Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate Approves Legislation to Get Self-Driving Cars On U.S. Roads
Futurism ^ | October 1, 2017 | Claudia Geib

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Politics; Science
KEYWORDS: automation; automobiles; automotive; bots; nothanks; reboot; robotcars; selfdrivingcars
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-108 next last
To: Olog-hai

Incidentally, these are not autopilots.


It is a pretty good description of what they do. Auto-pilots for ground vehicles. Of course, they have to have more sensors and be more complex than auto-pilots for planes.

Much more to run into on the ground.


61 posted on 10/02/2017 7:16:21 PM PDT by marktwain (President Trump and his supporters are the Resistance. His opponents are the Reactionaries.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
In general, the government does want this more than the consumer does.

I'm all for the market deciding instead of the apparatchiks. Chauffeurs have always been popular.

But I have no trust for hackable bots, or bots that can go awry.

Important to remember while perfection will always be a goal, the intent is to do better than the drunk, stoned, distracted, sleepy, and risky meat bags clogging the roads and getting into millions of accidents a year right now. The bar is lower than you realize, without getting into the the elderly and other mobility restricted people who will be able to find cheaper rides than ever.

Incidentally, these are not autopilots.

Semantics? Really? I guess this discussion is dead.

62 posted on 10/02/2017 8:39:40 PM PDT by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
No, not semantics. Autopilot is mostly used for cruising. This is something that would be safe to do at high-altitude flight where there are no obstacles; quite a difference on the ground. And it is not used when there is trouble situations; it will disengage and alert the pilots to take over.
Robinson said the general guidance given to pilots is, “Let the computer do it because it can do a better job than a person.” Just think about how hard it would be for a person to concentrate for long stretches of time while flying hands-on, he explained.

But that guidance should not be taken lightly. A pilot must still be completely aware of exactly what it is the autopilot system is or isn’t doing. Case in point: in 2013 Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crashed while landing at San Francisco International Airport in what was cited as an autopilot issue. The pilots assumed the autopilot was doing something it actually wasn’t doing, on the safe but highly automated Boeing 777, Robinson said.

“Automation is great, but if there is a misunderstanding between the crew and the automation system, it can be dangerous,” Robinson said.

In that way, autopilot is similar to a car’s cruise control. It can take over when you need it to, but you still have to be aware of what the car is doing and where it is going.

Patrick Smith is an active airline pilot who has been flying commercially since 1990. He told CNBC that the traveling public tends to imagine a pilot reclining back, reading a newspaper, while the autopilot does all the work. The reality is actually quite different, he said.

“The auto flying system does not fly the airplane,” he said. “The pilots fly the plane through the automation.”

The cockpit can still be a very busy place he said. Pilots are consistently having to command, manipulate and manage various parts of the computer system which requires their full attention. In addition about 99 percent of landings are manual and 100 percent of all takeoffs must be done manually by the pilot. There is not yet such a thing as an automated takeoff. …
Not parallel semantics either. A presumably autonomous car would be a far different animal, and not automatically worthy of absolute trust.
63 posted on 10/02/2017 8:52:06 PM PDT by Olog-hai ("No Republican, no matter how liberal, is going to woo a Democratic vote." -- Ronald Reagan, 1960)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Lots of people. Market research mostly, but I’ve heard of a few large businesses polling their own employees to see how they’ll be dealing with the future. So far a completely non-existent product is scoring a pretty solid 20% ish want level. And I don’t even think they’re getting to retirement homes. Get to the no longer legally allowed to drive set and see what they think about cars that drive themselves. Also checkout the youths who aren’t showing much interest in learning to drive, there’s probably a pretty solid market there too. And that’s just private. Once you get into corporate: self driving cabs, self driving long haul trucking, short haul trucking, pizza delivery, etc etc etc. There’s a definite market for this product. It’s not the government pushing, it’s the government being pushed.


64 posted on 10/02/2017 10:05:51 PM PDT by discostu (Things are in their place, The heavens are secure, The whole thing explodes in my face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: discostu

Government here never gets pushed. They’re like Red China and the EU now.


65 posted on 10/02/2017 10:08:49 PM PDT by Olog-hai ("No Republican, no matter how liberal, is going to woo a Democratic vote." -- Ronald Reagan, 1960)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Government gets pushed ALL THE TIME. That’s what lobbyist are for.


66 posted on 10/03/2017 7:34:48 AM PDT by discostu (Things are in their place, The heavens are secure, The whole thing explodes in my face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Lobbyists are government, albeit a foreign government. The last thing they are is private industry.
  1. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States. …
  1. Infiltrate and gain control of big business. …
Remember those, from the list of 45 communist goals for the US? The 16th and 17th Amendments were the setup for both of those.
67 posted on 10/03/2017 10:23:47 AM PDT by Olog-hai ("No Republican, no matter how liberal, is going to woo a Democratic vote." -- Ronald Reagan, 1960)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Sorry but you don’t get to make up your own definitions. Lobbyists are a private industry, and it was specifically private industry lobbyists that pushed for this law.


68 posted on 10/03/2017 10:27:12 AM PDT by discostu (Things are in their place, The heavens are secure, The whole thing explodes in my face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: discostu

I haven’t made up a single thing; this is quite outside me, actually.

I merely described the status quo in the USA today; lobbyist are absolutely not private industry, especially when run by communists—if what so-called “private industry” has done to the social sphere has not made that clear (e.g. today’s NFL debacle, Apple’s Tim Cook bullying Indiana over same-sex marriage), there is not a thing private about that; that is all public and all social(ist).

When I compare it to the same kinds of pushes being done by “lobbyists” in the EU, I cannot arrive at a different conclusion.

Add the too-close relationship with Red China (who are still communist despite naïve remonstrations to the contrary by many even here; everything they do is consistent with the writings of Marx and Engels; not to mention, to consider the PRC’s China Lobby to be acting on behalf of anything private is itself naïve), and what I have asserted only becomes more solidified.


69 posted on 10/03/2017 10:38:08 AM PDT by Olog-hai ("No Republican, no matter how liberal, is going to woo a Democratic vote." -- Ronald Reagan, 1960)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Yes you did. You said lobbyists aren’t private. That’s quite simply FALSE. and you continue down that path of lies.


70 posted on 10/03/2017 10:44:03 AM PDT by discostu (Things are in their place, The heavens are secure, The whole thing explodes in my face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: discostu
They aren’t. That is their nature. Look at how they have poured a communistic influence upon society even going back a century, whether coming from business or coming from “public interest” (especially). This does not fit the First Amendment’s right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances”—once the power is wielded to act as government or direct what the government does, such an entity is absolutely public, never mind itself being the de facto government.

Now if you want to keep generalizing and deceiving yourself on this historical fact, I can’t stop you. Lobbying at the federal level is a phenomenon of the so-called Progressive era; it is directly responsible for things that increased its power such as the 16th and 17th Amendments.

Lobbies were described by the Founders and Framers as “factions”, and they are by definition not private, but utterly public and political; they attempted to stop this by the original design of the Constitution, and although they were relatively successful, this did not stop them at state level. Add the influence of Marxism upon people such as Woodrow Wilson and the stage is set for today’s nominally “private/public” morass.
71 posted on 10/03/2017 11:04:08 AM PDT by Olog-hai ("No Republican, no matter how liberal, is going to woo a Democratic vote." -- Ronald Reagan, 1960)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Tkae it up with Websters.


72 posted on 10/03/2017 12:01:11 PM PDT by discostu (Things are in their place, The heavens are secure, The whole thing explodes in my face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: discostu

I don’t have to. Actions speak louder than words in a dictionary. And the record is as full of said actions as a sewage plant is of its constituent material.


73 posted on 10/03/2017 12:04:33 PM PDT by Olog-hai ("No Republican, no matter how liberal, is going to woo a Democratic vote." -- Ronald Reagan, 1960)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Words have meaning. When you refuse to use the actual meaning of the word you are a liar. Your actions speak very loudly, you are untrustworthy, useless, and beneath contempt. We are done.


74 posted on 10/03/2017 12:05:33 PM PDT by discostu (Things are in their place, The heavens are secure, The whole thing explodes in my face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Part of the forte of the leftists is to change a word’s meaning into what they want it to mean, don’t forget. And again, it’s actions that define a group.

And with all due respect, your having resorted to argumentum ad hominem reveals you to be on the left. Was your intent to defend these lobbies, by advancing the pretense of their being private entities?
75 posted on 10/03/2017 12:09:14 PM PDT by Olog-hai ("No Republican, no matter how liberal, is going to woo a Democratic vote." -- Ronald Reagan, 1960)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: discostu

For the record, I do believe that one ought to be utterly free to retrofit one’s car for autonomous “self-driving” capability, or have it as an option, if one wants it. Note the sizable aftermarket business for big-block muscle cars, which the big automakers never make anymore, even the large horsepower of small-block engines notwithstanding. But when the government has a direct say in it, that’s suspicious.


76 posted on 10/03/2017 12:15:53 PM PDT by Olog-hai ("No Republican, no matter how liberal, is going to woo a Democratic vote." -- Ronald Reagan, 1960)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

The only one changing the meaning of words is YOU. Pointing out that a liar is lying is not an ad hominem. You continue to make up your own definition therefore you ARE a liar. It’s just that simple.


77 posted on 10/03/2017 12:17:02 PM PDT by discostu (Things are in their place, The heavens are secure, The whole thing explodes in my face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: discostu

Actually, I’ve changed no words’ meanings. Lobbies have always been special interest, hence political and not private.

There ought to be no congressional need to get involved in allowing the manufacture of “self-driving” components of an automobile. The market ought to dictate the demand, not the government. Same goes for big-block cars, two-stroke diesel pickup trucks, and even bubble cars.


78 posted on 10/03/2017 12:19:23 PM PDT by Olog-hai ("No Republican, no matter how liberal, is going to woo a Democratic vote." -- Ronald Reagan, 1960)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Political != government. Now you’re even lying about what you said.

They aren’t allowing the manufacturing of the cars, more lies from you, they’re allowing the USE of them on goverment regulated roads.


79 posted on 10/03/2017 12:22:45 PM PDT by discostu (Things are in their place, The heavens are secure, The whole thing explodes in my face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: discostu
It’s not the first time that something was outlawed in order to artificially increase its demand or the perception that it is in demand.

Notwithstanding, there is no demand for this particular product any more than there is the demand for electric cars. If this truly were a reversal of regulations, then the POTUS can simply write it out of existence. But Congress is involved, in a pro-active manner, and that is as suspicious as when the Supreme Court legislates from the bench. If this results in there being so many “self-driving” cars being manufactured that the consumer has no choice but to buy one, then that is interference in the market.

Lay off the ad hominem. It only gives the perception that you are defending an indefensible point or promulgating an invalid point. You were more convincing before you started falling to it.
80 posted on 10/03/2017 3:41:04 PM PDT by Olog-hai ("No Republican, no matter how liberal, is going to woo a Democratic vote." -- Ronald Reagan, 1960)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-108 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson