Shopping? Check out our latest product comparisons

California regulates autonomous vehicle testing

By

May 25, 2014

The Californian Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has released guidelines for testing of ...

The Californian Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has released guidelines for testing of autonomous vehicles such as Google's self-driving car (Photo: Google)

California has joined much of Europe as well as Nevada, Florida and Michigan in setting rules for how, when and where autonomous vehicle tests can take place.

The Californian Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has released guidelines for autonomous testing that will take effect on September 16, 2014. These rules don’t cover consumer operation of self-driving cars but instead outline an extensive list of criteria that must be met by manufacturers before a computer controlled test car can be let loose on the general public.

Manufacturers are required to prove their cars have successfully been tested in a controlled environment, and a trained "test driver" has to be ready to take control during the trial run. Sensibly, they’re also forced to report any accident involving a test vehicle, as well as any instances where the "driver" needs to take control.

Testing permits will last one year, and will only set you back US$150. The real cost lies in insurance: namely the $5 million policy you’ll need to even be considered for a permit.

Companies like Google and Volvo, who are at the forefront of development in this area, have already clocked-up many 1000's of miles of on-road testing and you could be sitting back and letting the car drive you sooner than you think. When that day does arrive, the regulators in California will be ready – the DMV says that rules governing consumer operation of autonomous vehicle are due for release in January 2015.

Source: DMV

5 Comments

The only way self-driving cars will operate on public roads is when they have those public road to themselves. I.e. when the only other vehicle they are likely to bump into (literally) is another of its kind.

I cannot see this system working in the real world. A human will know when it is essential to do something dangerous because the only other option is deadly, such as avoiding a falling tree, etc., etc., etc., ... etc., etc., etc.... Mind you, it would be interesting to see how they have programmed the computer to respond to one of its cameras shouting WTF?!

Of course, the most sensible option is to make the system warn the human driver when they are moving into danger and guide them accordingly, BUT leave the human in control.

Honestly, who is going to use this system anyway? Passenger aircraft very much fly themselves these days, but you will never catch me boarding one that doesn't have a human pilot on board and at the controls. I have the same attitude to these cars, only more so.

Mel Tisdale
27th May, 2014 @ 05:32 am PDT

If you consider that on average there are 6,000,000 vehicle crashes on U.S. roads each year. 34,500 fatalities and 2,600,000 physical injuries in 2013. I teach driver ed, DUI and traffic school. I can honestly say that most of my student drivers are dangerous when their cars is parked. The vast majority of drivers believe that they are better drivers than everyone else on the road. This is nonsense and the statistics prove this without a doubt. I seriously place my bet on the future of autonomous vehicles.

Doc Shaw
27th May, 2014 @ 11:42 am PDT

Everyone should keep in mind that many of the companies doing this work are the same companies that are currently catching heat for chiseling engineering, hiding defects, hiding accident data, and generally denying any kind of problem or , worse (from their view), accepting absolutely any responsibility. If GM & Ford are going to turn out crappy ignition switches and crappy engine controls how good an idea is it to let them ballistically launch cars with passengers on the open road?

StWils
27th May, 2014 @ 12:32 pm PDT

StWils is correct in that manufacturers intentionally hide defects from the consumer. Defects are part and parcel of complex technology. But when 4000 lbs of metal glass and gas is moving at any speed, the risk is very significant. In the majority of the cases consumers don't even know that one part or another is defective because if doesn't raise a crash risk. Its when a control/safety defect occurs that the manufacturer makes a judgement of the cost of lives/lawsuit vs corrective action that a recall decision is made by vehicle manufacturers. Its simply Risk vs Profit. Defects that result in injury and loss of life are generally treated by the government as civil issues. No criminal charges are brought against the responsible individuals within company's for products that they know that their product may result in injury or the loss of a life. As long as we preserve Risk vs Profit mentality, life threatening vehicle defects will continue to be pervasive in this technology.

In regards to future autonomous vehicles, safety will become critically important. The question will arise as to whether vehicle manufacturers are capable of mass producing autonomous vehicles that are safe. Its not that autonomous vehicles will not be safe, but the companies that have currently put them on the road tend to be consumer conscientious. This is the reason that the Google car has been essentially crash free after several hundred thousand miles. Volvo and Infinity are respected high quality vehicles. But they are expensive. Based upon the track record of the auto manufacturers in rapidly correcting safety defects, I personally have my reservations. I would feel better if individuals charged with building safe vehicles could be held criminally responsible if they knowingly build unsafe vehicles. Unless forced to by the government I don't expect the safety of the driving consumer to be in the top 10 concerns of any manufacturer. A great saying when it comes to purchasing anything... Caveat Emptor

Doc Shaw
27th May, 2014 @ 01:46 pm PDT

Autonomous vehicles are inevitable but resistance from the boys in love with their toys is easy to propagate by the many vested interests in the motor industry.

Ironically it is these leaders of the cult of the car that cause the most fatalities.

Am I the only one who sees the insanity of marketing vehicles for public roads on the basis of their racetrack performance?

Addiction to gasoline is like addiction to any drug and just as difficult to eradicate.

nutcase
27th May, 2014 @ 08:46 pm PDT
Post a Comment

Login with your gizmag account:

Or Login with Facebook:


Related Articles
Looking for something? Search our 28,288 articles