6 ms·

If this was a company from any other sector, such as a bank, people would start crying corruption; not that there probably was any. I think the governor was try

If this was a company from any other sector, such as a bank, people would start crying corruption; not that there probably was any. I think the governor was trying to court one of the largest Silicon Valley companies and that's trying to develop some "exciting" new technology and bent over backwards for them, which is cool and all, but he didn't perform his due diligence. I find it interesting how the governor just "trusted" that the company was obeying all federal laws and guidelines and didn't check to see if: (a) they were indeed complying (b) there were any outside of the car itself (c) if any exist about self-driving cars, how those guidelines ensure public safety. This is the exact kind of thing that ends up driving knee-jerk legislation to go the opposite direction. Does anyone know what federal laws and guidelines (from NTSB or other dept) exist that govern self-driving cars?

letlambda 9y ago
Just guidelines at this point. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-dot-releases-new-automated-driving-systems-guidance https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-dot-releases-new-aut...
- buvanshak 9y ago
  > NHTSA strongly encourages States not to codify this Voluntary Guidance (that is, incorporate it into State statutes) as a legal requirement for any phases of development, testing, or deployment of ADSs. Allowing NHTSA alone to regulate the safety design and performance aspects of ADS technology will help avoid conflicting Federal and State laws and regulations that could impede deployment. Can someone clarify that this please? To me it appears that this body is saying that, "States, Please don't make laws requiring minimal standards for SDVs for things, including deployment on public roads, because that would impede deployment. Allow us to handle all that" But they didn't do it, right? SDV's were on roads even before the "safety design and performance aspects of ADS technology" was regulated, right?
  - JibJabLab 9y ago
    >not to codify this Voluntary Guidance ... as a legal requirement for any phases of development, testing, or deployment I don't think it's meant to impede anything. It's just saying "don't use this as a go-ahead to base your state's SDV laws and guidances since this document will change".

letlambda 9y ago

Just guidelines at this point. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-dot-releases-new-automated-driving-systems-guidance https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-dot-releases-new-aut...

buvanshak 9y ago
> NHTSA strongly encourages States not to codify this Voluntary Guidance (that is, incorporate it into State statutes) as a legal requirement for any phases of development, testing, or deployment of ADSs. Allowing NHTSA alone to regulate the safety design and performance aspects of ADS technology will help avoid conflicting Federal and State laws and regulations that could impede deployment. Can someone clarify that this please? To me it appears that this body is saying that, "States, Please don't make laws requiring minimal standards for SDVs for things, including deployment on public roads, because that would impede deployment. Allow us to handle all that" But they didn't do it, right? SDV's were on roads even before the "safety design and performance aspects of ADS technology" was regulated, right?
- JibJabLab 9y ago
  >not to codify this Voluntary Guidance ... as a legal requirement for any phases of development, testing, or deployment I don't think it's meant to impede anything. It's just saying "don't use this as a go-ahead to base your state's SDV laws and guidances since this document will change".