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.
All it took was Uber killing someone before they went straight to Congress to limit their liability.
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'
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.
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"
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
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.
We don't need driverless cars.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
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.
It begins soon!
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?
What?
Too soon?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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!!!
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 ]
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
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.
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.
"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
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."