Self Driving Car Rules May Soon Be Eased by Transportation Department, to the Benefit of Cybercab Robotaxi Release

[Administrator]

Self-Driving Car Rules May Be Eased under Trump

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...o-want-to-ease-us-rules-for-self-driving-cars

 

[DaBagBoy]

awesome news!!
only good things ahead for Tesla and the USA!

 

[Crissa]

What rules? How would they be eased?

Lotsa missing details. Especially for an incoming administration that is talking about erasing the EV buildout.

-Crissa

 

[wtibbit]

What rules? How would they be eased?

Lotsa missing details. Especially for an incoming administration that is talking about erasing the EV buildout.

-Crissa

Your comment helpfully led me to look into this, @Crissa. Here is what I found.

The Federal government has no specific rules regarding self driving vehicles, or as the Federal Transportation Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration calls them - Highly Automated Vehicles (HAVs) or Automated Vehicles (AVs) or "Fully Self-Driving Vehicles". Therefore, before anyone's administration will be able to ease rules for self-driving cars, someone will have to approve those rules.

Although there are no approved rules in place, yet, the NHTSA is trying to get some approved. They are currently working to establish four rules regarding Automated Driving System-Equipped Vehicles - a more specific term than AVs or HAVs. Note that these are NOT rules, yet. They are PROPOSED rules; specifically, they are "Advance Notice(s) of Proposed Rule Making" or ANPRMs. The Government does love acronyms. It turns out that the NHTSA reported to Congress on this effort this year and made the report public.

The next two paragraphs summarize The NHTSA's 2024 report to Congress titled "Automated Driving System-Equipped Vehicles". The report describes the four ANPRMs and NHTSA's efforts to organize and better address AV technology, as follows:

"....two (of the ANPRMs) focus on adapting current requirements for AVs (Automated Vehicles) to maintain the current level of safety afforded by FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards) while providing manufacturers the opportunity to develop novel designs. NHTSA's other two rulemakings look toward the future of evaluating AV performance ...​

​

...The NHTSA has also put in place research projects on AV safety and established an Advanced and Emerging Technology Division "... to coordinate enforcement activities for driving automation systems and other areas of rapid technological growth." They've also established a Rulemaking Office of Automation Safety to "... develop and manage AV exemptions, special projects ... and regulation and safety standards related to AVs."​

My take on the "ease the rules" news is that there are no rules in place to ease, but an effort to do so might consist of shutting/slowing down the on-going efforts to, a. make sure AVs are as safe as current vehicles and, b., to find a way for the NHTSA to test this. Stopping or slowing that rule-making effort will likely leave it up to the manufacturers, their corporate lawyers, and some soon-to-be-even-more wealthy injury lawyers to sort out the results of having no effective rules in place.

You can read up on this yourself, and get fully informed with the link to their report to Congress, below:

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.g...utomated-Driving-System-Equipped-Vehicles.pdf

 

[Crissa]

Not making rules is the same as making it impossible to achieve them. Until there are rules, the robocabs are illegal and can be seized by local officials.

That's a terrible environment in which to invest in them.

-Crissa

 

[rlhamil]

Your comment helpfully led me to look into this, @Crissa. Here is what I found.

The Federal government has no specific rules regarding self driving vehicles, or as the Federal Transportation Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration calls them - Highly Automated Vehicles (HAVs) or Automated Vehicles (AVs) or "Fully Self-Driving Vehicles". Therefore, before anyone's administration will be able to ease rules for self-driving cars, someone will have to approve those rules.

Although there are no approved rules in place, yet, the NHTSA is trying to get some approved. They are currently working to establish four rules regarding Automated Driving System-Equipped Vehicles - a more specific term than AVs or HAVs. Note that these are NOT rules, yet. They are PROPOSED rules; specifically, they are "Advance Notice(s) of Proposed Rule Making" or ANPRMs. The Government does love acronyms. It turns out that the NHTSA reported to Congress on this effort this year and made the report public.

The next two paragraphs summarize The NHTSA's 2024 report to Congress titled "Automated Driving System-Equipped Vehicles". The report describes the four ANPRMs and NHTSA's efforts to organize and better address AV technology, as follows:

"....two (of the ANPRMs) focus on adapting current requirements for AVs (Automated Vehicles) to maintain the current level of safety afforded by FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards) while providing manufacturers the opportunity to develop novel designs. NHTSA's other two rulemakings look toward the future of evaluating AV performance ...​

​

...The NHTSA has also put in place research projects on AV safety and established an Advanced and Emerging Technology Division "... to coordinate enforcement activities for driving automation systems and other areas of rapid technological growth." They've also established a Rulemaking Office of Automation Safety to "... develop and manage AV exemptions, special projects ... and regulation and safety standards related to AVs."​

My take on the "ease the rules" news is that there are no rules in place to ease, but an effort to do so might consist of shutting/slowing down the on-going efforts to, a. make sure AVs are as safe as current vehicles and, b., to find a way for the NHTSA to test this. Stopping or slowing that rule-making effort will likely leave it up to the manufacturers, their corporate lawyers, and some soon-to-be-even-more wealthy injury lawyers to sort out the results of having no effective rules in place.

You can read up on this yourself, and get fully informed with the link to their report to Congress, below:

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.g...utomated-Driving-System-Equipped-Vehicles.pdf

The devil is always in the details. Just enough to hit the sweet spot of maintaining or improving safety while not throttling innovation is great. Too little is greed driven anarchy. Too much is seriously slowing progress and anticompetitive compared to foreign competitors.

 

[DJAlan2000]

There has been a 'push' by certain 'entities' to make a standard for all self-driving/robo cabs that would include LIDAR as a mandatory item for safety. Of course Tesla and one or two others don't want to use LIDAR and sensors, but rather vision based systems instead. That would benefit the 'existing' robo taxi companies that are using LIDAR systems...

 

[rlhamil]

What rules? How would they be eased?

Lotsa missing details. Especially for an incoming administration that is talking about erasing the EV buildout.

-Crissa

This early, I wouldn't expect a lot of details, they take more work.

Getting rid of mandates (or even incentives) does not mean getting rid of EVs. They suit some people well enough, and will get better. They don't suit everyone yet, and a mandate schedule may not take that into consideration well enough.

And of course there's no fundamental reason an ICE vehicle couldn't be self-driving; some have assist features already. Might not be so great for full autonomy like a taxi insofar as it can't do inductive charging, so refueling might require a person to be involved.

 

[Crissa]

This early, I wouldn't expect a lot of details, they take more work.

Getting rid of mandates (or even incentives) does not mean getting rid of EVs. They suit some people well enough, and will get better. They don't suit everyone yet, and a mandate schedule may not take that into consideration well enough.

And of course there's no fundamental reason an ICE vehicle couldn't be self-driving; some have assist features already. Might not be so great for full autonomy like a taxi insofar as it can't do inductive charging, so refueling might require a person to be involved.

Gotta build the infrastructure for further adoption. Roads aren't money-makers, but they're needed, right? Same with chargers.

And can't buy cars they don't build. Car companies wouldn't push fuel efficiency or EVs without the mandates.

-Crissa

 

[ABILISK]

Gotta build the infrastructure for further adoption. Roads aren't money-makers, but they're needed, right? Same with chargers.

And can't buy cars they don't build. Car companies wouldn't push fuel efficiency or EVs without the mandates.

-Crissa

Tesla will. Their mission is all about sustainable energy. They don’t need the government’s help to convince people that’s a good thing.

 

[Crissa]

Tesla will. Their mission is all about sustainable energy. They don’t need the government’s help to convince people that’s a good thing.

Tell that to the delayed build-out.

I know they're cell-challenged, at least on the cheap end, but the pause waiting for them has been painful. I don't know if Tesla has that goal, to accelerate the conversion of transportation, anymore.

Either way, easing rules that don't exist is nonsensical.

-Crissa

 

[voy@ger]

NHTSA: "This final rule makes clear that, despite their innovative designs, vehicles with ADS technology must continue to provide the same high levels of occupant protection that current passenger vehicles provide".

But to what extent can 'we' expect clashes between AV developers like Tesla and regulatory authorities?
1. oversight in general? (Musk's in favor)
2. traditional occupants safety (crash worthiness etc.)?
3. pedestrian safety considerations?
4.