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.

Comments

Here we go, this is what we were waiting for

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re: Here we go, this is what we were waiting for

[mrclevesque]

“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."

FAA software development standards!

[HornWumpus]

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.

Re:FAA software development standards!

[HornWumpus]

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.

Re:FAA software development standards!

[ThosLives]

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.

Fuck Safety, Greed Comes First

[geekmux]

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.

Authoritarian China as a Policy Model

[nickmalthus]

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.

Re:Why?

[Gavagai80]

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)?

First Real War: GPS Satellites Down

[BrendaEM]

We don't need driverless cars.

No liability + subsidies

[sphealey]

- - - - - - 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?

I thought we banned killer robots

[WillAffleckUW]

What?

Too soon?