SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The U.S. House on Wednesday unanimously approved a sweeping proposal to speed the deployment of self-driving cars without human controls by putting federal regulators in the driver's seat and barring states from blocking autonomous vehicles.
The House measure, the first significant federal legislation aimed at speeding self-driving cars to market, would allow automakers to obtain exemptions to deploy up to 25,000 vehicles without meeting existing auto safety standards in the first year. The cap would rise over three years to 100,000 vehicles annually.
How will the young impress each other with their mad driving skillz now?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
U.S. House Unanimously Approves Sweeping Self-Driving Car Measure
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 24 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
belief, n:
Something you do not believe.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday September 07 2017, @11:46PM (11 children)
100k cars per year not meeting existing auto safety standards... I'll take the APC to work, for the next few years.
How will they get insurance, exactly?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday September 07 2017, @11:55PM (9 children)
As much as I love giving the "states-rights" representatives crap over this one I do actually think it's a good call.
The mish-mash of state regulations really is a barrier to entry for anyone trying to do something new in this arena.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08 2017, @12:08AM (7 children)
It's even better: Some of the people who would normally criticize the courts' overly-broad interpretation of the commerce clause are now using that same interpretation to support this!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 08 2017, @01:23AM (6 children)
Because the US Constitution says the commerce clause isn't meant to be used ever?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08 2017, @01:38AM (5 children)
No, because the commerce clause was never meant to be used this way. It's merely there so states can't interfere with interstate commerce between other states, not to give the federal government power over all interstate commerce. This proposal does not take into account whether an individual state's rules actually interfere with the interstate commerce of other states.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 08 2017, @01:58AM (2 children)
I guess you don't see how state regulation can be used to interfere with interstate commerce, for example by protecting the local industry against outsiders? The wine industry is notorious for ridiculous levels of protectionism at the state level. I also see establishing common standards in a market or industry as a legitimate use of the commerce clause.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08 2017, @02:35AM (1 child)
I can see how it could, but that only applies to instances where it actually does.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 08 2017, @02:09PM
Indeed. You have any legitimate reasons why you think this law is unconstitutional or is this all going to devolve to "I don't see it"? I came up with a reason, whether or not you choose to see it.
I'll note here that the actual wording of the Commerce Clause is more general than merely regulating state interference with interstate commerce. And let us note that someone like Alexander Hamilton (in other words, the authoritarian side of the founders of the Constitution) would have a much more expansive view of the Commerce Clause (probably even stronger than the present) than the Anti-federalists like Thomas Jefferson. Interpreting the Constitution by the intent of its founders is a fool's errand with such a diverse ideological group.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday September 08 2017, @02:13AM (1 child)
Then why is it that it quite explicitly gives the federal government power over all interstate commerce? Here's the original language:
"The Congress shall have power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
Actually, the current judicial precedent is that not only does it give the feds power over interstate commerce, it can sometimes give the feds power over local commerce if it might indirectly affect interstate commerce. That interpretation I think is pretty reasonable to dispute. But you're arguing against the plain language of the text, which is just silly.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08 2017, @04:53PM
I agree that the feds regulating intrastate commerce is an obvious over-reach.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday September 08 2017, @03:46AM
That ship sailed over 75 years ago. Even before the advent of the Interstate System, automobiles were standardized, if not by Federal DOT, them by the of manufacturers serving the entire country.
You really can't have States Rights rule things that are designed to travel state to state. Its amazing California gets away with their private emissions standards.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08 2017, @12:01AM
It won't matter 26 will just buy an insurance company if they have to at the same time the purchase of uber and amazon goes through