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"

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

It almost feels like government does something when it is pushed. Either financially, by donors and lobbyists, or public pressure before election for votes.

Since no such pressure exists, government is not likely to do anything.

The governments are giving the companies enough rope to hang themselves.

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

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.

>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)

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.

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...

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.

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

When automated cars become a consumer good I would certainly agree with the more stringent approach but I think light regulation is fine until that happens and also that Google et al will be pushing for that when the time comes. The thing that makes the FAA such a model of effectiveness compared to other regulatory bodies is that it's interests are aligned with the industry as a whole. When a plane (or driverless car) crashes everybody in the industry suffers a loss of business. Everybody would like to slack off a bit on safety themselves while their competitors are held to the highest standards, of course, but they'd mostly all rather have high standards as a general rule so the regulatory capture that occurs makes the FAA more focused on safety. All because consumers have alternatives to flying and are intrinsically more scared of flying than of other means of transportation.

And it will be the same with automated cars. People are intrinsically predisposed to not trust automated cars and people will still be perfectly capable of driving cars themselves. In order for automated cars to take off it's important that you don't have Bob's Drive By Night autocars crashing and killing lots of people and the Google's and Ubers of the world know that.

I would be inclined to agree with extensive testing being desirable in this case. However, the only way I think that we're going to get a sufficient quantity of testing under representative conditions is to get a reasonably large number of these cars out on the roads.

We don't need to worry too much about their use in a non-testing context, I feel, when we look at companies actively pushing this stuff out they're either doing so in a highly controlled environment (transportation on mining sites for instance) or they're pushing it out in a highly limited form (for instance, self parking cars and lane keeping features.) Entirely automated driving is still experimental and the number of people who have access to it is still very limited, no-one's selling their current prototypes to the general public.