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.
Nothing about this was outlawed to increase demand. more lies from you.
And we’ve already established there IS a demand for this product. more lies from you.
Stop lying and I’ll stop pointing out your lies. It’s not an ad hominem to point out you are lying. Because ever since you insisted lobbyist are part of the government you can’t put together a sentence without lies.
Of course it is semantics. You're not creating a separate concept by applying bureaucratic and union rule making, in addition technological hindrances of the past, onto the idea of an automated piloting system.
A presumably autonomous car would be a far different animal, and not automatically worthy of absolute trust.
This is why I'm not concerned, as the data continues to roll in showing the inferiority of distracted meat bags compared to route following collision avoidance software that doesn't have an ego to feed, operating costs will move with it.
The most dangerous things on the road are unpredictable people.
Look at the accidents per milemstats for automated cars and realize that these stats will only improve as infrastructure design itself begins incorporating driverless aids.
Sounds like misanthropy, with all due respect.
… distracted meat bags …
BAHAHAHAHAHA the guy who lays claim to the right to make his own definitions of words accuses somebody else of having no interest in the truth?! BWAHAHAHAHA.
You have lied about EVERYTHING. That’s not an ad hominem, it’s the simple fact. You can’t even be truthful with the definition of one word.
You appear to be having a breakdown.
Remember that lying implies intent. You claimed in an earlier post that you could point out my alleged “lies”, but a conservative would have instead pointed out my errors—significant difference.
I DID point out your errors. And you replied that you don’t have to follow the dictionary definition of a word. That’s when you moved from error to intent.
Here you go again with your lies. The problem was you kept insisting lobbyist are part of the government. Now you’ve weaseled around to “insisting” they’re political. Of course they’re political, they’re job is pushing a political agenda. But that WAS NOT your original statement, this is your original statement: Lobbyists are government. That is not true.
I’m sorry that you cannot tell metaphoric language; that was my fault, if so. If lobbies successfully influence the government, they are a part of it, particularly where their successes (de facto legislating) affect the lives of private citizens. Especially foreign lobbies. Actions define things, rather than nominative definitions. Those lobbyists that are communists are especially government, even beyond a metaphoric indication.
That wasn’t metaphorical language. That was your retort to me saying lobbying push the government. That’s not metaphor, that’s you making up your own definition to words.
Making driving more affordable one stupid idea at a time.
Do you know the difference between simile and metaphor? The latter is saying that one is the other, versus one being like the other. And in practice, lobbying goes beyond the metaphorical, anyhow; we are living with the effects of it all around us. My statement is a fair statement.
I would say have full auto pilot on interstates. In the city not so much.
That sentence makes no sense as either simile or metaphor. I said governments get pushed by lobbyist all the time, you said no they don’t lobbyists are government. Your statement is wrong, your attempts to make that statement mean something else are lying.
No it makes no sense. If we unpack your supposed simile you said that lobbyists don’t push government are so influential in DC they’re like the government. But if lobbyists are so powerful they’re like the government then indeed lobbyists DO push the government which is the statement you were arguing against.
You commit more errors of omission. What I said in post #67 was “lobbyists are government, albeit a foreign government”. I did not say they were the US government. You’re arguing something I did not say, and are twisting what I did say.
So now you’re saying it wasn’t metaphor or simile? And let’s not forget this part of your post: The last thing they are is private industry.
You got caught lying, and you lie and lie and lie to weasel out of it. I’ll give you the last word, I’m sure it will be filled with more lies, and I really just cannot be bothered to read anymore of your idiotic weaseling. Goodbye, good luck, good riddance.
No, I’m saying you’re parsing my words. That’s not honest debate.
Have a nice day, sir.
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.