Posted on 10/01/2017 8:16:27 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Senate has agreed to pass legislation lifting regulations on manufacturers of self-driving cars. Full details will be announced the first week of October, but it's expected the bill will cover safety and manufacturing regulations as well as driver protection.
Paving the Way
United States roadways are one step closer to being traversed by driverless cars: on September 30, the Senate announced that it had reached an agreement to lift some of the regulations on manufacturers that made it harder to get self-driving cars on the road.
“While this Senate self-driving vehicle legislation still has room for further changes, it is a product of bipartisan cooperation we both stand behind,” said Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) and Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), who introduced the legislation, in a joint statement.
The original bill that Peters and Thune took to the Senate, known as the American Vision for Safer Transportation through Advancement of Revolutionary Technologies (AV START) Act, was broad-reaching. In addition to removing barriers to manufacture, the bill proposed enhanced safety oversight of manufacturers, as well as guidance for state and local research on traffic safety and law enforcement challenges. It proposed to strengthen cyber-security policies to protect the information and safety of drivers. The bill also included measures on automated trucking, consumer education, and protections for drivers with disabilities.
On October 5, the Senate will announce which provisions were retained in the approved legislation.
The bill is expected to utilize some provisions from a similar bill that was passed in the House of Representatives earlier in September. That bill allowed manufacturers to produce an initial load of 25,000 cars in the first year. After three years, if they can prove that AI vehicles are at least as safe as human-directed cars, that will increase to 100,000 annually.
Jobs and More
American policymakers and manufacturers alike have been hurrying to get aboard the self-driving train—so to speak. Around the country and the world, self-driving cars are rapidly multiplying. The UK will be testing “platoons” of driverless semi trucks by the end of next year. Uber already uses them to pick up passengers in Pittsburgh and Arizona, Lyft is introducing them in San Francisco, and the city of Sacramento is seeking to make their city a driverless car testing ground. Tesla CEO Elon Musk even believes that most cars in production will be autonomous within ten years.
Yet the legal framework still isn’t in place for this transportation revolution.
“Self-driving vehicles will completely revolutionize the way we get around in the future, and it is vital that public policy keep pace with these rapidly developing lifesaving technologies that will be on our roads in a matter of years,” said Senator Peters, in his statement on the original bill. He emphasized that the industry has the potential to create thousands of new jobs.
Given that approximately 93% of all accidents have been attributed to human error, the senators and others have emphasized that self-driving cars aren’t just a job creator or a cool way to get around—they could save millions of lives.
No, that number relies heavily on estimates, not hard data. Even if you accept the numbers (and this IS from the UN, which immediately makes it suspect), the United States has a fairly low deaths-per-100,000 population number of 10.6.
And they don't give you deaths-per-mile driven or data which takes into consideration the numbers of vehicles in use, which I would think would be better indicators. The countries with the highest estimated death totals and deaths per 100,000 are almost exclusively 3rd world countries in Africa and Asia.
Your two year "payback" claim assumes too many things that are not likely happen anytime soon.
All the original work on autonomous vehicles required no connection that could be hacked.
Things can change. But most likely, connecting to a network will be an option, not a necessity.
Yes, passive GPS only gives you location data. What is done with that data is another question, as anyone who uses in-car navigation will tell you.
Regulations are already in place (though I understand they were put on hold by the Trump administration) that require vehicles in a few years to be able to communicate with each other to assist in accident avoidance. It sounds good on the surface, but who or what would also be able to "talk" to your car, and for what reason?
Even today, more and more vehicle manufacturers are including Internet capability in their products. As the enabling legislation for autonomous vehicles is translated into regulations, it seems certain that Internet connectivity will be mandated. Homeland Security will demand the ability to remotely shut down vehicles that are suspected to be in use by terrorists. And that's all it would take.
Once the hardware is in place, the software that uses it will evolve in ways that we might not be aware of or have any ability to accept or reject. As with today's "black boxes", any attempt to disable them will render the vehicle inoperable.
As you say, it can't be a requirement specifically for autonomous operation, but once universal in-car Internet or other forms of connectivity are implemented, there is nothing to stop the Deep State from using them for nefarious purposes.
Immunity is already being written. Read it somewhere about a week ago. Wish I’d saved the link.
Sometimes technology isn’t as effective as a human mind and may get one in more trouble because it can’t see that the shoulder of that curve one is going too fast into has a big rut, loose gravel, a standing puddle, or a huge root sticking up as it decided to activate its “safety” measures.
I'd break my new car rule to own one.
The fewer bots on my car, the better. The last thing I want is for them to drive me around; the last thing.
Why?
I spend at least fours hours in a car each week just going to work. 200 hours a year, just to commute. So I burn literally over a week of each year wasting my time keeping a watch out that some moron doesn't run into me, and waiting for a light to turn green. Yippee.
Freed from that utterly routine and mundane task I would gain back a week of time to do something I would rather being doing. Over the course of a career that's practically a year of free time gained, just being freed from the commute.
Sign me up.
When the government wants this more than the consumer does, there’s a malicious bent at play.
And two hours each way daily? I did that “extreme commute” myself for about a six-month stretch about fourteen years ago, only because of the money I was getting. No way I’d trust a bot to that. I’d worry more about what the bot was doing and never take my eyes off the road straight ahead.
You brought up GPS. Imagine a scenario when these cars are attached to GPS. It’s not uncommon for GPS to direct a car into deadly situations. What’s to stop some maniac hacking GPS and directing cars into oncoming traffic?
Have to wonder how many millions some lobbyist(s) got, to help get this passed in Congress.
Google “GPS spoofing”.
Your two year “payback” claim assumes too many things that are not likely happen anytime soon.
Yes, numbers in the third world are unreliable.
The question was how long would it take to save millions.
The answer is that millions could be saved in a reasonable amount of time.
Lots of assumptions and unknowns in this subject, to be sure.
True, hence the quotation marks!
“Only if the accident is between driverless cars, and then only if the manufacturers are not given a form of liability immunity, and then only of the owner meticulously had all the required maintenance and checks done, and the maintenance shop had all their records, calibrations, and procedures up to date.”
you’re talking about how to win such lawsuits. none of what you mention will STOP the lawsuits from occurring in the first place.
giant pods of lawyers will be all over accidents in “driverless” cars like sharks in a frenzy tearing apart bloody chum.
Same thought here. May all the Senators who voted for this be victims of self-driving cars in the District. Hacking the self-drive software and using facial recognition for targeting shouldn’t be all that difficult.
It’s a two-fer!
Money from tech companies for allowing cars.
Money from unions for not allowing trucks.
Double donations get laws passed in a hurry!!!!!!!
It’s not a legal requirement, it’s a logistical requirement. Having them talk to the internet creates many many problems (hackers being only 1 relatively small entry on the list) with no real benefit. Which is why nobody is trying to do it that way.
Consumers do want this. most of the surveys around it show about 20% interest. Which mean more people want this than motorcycles. I’m doing a long trip this weekend, I’d love a self driving car, 3 hours home from Glendale is gonna kind of suck, way better if I could sleep.
Because, you know, self driving Cars are on the top of the really, really important issues of the day list.
What a bunch of wankers.
There is no way in hell someone else wants me to have a robot car more than I do. Nothing malicious at play, just the recognition that most people would be happy to be free of the utterly mundane task of keeping a car between the lines, not running over the car in front of you, and stopping at lights. Behind that demand some recognize opportunity to profit, hence the investment.
BTW, that was 4 hours weekly going to work. Not counting time lost on other trips. I don't share your paranoia with regard to autopilots. I even get into commercial airplanes. How do you square your FUD with the real world results thus far of self driving cars?
In general, the government does want this more than the consumer does. I have seen absolutely no demand for these things among the vast majority of consumers. That’s fine if you’re the exception. But I have no trust for hackable bots, or bots that can go awry.
Incidentally, these are not autopilots.
Surveys conducted by whom?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.