The link is to a PR piece from a right-wing lobbyist. The actual bill is here.[1] It's mostly about federal preemption. NHTSA can set standards, and states can't. There are also some irrelevant giveaways regarding exemption from bumper and crashworthyness standards for low-volume vehicles.
The preemption part will allow companies to test self-driving heavy trucks in California, something California DMV does not currently allow. Also, currently the California DMV can revoke the vehicle licenses of a self-driving car manufacturer if they do bad stuff, which DMV did to Uber. DMV can probably still do that.
Some of the safety standards are explicitly weak. "The Secretary may not condition deployment or testing of highly automated vehicles on review of safety assessment certifications." But NHTSA still gets to set standards, and they can order recalls.
There's not much about liability; this doesn't change who's responsible for accidents or for vehicle defects. The requirements on manufacturers are mostly toothless - "submit a plan" comes up regularly. There are no privacy standards, so Tesla can watch you in your car as long as they admit somewhere that they do that.
Can DMV still make manufacturers submit crash reports and disconnect reports? Not clear. The bill text is IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this subsection may be construed to prohibit a State or a political subdivision of a State from maintaining, enforcing, prescribing, or continuing in effect any law or regulation regarding registration, licensing, driving education and training, insurance, law enforcement, crash investigations, safety and emissions inspections, congestion management of vehicles on the street within a State or political subdivision of a State, or traffic unless the law or regulation is an unreasonable restriction on the design, construction, or performance of highly automated vehicles, automated driving systems, or components of automated driving systems. Now manufacturers get to litigate "unreasonable restriction". (Some self-driving car companies hate those reports, because they show their technology sucks. Google/Waymo is fine with it. Latest accident report: Uber vehicle just taken out of auto mode was rear-ended while stopped.)
(The biggest lesson we have so far from self-driving car accidents is that the non-self-driving cars need basic automatic braking to prevent low-speed rear-ending the self-driving cars. Google/Waymo cars keep getting rear-ended when they detect they're entering an intersection with blocked lines of sight. They'll advance a bit into the intersection, detect cross traffic, and stop. The human-driven car behind them then sometimes hits them, at very slow speed.)
It's illegal to enter an intersection if unsafe to do so.
The biggest concern having driven around self driving cars in California is that they absolutely cannot handle mixing with traffic in situations like merging onto rush hour freeway traffic. Try watching one get off and watching the gap increase as more and more cars do the same while you are stuck behind the car trying to enter the freeway. It's the eternal good Samaritan problem. Same in normal traffic as it tries to drive 'safely' and maintain a following distance which leads to the same issue of stopping a whole lane.
> Google/Waymo cars keep getting rear-ended when they detect they're entering an intersection with blocked lines of sight. They'll advance a bit into the intersection, detect cross traffic, and stop.
If a human driver did the exact same thing, wouldn't that incite a case of road rage? This seems like a problem that Google/Waymo must solve, rather than forcing the majority of driven cars to solve.
Reducing congestion? Self-driving is going to make congestion much, much worse. Self-driving makes driving cheaper, safer, easier & more accessible. Anytime you do that for anything, usage increases dramatically, often in ways that are difficult to fore see. But it's not hard to predict a few:
- cheap delivery will be used for everything
- people will send and summon vehicles from everywhere. I might drive to work, send my vehicle home so somebody else can use it, summon it at the end of day, and drive home.
- et cetera
While true, self-driving vehicles should be able to optimize the flow of traffic more efficiently than humans do. There are known methods for improving the flow of traffic, such as the zipper merge, that are really hard to get humans to do consistently. As well as the cascading effect of different reaction times to going and stopping, delays caused by too aggressive or too conservative lane changing behavior, etc.
Once you remove the inconsistent skill level, distractedness, irrationality, and emotional reactions that accompany human drivers, you can increase road utilization considerably without a noticeable increase in congestion.
Agree with everything you say. Personally, I hope that self-driving cars are introduced alongside a road-use tax that moves the true cost of road construction and maintenance (and the opportunity cost of all the last currently dedicated to roads) to users, rather than the general public.
Disagree entirely. Yes, the number of cars on the road and trips driven will increase, but this will not overshaddow the traffic advantage from SDCs.
All in all SDCs should increase road bandwidth about 5x by my estimates.
SDCs can drive much, much closer together. They will also never be the cause of phantom traffic jams. For every human that switches to SDC, phantom traffic jams get less likely - a main cause of traffic - which again increases road capacity.
We don't have to wait until 100% SDCs to start increasing road capacity either. SDC "convoys" travel as a single unit, and interact cleanly with human drivers.
Regardless of SDCs, when road capacity is reached, traffic will happen. But SDCs have the potential to greatly increase road capacity.
They will be driven more efficiently. People are VERY inefecint with driving.
Self driving cars won't:
1. Increase their space when the traffic slows down to where there is 300 feet between cars.
2. Less accidents to cause shut downs and lane closures.
3. Merge properly instead of slamming on the brakes and putting on their turn signal 1/4 mile from the merge point. Merging will happen while moving instead of from a stop.
4. Touching their brakes even though they aren't slowing down.
But those cars can drive in tandem. When humans drive, every start and stop has a delay between each driver, and inattentions compound those little delays. Additionally, traffic caused by rubbernecking, by trying to cheat lanes, by not zippering, by reaction inequities all are human problems.
This is what Americans want. Anti-car zealots need to stop thinking you're going to pack the entirety of the country into trains and buses. It's not going to happen, so stop trying to make things painful for the 80%+ of Americans who drive, want to drive, and are interested in government making it easier and more convenient for them to drive.
I cannot possibly fathom how the left (which I usually include myself!) went from loving the idea of self-driving electric cars to "no! no! we need to stop people from driving at all costs!".
Cars are also unused for over %90 of the time, taking up space in some parking spot on premium land close to people's workspaces and homes. On almost every road in america, 2 lanes of traffic are taken up by car parking. In a self driving car future, we can free up those lanes and put excess cars in parking / maintenance towers. The software system managing can predictively dispatch them based on previous demand curves to prevent traffic jams.
The amount of cars we would need as a society will equal the peak demand curve, much like electricity demand today. It will also be very likely that those cars will have multiple people in them since a large part of the cost savings will come from car sharing. In the future, we will probably have 1 motor vehicle serving 10 households, vs the almost 1:1 to 1:0.5 ratio we have here in the US today.
Exactly, I don't understand why people think self driving cars will do anything to reduce congestion -- if anything they are going to make it worse since they make point-to-point car trips easier and cheaper, and instead of driving to work and parking all day, the cars will drive someone to work, then drive somewhere else to get another rider (or park to await the evening commute).
They may bring some efficiency to traffic patterns leading to better road utilization, but that only goes so far to make up for the much higher level of traffic that will result when it's much cheaper and easier to call a car when you want one.
San Francisco is already feeling the "Uber effect" of greater traffic from car-share services:
In most of America, this idea seems to be even less practical than self-driving cars. America is pretty much designed to be a pessimal case for public transit. San Diego, where I live, does invest in public transit infrastructure and has relatively extensive mass transit options (buses, trains and trolleys), and yet public transit is still largely unusable outside of fairly small, specific areas. In order to use public transit, I'd have to walk half a mile to a station and then my commute to work would be four times as long as it is by car.
So when I hear "invest in public transit infrastructure," I feel like it isn't a concrete enough suggestion. Does it actually mean tear down most of America and replace it with a country where mass transit is practical, or what? I'd love never to have to drive again, but merely investing in public transit demonstrably isn't enough.
Agreed! I would love to look up directions to a destination, and find that the driving and transit time are comparable. As it is now, it's laughable: I live in SF and my SO lives in Oakland; driving time is usually 18-25 minutes, but transit is 50-70 minutes, depending on when I leave.
Here there are two problems:
1) "Last mile": it's a 20 minute walk for me to get to the right transit line, and then 10 minute walk after I get off BART. The BART ride itself is only about 20 minutes; my "transit" use is mostly not actually on transit.
2) Timing: during most of the times of day when I'd make this trip, BART runs around every 20 minutes. If I'm one minute off, then I've spent 50 minutes walking or standing around for 20 minutes of actually being on transit.
We need more transit lines, going to more places, and more-frequent trains during the entire day.
I would consider that as long as public transportation evolves. Light rail can make a lot of sense, but I have a hard time getting behind buses. I rode one for years to get to work and I hope I never have to again.
If instead public transportation worked more like Uber or Lyft I could get behind that. I wonder if some cities with underused buses wouldn't be better off subsidizing their citizens use of Uber?
Carpooling is made much more viable by self-driving cars. Could easily see people being willing to share a ride if the computer matched up people from the same neighborhood for a ride automatically and the cost was shared.
It's unclear how pouring even more money into incompetently managed, failing public transit systems is going to actually reduce traffic congestion. For example, let's say we increased BART's budget by 10X. How exactly would they use it to "reduce congestion"? Are they going to build 10X more routes? 10X more stops along existing routes? 10X more trains serving existing stops? Or are they just going to funnel the money into 10X more bureaucrats' pockets?
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.
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.
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.
You want to reduce congestion and make mobility improvements for many? Look to cities that make cycling a way of life through infrastructure, planning, and design.
I really hope that's just wishful thinking from companies like Qualcomm and wireless operators and not something car makers are actually considering.
Making the cars' critical systems (such as the self-driving systems, which would respond based on other cars' actions in car to car communication) be accessible from the internet sounds like a terrible idea. This is why I hope this type of law is not rushed, as car makers and companies like Uber and Google/Waymo hope it will be.
There's a lot of potential gain from car-to-car communication, but I also see a huge risk. I can be reasonably confident in my car's own sensors, but only God knows what my car is being told by other cars about the world; the opportunities for malicious activity there are huge.
It's hard to imagine a system that uses V2V that doesn't rely on some manner of trust, like a closed/encrypted system with car manufacturers having CA-like signing authority or something. And if I've ever learning anything, it's that car companies are not great at network security.
I'm confident in many benefits of autonomous vehicles, but reducing congestion is not one of them. Quite the opposite, actually.
Wanna know what happens when you no longer have people looking for parking but rather have them picking up and dropping off at the curb? Visit a busy airport or pickup/dropoff curbs at a large suburban elementary school.
Now throw in the fact that in order to get to your destination, you'll have to drive through those clusterfucks that are caused by other people's destinations. Oh, and all the cars that might not be circling looking for parking, but are now circling looking for new passengers. Oh, and all the new cars on the road when lower costs move people from transit into SOVs. That's the future, embrace it.
Sure, if we accept the idea that traffic congestion increases, but I don't think that it will be the biggest problem because with current forms of congestion it becomes frustrating because you have to pay attention to the road and operate the car, while alternatively with a SDC, that'll no longer be the case and can actively engage in productive activities (or not).
I suppose there are other arguments to this; Maybe time critical events such as emergency vehicles attempting to reach a destination, but there's probably a solution to this...
It's like introducing a new more efficient protocol over existing limited networks. It can reduce congestion sure by using the network more efficiently, but only if done cold turkey (no or limited human drivers). This is unlikely to happen in ge states, but much more likely to happen in Asia (China) where they have real traffic problems with hard limits on infrastructure.
> but reducing congestion is not one of them. Quite the opposite, actually.
The premise of that is to increase vehicle usage efficiency, hence reduce the total amount of vehicles on road and reduce congestion.
Additional autonomous vehicles applied in public transits will further improve traffic flow (on demand vs. fixed scheduled services, reducing empty runs etc.)
Some drivers need a space fit for a semi truck in order to pull out into traffic.
Some drivers don't go at green lights because they're distracted.
Some drivers camp in the left lane.
It's highly possible that the cumulative benefit of widespread adoption of self driving cars could offset the negative aspects of people who suck at some subset of driving.
Perhaps cars will be smaller? If people choose to take the cheapest available self-driving taxi, which happens to be the smallest car that will fit their need, cars may end up smaller and less space will be taken up by vehicles on the roads and in such loading zones.
There will be more efficient algorithms developed over time, all it will take is a software update - behavior will change overnight (for better or worse).
25k is less than 1% of most major auto manufacturers yearly production numbers. No article I've read on this news has put that into context and instead praises the legislation as liberating car manufacturers to bring FSD cars to the masses. Most people don't read past the headline let alone look into the facts of the article. Also nothing good EVER gets passed legislation unanimously. Last time the House passed legislation this quickly and unanimously was when they passed SOAPA. Something feels fishy about this. I haven't read the legislation directly but I bet if a journalist went through it fully, somethings would surface that people wouldn't like.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee passed the SELF DRIVE Act with a vote of 54-0.
The act correctly delineates the purview of federal versus state regulation for autonomous vehicles. In short, federal regulatory bodies have authority when it comes to the car, while states have authority when it comes to the driver.
A bipartisan, unanimous vote to secure future regulator power, story at 11! eyeroll The Federal government gets to regulate the car that drives itself, and the State gets to regulate the driver that's actually just a passenger.
I don't get this assumption that SDCs are going to reduce energy usage. Sure, it will be better on a per-mile basis, but people are going to be traveling a lot more than they are now.
It may not, but hopefully it is an opportunity to push the transition to electric cars. If we are going to effectively replace all cars, let's make some smart choices on the replacements.
A new designated felon would be required to sell highly automated vehicles, the Cyber Security Officer.
You'll sign some documents certifying everything is fine, but of course, everything won't be fine. When your cars get hacked you'll go to jail for defrauding the government and/or manslaughter. I bet it pays real good though.
Does it give them permission to remove the backup driver? In Waymo's case it seems like they are mainly waiting for a law that says that and then they can deploy for certain routes and conditions.
The idea that a bill "sponsored" by corporations whose sole purpose is selling as many cars as possible will "reduce congestion" is probably the most ridiculous idea this turn of the century.
What's next? McDonalds innovation on nutrition facts labels to reduce junk fat consumption and improve health outcomes?
If corporations selling cars were "sponsoring" a bill, they should be sponsoring a bill banning self driving cars, because they are an existential threat to the business of selling cars.
[+] [-] Animats|8 years ago|reply
The preemption part will allow companies to test self-driving heavy trucks in California, something California DMV does not currently allow. Also, currently the California DMV can revoke the vehicle licenses of a self-driving car manufacturer if they do bad stuff, which DMV did to Uber. DMV can probably still do that.
Some of the safety standards are explicitly weak. "The Secretary may not condition deployment or testing of highly automated vehicles on review of safety assessment certifications." But NHTSA still gets to set standards, and they can order recalls.
There's not much about liability; this doesn't change who's responsible for accidents or for vehicle defects. The requirements on manufacturers are mostly toothless - "submit a plan" comes up regularly. There are no privacy standards, so Tesla can watch you in your car as long as they admit somewhere that they do that.
Can DMV still make manufacturers submit crash reports and disconnect reports? Not clear. The bill text is IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this subsection may be construed to prohibit a State or a political subdivision of a State from maintaining, enforcing, prescribing, or continuing in effect any law or regulation regarding registration, licensing, driving education and training, insurance, law enforcement, crash investigations, safety and emissions inspections, congestion management of vehicles on the street within a State or political subdivision of a State, or traffic unless the law or regulation is an unreasonable restriction on the design, construction, or performance of highly automated vehicles, automated driving systems, or components of automated driving systems. Now manufacturers get to litigate "unreasonable restriction". (Some self-driving car companies hate those reports, because they show their technology sucks. Google/Waymo is fine with it. Latest accident report: Uber vehicle just taken out of auto mode was rear-ended while stopped.)
(The biggest lesson we have so far from self-driving car accidents is that the non-self-driving cars need basic automatic braking to prevent low-speed rear-ending the self-driving cars. Google/Waymo cars keep getting rear-ended when they detect they're entering an intersection with blocked lines of sight. They'll advance a bit into the intersection, detect cross traffic, and stop. The human-driven car behind them then sometimes hits them, at very slow speed.)
[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3388...
[+] [-] socalthrowaway|8 years ago|reply
The biggest concern having driven around self driving cars in California is that they absolutely cannot handle mixing with traffic in situations like merging onto rush hour freeway traffic. Try watching one get off and watching the gap increase as more and more cars do the same while you are stuck behind the car trying to enter the freeway. It's the eternal good Samaritan problem. Same in normal traffic as it tries to drive 'safely' and maintain a following distance which leads to the same issue of stopping a whole lane.
[+] [-] drivingmenuts|8 years ago|reply
If a human driver did the exact same thing, wouldn't that incite a case of road rage? This seems like a problem that Google/Waymo must solve, rather than forcing the majority of driven cars to solve.
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|8 years ago|reply
- cheap delivery will be used for everything - people will send and summon vehicles from everywhere. I might drive to work, send my vehicle home so somebody else can use it, summon it at the end of day, and drive home. - et cetera
[+] [-] cosmie|8 years ago|reply
Once you remove the inconsistent skill level, distractedness, irrationality, and emotional reactions that accompany human drivers, you can increase road utilization considerably without a noticeable increase in congestion.
[+] [-] kcorbitt|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] randyrand|8 years ago|reply
All in all SDCs should increase road bandwidth about 5x by my estimates.
SDCs can drive much, much closer together. They will also never be the cause of phantom traffic jams. For every human that switches to SDC, phantom traffic jams get less likely - a main cause of traffic - which again increases road capacity.
We don't have to wait until 100% SDCs to start increasing road capacity either. SDC "convoys" travel as a single unit, and interact cleanly with human drivers.
Regardless of SDCs, when road capacity is reached, traffic will happen. But SDCs have the potential to greatly increase road capacity.
[+] [-] baldfat|8 years ago|reply
Self driving cars won't:
1. Increase their space when the traffic slows down to where there is 300 feet between cars.
2. Less accidents to cause shut downs and lane closures.
3. Merge properly instead of slamming on the brakes and putting on their turn signal 1/4 mile from the merge point. Merging will happen while moving instead of from a stop.
4. Touching their brakes even though they aren't slowing down.
[+] [-] jon_richards|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmanfrin|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1_2__4|8 years ago|reply
I cannot possibly fathom how the left (which I usually include myself!) went from loving the idea of self-driving electric cars to "no! no! we need to stop people from driving at all costs!".
[+] [-] mahyarm|8 years ago|reply
The amount of cars we would need as a society will equal the peak demand curve, much like electricity demand today. It will also be very likely that those cars will have multiple people in them since a large part of the cost savings will come from car sharing. In the future, we will probably have 1 motor vehicle serving 10 households, vs the almost 1:1 to 1:0.5 ratio we have here in the US today.
[+] [-] tonyedgecombe|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Clubber|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brndnmtthws|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Johnny555|8 years ago|reply
They may bring some efficiency to traffic patterns leading to better road utilization, but that only goes so far to make up for the much higher level of traffic that will result when it's much cheaper and easier to call a car when you want one.
San Francisco is already feeling the "Uber effect" of greater traffic from car-share services:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-traffic-...
[+] [-] chc|8 years ago|reply
So when I hear "invest in public transit infrastructure," I feel like it isn't a concrete enough suggestion. Does it actually mean tear down most of America and replace it with a country where mass transit is practical, or what? I'd love never to have to drive again, but merely investing in public transit demonstrably isn't enough.
[+] [-] kelnos|8 years ago|reply
Here there are two problems:
1) "Last mile": it's a 20 minute walk for me to get to the right transit line, and then 10 minute walk after I get off BART. The BART ride itself is only about 20 minutes; my "transit" use is mostly not actually on transit.
2) Timing: during most of the times of day when I'd make this trip, BART runs around every 20 minutes. If I'm one minute off, then I've spent 50 minutes walking or standing around for 20 minutes of actually being on transit.
We need more transit lines, going to more places, and more-frequent trains during the entire day.
[+] [-] criddell|8 years ago|reply
If instead public transportation worked more like Uber or Lyft I could get behind that. I wonder if some cities with underused buses wouldn't be better off subsidizing their citizens use of Uber?
[+] [-] rat_1234|8 years ago|reply
Congestion isn't a capacity problem, it's a pricing problem. EDIT: Given the amount of infrastructure we already have that is.
[+] [-] ballenf|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akgerber|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryandrake|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ouid|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Kadin|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ocdtrekkie|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] riffic|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgx|8 years ago|reply
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJCxYZ1XoAAm_CL.jpg:large
I really hope that's just wishful thinking from companies like Qualcomm and wireless operators and not something car makers are actually considering.
Making the cars' critical systems (such as the self-driving systems, which would respond based on other cars' actions in car to car communication) be accessible from the internet sounds like a terrible idea. This is why I hope this type of law is not rushed, as car makers and companies like Uber and Google/Waymo hope it will be.
[+] [-] ocdtrekkie|8 years ago|reply
It's hard to imagine a system that uses V2V that doesn't rely on some manner of trust, like a closed/encrypted system with car manufacturers having CA-like signing authority or something. And if I've ever learning anything, it's that car companies are not great at network security.
[+] [-] csours|8 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-everything
[+] [-] saosebastiao|8 years ago|reply
Wanna know what happens when you no longer have people looking for parking but rather have them picking up and dropping off at the curb? Visit a busy airport or pickup/dropoff curbs at a large suburban elementary school.
Now throw in the fact that in order to get to your destination, you'll have to drive through those clusterfucks that are caused by other people's destinations. Oh, and all the cars that might not be circling looking for parking, but are now circling looking for new passengers. Oh, and all the new cars on the road when lower costs move people from transit into SOVs. That's the future, embrace it.
[+] [-] 7ero|8 years ago|reply
I suppose there are other arguments to this; Maybe time critical events such as emergency vehicles attempting to reach a destination, but there's probably a solution to this...
[+] [-] seanmcdirmid|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devy|8 years ago|reply
The premise of that is to increase vehicle usage efficiency, hence reduce the total amount of vehicles on road and reduce congestion.
Additional autonomous vehicles applied in public transits will further improve traffic flow (on demand vs. fixed scheduled services, reducing empty runs etc.)
[+] [-] tommoor|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsfyu404ed|8 years ago|reply
Some drivers don't go at green lights because they're distracted.
Some drivers camp in the left lane.
It's highly possible that the cumulative benefit of widespread adoption of self driving cars could offset the negative aspects of people who suck at some subset of driving.
[+] [-] zip1234|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redbeard0x0a|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mchahn|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dayaz36|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ynniv|8 years ago|reply
The act correctly delineates the purview of federal versus state regulation for autonomous vehicles. In short, federal regulatory bodies have authority when it comes to the car, while states have authority when it comes to the driver.
A bipartisan, unanimous vote to secure future regulator power, story at 11! eyeroll The Federal government gets to regulate the car that drives itself, and the State gets to regulate the driver that's actually just a passenger.
[+] [-] dexterdog|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WillPostForFood|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] letlambda|8 years ago|reply
You'll sign some documents certifying everything is fine, but of course, everything won't be fine. When your cars get hacked you'll go to jail for defrauding the government and/or manslaughter. I bet it pays real good though.
[+] [-] ilaksh|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] revelation|8 years ago|reply
What's next? McDonalds innovation on nutrition facts labels to reduce junk fat consumption and improve health outcomes?
[+] [-] WillPostForFood|8 years ago|reply