Slashdot Mirror


Auto, Tech Industries Urge Congress To Pass Self-Driving Legislation (axios.com)

John Bozzella, president and CEO of Global Automakers (a trade association and lobby group of automobile manufacturers), said at an Axios event Thursday that it's "critically important" that Congress pass federal legislation on autonomous vehicles. A year ago, the House approved the Self Drive Act, but it has yet to be passed by the Senate. Axios adds: This delay is set against a growing fear in Washington, Silicon Valley and the auto industry that the U.S. will fall dangerously behind in autonomous vehicle standards and policies while China and Europe leap ahead. "My fear is we fall behind with the rest of the world," said, Congressman Robert Latta (R-Ohio), chairman of the Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection subcommittee. As breakthroughs are happening on the mechanical, computer and engineering levels with regard to autonomous vehicles, "time is running out" on moving policy forward, he added.

72 comments

  1. Here we go, this is what we were waiting for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All it took was Uber killing someone before they went straight to Congress to limit their liability.

    1. Re: Here we go, this is what we were waiting for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully states will be smart enough to limit self driving cars. Still under development they will be a nuisance and anger drivers who are alteady dealing with heavy traffic and delays. Keep the development to rural states and test tracks!

    2. Re: Here we go, this is what we were waiting for by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 0

      Let me guess: you're one of those people who set fire to the hipster coffee shop that just opened in your inner-city neighborhood? That's why the people who used to care about your city, and about reviving bad neighborhoods through gentrification, are moving to Arizona.

    3. Re: Here we go, this is what we were waiting for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is critically important for Congress to pass self driving legislation.

      They need to ban this job killing Google-enabling idiocy once and for all.

    4. Re:Here we go, this is what we were waiting for by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      One does get a bit nervous when confronted with capitalists begging to be regulated. Perhaps it's time to check our wallets and count the silverware.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    5. Re: Here we go, this is what we were waiting for by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "Let me guess: you're one of those people who set fire to the hipster coffee shop that just opened in your inner-city neighborhood?"

      Reasonable safety regulations in the auto industry aren't related to an extremist's unhinged justifications for arson.

    6. Re:Here we go, this is what we were waiting for by rtb61 · · Score: 0

      From the article "It's unrealistic to expect there won't be accidents involving autonomous vehicles during testing" ie shut the fuck up lab rats, dying is a necessary part of future profits, as long as you do the dying and they get the profits, good ole privatise the profits and socialise the losses. From our perceptive, the number of accidents acceptable on public roads during the development stage, zero. Post development, well, as long as the executives are executed when their programming kills people, I am comfortable with that, they can choose whether or not to take a chance with their fucking life.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re: Here we go, this is what we were waiting for by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      “Reasonable safety regulations” are not what that post was calling for.

    8. Re: Here we go, this is what we were waiting for by mrclevesque · · Score: 2

      “Reasonable safety regulations” are not what that post was calling for.

      Not sure the senator's use of fear, bodily and economic, to promote the act is reasonable. It's also not clear what the act is about, or who's interests are being 'protected', and though setting up definitions, standards, manufacturer obligations, and various frameworks for the creation of future regulations is certainly useful, and I agree the parent you responded to first was a bit over the top, I'm still concerned about some of the language, like here for example:

      "No State or political subdivision of a State may maintain, enforce, prescribe, or continue in effect any law or regulation regarding the design, construction, ***or performance of highly automated vehicles***, automated driving systems, or components of automated driving systems unless such law or regulation is identical to a standard prescribed under this chapter." (from the act)

      Does that stop states from regulating 'highly automated vehicle' testing or permit them to refuse vehicles they consider dangerous or inappropriate from driving on certain public roads.

      I'd also like to know what China's and Europe's standards and policies are that the senator says makes them a leap ahead of the 'falling behind' US:

      "This delay is set against a growing fear in Washington, Silicon Valley and the auto industry that the U.S. will fall dangerously behind in autonomous vehicle standards and policies while China and Europe leap ahead."

  2. FAA software development standards! by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Give it to them. Make them all develop ECUs using FAA 'commercial air' software standards!

    That's not what they meant? Too bad for them, it's what they need.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:FAA software development standards! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You obviously have no idea how much more complex driving is than actual plane autopilots to so freely equate them by slogan.

    2. Re:FAA software development standards! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I do though.

      I want current ECUs fixed BEFORE we let the bozos start shipping, insanely buggy, 'self driving AI' alphas.

      If some other nation wants to make their roads the alpha test site, let them.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:FAA software development standards! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't though, because you're inherently assuming it's an attainable goal.

    4. Re:FAA software development standards! by m00sh · · Score: 1

      Give it to them. Make them all develop ECUs using FAA 'commercial air' software standards!

      That's not what they meant? Too bad for them, it's what they need.

      There are plenty of ISO standards for ECUs. ISO 26262

    5. Re:FAA software development standards! by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Of course it's attainable, just expensive.

      They will have to get real about the bullshit they're promising.

      You can't look at the current situation (where Toyota ECUs overflow their stack over the begining of the heap, where the executives memory sits) and say things are just rosey.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:FAA software development standards! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since some legal professionals have already speculated about a significant increases of legal costs in product liability cases related to autonomous vehicles, a regulation that makes sense in this context might just save the society most of them. The discovery in the range of 50 million lines of code with a team of experts for any accident case where the manufacturer is implicated costs too much for everybody. The trust of the public and the customers is at stake.

    7. Re:FAA software development standards! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      If current generation 'brake by wire' passes, the standard isn't close to good enough.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:FAA software development standards! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't think of a car with "parking brakes" that aren't 'brake by wire'. A simple wire attached to a handle that ratchets to hold the line under tension while the owner isn't in the car.

      Also if you understand how Anti-lock brakes work, its pretty much under computer control. Yes, you press the peddle to supply a large force, but the computer then determines how to apply to each brake pad (by keeping track of the speed of each wheel). Anti-lock brakes are still pretty safe in that if the computer fails it just applies the full force to each wheel stopping the car, not as good but it still stops. The next fail safe is usually a dual cylinder so that if one line fails you just loose front or rear brakes, not both.

      *Yes, I just converted my ~50 year old car to all disc brakes, reading up on the options before doing so.

    9. Re:FAA software development standards! by ThosLives · · Score: 3, Informative

      26262 is only functional safety though - it only covers "if some electronic part breaks, can the vehicle be made safe," and "have best processes to eliminate systematic errors been followed?"

      Full autonomous driving has all those pitfalls of random hardware failure and systematic design errors, plus it has SOTIF - Safety of the Intended Function - concerns. Basically, are things safe (enough)when parts are not broken and if you had zero software bugs?

      SOTIF is really hard, and we don't have time-test processes for it. Consider this: 26262 is based on around 50 years of aerospace and other industrial automation experience. We don't have that for SOTIF.

      And yes, those that say ADAS level 5 is harder than aviation autopilot are correct: autopilot is essentially route following and very limited decision making in a highly controlled environment (autoland, for instance, is in a controlled airport with ILS...) it is not decision making and situational awareness in an uncontrolled environment which ADAS level 5 implies.

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    10. Re:FAA software development standards! by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

      I am a conservative, I hate excessive legislation. BUT I AGREE with you. There is too much software, already installed on vehicles that I do not think has been properly tested. That is a problem that cross's all of I.T.. And yes, I am I.T. just saying, self driving cars with bad software equals death. I actually would like to see this to it's conclusion. BUT, I want it done right. And this time, the government needs to step in. Just like they did with air bags, the ability to open the trunk with a 50 cent glow in the dark tag from the inside. You are right

      --
      Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    11. Re:FAA software development standards! by mschaffer · · Score: 1

      This is a good start, but these standards are developed for commercial air travel where pilots are assumed to be present to accommodate a system failure. Also, airplanes operate with much larger distances between them when compared to automobiles on a road. These standards just aren't good enough for self-driving cars.

    12. Re:FAA software development standards! by tsqr · · Score: 1

      That's nice. Can you point to the FAR that requires compliance for certification?

    13. Re:FAA software development standards! by tsqr · · Score: 1

      I can't think of a car with "parking brakes" that aren't 'brake by wire'. A simple wire attached to a handle that ratchets to hold the line under tension while the owner isn't in the car.

      I hope you're not being serious. That's NOT what 'brake br wire' means; in fact it's pretty much the opposite.

    14. Re:FAA software development standards! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Give it to them. Make them all develop ECUs using FAA 'commercial air' software standards!

      This definitely should happen.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:FAA software development standards! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      euh, so then shouldn't it be just as strict then? If it was way easier then you wouldn't need things like DO-178 for cars

    16. Re:FAA software development standards! by m00sh · · Score: 1

      If current generation 'brake by wire' passes, the standard isn't close to good enough.

      Are you talking about the Toyota's "sudden acceleration" problems from 10 years ago?

    17. Re:FAA software development standards! by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      So you're suggesting even more stringent standards than those of the FAA? Sounds good to me.

  3. Congress to kill toddlers, kids, and pets by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 0

    We all know this will mean thousands of American toddlers, kids, and pets will die as a result of this.

    And every single family will sue.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Congress to kill toddlers, kids, and pets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS is the real issue, they've split the liability between the corporation and "driver" and there's no precedent in law yet, but one can see them suing AI-driver manufacturers into oblivion in a single ruling. Keep liability in the seat!

      Not only does this save lower-class jobs in the meantime, it saves lives until the technology can be said to be good enough. We're not even close yet.
      All the AI people are going to say "you're just sanctioning murder again" and they're right, roads are murderous.

      Shitty AI rushed to market doesn't help solve that much.

  4. It should be a ban. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only legislation we need is a complete and total ban.

  5. Fuck Safety, Greed Comes First by geekmux · · Score: 2

    Greed says Fuck Safety. It's only important that our technology is first to market. Whether or not rushing to market will ultimately kill people does not matter. Greed will also regurgitate annual traffic death statistics as a justification to push forward as quickly as possible with this technology, security and integrity be damned.

    Oh well. It's not like we haven't seen infrastructure tech millions rely on get rushed to market with little or no concern for safety or security (cough, IoT, cough)

    Let's hope there won't be another Takata-grade airbag recall in our autonomous future...might be the only thing that saves your ass when the inevitable happens.

    1. Re:Fuck Safety, Greed Comes First by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It's pretty simple.

      Don't buy a car without a physical throttle cable and a physical connection between brake pedal and master cylinder. Also a real transmission.

      At this point, it will be almost 20 years old. You will have to fix it/have it fixed.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  6. Why? by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    Other than the blanket legal liability they want, why is this an imperative? The states can determine whether or not to allow autonomous vehicles to operate and under what restrictions.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:Why? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      It's not an issue for California. But in the northeast where states are small, what happens if you live in New Jersey and commute to New York every morning and then visit family in Rhode Island on the weekend (passing through Pennsylvania and Connecticut on your way)?

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  7. Authoritarian China as a Policy Model by nickmalthus · · Score: 2

    I am sure Silicon Valley would love nothing more than to enshrine their technologies in law and reap the royalties. Even better, ban all private ownership of cars except for the fleets they own and operate. I suppose they expect some type of return on their investment from all of the money they have spent on lobbyist. Regulations are for you, not for them.

    --
    If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
  8. Congressman Robert Latta (R-Ohio) by zlives · · Score: 1

    its interesting to see a republican senator accepting science and technology,
    being left behind on healthcare and education by the same "rivals" seems to be ok though.

  9. First Real War: GPS Satellites Down by BrendaEM · · Score: 2

    We don't need driverless cars.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
    1. Re:First Real War: GPS Satellites Down by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      You're right, of course. What we need are reforms of driver education, training, and testing. Bring back Driver Ed/Driver Training in highschools. Stricter DMV skills testing of current drivers, more often too, to weed out dangerous, incompetent, and angry drivers.

    2. Re:First Real War: GPS Satellites Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And at the same time have an option beyond driving without a license for those you deny access to the roads.

    3. Re:First Real War: GPS Satellites Down by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      No, we won't. Too many of you indulge in 'magical thinking'. SDCs will be a disaster.

    4. Re:First Real War: GPS Satellites Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heavier than air travel in the sky will be a disaster. Reliable horse and carriage is the way to go.

    5. Re:First Real War: GPS Satellites Down by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "We don't need driverless cars."

      You and I don't perhaps. But some of the elderly, inferm, or handicapped do. And potentially autonomous vehicles are far safer than human controlled vehicles. The problem looks to be how to debug the vehicles without killing or maiming half the population of the planet.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    6. Re:First Real War: GPS Satellites Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up faggot

  10. Fed Gov't should ban autonomous driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is still unproven, and my bet remains that it won't happen (en masse) for a good 20+ years.

    I do not want these things on my roads until they've been thoroughly tested.

    1. Re:Fed Gov't should ban autonomous driving by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "It is still unproven, and my bet remains that it won't happen (en masse) for a good 20+ years"

      20 years sounds about right. Maybe 5-10 for autonomous trucks traveling terminal to terminal on expressways. 20 for vehicles that can handle surface roads. About 50 for cars that can drive relatively safely and effectively in Boston.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  11. Hope I survive, I'll be rich by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    My only concern at this point is that I don't suffer permanent injuries, or die, in all the accidents I'll inevitably get in with so-called 'self driving cars', so I can sue the living daylights out of the manufacturers, and retire wealthy.

    1. Re:Hope I survive, I'll be rich by zlives · · Score: 1

      you can't sue, if it was a govt mandate... two things
      1.O those poor manufacturer's they didn't even want to implement the tech which was obviously not ready as shown in tests after tests.
      2. the EULA says the driver is still responsible in case of crash.

    2. Re:Hope I survive, I'll be rich by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing out on my sarcasm. I don't think so-called 'self driving cars' are anywhere NEAR ready for general use, and in fact I don't think they'll ever be, not until we have full-on general AI, at least equivalent to a human brain. At current they can't 'think' at all, no capacity to do so -- because we have no idea how a human brain does that, and won't anytime soon, either, we don't have the instrumentality to determine that. SDC's will be a disaster. I feel bad for all the people who will die before they're finally pulled off the roads. I hold out hope that they never catch on because they're so shitty no one will want them.

  12. MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE! by Zorro · · Score: 1

    It begins soon!

  13. "Falling behind" is impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the information age. There are no secrets. If China or someone else comes up with something great then just copy/steal it like everyone does to everyone else. Information wants to be free! :/

  14. ha? Wtf. No. We don't need no stinking government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There should not be a standard. Fuck that. If there is a standard it should only be to the extant that users purchase self-driving vehicles based on there safety records. There is no need for government to design vehicles or decide on standards. We don't need drivers licenses, license plates, or any of the other ridicules things that have been passed over the last 100 years. And you would be absolutely shocked by the reason for many of these laws that today we think were for safety. Many were nothing other than people wanting to get rich quick or bigoted individuals who disliked automobile owners and were trying to make them 2nd class citizens. These are the reasons we have drivers licenses. There weren't even any tests to determine if someone was a capable driver in some states until the late 1960s!!!!! New Hampshire still does not mandate car insurance. It's just amazing the bull shit people will be sold on in the name of children and safety that have nothing to do with either 99.95% of the time.

  15. No liability + subsidies by sphealey · · Score: 2

    - - - - - - t's "critically important" that Congress pass federal legislation on autonomous vehicles. - - - - -

    Let me guess what is "critically important" in this legislation:
    1. Elimination of all liability on the part of the automakers for accidents involving self-driving cars
    1a. Federal preemption of local and state criminal charges against automakers for accidents involving self-driving cars, including fatalities
    2. Huge dollar subsidies to manufacturers of self-driving cars
    3. Re-orientation of federal infrastructure spending toward self-driving cars
    [ I would add 3a. at the expense of pedestrians and human-centered development, but I'd just be repeating 3 ]

    Anything I missed?

    1. Re:No liability + subsidies by mentil · · Score: 1

      I actually skimmed through the bill, it's short at 38 pages.
      It does nothing about liability or handing out money to companies working on self-driving tech. However, you're right that it preempts state/local laws regarding self-driving cars. Mostly it establishes committees and tasks various bodies with reviewing/researching/planning. It also log-rolls a couple unrelated auto regulations mandating 'improved' headlights, and a warning indicator to remind you if someone is in the back seat when you turn the engine off (baby in a hot car etc.)

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  16. I thought we banned killer robots by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    What?

    Too soon?

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  17. YeahNO! by Chas · · Score: 1

    Sorry.

    Liability of the automaker should not be eliminated. This is a buggy product, even today. And it's still insanely limited.
    So these automakers SHOULD share liability if their software fucks up and kills/injures someone.

    This should NOT be subsidized. This is a buggy product as-is. And simply throwing money at it isn't going to debug it any faster.

    The infrastructure for autonomous driving should be looked at when the product actually WORKS PROPERLY, and it finally makes sense.
    Doing so right now would be like declaring that personal rocket travel is here because someone shoved an ICBM up their ass sideways...

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:YeahNO! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Liability of the automaker should not be eliminated. This is a buggy product, even today. And it's still insanely limited.
      So these automakers SHOULD share liability if their software fucks up and kills/injures someone.

      They should own liability in that case. They should be getting an insurance policy that covers the vehicle in self-driving mode, for ever and ever or until it is scrapped amen.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:YeahNO! by Chas · · Score: 1

      Yep.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
  18. State versus Federal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't road regulations usually at the state level? Why can't this be handled there?

  19. Tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Global Automakers is considered Tech industries?

  20. Don't need no gumment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leave it up to Ford, Chevy, Google, Twitter, Microsoft, Uber, Lyft and Facebook.. They will look out for us as they always have.

  21. More investment by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Bullshit, it hasn't been attained despite massive investment. Put up or shut the fuck up.

    It hasn't been attained despite a mere few billion.

    If you invested *trillions* of budget, you could - e.g. - build an entirely separate network of highway dedicated to what autonomous car need, perhaps using tracks to make the path following more predictable and easier. Congratulation, you've successfully replicated the few autonomous subway that already exist out there.

    By changing the environment to making it adapted to this type of cars, it's provably atteignable. But crazy expensive upfront.
    Instead the startups are trying to drop the autonomous cars into a highly unpredictible environment that has evolved around human drivers.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:More investment by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      " build an entirely separate network of highway dedicated to what autonomous car need, ...."

      Let's call this the Interstate Highway System. A logical first step in public deployment of autonomous vehicles is to enable automatic mode on this contained environment and at the same time in low-speed residential neighborhoods with simple traffic movements. As the technology gets ironed out, we can then grow deployment into more complex traffic situations.

    2. Re:More investment by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you invested *trillions* of budget, you could - e.g. - build an entirely separate network of highway dedicated to what autonomous car need, perhaps using tracks to make the path following more predictable and easier. Congratulation,

      ...you've reinvented PRT. That's not an inherently bad idea, but a) it's not going to happen any time soon and b) people don't want it. They want their own cars, and the illusion of freedom that they bring.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  22. what about criminal liability?? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Or do we need some CEO to sit in an small town jail till they can work out all of the NDA / EULA BS to not be in contempt of court

  23. A legal push doesn't mean what you think it means by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    An effort to pass legislation like this does not mean that automated cars will hit the road immediately. Silicon Vally knows that the slowest part of any technology to develop is the regulatory environment around it.

  24. I have no problem with self-driving vehicles... by BoFo · · Score: 1

    However, I refuse to share the road with them. The main problem is an unequal share of driving responsibility exists when humans share roads with machines whose manufacturers enjoy the protection of corporate citizenship. Who is found at fault when accidents inevitably occur? If the autonomous vehicle is found at fault, who goes to jail? The CEO? I doubt that. It's the same as the New Jersey Turnpike. They have a separate set of lanes reserved for commercial vehicles so passenger cars can travel safely. Same should apply here -- separate roads, possibly by repurposing of HOV lanes, for autonomous vehicles so manual drivers need not share the same road with them.

  25. Auto Industries Urge Congress To Pass Driving Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fixed that for you!

  26. More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More chance of them passing this than a law to stop retarded gun deaths that don't happen in any other country. Ever. #giulianiTruthIsTruth #can'tDeny #fakeTrump #drainThePond #buildTheFence #iWillReleaseMyTaxReturnsHasn'tReleasedThereforeIsLiarC-unt

  27. National Proving Ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of just dealing with regulations, they should pass a law to create and fund a national proving ground that autonomous vehicles would have to successfully navigate before they are allowed onto public streets.

  28. Auto, Tech Industries Urge Congress To Pass Self-D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This delay is set against a growing fear in Washington, Silicon Valley and the auto industry that the U.S. will fall dangerously behind in autonomous vehicle standards and policies while China and Europe leap ahead."

    I fail to see the problem. Let China and Europe "leap ahead". When they have perfected their technologies we simply do what they do when we create new technologies - file the serial numbers off and steal their technologies.

  29. Basically they want to take it out of State hands by mysidia · · Score: 1

    Arizona banned Uber from continuing to test self-driving cars.
    Seems like they're basically shooting for a law that will prevent such things in the future.
    Under laws like the ones they propose: individual states would no longer be able to prevent or require special permissions for SDCs.

    "(b) PREEMPTION. (1) HIGHLY AUTOMATED VEHICLES.—No State or political subdivision of a State may maintain, enforce, prescribe, or continue in effect any law or regulation regarding the design, construction, or performance of highly automated vehicles, automated driving systems, or components of automated driving systems unless such law or regulation is identical to a standard prescribed under this chapter."