Auto, Tech Industries Urge Congress To Pass Self-Driving Legislation (axios.com) 72
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.
Here we go, this is what we were waiting for (Score:3, Insightful)
All it took was Uber killing someone before they went straight to Congress to limit their liability.
Re: (Score:1)
Let me guess: you're one of those people who set fire to the hipster coffee shop that just opened in your inner-city neighborhood? That's why the people who used to care about your city, and about reviving bad neighborhoods through gentrification, are moving to Arizona.
Re: (Score:2)
"Let me guess: you're one of those people who set fire to the hipster coffee shop that just opened in your inner-city neighborhood?"
Reasonable safety regulations in the auto industry aren't related to an extremist's unhinged justifications for arson.
Re: (Score:2)
“Reasonable safety regulations” are not what that post was calling for.
Re: (Score:3)
“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 S
what about criminal liability?? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
One does get a bit nervous when confronted with capitalists begging to be regulated. Perhaps it's time to check our wallets and count the silverware.
Re: (Score:1)
From the article "It's unrealistic to expect there won't be accidents involving autonomous vehicles during testing" ie shut the fuck up lab rats, dying is a necessary part of future profits, as long as you do the dying and they get the profits, good ole privatise the profits and socialise the losses. From our perceptive, the number of accidents acceptable on public roads during the development stage, zero. Post development, well, as long as the executives are executed when their programming kills people, I
FAA software development standards! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
You obviously have no idea how much more complex driving is than actual plane autopilots to so freely equate them by slogan.
Re: (Score:2)
I do though.
I want current ECUs fixed BEFORE we let the bozos start shipping, insanely buggy, 'self driving AI' alphas.
If some other nation wants to make their roads the alpha test site, let them.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
More investment (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
" build an entirely separate network of highway dedicated to what autonomous car need, ...."
Let's call this the Interstate Highway System. A logical first step in public deployment of autonomous vehicles is to enable automatic mode on this contained environment and at the same time in low-speed residential neighborhoods with simple traffic movements. As the technology gets ironed out, we can then grow deployment into more complex traffic situations.
Re: (Score:2)
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 reinvented PRT. That's not an inherently bad idea, but a) it's not going to happen any time soon and b) people don't want it. They want their own cars, and the illusion of freedom that they bring.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
There are plenty of ISO standards for ECUs. ISO 26262 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If current generation 'brake by wire' passes, the standard isn't close to good enough.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't think of a car with "parking brakes" that aren't 'brake by wire'. A simple wire attached to a handle that ratchets to hold the line under tension while the owner isn't in the car.
I hope you're not being serious. That's NOT what 'brake br wire' means; in fact it's pretty much the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
If current generation 'brake by wire' passes, the standard isn't close to good enough.
Are you talking about the Toyota's "sudden acceleration" problems from 10 years ago?
Re:FAA software development standards! (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That's nice. Can you point to the FAR that requires compliance for certification?
Re: (Score:2)
This is a good start, but these standards are developed for commercial air travel where pilots are assumed to be present to accommodate a system failure. Also, airplanes operate with much larger distances between them when compared to automobiles on a road. These standards just aren't good enough for self-driving cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Give it to them. Make them all develop ECUs using FAA 'commercial air' software standards!
This definitely should happen.
Congress to kill toddlers, kids, and pets (Score:1)
We all know this will mean thousands of American toddlers, kids, and pets will die as a result of this.
And every single family will sue.
Fuck Safety, Greed Comes First (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty simple.
Don't buy a car without a physical throttle cable and a physical connection between brake pedal and master cylinder. Also a real transmission.
At this point, it will be almost 20 years old. You will have to fix it/have it fixed.
Why? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)?
Authoritarian China as a Policy Model (Score:3)
Congressman Robert Latta (R-Ohio) (Score:2)
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.
First Real War: GPS Satellites Down (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"We don't need driverless cars."
You and I don't perhaps. But some of the elderly, inferm, or handicapped do. And potentially autonomous vehicles are far safer than human controlled vehicles. The problem looks to be how to debug the vehicles without killing or maiming half the population of the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Hope I survive, I'll be rich (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you can't sue, if it was a govt mandate... two things
1.O those poor manufacturer's they didn't even want to implement the tech which was obviously not ready as shown in tests after tests.
2. the EULA says the driver is still responsible in case of crash.
Re: (Score:2)
MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE! (Score:2)
It begins soon!
No liability + subsidies (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
I actually skimmed through the bill, it's short at 38 pages [congress.gov].
It does nothing about liability or handing out money to companies working on self-driving tech. However, you're right that it preempts state/local laws regarding self-driving cars. Mostly it establishes committees and tasks various bodies with reviewing/researching/planning. It also log-rolls a couple unrelated auto regulations mandating 'improved' headlights, and a warning indicator to remind you if someone is in the back seat when you turn the en
I thought we banned killer robots (Score:3)
What?
Too soon?
YeahNO! (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
They should own liability in that case. They should be getting an insurance policy that covers the vehicle in self-driving mode, for ever and ever or until it is scrapped amen.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep.
A legal push doesn't mean what you think it means (Score:2)
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.
I have no problem with self-driving vehicles... (Score:1)
Basically they want to take it out of State hands (Score:2)
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 performan