Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California DMV Changes Rules To Allow Testing and Use of Fully Autonomous Vehicles (techcrunch.com)

Posted by msmash on from the it's-happening dept.

The California Department of Motor Vehicles is changing its rules to allow companies to test autonomous vehicles without a driver behind the wheel -- and to let the public use autonomous vehicles. From a report: The DMV released a revised version of its regulations and has started a 15-day public comment period, ending October 25, 2017. California law requires the DMV to work on regulations to cover testing and public use of autonomous vehicles, and the regulator said that this is the first step. "We are excited to take the next step in furthering the development of this potentially life-saving technology in California," the state's Transportation Secretary, Brian Kelly, said in a statement. California's DMV took pains in its announcement to highlight that it wasn't trying to overstep the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which has the final say on developing and enforcing compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Rather, the California regulations, are going to require manufacturers to certify that they've met federal safety standards before their cars become (driverlessly) street legal. And manufacturers still have to obey the state traffic laws written for California.

11 of 120 comments (clear)

  1. Just when you thought it was safe to drive... by IApeFatCashews · · Score: 3, Funny

    I would love to see autonomous vehicles navigate a California parking lot during the holiday shopping season.

  2. Liability by XXongo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What I'm more interested in here is, has California codified who has liability for accidents involving self-driving cars?

    1. Re:Liability by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As long as the insurance company can't raise a car owner's premiums when the car makes a mistake. The same software in every car means every car owner is equally as skilled. The practice of charging a driver according to their past driving history no longer has any logic.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:Liability by SeaFox · · Score: 2

      The practice of charging a driver according to their past driving history no longer has any logic.

      How do you figure that? The insurance company can simply track the accident stats for the specific software, and version of it, over all vehicles running it -- i.e. "Tesla Firmware 17.36.1b27c6d" = one "driver". Then set rates accordingly. That would give far more driving historical data than tracking a single human that would mainly be limited to a specific geographic area.

      An interesting side effect is people might see a change in their insurance rates if they update their car's software.

  3. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by Guybrush_T · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The thought of a 3000+ pound hunk of steel driven by an unpredictable person near people on sidewalks is even more insanity. The person could be drunk, texting, having a heart attack, or simply crazy.

    Very soon people will realize that having a robot drive is much safer and predictable. Just like they're much better at driving planes, rockets going to space, ...

  4. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 2

    This. Exactly why I love the idea of testing all this crap out in California instead of where I live.

  5. The corporation operating the cars has liability by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    meaning it'll fold at the first sign of trouble leaving you high and dry. That would probably be fine if we had a proper healthcare system (most folks could survive losing a car) but well, their governor just vetoed a single payer bill...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  6. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by Type44Q · · Score: 2

    So you're not a programmer.

  7. Re:Do it while you can! by gnick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Once driverless takes hold it'll be sad to see that excitement fade away...

    When I'm being driven around, I prefer as little excitement as possible. Let's see what these deliver.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  8. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by losfromla · · Score: 2

    I think New Mexico already ok'd it and I'd have a hard time believing Texas isn't already on board or will be soon. Texas doesn't give a shit about humans, it cares about corporations, it proves that by being a "Right to Work" state. This generally means a right-to-abuse-workers state.

    --
    Only I can judge you.
  9. Re:Hopefully the public votes this down by tsqr · · Score: 2

    This is how I figure:

    Applying the label Fascist to a group you don't like, then using violence and suppression of ideas and speech to fight the agenda of that group doesn't make you anti-fascist; it makes you a violent suppressor of ideas and speech. It boils down to embracing the moral framework of your enemy in the name of fighting them; aka, the end justifies the means. People who view Antifa in a negative light aren't generally fans of Fascist principles, they just have problems with the behavior they observe.