviously not.
Here's the actual article: http://www.reuters.com/article...
Here's the linked article: http://www.reuters.com/article...
I'm guessing that was a copy/paste error.
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?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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?
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.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
The speed limit had very low compliance and some states replaced traditional speeding fines with $5–$15 energy wasting fines
This will all fall apart the first time a wealthy white family loses a child to a legal self-driving truck.
Mark my words.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
This sig intentionally left blank.
States Rights baby! Being protected by the Republican majorities in the House and senate.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
Just junk food for thought...
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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.
Yes, by all means mod me troll for quoting RationalWiki. Morons.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.