

As self-driving cars come to more states, regulators take a back seat - grej
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-self-driving-cars-come-to-more-states-regulators-take-a-back-seat/2015/08/28/7a29413e-474f-11e5-8ab4-c73967a143d3_story.html

======
dsfyu404ed
I agree with VA's approach on this issue, let people do what they want while
they're testing. If they screw up hold them responsible as you normally would.
When this kind of stuff starts getting sold that's when the possibility of
more involved regulations should be addressed. Some regulation that makes
sense now might be a hindrance if/when this sort of stuff hits the market.

Having these cars on the road in NOVA is gonna suck for anyone on the road
near them. On all the roads in VA with two lanes in each direction the lane
that is the "passing lane" is dependent on who's where so it's common to see
someone pass someone on the right, then move left so someone else can pass on
the right. I doubt this kind of adaptive behavior (especially since it's
legally grey) has made it into the software that's running in "production" on
these cars. Additionally I find that road speeds there are very variable (when
there's not a volume induced backup). Sometimes it's close to the speed limit,
sometimes someone doing 70 in a 50 would be the slowest one in the right lane.
While that's not technically obstructing traffic, and is technically a
misdemeanor (20 over the limit = reckless driving), practically speaking it is
obstructing traffic (which is less safe, which is why it's a traffic offense
in the first place).

At least VA has mile long stretches at every merge and a separate turn lane
for everything because otherwise the timidness of these vehicles would cause a
lot less problems for other people than they would elsewhere.

edit "two lanes in each direction"

------
kctess5
It is excellent to see how onboard the government is with this tech. They
don't seem the be getting too in the way.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
The gov't has a very vested interest in any technology that makes utilization
of existing infrastructure more efficient...

~~~
toomuchtodo
As well as a technology thats going to cut deaths by ~30K-40K/year, not to
mention several times that in injuries.

Its a double-edged sword though. Self-driving (electric) cars equals almost no
need for insurance companies, body shops, etc.

More broadly, its important we start looking at quality of life as a KPI
instead of GDP. Technology makes us more efficient, it doesn't make us consume
more.

~~~
trhway
>As well as a technology thats going to cut deaths by ~30K-40K/year, not to
mention several times that in injuries.

if you add the DoD as a major customer - the original Grand Challenges had
very clear "truck on the desert road" smell for a reason :) - the life saving
effect will be even bigger (at least if we count US/Western lives)

------
pcrh
I would be more inclined to agree with the California or Nevada approach, i.e.
extensive testing and stringent reporting. Only in that manner will the safety
of driverless cars approach that of airlines, which is what will be required
if a massive backlash is not to occur the first time one of these cars kills
someone.

~~~
harywilke
I don't see any backlash at all for the ~90 people that were killed today in
the US in motor vehicles [1]. I doubt there will be a massive backlash, unless
the vehicles were operating in a known dangerous setup. These vehicles are
filled with loads of sensors so accident reconstruction will be trivial.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year)

~~~
pcrh
We've become used to such accidents, and usually blame them on the driver.

In the event of a driverless car killing someone, the manufacturer will have
to shoulder the blame; and Google/Uber/etc are much more attractive targets
for lawsuits than regular drivers are.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Then have your self-driving vehicles owned by a trust or corporate entity with
no assets.

