3 ms·

The title could do a lot more to indicate what the Self Drive act actually is. A house committee drafted some legislation that grants the federal government re

by ouid 9y ago

The title could do a lot more to indicate what the Self Drive act actually is. A house committee drafted some legislation that grants the federal government regulatory power over self-driving cars, or rather strips it from state governments. At least as far as it is reported in the article.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
I skimmed the text, it does specify requirements of it's own on self-driving cars (both for safety and privacy), establishes a council of industry experts on it, etc. as well. But barring states from regulating this in their own borders is about as much of a sweetheart bill for business as you can get, it ensures they only have to spend their lobbying money on one legislative body.
- Johnny555 9y ago
  But barring states from regulating this in their own borders is about as much of a sweetheart bill for business as you can get, it ensures they only have to spend their lobbying money on one legislative body. But it also means that they only need to meet one standard, not 50. Which sounds like the right thing to do when it comes to regulating something mobile that will operate in all 50 states.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    The differences from state to state are typically minor and not incompatible. Most states derive their requirements from federal standards/recommendations anyway. Current manufactures only offer two versions of cars. One is for most states. The other is for a particular state and all the other states on the "I'm with him" bandwagon. If a certain state would adopt federal recommendations for certain vehicle requirements then things would be greatly simplified.
    - Johnny555 9y ago
      The differences from state to state are typically minor and not incompatible How can you say that when not all states have even enacted legislation to regulate self-driving cars? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Self_Driving_Cars_Legalized_States_in_USA.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Self_Driving_Cars_Legaliz... Even minor changes between states are expensive for automakers to manage, and it's bad for consumers if some manufacturers choose to certify their cars for certain states -- you could end up buying a car that you not only can't legally take to another state, but the car will refuse to go there at all to avoid manufacturer liability.
      - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        There's very few situations where a car wouldn't be legal to drive in another state. For one, states are generally expected to respect other state's certification and licensing. Additionally, short of the hallmark "cars which have no steering wheels", which likely just won't work outside their programmed area anyways, you could just drive the car normally when in a state which doesn't support it.
Kadin 9y ago
It'd be interesting to see what the reaction is from people and companies in the field. Preemption legislation seems a little premature, to me. Sure, it would stop states from hindering autonomous-vehicle development, e.g. to protect entrenched interests or because of irrational fears, but it could also stop states interested in being on the forefront of research from doing more interesting things. It seems like the sort of thing you'd want when products were further along the development path and having a broad, harmonized-rules marketplace is necessary to move further, but not when most of the tech is still pretty early R&D work.
- ballenf 9y ago
  Preemption is needed most for nascent industries where the economics are uncertain. It gives investors more confidence to invest in an unproven technology if you can at least predict one aspect of the landscape on a national level. Down the road, you can start to relax the preemption (theoretically) and let the market forces keep unwise state regulation in check.

by ouid 9y ago

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

I skimmed the text, it does specify requirements of it's own on self-driving cars (both for safety and privacy), establishes a council of industry experts on it, etc. as well. But barring states from regulating this in their own borders is about as much of a sweetheart bill for business as you can get, it ensures they only have to spend their lobbying money on one legislative body.

Johnny555 9y ago
But barring states from regulating this in their own borders is about as much of a sweetheart bill for business as you can get, it ensures they only have to spend their lobbying money on one legislative body. But it also means that they only need to meet one standard, not 50. Which sounds like the right thing to do when it comes to regulating something mobile that will operate in all 50 states.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  The differences from state to state are typically minor and not incompatible. Most states derive their requirements from federal standards/recommendations anyway. Current manufactures only offer two versions of cars. One is for most states. The other is for a particular state and all the other states on the "I'm with him" bandwagon. If a certain state would adopt federal recommendations for certain vehicle requirements then things would be greatly simplified.
  - Johnny555 9y ago
    The differences from state to state are typically minor and not incompatible How can you say that when not all states have even enacted legislation to regulate self-driving cars? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Self_Driving_Cars_Legalized_States_in_USA.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Self_Driving_Cars_Legaliz... Even minor changes between states are expensive for automakers to manage, and it's bad for consumers if some manufacturers choose to certify their cars for certain states -- you could end up buying a car that you not only can't legally take to another state, but the car will refuse to go there at all to avoid manufacturer liability.
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      There's very few situations where a car wouldn't be legal to drive in another state. For one, states are generally expected to respect other state's certification and licensing. Additionally, short of the hallmark "cars which have no steering wheels", which likely just won't work outside their programmed area anyways, you could just drive the car normally when in a state which doesn't support it.

Kadin 9y ago

It'd be interesting to see what the reaction is from people and companies in the field. Preemption legislation seems a little premature, to me. Sure, it would stop states from hindering autonomous-vehicle development, e.g. to protect entrenched interests or because of irrational fears, but it could also stop states interested in being on the forefront of research from doing more interesting things. It seems like the sort of thing you'd want when products were further along the development path and having a broad, harmonized-rules marketplace is necessary to move further, but not when most of the tech is still pretty early R&D work.

ballenf 9y ago
Preemption is needed most for nascent industries where the economics are uncertain. It gives investors more confidence to invest in an unproven technology if you can at least predict one aspect of the landscape on a national level. Down the road, you can start to relax the preemption (theoretically) and let the market forces keep unwise state regulation in check.