One thing the Federal government could do to expedite autonomous cars would be to assure that the painted lines on interstate highways are in good condition and clearly delineate the lanes of traffic. Right now, automatic steering systems depend on those lines. The places where the systems have problems are places where the lane lines are missing or ambiguous.
One thing the Federal government could do to expedite autonomous cars would be to assure that the painted lines on interstate highways are in good condition and clearly delineate the lanes of traffic. Right now, automatic steering systems depend on those lines. The places where the systems have problems are places where the lane lines are missing or ambiguous.
Car companies are starting to prepare for a future when many people no longer buy or lease a car, they "summon" a self-driving car. This behavior is likely being driven by both Millennials (who prefer not to own things) and Boomers (whose capabilities as they age are deteriorating in massive numbers).
Having said this, there's no frickin' reason for the Federal government to be involved in this. I smell protectionism at the request of Google.
Initially @SpamSandwich, I was thinking the same; why would the Federal Government have to get involved? But after a little more thought, I'm *assuming* they mean defining Federal level rules/laws, so that each state doesn't -have to- then define their down? If that's the case and whether it's the best way to do it, only time will tell.
That's still no reason to involve the Federal government. Businesses are free to join trade lobbies which would promote their interests at the state levels to hammer out state-by-state laws which would be broadly acceptable. As it is now, California is first in the nation for regressive thinking with regard to self-driving vehicles.
I wonder if these new cars will have the capability of "road rage"? This may also mean no more DUIs so less court and law enforcement cost. People with no drivers license (as myself) can now buy or rent a car? Since all responsibility for operation of the vehicle will no longer be of the "driver" accidents and deaths will be solely upon the heads of the manufacturer such as Apple?
Don't conflate self-driving cars with pilot-less vehicles. We are a very long ways off from that. This is simply the next step in a century-long effort to make driving safer, more convenient, and more efficient. Just like you can risk driving drunk now, you will also be able to risk it in the future, but don't expect that in your lifetime you can literally get behind the wheel, set the car off to drive you home, and not be responsible if you're involved in an accident. Even if you are found not to be at fault for the accident you will still get charged. You are the pilot. You need to be ready to react to things the computers can't anticipate, just like with airplanes. This extends to sleeping behind the wheel and other potential hazards, which makes me think that cameras facing the driver and making sure they are "on the ready" will be needed (outside of some closed autonomous vehicle lane).
im not so sure -- Uber CEO has stated plainly their intent for driverless cars as cabs. i cant imagine theyd hold the fare responsible for an accident.
Don't conflate self-driving cars with pilot-less vehicles. We are a very long ways off from that. This is simply the next step in a century-long effort to make driving safer, more convenient, and more efficient. Just like you can risk driving drunk now, you will also be able to risk it in the future, but don't expect that in your lifetime you can literally get behind the wheel, set the car off to drive you home, and not be responsible if you're involved in an accident. Even if you are found not to be at fault for the accident you will still get charged. You are the pilot. You need to be ready to react to things the computers can't anticipate, just like with airplanes. This extends to sleeping behind the wheel and other potential hazards, which makes me think that cameras facing the driver and making sure they are "on the ready" will be needed (outside of some closed autonomous vehicle lane).
Within the next decade there will be cars that don't even have steering wheels. And things will change quickly ones the stats start showing than the accidents are all caused by people driving cars instead of computers. It is impossible for a person to react as fast as a computer driver.
They'll still have to have some kind of manual override in case of difficulties a self-driving vehicle is unable to navigate. Example: You are targeted by highwaymen on the road going to Las Vegas. A self-driving vehicle might simply slow to a stop if it is barricaded or forced off the road. Manual override would enable the passenger(s) to escape by driving somewhere the autonomous vehicle might normally be restricted from driving.
First things first, ought to figure out how to deploy decent fast-charging network for EVs in every single city, especially downtown. If no efficient and highly densed fast-chargers emerge in short time, say each 20-25 miles, cars like Chevy Bolt will be no more than compliance cars. Overall effect towards protecting environment sub zero. Only upon resolving these issues is anyone ready to take a longer leap, such as self-driving box on three wheels.
Initially @SpamSandwich, I was thinking the same; why would the Federal Government have to get involved? But after a little more thought, I'm *assuming* they mean defining Federal level rules/laws, so that each state doesn't -have to- then define their down? If that's the case and whether it's the best way to do it, only time will tell.
That's still no reason to involve the Federal government. Businesses are free to join trade lobbies which would promote their interests at the state levels to hammer out state-by-state laws which would be broadly acceptable. As it is now, California is first in the nation for regressive thinking with regard to self-driving vehicles.
This position places ideology of good sense. A shared driverless car would conceivably be the responsibility of no single individual. Allowing vehicles on the public roads for which their are no standards, no regulation, and no accountability is a prescription for disaster. No government that is accountable to its citizens will allow that.
That's still no reason to involve the Federal government. Businesses are free to join trade lobbies which would promote their interests at the state levels to hammer out state-by-state laws which would be broadly acceptable. As it is now, California is first in the nation for regressive thinking with regard to self-driving vehicles.
This position places ideology of good sense. A shared driverless car would conceivably be the responsibility of no single individual. Allowing vehicles on the public roads for which their are no standards, no regulation, and no accountability is a prescription for disaster. No government that is accountable to its citizens will allow that.
There is a difference between state versus Federal government. There is no need to assign new regulatory powers to the Federal government when current traffic and liability laws are sufficient.
As has happened with other recent national laws, all that would happen would be protectionist policies enacted for special interests, shielding liability from damages and harm caused to individuals. (Are you aware that now you cannot sue companies like Facebook for handing over any of your personal information to the government which could be damaging to you?) It's mind-boggling that you think otherwise.
Also, in what way is current government answerable to the public? The two parties "in charge" are infinitesimally different from each other and conspire to enrich their own members at the expense of the public.
Comments
They'll still have to have some kind of manual override in case of difficulties a self-driving vehicle is unable to navigate. Example: You are targeted by highwaymen on the road going to Las Vegas. A self-driving vehicle might simply slow to a stop if it is barricaded or forced off the road. Manual override would enable the passenger(s) to escape by driving somewhere the autonomous vehicle might normally be restricted from driving.
As has happened with other recent national laws, all that would happen would be protectionist policies enacted for special interests, shielding liability from damages and harm caused to individuals. (Are you aware that now you cannot sue companies like Facebook for handing over any of your personal information to the government which could be damaging to you?) It's mind-boggling that you think otherwise.
Also, in what way is current government answerable to the public? The two parties "in charge" are infinitesimally different from each other and conspire to enrich their own members at the expense of the public.