SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A U.S. House panel on Wednesday approved a sweeping proposal by voice vote to allow automakers to deploy up to 100,000 self-driving vehicles without meeting existing auto safety standards and bar states from imposing driverless car rules.
Representative Robert Latta, a Republican who heads the Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee overseeing consumer protection, said he would continue to consider changes before the full committee votes on the measure, expected next week. The full U.S. House of Representatives will not take up the bill until it reconvenes in September after the summer recess.
The measure, which would be the first significant federal legislation aimed at speeding self-driving cars to market, would require automakers to submit safety assessment reports to U.S. regulators, but would not require pre-market approval of advanced vehicle technologies.
Automakers would have to show self-driving cars "function as intended and contain fail safe features" to get exemptions from safety standards but the Transportation Department could not "condition deployment or testing of highly automated vehicles on review of safety assessment certifications," the draft measure unveiled late Monday said.
[...] States could still set rules on registration, licensing, liability, insurance and safety inspections, but could not set self-driving car performance standards, under the proposal.
[...] Auto dealers want the final bill to clarify that the measure would not preempt state dealer franchise laws that generally bar automakers from selling vehicles directly to consumers.
I can understand why an autonomous test vehicle doesn't need seat belts but is taking away the ability of a state to regulate this new technology a good idea? What do you think?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 20 2017, @10:37PM (14 children)
And just where in the Constitution does it say the federal government can bar states from imposing driverless car rules, or at least something more broadly applicable? The commerce clause doesn't really apply here (just like it doesn't apply in most of the situations the courts claim it applies, such as with drugs).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 20 2017, @11:33PM (13 children)
Actually this is exactly where the commerce clause does apply, even when considered by strict constitutionalists, since interstate transportation (self driving vehicles are naturally capable of interstate transportation) is an important case of interstate commerce.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @12:23AM (10 children)
The federal government only has control of cases where interstate commerce is actually happening, not where it's merely capable of happening. The courts used this same logic to give the federal government the power to regulate drugs even if there is no interstate commerce happening, and it's total nonsense. They can't use interstate commerce to control everything that happens within a state.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 21 2017, @01:14AM (9 children)
It's reasonable to expect interstate commerce from self-driving vehicles just as it happens for normal vehicles. I wager that virtually all vehicles on the road have crossed state lines during normal operation, for example.
It's not the same. Even a trivial amount of self-driving cars on the road would eventually result in interstate transportation, especially in urban areas like New York City, Saint Louis, Boston, Portland, OR, or Kansas City which already lie on or near state borders. Meanwhile, recreational drugs (like agricultural products, the source [wikipedia.org] of the newer interpretation of the commerce clause) are merely considered to exert an "influence" on interstate commerce:
In other words, cars cross state lines and explicitly are interstate commerce while drug purchasing and carrying activities are a microscopic part of a market which is interpreted by the courts to be interstate commerce and which supposedly "influence" said market as justification for federal-level interference.
(Score: 2) by physicsmajor on Friday July 21 2017, @04:12AM (5 children)
I'm going to show you how absurd this is.
Despite essentially all vehicles being capable of crossing state lines, you oddly don't find yourself applying for a federal driver's license, do you? Or for a federal title to the vehicle?
Vehicles are the exclusive purview of the several States, in established law going back about as far as they have existed. If you want to go down this road, you have to bring the justification that this has been wrong the whole time.
There's one hell of a lot of inertia against that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 21 2017, @05:51AM (4 children)
And yet we have things like the REAL ID Act [wikipedia.org] and Vehicle Identification Numbers [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @08:40AM (3 children)
Yes, the government does plenty of other unconstitutional things, but that doesn't therefore mean this is constitutional.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 21 2017, @09:54AM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @05:01PM (1 child)
Reading some history, the intent of the commerce clause appears to have been to give the federal government the power to stop states from imposing unequal taxes/duties on goods from other states. Basically, a very early Free Trade Agreement.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 21 2017, @06:08PM
Then why didn't it say so? Plus, we already have such a clause in the next section (Article I, Section 9:6).
Instead the clause appears to allow, as intended (since that's what the clause says), for Congress to pass laws to regulate commerce among the states. Common standards across all states would thus be a normal, constitutional application of the clause.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @05:36AM (2 children)
It is equally insane for the federal government to say that states may not craft their own rules for normal vehicles. The interstate commerce clause has been applied far beyond what it was meant to apply to and I strongly suspect you know this.
So what? The mere fact that they *can* cross states lines is irrelevant! The commerce clause only applies in the individual cases where interstate commerce actually happens, not in cases where it's merely possible. Also, someone driving a car across state lines is not even necessarily commerce.
Cars can cross state lines, but that doesn't mean the federal government can stop states from crafting their own rules regarding cars within the state.
The commerce clause is just a catch-all for when the federal government wants more power these days. Anything could potentially "influence" interstate commerce or even cross state borders (even non-vehicles).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 21 2017, @06:02AM (1 child)
It does mean that federal law overrides state law when the two are in conflict.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @08:06AM
Only if the federal law is actually constitutional.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Friday July 21 2017, @12:25AM (1 child)
I thought "interstate commerce" was supposed to prevent internal tariffs, because, you know, we're all one happy family of states so Texas can't go charging a fee on goods imported from the Amazon headquarters in Seattle.
Unless, you know, they call that fee a "sales tax" then of course it would be fine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @05:07PM
There is actually a difference in your two cases. The commerce clause is meant to prevent a state from having a tax on 'goods from Seattle'. Having a tax on goods regardless of origin is fine.