18 ms·

I'm astounded that it seems like these regulations are going to be sensible and promote the technology. It's a good thing that these are going into place, since

• gumby 10y ago
  > I'm astounded that it seems like these regulations are going to be sensible... Was that hyperbole? I would say the majority of regulations (at least in OECD countries) are sensible, and many that are not are intended to be, are outdated, or are politicized.
  • e40 10y ago
    Many people automatically assume a government can't make up sensible regulations. There are a lot of them in the US. It's a meme you hear all the time, especially in a POTUS election year.
    • revscat 10y ago
      And is the fundamental belief of libertarians: that governments can do nothing right, either morally or pragmatically.
      • travoc 10y ago
        That's not accurate. They seem more concerned that every bit of power given to government to do something right will eventually be used to do something wrong.
        • nommm-nommm 10y ago
          That's exactly what the libertarians on HN post. I seriously hope it's a very vocal minority though.
        • RHSeeger 10y ago
          To be fair, there's a long and repeated history in the US of ---- GOV: We know this law is overreaching, but we promise we'll only use it the "right" way. ... 2 years goes by ... GOV: If you don't <plead guilty | accept this plea bargain>, we'll tack on a charge of breaking <this law that is overreaching>, even though you didn't violate what it's supposed to be about, and add 20 years to your sentence. ---- It's seen over and over. The US citizen's distrust of government getting more power than it absolutely needs isn't paranoid, it's based on the actions of the government.
          • notahacker 10y ago
            Conversely, and more relevantly to regulations on self-regulating cars, there's a long and repeated history of -- GROUP: The regulation is anti-business, anti-freedom and massively outdated. We should sweep it all away and deregulate this sector as much as possible. The market will take care of the bad companies. ...2 years goes by... GROUP: Do you know how important it is that this industry survives? Please give us some money to fix it. And some of the behaviour of some companies in our industry is unethical and dangerous and really should be stopped. Why didn't you step in earlier?
      • tomp 10y ago
        I'm (mostly) a libertarian, and I disagree. I think the government is fundamental at keeping the society sane, secure and organized.
        • jotato 10y ago
          I agree. I find my self leaning libertarian as of the last few years. To me it isn't about no regulation; just no "nanny" regulation
      • opo 10y ago
        No that is simply not true. Just because someone doesn't think that the war on drugs is a good idea or that prostitution should not be criminalized, etc. doesn't mean they think "governments can do nothing right" libertarians != anarchists
    • ams6110 10y ago
      My biggest gripe is overreach. You start with sensible building codes, and eventually the city council is telling you what color bricks you have to use before they'll approve your plan. Yes this happens.
      • scribu 10y ago
        As someone living in a country where there are very lax building codes, I would welcome regulation that mandates what colors you're allowed to use!
        • dsr_ 10y ago
          Why is that? I can see why there would be regulations on brick quality, but why color?
          • zbyte64 10y ago
            The regulation on brick color mentioned above is at the city level, not federal or state. You have districts that enforce ascetic rules typically to preserve the look of a neighborhood.
          • JamesLeonis 10y ago
            I used to live near an old historic town with buildings standing since the 1850s. New people and businesses are moving in all the time and stuff needs to be built. The town uses color codes and other design elements to preserve both the older buildings as well as making newer buildings match the historic tone. This is explicitly done to promote and keep tourism flowing into the town, which is a HUGE part of their income. If an industry or contractor balks at these ideas (and they do every now and again) there are several other larger modern cities a few miles away with access to the Interstate and train yards. These don't share the "historic preservation" codes of this little town. If the town allowed a free-for-all on design it would wreck it's main source of income and likely cause decay over the years as tourism dropped off.
            • 10y ago
    • luma 10y ago
      I think it might be deeper than that. I don't feel that the US government, on it's own, is incapable of drafting up reasonable legislation. The problem is that the US government is 100% for sale to the highest bidder, and corruption runs deep (we just call it "campaign contributions" as if that makes it better). If sensible regulation is proposed, it'll last 30 seconds before the good senator from [some self-driving car company's home state] has turned it into a document crafted to drive business to his "contributor". This isn't a political statement as it cuts across both parties, which renders it all the more insidious.
      • leereeves 10y ago
        And on top of that you have obstructionism (from both sides) and deliberate efforts to sabotage the other side.
      • sharemywin 10y ago
        Or even if the politician isn't influenced by the campaign contributions they'll just run 1 sided ads against the other side that usually have margin at best factual basis.
      • krschultz 10y ago
        Surely this is based on 0 personal direct experience with the people that write these kinds of regulations. I have worked with engineers that write technical regulations. They are generally focused on doing a good job at the task at hand. To think some mid level person that is hired into a normal job and never meets a politician in their career cares about campaign contributions is asinine. What do you think the people at NASA and NAVSEA and NIST do all day?
      • XorNot 10y ago
        This is not an informed opinion. This is an opinion carefully shaped by the same influences from different industries over the last 30 years who generally benefit from the removal of their regulatory environment (miners, oil industry). The real byline is in your proposed commitment to trying too improve government process: you don't have any. You think it's hopeless. You're apathetic. Which is what everyone, pushing any agenda, wants from you.
    • BurningFrog 10y ago
      Economists, based on empirical research, by and large agree that "Regulatory Capture" will normally make regulations work in the interest of the major companies in an industry, rather than the public interest. This is a social science result, not a meme.
      • sharemywin 10y ago
        Regulatory Capture will by definition always result in Regulations working in the interest of the major companies(or special interest) in an industry, rather than the public interest. Definition: Regulatory capture is a form of government failure that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.
        • sharemywin 10y ago
          The question is does regulatory capture always happen?
          • hx87 10y ago
            It tends to happen when the following are true: a) Previous government experience is highly valuable in private sector employees b) Government pay is less than this value b) affects regulatory capture in two ways: it allows civil servants the opportunity to get massive raises by going private (and incentivises them to be nice to future employers) and cripples the recruitment of highly talented individuals who are less dependent on industry advice. I don't think attacking a) is feasible in a modern regulatory state, but b) is readily doable if a government is willing to significantly deviate from standard salary scales for high-value industries. For example, SEC salaries would have to be much, much higher than Department of the Interior salaries. AFAIK, Singapore already does this and has very high talent retention rates. Even within the US government, it isn't entirely unprecedented, since an E-3 Navy special forces operator probably makes 8x the salary of an E-3 Army public relations specialist.
    • maylibertarian 10y ago
      One problem is that regulations tend to accumulate. I like what Canada does with its "one for one rule" which removes one piece of old outdated regulation for every new regulation made. In fact, at first when British Columbia implemented this law, they did 2 for 1 to clean out old laws, until later switching to 1 for 1. http://www.npr.org/2015/05/26/409671996/canada-cuts-down-on-red-tape-could-it-work-in-the-u-s http://www.npr.org/2015/05/26/409671996/canada-cuts-down-on-...
      • astrocat 10y ago
        I'd never heard of one-for-one, but it's such a brilliant idea! Thanks for sharing
    • plandis 10y ago
      I just assume that the government work do anything without a benefit for themselves. In this case they are probably getting some nice benefits from the automakers. I say this as someone who has failed to even get a non-form letter answer from any of my elected officials state level or higher. I'm convinced that money is the only way to affect policy.
    • pdeuchler 10y ago
      You're right, we probably should be celebrating our lead tainted water, fracking, telecommunications monopolies, $300 Epipens, unaccountable financial institutions, pipelines across native land, corrupt campaign contributions, infrastructure decay, lack of decent health care...
  • oldmanjay 10y ago
    In would say that anyone who thinks they have a handle on any significant percentage of the regulations in just one country is fooling themselves or uniquely talented. The sheer bulk neatly precludes it.
    • douche 10y ago
      I'm not sure that anybody after the Code of Hammurabi, or the Twelve Tables, or the ten commandments could even pretend to understand all the laws and regulations that their brethren have enforced on each other. Law is almost like a gas, expanding in every direction to fill whatever space and attention it is allowed.
  • peteretep 10y ago
    > I would say the majority of regulations (at least in > OECD countries) are sensible I think it can be shocking to non-Americans just how much the Americans distrust and think their lawmakers and -- especially shockingly, their civil servants -- are both incompetent and have malicious intent. American friends have found it incredible -- for example -- that something like NICE[0] can exist and people don't assume it's trying to kill them all; cf "death panels". I also wonder in what other developed countries Jade Helm 15 would have been controversial[1]... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Health_and_Care_Excellence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Health_... -- especially their guidance on how much a year of life is "worth"; see the "Cost Effectiveness section [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade_Helm_15_conspiracy_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade_Helm_15_conspiracy_theori...
    • jcranmer 10y ago
      > I think it can be shocking to non-Americans just how much the Americans distrust and think their lawmakers and -- especially shockingly, their civil servants -- are both incompetent and have malicious intent. The EU is often criticized (e.g., Brexit) as being something that promulgates useless regulations (e.g., curvature of a banana).
      • davedx 10y ago
        I quite like the human rights and environmental protections afforded me as a EU citizen. British people see the beginnings of their work rights already in the crosshairs since Brexit. Glad I live in the Netherlands now.
      • peteretep 10y ago
        > The EU is often criticized (e.g., Brexit) as being > something that promulgates useless regulations Sure. Some people hate single-payer healthcare too. Nothing like watching Food Inc for reminding you why the EU love you.
      • shanusmagnus 10y ago
        At first I thought you were making up a super funny and clever thing, but by god, you're only referencing a pre-existing funny thing [1]. Although funny in a different way. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No._2257/94 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No....
  • friendlygrammar 10y ago
    How can a website where the majority of people likely live in Silicon Valley actually believe that the majority of government regulation is good? Any regulation needs to be intensely scrutinized because the implications are not even completely understandable when they are created.
    • pmont 10y ago
      while I agree that regulation should be intensely scrutinized, and that the implications of a piece of regulation are usually not fully understood until after it has been implemented, the idea that the majority of regulation is "bad" is myopic. Well-written regulation (and I would argue that the majority of regulations in the US are well-written) serves the public interest. Two immediate examples that come to mindt are the Glass-Steagall act, which separated commercial banking from speculative trading until it was repealed by GLB in the 80s (opening the door for the financial crisis) and the FDA. I would prefer to live in a country where glass stegall was still in place and the FDA was even stronger than it is today.
  • wyager 10y ago
    A regulation that seems sensible to one cultural group might seem like ridiculous overreach to another cultural group. The US is one of the most polycultural countries in the world, so any regulation is bound to piss a lot of people off. It's better to be judicious with regulation in such situations. Gun control is a great example that seems to confuse a lot of non-Americans. To your average San Franciscan, who has never used a gun and has no particular reason to use one, restrictions on e.g. magazine size probably seem quite reasonable. But go to an agrarian Texan rancher, and the situation is entirely different. Good luck thinning out a stampeding herd of wild hogs with a ten round fixed magazine. Similar situation with pot; the average SF resident is probably fairly familiar with it, whereas the rancher probably isn't. In either case, ignorance breeds irrational fear, which is a bad (but unfortunately likely) foundation for laws. So yes, many regulations are not sensible, and it's harder to get away with in the US because the US isn't a monoculture. Even those regulations that are sensible (by whatever metric you like) are likely to anger some non-negligible group.
    • sharemywin 10y ago
      “Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.” ― James Bovard, Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty I think lately far to many people already have the answer before there is any discussion I think democracy only functions when people are open minded and willing to put themselves in others shoes.
    • nerdponx 10y ago
      I'm ignorant on ranching. Are wild hog stampedes a non-trivial threat to ranchers?
      • wyager 10y ago
        The stampedes aren't, but hogs are a horrible invasive pest that causes many billions of dollars of destruction per year. They've tried trapping, poisoning, everything. The only thing that has any effect on the population is some serious firepower. The problem is so bad that you can hire people to fly around at night in helicopters with sniper rifles and thermal vision to shoot hogs. I've helped a few friends with hog control, and you'll often startle 10-20 at a time and then they'll go into hiding and you're done for the day. You need to put a lot of bullets downrange fast to have any effect.
  • Dylan16807 10y ago
    The majority of regulations in the US are sensible. But regulations that are computer-focused? Less so.
  • dhagz 10y ago
    I get where you're coming from, but I live in a state where, until very recently, brewers were not allowed to sell beer directly to customers. There are still large swaths of my state that do not allow the sale of alcohol on Sunday, period. And when brewers were allowed to sell beer on tours of their brewery, suddenly the government started messing with the regulations again to basically undo everything.
• CaptSpify 10y ago
  > autonomous vehicles should definitely not be legislated on a state-by-state basis. Why do you say that? I have no opinion either way, just curious
  • Filligree 10y ago
    Cars move. Splitting the laws by state would mean also splitting the market, and allowing cars on the road which would be illegal to e.g. drive into Texas. Really, it should be international.
    • nerdponx 10y ago
      But this kind of fragmentation already exists today with different driving laws between states. A legal student driver in one state might not be allowed to drive in another. Now that I'm thinking about it, it's strange that vehicles are regulated at the state not federal level. They're a big component in interstate commerce, and therefore ought to be within the jurisdiction of Congress to regulate, even under a relatively strict reading of the Constitution.
      • oldmanjay 10y ago
        Vehicles are regulated at the federal level. That doesn't preclude states from applying additional regulation, such as the California emission standards.
      • maxerickson 10y ago
        A lot of safety features and emissions requirements are regulated at the federal level.
      • Someone1234 10y ago
        And it is a massive problem. For example vehicle window tinting laws vary wildly from state to state (and arguably they're more liberal in states that get hotter, and more restrictive in states with gang issues) so you can own a vehicle that is legally tinted in your home state, but gets ticketed when it crosses a state border. Daylight running lights are another example, some states require them, while others do not. So you can buy a brand new vehicle which could get ticketed since it lacks DRLs.
• mountaineer22 10y ago
  Unlike healthcare exchanges?
• angryasian 10y ago
  I think the biggest benefit for self-driving cars is that there is really no big corporation or lobbying group that is against this technology. Car manufacturers probably would have put up the biggest battle but they are all pushing for the adoption of the technology. Had car manufacturers felt this technology was a thread to their business model, you'd definitely see a lot of push back and crazy stipulations.
  • shanusmagnus 10y ago
    Interesting point -- presumably this means that the existing manufacturers think they can compete in this market, or steer it someplace where they can compete. I wonder if they're right.
    • sharemywin 10y ago
      There's no "Car neutrality" law so far.
  • ArtDev 10y ago
    We will see what happens when auto sales decline due to really cheap auto-taxis. Hopefully, car companies will deal with reduced demand by going upscale with more fancy cars for a smaller market. Of course, someone needs to build all of those auto-taxis. They are going to be do very very well for themselves.
• Symmetry 10y ago
  I'm not. Autonomous cars will face strong competition from regular cars and the manufacturers have got to be worried about liability. Hence, the private sector in this case has it's interests more or less aligned with the regulators so you should expect fairly effective regulation, like with the FAA and commercial airlines.