1. P Douglas House comment - This short comment shows the value of a democratized and open regulatory development process. Here is an ordinary person, self-described as a driver for over 50 years, who is expressing his concerns with a complex technology. This is the core of Mr. House's anxiety: "I think it's insane to turn our cars and trucks into hackable, internet-connected, overly-complex computers driven by millions of lines of software-code that will be subject to frequent "updates" over the internet and will be just as frail, vulnerable and unreliable as every other computer and internet-connected system in the modern world." He also worries about handing over our collective safety to the likes of Apple, Microsoft, and Google, as a "recipe for disaster."
Point taken; now counterpoint. If one talks with non-transportation nerds, aka regular people, one often hears the concerns above expressed in practically the same breath as the concerns articulated in the next comment.
2. Comment of Thomas Rutter - This brief comment shows concern that regulation will hamstring innovation and that any tragedies along the road to broad AV adoption will delay further advances for a technology that will save lives. Mr. Rutter cites the example of nuclear power. In his opinion, "[w]e tend to go too far when a bad thing happens in regulation, for instance in the case of nuclear power we have limited ourselves so much that many do not have access to this clean energy source." He believes that regulation should provide guidance without proscribing limitations.
3. Comment of Brighton Barber - Another brief comment that seems to be offered by a regular person. The comment requests that we err on the side of caution, given that thousands of AVs will be on our roads. This person awaits a safer future and does not seem to be anti-technology.
It is nice to know that regular people pay attention to the Federal Register and take the time to contribute their thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment