How the Obama administration wants to regulate self-driving cars

The Obama administration has finally outlined its plans for legislating self-driving cars, a strong indication that automated vehicles will proliferate the highways of tomorrow.

Gene J. Puskar/AP/File
A self driving Uber car drives down River Road on Pittsburgh's Northside.

The Obama administration has finally outlined its plans for legislating self-driving cars, a strong indication that automated vehicles will proliferate the highways of tomorrow.

In an unusual step, the President offered his thoughts in a column published by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the hometown newspaper for a city that finds itself the unexpected center of the self-driving car movement thanks to a partnership between Uber and Carnegie Melon University. The first self-driving Uber car, a Ford Fusion, is now on the road in Pittsburgh. 

Department of Transportation regulators have so far only offered a relatively high-level view, broken down into four key points:

  • A 15-point design and development standard for self-driving vehicle safety
  • An intention for states to develop a consistent, uniform policy for self-driving cars
  • A clarification of how existing regulator rules will be applied to autonomous vehicles
  • The potential for future regulations

In terms of vehicle design, the 15-point standard is most crucial to automakers. It places major emphasis on providing protection for passengers in the event of a collision, ensuring that vehicles are not susceptible to hacking attacks, and figuring out how vehicles will interact with each other and with "drivers." 

The DoT's assessment covers "ethical considerations" to address how vehicles will "address conflict dilemmas" on roads.

By no means are today's guidelines comprehensive, but they provide a concrete look at how the federal government will begin to regulate self-driving cars over the next few years. Regulation has long been considered a bigger hurdle than product development, as the self-driving Fusion running around Pittsburgh indicates. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

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