Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Pawar hires Trippi as chief strategist
Next Post: AG Madigan’s turn to snub Trump
Posted in:
* Bob Reed…
Champions of self-driving cars are embarking on a journey through one of the state’s most winding and hazardous passageways — the Illinois General Assembly.
Recently, state legislation was introduced that seeks to regulate use of this emerging technology by imposing tighter auto safety standards on cars using automated driving systems. It argues this is best accomplished by restricting the operation of self-driving cars to companies that make their own vehicles and have a track record for safety.
It’s a controversial bill that’s perceived as a sop to legacy automaker General Motors, which was instrumental in pushing the measure introduced this month by Rep. Mike Zalewski, D-Riverside. It’s strongly opposed by a coalition of driverless technology players, including Google, Uber Technologies, Ford and Volvo; the companies claim GM wants to ace them out of the self-driving auto market or, at the very least, slow them down.
Yet while this impending legislative fight is being framed as a marketplace tussle of old versus new ideas, Zalewski’s bill does raise another important question: Are these new self-driving vehicles being properly tested and will the public be safe in them once these vehicles are marketed en masse?
* Public safety and proper testing are definitely big issues…
Last December, Uber’s self-driving cars hit the rain-slicked streets of San Francisco with much fanfare. It was meant to be a watershed moment — the upstart ride-hail company bringing autonomous driving to its city of origin, years before most experts predicted we’d begin to see self-driving cars en masse.
But it turned out to be a total flop. A week after Uber’s fleet of 16 luxury Volvo XC90 SUVs started picking up passengers, the program was brought to a grinding halt. The California Department of Motor Vehicles revoked Uber’s vehicle registrations after Uber refused to obtain a $150 permit authorizing it to test driverless cars in the state. And rather than correct what on the surface seemed like a clerical error, Uber refused to get licensed, instead shipping its autonomous fleet to Arizona where it could test its self-driving cars with less public scrutiny. […]
Why did Uber launch the self-driving in pilot in San Francisco if it knew it was in violation of the law? A likely scenario was that Uber didn’t want to disclose its disengagement rate — the number of times the vehicle forced the human driver to take control because it couldn’t safely navigate the conditions on the road — or any accidents to the DMV, and by extension the public. […]
A few days after it launched its unauthorized experiment in San Francisco, a self-driving Uber was caught on video running a red light. Uber claimed the car was under manual control at the time. “These incidents were due to human error,” a spokesperson told The Verge.
But that turned out to be false: the car had actually driven itself through the light, sources told The New York Times. In fact, Uber’s self-driving cars failed to recognize five other traffic lights around the city. Had it signed up for the permit, Uber would have had to report that infraction to the DMV.
We don’t want people testing cars that are going through red lights on public streets. And we shouldn’t be dedicating infrastructure spending to these vehicles. If they’re self-driving, then they should be using the roads with everyone else. If that can’t be done, why should we create special lanes or zones for them? Isn’t traffic already a big enough problem in places like Cook County?
* Back to the bill…
After falling behind in self-driving cars, GM has unleashed its powerful lobbying team to cultivate relationships with statehouses. The largest U.S. vehicle maker by sales has a long history of backing legislation to preserve its interests, including a bill in Indiana last year that would stop electric-vehicle maker Tesla Inc. (TSLA) from operating its own stores there.
GM denied it is trying to keep tech companies out of the market for autonomous vehicles, noting that ultimately the lawmakers make the decision on what’s filed and that the company has worked with policy makers who have different views on the degree of legislation they want to support. On Thursday, the auto maker said it has been having discussions with Uber and Waymo, a unit of Google owner Alphabet Inc. (GOOGL), on language that everyone can support.
And we shouldn’t be passing legislation to favor one company over others in this early stage of the game.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 1:55 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Pawar hires Trippi as chief strategist
Next Post: AG Madigan’s turn to snub Trump
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Illinois - The Luddite State
Comment by phocion Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 1:59 pm
– A few days after it launched its unauthorized experiment in San Francisco, a self-driving Uber was caught on video running a red light.–
I wondered what Dan Duffy was up to post-Senate
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 2:03 pm
Agree, and agree some more Rich. How about putting the burden on the companies to demonstrate their cars/systems are safe in controlled environments before giving them carte blanche to use public highways? Impose tight safety standards, including coverage for products liability issues that may arise, and then permit limited use on roads for any company that is willing and able to meet those conditions.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 2:04 pm
For crying out loud, who thought illegally testing driverless cars in SF was a good idea?
What was the backup plan? Boston? Manhattan?
Cars are a menace in those burgs to begin with.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 2:05 pm
When technology (and massive doses of greed at any cost) greatly outpaces basic common sense (see Wordslinger), we are entering a Grave New World. RIP
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 2:25 pm
How many factories does GM have in Illinois? If the answer is zero, then GM should have zero preference in Illinois. Build some Illinois factories, then come back and talk. Otherwise go push your self-driving cars in Mexico.
Now can we get that kind of response from the Governor?
Comment by A Jack Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 2:29 pm
Self driving cars are already here. The Tesla model s did recently revise its software to only work under 45mph. Motor vehicle accidents make up a huge number of deaths, something like 40k / year, which could be significantly reduced with automated safety systems. I know many in the general public are against the concept of self driving cars, but fortunately, the safety feature aspects are starting to become more mainstream. My Subaru will stop itself if it detects a collision is imminent and the driver doesn’t hit the brakes early enough. Unfortunately, I’m far more concerned about the other drivers stopping in time than me stopping.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 3:08 pm
===which could be significantly reduced with automated safety systems===
That’s not nearly the same as driverless cars. You boosters always point to those safety systems. They won’t drive you car for you all the time.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 3:12 pm
“[The bill] argues that [regulation of emerging technology] is best accomplished by restricting the operation of self-driving cars to companies that make their own vehicles and have a track record for safety.”
Like the company that designed a flawed key ignition system that led to the deaths of 124 people.
Comment by CapnCrunch Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 3:47 pm
Tesla’s “autopilot” system ran a guy’s car into the back of a semi and killed him a couple months ago. Safety systems do not equal self-driving. The Jetsons Age may be approaching, but it’s not here yet.
Comment by SAP Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 4:33 pm
The Tesla that crashed was not using auto driving. Just the Summon feature, that pulls the car out the garage.
Comment by Jude Ibe Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 11:37 pm