U.S. House Committee Unanimously Approves Measure to Ease Restrictions on Autonomous Vehicles

[KeanosMagicHat]

There will come a time where on most roads you will not be allowed to manually drive the car.

It will start first with Highways / Motorways where as soon as you join from the slip road, the car will travel at a set speed and distance from the car in front, as those are the roads that are easiest to manage from an automation point of view.

It will then extend to other roads as technology improves & regulations change.

 

[urungus]

I have neither a smart phone nor GPS, because I don't like the idea of my every move being tracked

1) *All* cell phones track you, even if it's just a flip phone. So unless you do not have any kind of cell phone, it's not a valid excuse for avoiding a smart phone.

2) GPS is a passive system (it relies on data received from the satellites, but never sends data out), so you cannot be tracked if you use GPS (assuming you clear your history).

 

[thisisnotmyname]

I have a feeling that, such as my comment above, allied with the many variables that can only come to light through experience, the outlawing of private travel will not happen. Too may people (at work or play) will require instant access to go anywhere vehicles, and will have no interest in buying/leasing a machine that is not truly theirs to outfit as they wish.

As for jerkish behaviour, nature abhors a vacuum - so do I.

People will still be able to buy their own autonomous vehicle for those that need instant access rather than requesting an Uber (and those in very rural settings) but you won't be allowed to control them manually on any public property. You'll still have human controlled vehicles as well but you'll have to keep them to private property (race tracks, four wheel drive off road areas, farms, etc...). There will probably be a market for hybrid (as in human and autonomous capable) vehicles that still have in cab controls but can legally be used on public roads, I'm sure there will be software that turns off the human controls when it identifies you as being on a public road though.
[doublepost=1500559479][/doublepost]

Vehicle automation is not just about providing basically unmanned Ubers.

Pool vehicles are okay for city dwellers and non-drivers, but I think many/most people... especially with families... will continue to purchase their own personal vehicle, but capable of autonomous mode. The advantages are the same reasons why most people right now don't just use rides like Uber:

Besides not having to constantly wait for a pool vehicle to arrive (if there's even one available - when it rains there's never enough!), and having to pay for each ride, many people prefer their own vehicle because it's instantly personally available, they know its passenger health history, and they can leave their personal belongings, kids toys, golf clubs, etc, inside.

So I foresee families continuing to own their vehicles. It's just that, without a driver being required, perhaps Mom will be able to say, "Car, take the kids to school", and "Car, go pick up Grandma at the airport", and "I'm too tired to drive, car, take me to the grocery". Not to mention letting the car drive while sightseeing, so everyone can give attention to the view . Plus maybe teens could go on dates without Dad driving? Hmm. Maybe bad idea.

There will certainly continue to be personal ownership when we move to primarily fully autonomous vehicles on the road however it will be greatly reduced. For people in urban or suburban environments it will become a luxury. Wealthier people may still continue to own rather than use transportation as a service or you may see families maintain a single owned/leased vehicle while using TaaS in place of second or third vehicles. Technology will continue to address challenges of TaaS as it become more prevalent (e.g. modular car seats for young children that instantly lock into place in any standard TaaS vehicle, modular storage lockers that can be docked with your "stuff" and automatically called back up with your next ride). Rural areas will be much slower to adopt TaaS (if ever). Like many things (mail service, broadband, health care, roads) there are challenges to deployment when population density drops off the bottom of the chart. There may end up being fees on urban TaaS to support rural programs but likely we'll continue to see many rural dwellers own vehicles that are level 5 autonomous.

 

[69Mustang]

So you think having a hodgepodge if regulations (each individual state) is “right” while leveling the playing field nationally creating consistency is “wrong”?... My original point was in response to people’s knee jerk, and predictable, reaction that this development was a bad thing ...

This development is a bad thing. You do realize that what you describe is essentially our system of laws right? We have federal laws that provide consistency across the country. We also have state and local laws that apply to specific areas. Having a national policy is a good thing. Removing the ability of states to make local decisions is not. When you put the power over many into the hands of very few, it's a helluva lot easier for the influence peddlers to peddle their influence over the few. When the many have no recourse to voice disagreement... yeah, I'ma take a hard pass.

*Humans* still have trouble with changes to infrastructure. I want this technology to get better. Faster. I think this story reflects a change that enhances that. I welcome the change. Autopilot is already safer (statistically) than a human driver without it. Our “single data points” aside.

Help me here. How are you conflating tech getting better with being able to do it faster because of less regulation? I can't think of anything that was made better because it was done faster. I can think of a lot of things that were decidedly worse because they were rushed. You may be willing to risk your safety in an effort to get something quicker. I am not. To each his own.

 

[kdarling]

Realistically, if there's enough time to avoid the child, it will do so, and if there's not enough time to avoid the child, the human driver won't be able to, either. So the "kill the kid or kill the driver" question is kind of nonsensical.

On the contrary, "who to kill" is a primary morality topic for autonomous car research. For small example:

MIT wants humans’ input on who self-driving cars should kill

Self-driving cars are already deciding who to kill

Kill the pedestrian or the passenger? The complicated ethics of self-driving cars.

It's a problem, because users and legislators will want to know if a car is going to value a child in the street over a child passenger. And clearly it depends on which child is yours!

No doubt insurance companies will also weigh in on this topic.

Mercedes has already stated that they will value the passengers more.

 

[IJ Reilly]

With respect, I don't think the Luddite syndrome, which is still alive and well, applies here. I don't object to change, but I do object to being forced into something which detracts from my chosen lifestyle.

I have neither a smart phone nor GPS, because I don't like the idea of my every move being tracked, which will be the case with driverless cars. I also demand the total right to go wherever I want, whenever I want, However I want, and why ever I want - in private.

If the eventual introduction of autonomous cars into the transport mix does not take away choice, then fine.

Seems to me you have simply restated the premise of Luddism and called it something else. The premise is the rejection of technological progress; the rationale for why it is being rejected hardly matters.

Maybe you're old enough to remember, as I do, when safety belts were introduced into cars in the 1960s. Lots of people absolutely refused to wear them for decades thereafter. It was an impingement on their "rights," presumably to be launched through their windshields in a collision (the results of which I witnessed back in "the good old days" before safety belts). As rationales they'd come up cockamamie scenarios where they get burnt to a crisp in flaming wreckage because they couldn't get their belt off. Heard it all. Finally the message got out that safety belts save tens of thousands of lives every year, and one of them could be yours. Now you'd have be quite an ornery fool to not wear your belt, required by law or not.

I don't claim to know where autonomy is going, but I suspect it is evolving faster than most of us imagine, and it won't be very long before autonomous systems are safer at piloting cars than humans, if only because humans are very poor at this skill (no matter what they tell themselves). I'm not such an ornery fool that I won't admit that when it happens. Lots will, though. Guaranteed. So while we might not have any steam engines or threshing machines to destroy anymore, it seems the basic premise of Luddism is alive and well.

 

[winston1236]

I'm surprised that no special interests are opposing this.

That's because the special interest group is supporting it.

 

[OLDCODGER]

1) *All* cell phones track you, even if it's just a flip phone. So unless you do not have any kind of cell phone, it's not a valid excuse for avoiding a smart phone.

2) GPS is a passive system (it relies on data received from the satellites, but never sends data out), so you cannot be tracked if you use GPS (assuming you clear your history).

Thank you for the GPS info, i wasn't aware of the details - just don't trust "the man" enough to consider using it. As for phones, I have an emergency feature phone which I only switch on in an emergency, and that's when I want to be found.

 

[mgauss7]

A United States House panel this morning unanimously approved a proposal that would allow car manufacturers to deploy tens of thousands of autonomous vehicles without adhering to existing auto safety standards, reports Reuters. The legislation would also ban states from implementing and enforcing some driverless car rules as regulators work to create improved federal safety standards for autonomous driving.

Under the terms of the proposal, automakers would be required to submit safety assessment reports to United States regulators, but pre-market approval of autonomous vehicles would not be required.Companies working on autonomous vehicles, including General Motors, Alphabet, Ford, and Tesla, have been lobbying Congress to pass a federal measure that would pre-empt rules being considered in California and other states that would limit the deployment of self-driving vehicles. The measure preliminarily approved today would let manufacturers subvert the rule requiring autonomous cars to have driver controls, and it would prevent states from setting self-driving car standards for software and safety systems.

One of the Lexus vehicles Apple uses to test its autonomous driving software​

The measure was updated last week to add a directive that would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to draft new rules for autonomous vehicles within 18 months, but consumer advocacy groups say that the bill needs tweaking to ensure that automakers prioritize safety and do not put consumers at greater risk of a crash.

Apple has its own autonomous driving software in development and would benefit from the relaxed regulations should the bill be passed. Apple has previously asked the California DMV to re-evaluate some of its rules, including those requiring companies to provide detailed public reports about testing variables and results.

Apple CEO Tim Cook in June said Apple considers its work on autonomous driving systems as "the mother of all AI projects." Apple is currently testing its software in several Lexus RX450h vehicles that are equipped with a host of sensors and cameras.

The full committee could vote on the measure as soon as next week, but the U.S. House of Representatives will not consider the bill until it reconvenes in September after the summer recess. Representative Robert Latta, who leads the Energy and Commerce Committee subcomittee overseeing consumer protection, plans to continue considering changes ahead of the full committee vote.

Article Link: U.S. House Committee Unanimously Approves Measure to Ease Restrictions on Autonomous Vehicles

Prediction: no self driving cars will ever make it!

We as humans forgive airplanes no problem. "It was an act of God." We see air travel as out of our control.

But Auto (car) travel we feel we are in control, even though we are not. It is also true that any programmer mistake can cause a death, and that lawsuit will always be huge.

Automatic cars will work as a Disney ride, where many elements are controlled. A fixed track, a model number that is the same for all those cars, like a train. But the car is something that needs a human intuition...here are a few examples:

-an eagle flies into a windshield. The software sees it and tries to avoid such a large thing crashing into the car, and causes an accident. A human knows that though large, an eagle weighs little and will not hurt anything but himself.

-the road suddenly becomes slippery due to drizzle rain. The car begins a subtle skidding sideways. Humans know to detect that and slow down. Computers have no way of determining a minute sideways skid.

-A large toy doll ends up as debris in the road. The software assumes it is a child as it looks like one. But most humans know right away by knowing that dolls are dolls and children are children. Accident is avoided.

There is no way for software to know all the permutations, and worse, it is subject to malevolent interference
to trick it. The public will never forgive a machine. It is like an elevator that cuts a human in two. It is an automatic lawsuit. No one would defend the elevator. Yet it is possible for humans to trick the elevator.

I predict personal flying units will become soon a reality, as small helicopters, as in the air the obstacles are more aeronautic, and weather is easily computerized (a calm no wind day with a good forecast is good enough). It is the legal aspect that will doom self driving cars.

Now the Disney approach, little electric trains and pods that form a line in order...that yes. But a self driving car where a person can suddenly command it at will and yield the control to the car...no way.

 

[Darrin Bell]

Have they addressed liability issues? If Apple, Alphabet, etc. are going to be financially liable for everything from fender benders to traffic fatalities, I'm ok with them eliminating rules mandating driver controls in the cars. Otherwise, who's going to pay when an iCar injures someone? The iCar's passenger will have had nothing to do with it.

 

[OLDCODGER]

Seems to me you have simply restated the premise of Luddism and called it something else. The premise is the rejection of technological progress; the rationale for why it is being rejected hardly matters.

Maybe you're old enough to remember, as I do, when safety belts were introduced into cars in the 1960s. Lots of people absolutely refused to wear them for decades thereafter. It was an impingement on their "rights," presumably to be launched through their windshields in a collision (the results of which I witnessed back in "the good old days" before safety belts). As rationales they'd come up cockamamie scenarios where they get burnt to a crisp in flaming wreckage because they couldn't get their belt off. Heard it all. Finally the message got out that safety belts save tens of thousands of lives every year, and one of them could be yours. Now you'd have be quite an ornery fool to not wear your belt, required by law or not.

I don't claim to know where autonomy is going, but I suspect it is evolving faster than most of us imagine, and it won't be very long before autonomous systems are safer at piloting cars than humans, if only because humans are very poor at this skill (no matter what they tell themselves). I'm not such an ornery fool that I won't admit that when it happens. Lots will, though. Guaranteed. So while we might not have any steam engines or threshing machines to destroy anymore, it seems the basic premise of Luddism is alive and well.

My objection is the compulsion angle - not the change itself. On that note, your example of the safety belt saga (and also the helmet) brings back memories of much indignation amongst the driving public, but not from me - I was already used to a full harness in rallying, so installed safety belts as soon as they became available - because I wanted them.

 

[kdarling]

There will certainly continue to be personal ownership when we move to primarily fully autonomous vehicles on the road however it will be greatly reduced. For people in urban or suburban environments it will become a luxury.

I just don't see that happening. After all, people outside of cities can use taxis right now, yet they do not, for many good reasons, including cost and convenience. Autonomous will simply be another option for the family truckster.

May I ask if if you drive, and whether you live in a city or not?

...e.g. modular car seats for young children that instantly lock into place in any standard TaaS vehicle, modular storage lockers that can be docked with your "stuff" and automatically called back up with your next ride)...

No way. Obviously you're not a parent. Carrying around a car seat (or several!), so that you'll be ready for your next "auto-Uber" ride ain't gonna happen. So there'll need to be child seats built into every public vehicle, or at least a good subset, and their existence will have to be a call ahead parameter.

 

[IJ Reilly]

My objection is the compulsion angle - not the change itself. On that note, your example of the safety belt saga (and also the helmet) brings back memories of much indignation amongst the driving public, but not from me - I was already used to a full harness in rallying, so installed safety belts as soon as they became available - because I wanted them.

Then you will remember how many objected to safety belts both before and after using them became compulsory. Understand, I am not picking on you, I am picking up on a seemingly widespread cynicism about the usefulness of technology. This is a surprising find in a place where the audience should be more comfortable with technology than the population in general. The Luddism analogy might be imperfect but what I am seeing here is a highly negative, gut reaction to technology invading a personal space that feels pretty similar to the historical case.

 

[Victor Mortimer]

Unless they're driving on the median.

They're probably not going to hurt anybody driving on the median. But mean drivers cause road rage.

 

[willzyx]

And then the next step will be asking Congress to change traffic rules, and liability rules, and add special lanes for self-driving cars etc., etc. The tech companies know these cars aren't even close to being ready for prime time, thus all the lobbying for special treatment and not having to meet safety standards etc.

Current regulations and laws do not allow for more widespread public testing, which is something that autonomous cars need if we want to have self-driving cars any time soon. Relaxing regulations would improve tech much quicker because more self-driving cars would be allowed on public roads, which is what is needed. And current prototype self-driving cars are already safer than an average American driver. We've only seen a few accidents that involved autonomous cars and those are usually the fault of the second car.

 

[Victor Mortimer]

I just don't see that happening. After all, people outside of cities can use taxis right now, yet they do not, for many good reasons, including cost and convenience. Autonomous will simply be another option for the family truckster.

People don't take taxis now because unless you're going a short distance and not doing it very often, taxis are expensive, and in most places taxis really suck. That's why Uber got the market they did, they provided a better option than calling a taxi company, waiting an hour, calling them again, waiting another hour, getting fed up and calling a different taxi company, waiting another hour, calling again, and finally having a dirty, smelly taxi show up, "forget" to turn on the meter, overcharge you a random amount, and still expect a tip, and yell at you if they don't think it's big enough.

And not owning a car will of course happen in cities first. In a city, owning a car has a lot of external costs above and beyond the cost of the car and fuel. Insurance is more expensive, and parking is expensive. Since a car spends the vast majority of its time parked, owning it is not really doing anything for you but cost money most of the time. In the middle of nowhere, land is cheap so parking costs almost nothing, insurance costs less because there's less valuable stuff for you to potentially damage and less chance of an accident because the roads aren't as busy.

As the cost of owning vs not owning flips to not owning, fewer people will decide owning makes sense. I live in a medium sized city, parking at my house isn't a problem because I have a driveway, and right now it's cheaper to own a car. I could see that changing really easily.

 

[kdarling]

People don't take taxis now because unless you're going a short distance and not doing it very often, taxis are expensive, and in most places taxis really suck.

Plus neither taxis nor Uber even exist where I am, and I'm only thirty miles west of NYC

And not owning a car will of course happen in cities first.

Depending on the city, that's already happened. Heck, I know a lot of native New Yorkers who never had a driver's license.

As the cost of owning vs not owning flips to not owning, fewer people will decide owning makes sense. I live in a medium sized city, parking at my house isn't a problem because I have a driveway, and right now it's cheaper to own a car. I could see that changing really easily.

See, that's where I disagree with you guys. As a rural or even suburban dweller, I sure as heck am not going to wait even five minutes for a public vehicle to show up, when I can jump in a private vehicle and go... with it right there waiting for me when I finished whatever I'm doing. The convenience is just too great to give up.

E.g. Christmas shopping would become a nightmare if I couldn't store stuff in my car between trips. Ditto for every day trips carrying the kids and their friends.

So unless it becomes far cheaper... and I can't see how that would happen to normal people... I just can't see a mass switch away from privately owned cars. It didn't happen with public transportation and it's not happening just because cars will be able to drive themselves.

I think even my mother and my wife, neither of which can drive any more, would far prefer to buy their own autonomous vehicles.

Well, we'll find out in a few years what the trend will be. Should be interesting!

 

[Victor Mortimer]

This development is a bad thing. You do realize that what you describe is essentially our system of laws right? We have federal laws that provide consistency across the country. We also have state and local laws that apply to specific areas. Having a national policy is a good thing. Removing the ability of states to make local decisions is not. When you put the power over many into the hands of very few, it's a helluva lot easier for the influence peddlers to peddle their influence over the few. When the many have no recourse to voice disagreement... yeah, I'ma take a hard pass.

Just because that's the way it's been done doesn't mean that's the best way to do it.

Local control makes sense for local issues. There's no reason for a national law on where the streets in City X should be. But there is a reason for a national law about the minimum width for that street, and there is a reason for a national law about what cars can drive on it.

Why? Because it's not in anyone's interest that if I buy a car in Florida and drive it to New York that it should be possible for me to be committing a crime because NY doesn't like something about my car. The cars allowed on the road should not change other than at a controlled border, and if possible shouldn't even change then.

It's not a local issue. It's not a state issue. Any car allowed on the road in any state should legally be able to go to any other state.

 

[BoulderAdonis]

I have neither a smart phone nor GPS, because I don't like the idea of my every move being tracked, which will be the case with driverless cars. I also demand the total right to go wherever I want, whenever I want, However I want, and why ever I want - in private.

Yet, you are on a tech news site. Do you use an onion browser? With javascript disabled?

Your phone - smart or not - pings cell towers, and they know *exactly* where you are (it's called triangulation).

You don't have that right now - you can't ride a bike "wherever you want", you can't ride a horse "however you want", and you can't fly a plane "whenever you want".

 

[ksnell]

Well depending on the speed you should be driving with three car lengths between you and the car in front of you so you don't rear end them if they have to slam on their brakes.
[doublepost=1500501707][/doublepost]
Not by any means, Google already had them and the state of California said no, they must have a manual override.
As for motorcycles, either they will become autonomous too or the government will make them illegal if we don't start standing up to this nonsense.

That would be nonsense indeed. I know which side of the issue I fall on.

 

[BoulderAdonis]

This development is a bad thing. You do realize that what you describe is essentially our system of laws right? We have federal laws that provide consistency across the country. We also have state and local laws that apply to specific areas. Having a national policy is a good thing. Removing the ability of states to make local decisions is not. When you put the power over many into the hands of very few, it's a helluva lot easier for the influence peddlers to peddle their influence over the few. When the many have no recourse to voice disagreement... yeah, I'ma take a hard pass.


Help me here. How are you conflating tech getting better with being able to do it faster because of less regulation? I can't think of anything that was made better because it was done faster. I can think of a lot of things that were decidedly worse because they were rushed. You may be willing to risk your safety in an effort to get something quicker. I am not. To each his own.

This is clearly a fun topic. Did you read the reuters post? Or, just this macrumors article?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-selfdriving-idUSKBN18X2W4
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-selfdriving-idUSKBN1A41UK

I don't object to your comment about concentration of power, and influence peddling - but the thought that in this *global* economy - I should drive across a "state" line and be governed by a separate set of laws is anachronistic at best, to me.

If the sensors in the cars improve on an annual basis (say the way cell phone cameras have over the last decade), is it *better* if they can be rolled out as part of a regular development cycle? Or, are you telling me we will be "safer" because some regulator makes an assessment of the sensors on an individual basis (that could take 6 months or more), or on a state-by-state basis (years?)?

You don't think that making it easier for auto-makers to "test" the technology will make it safer for consumers purchasing the technology?

You think we are safer keeping outdated laws (which were never drafted with the current potential even in mind), rather than agreeing unanimously to address, update, and revise those laws?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws

"The issue has taken new urgency because road deaths in the United States rose 7.7 percent in 2015 over the previous year to 35,200, the highest annual jump since 1966. Traffic deaths climbed nearly 8 percent in the first nine months of 2016, government data showed."

But, sure ... we should slow down the development and deployment of enhanced safety features...

 

[Gasu E.]

I have bittersweet feelings about autonomous vehicles.

On the one hand, I love the tech, and think that it will be the future of transportation. But, on the other hand it makes me sad.

I love driving, and I love cars. Maybe one day, having to give up control of driving to a computerized chauffeur would take all the fun and thrill out of owning a car. It then might be like owning a refrigerator or a toaster, just purely utilitarian. Also, not being able to teach my future grandchildren about cars makes me kind of sad.

Get a horse.

 

[magicschoolbus]

This is going to be huge.. Feel bad for all of those Truckers out there that will be out of a job.

Truck drivers will be unable to compete with an automous vehicle that does not have to comply with DOT regulations (time behind the wheel and required breaks espically).

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

Will the cars be safe is my concern.

 

[Gasu E.]

And then the next step will be asking Congress to change traffic rules, and liability rules, and add special lanes for self-driving cars etc., etc.

Strawman argument. Sorry, that's a fail.
[doublepost=1500577188][/doublepost]

The problem is that automobile manufactures want to eliminate the steering wheel, gas and brake pedals completely, which poses A LOT of potential issues, including safety, privacy and a number of other concerns.
[doublepost=1500501088][/doublepost]
Basically if the vehicle has a steering wheel and brakes, then you are very clearly considered responsible as you could have overridden the system and took over. Where it becomes less clear is if there is no way for the driver to intervene.

Not true at all. Having a driver "take over" while the vehicle is moving is extremely unsafe. No human has the capacity to switch context and safely take over steering in the split second time required to gain safe control of a moving vehicle when an accident is impending. Even state laws allow for lockout of driver controls when the vehicles are moving. The alternative manual controls should only be enabled if the vehicle is stopped.
[doublepost=1500577445][/doublepost]

My objection is the compulsion angle - not the change itself. On that note, your example of the safety belt saga (and also the helmet) brings back memories of much indignation amongst the driving public, but not from me - I was already used to a full harness in rallying, so installed safety belts as soon as they became available - because I wanted them.

You will be long gone by the time autonomous-only control become mandatory; even if you were only twenty years old now. Now, FINDING an economical new car that supports manual control may become problematic much sooner.
[doublepost=1500578103][/doublepost]

I just don't see that happening. After all, people outside of cities can use taxis right now, yet they do not, for many good reasons, including cost and convenience. Autonomous will simply be another option for the family truckster.

May I ask if if you drive, and whether you live in a city or not?



No way. Obviously you're not a parent. Carrying around a car seat (or several!), so that you'll be ready for your next "auto-Uber" ride ain't gonna happen. So there'll need to be child seats built into every public vehicle, or at least a good subset, and their existence will have to be a call ahead parameter.

You make some excellent point. But I think what you WILL see are more one-car families. It's true that taxis are expensive now, but a lot of that is tied up in the cost of the driver. Autonomous, on-demand commuter cars will not only save the cost of the driver, but also be much smaller (no driver seat-- maybe just a single seat in most cases) and closer by (a mini-fleet of four single-rider vehicles could be stuffed into just about the space of a single parking space in your town center).