SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the vote-for-the-motion,-or-roko's-basilisk-will-run-you-over dept.
United States House Republicans expect to introduce bills later this week that would bar states from setting their own rules for self-driving cars and take other steps to remove obstacles to putting such vehicles on the road, a spokeswoman said.
The legislative action comes as major automakers are joining forces with auto suppliers and other groups to prod Congress into action.
Last month, a US House of Representatives Energy and Commerce subcommittee held a hearing on a Republican draft package of 14 bills that would allow US regulators to exempt up to 100,000 vehicles a year per manufacturer from federal motor vehicle safety rules that prevent the sale of self-driving vehicles without human controls.
[...] GM, Alphabet Inc., Tesla Inc., and others have been lobbying Congress to pre-empt rules under consideration in California and other states that could limit self-driving vehicle deployment.
As the number of self-driving cars on the road grows, will drivers proceeding on manual game the self-driving algorithms and lead to a ban on non-self-driving cars?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 08 2017, @12:40PM (4 children)
Also the cost of insurance. It is the driver of the car that is responsible to accidents. Since the the driver is GM, Telsa, Alpahabet,.. they are responsible for insurance and damages of their vehicle.
So the moral question that is asked... Accident and death WILL happen, but does the car place higher value on passenger in the car or person on crosswalk? Either choice it is the "driver" that is pay.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 08 2017, @02:48PM (2 children)
Volvo is one company that has already gone on record that they'll be taking responsibility for any actions caused by their autonomous vehicles. And this is one area where one company will likely result in a rapid domino effect. That translates to effectively free full coverage insurance.
The moral questions are nonstarter. There are technical reasons why, but even on a basic logical level - they aren't cogent. They invariably require you somehow get into a scenario where there's no option, except there is. But only one option. And both are catastrophic. It's absurd. In such scenario there would, without doubt, be numerous other possibilities rather than trying to create this artificial moral dilemma.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 08 2017, @05:53PM (1 child)
yes, and they will, no doubt, use this as bait. once they bribe people into giving away the rest of (what practically speaking equates to) their right to drive, then they are free to control when and where you can drive. that is at least one of the end goals of all this. like they give a shit about how many people die besides the wasted money involved...
need to go to the store for some critical supplies? car: "i'm sorry dave, you're all out of Food Depot Drive Credits. Please reduce your carbon footprint 2% to earn more". dave: "and how the hell am i supposed to do that? I''ve already gotten rid of everything!" car: "Rover is burning $x amount of carbon per month. just saying..."
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday August 08 2017, @07:13PM
Tin foil hat a little tight this morning?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 08 2017, @08:46PM
I've already explained the solution [knowyourmeme.com] to the trolley problem many times before. Why does this keep coming up?