Google computer ruled a 'driver' in a big win for autonomous car technology

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that, for regulatory purposes, the software controlling autonomous cars ca be considered a 'driver.' What, specifically, does that mean?

|
Tony Avelar/AP/File
Google's self-driving car during a demonstration at the Google campus in Mountain View, Calif. The federal government's highway safety agency agrees with Google: Computers that will control the cars of the future can be considered their driver. The redefinition of "driver" is an important break for Google.

There are plenty of obstacles impeding Planet Earth's transition to autonomous cars, but one of the biggest involves resolving the many legal questions associated with self-driving vehicles.

In a huge win for fans of autonomous cars, though, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has just determined that, for regulatory purposes, the software controlling those vehicles can be considered a "driver". In a long letter to Google, the agency said:

"NHTSA will interpret 'driver' in the context of Google's described motor vehicle design as referring to the (self-driving system), and not to any of the vehicle occupants. We agree with Google its (self-driving car) will not have a 'driver' in the traditional sense that vehicles have had drivers during the last more than one hundred years."

Which sounds interesting, but what, exactly, does it mean in practical terms?

  • For starters, autonomous cars won't necessarily need a human behind the wheel -- at least not to satisfy federal regulations. States may require them for a time, as California does, but as far as NHTSA and the Department of Transportation are concerned, there's no need. In their eyes, the autonomous car software is the driver. 
  • Along those lines, autonomous cars won't need steering wheels at all. Again, individual states may have more stringent requirements, mandating the presence of brake pedals, accelerators, and other tools for drivers to use if they need to take control from the autonomous car. But given NHTSA's ruling, we'd be surprised if states held out for long. Pressure from automakers, who would clearly be daunted by the complexities of designing autonomous vehicles for a patchwork of state regulations, could speed up the streamlining process.
  • Automakers and/or software engineers may be held responsible for accidents. Questions of liability have loomed large in discussions of self-driving vehicles. NHTSA's ruling makes it clear that an autonomous car's software can legally be considered a "driver", and therefore, the designer of that software could be liable in the case of an accident.

What does the ruling not do? 

  • It doesn't change a range of federal standards that were written before autonomous vehicles were conceived. For example, many of the warning lights on your car's dashboard were designed to alert drivers to problems with the battery, transmission, tire pressure, and so on. For autonomous cars, those warnings may become unnecessary -- though of course, they'll have to be sent to the software driving the car.
  • It doesn't establish guidelines for makers of autonomous cars to prove that their self-driving systems are up to snuff. The means of testing autonomous car systems to ensure that they work well in a range of conditions -- heavy traffic, snow, rain, etc. -- has yet to be worked out.

Bottom line: there's still a lot of work to be done, especially on the regulatory front, but NHTSA's ruling has dramatically accelerated the roll-out of autonomous cars.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Google computer ruled a 'driver' in a big win for autonomous car technology
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2016/0210/Google-computer-ruled-a-driver-in-a-big-win-for-autonomous-car-technology
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe