California's draft driverless regulations have correctly been described as a step backward for those already testing their vehicles there and for those, like Ford, unpacking their bags in the golden state. Here are some of the gorey details.
How progressive is California if its draft regulations mention ... ?
Use of the term "driver's seat." Isn't the whole point of driverless NOT to have a driver, which would mean there would be no need for a designated seat.
No driverless big trucks and no self-driving interstate buses and no autonomous vehicle that is designed without human driver equipment, such as, presumably, a steering wheel, brakes, and a gas pedal. No futurama designs on California roads.
The devil is also in other details. The regulation leaves open-ended the amount that a manufacturer will be responsible to pay to the state of California for review of an application to go to post-testing use of driverless vehicles, otherwise known as normal use. Really? Does California think these uncertainties will attract driverless research, testing, operations, and manufacturing?
Questionable drivers are welcome, but let's strangle driverless by preventing every conceivable bad outcome
Since licensed drivers are currently free to drive no matter how impaired mentally or physically (unless there's a breathalyzer or other testing device before the ignition can be started), it is interesting that driverless vehicles are required to be equipped with fail-safe mechanisms in the unlikely event of a cyber-attack. So, to summarize: Leave the gun, take the cannoli - okay. Lone brilliant hacker madman who graduated with advanced software manipulation skills - not okay. The first we can litigate in criminal and civil courts, no matter how many people are killed (remember all the times drivers have accidentally or maliciously driven onto a sidewalk full of people); the second is a reason to keep a whole category of vehicles off the road.
Who's in charge?
What will be the third-party testing organizations? These will be the gatekeepers to any driverless activity beyond testing. They are set to make some money IF driverless manufacturers do not first decide to flee the state for more business-friendly jurisdictions. That is a big if. Right now, the qualifications to be a third-party testing organization read like objectively fair qualifications that the author penned with an actual organization in mind. That's my snarky side coming out.
Lots of record-keeping required, which is probably not an onerous obligation as long as the data can be submitted without being completely reconfigured. Maybe it's obvious here that I am not a data person.
Driverless access as a civil right? Not yet in California
The regulations post a discriminatory definition of an "operator" of a driverless motor vehicle. The definition is limited to those physically and mentally capable of obtaining and keeping a drivers license. And the current draft regulations definitely exclude people with visual impairments.There's also a subtext of access to DMV facilities that are difficult or impossible to access by transit. So forget those too poor to get to a DMV.
Good ideas
There are some good ideas in the draft regulations.
1. A motor vehicle equivalent of flight data recorder must be on board every driverless vehicle - good way to reduce litigation, enable early settlements, collect data, and accomplish evidence-based safety improvements.
2. All driverless vehicles should be registered as such.
3. A driverless vehicle may be sold to a museum without a permit, thus ensuring that next to the Julia Child kitchen in the Smithsonian, we will all be able to visit a very early driverless car as well.
4. No beyond-testing use of a driverless vehicle without sufficient insurance coverage for accidents, including serious ones. That goes in the "does that have to be spelled out?" category. Presumably, adequate liability coverage rules apply to every vehicle even the ones we have now. But no harm done in including this.
No comments:
Post a Comment