California DMV Squashing Auto Innovation



Comments (15)

  1. Amy says:

    As a parent of a child with a visual disability I have been actively watching the development of this technology. At first it was just because of my daughters future and independence but as I watched and learned about the technology I realized we will all be safer. Imagine a world with no more bad drivers? I was shocked and so disappointed that CA wants to have driver controls. At that point, why even bother? Hey CA what do you not get about the “DriverLESS” car? Thanks Greg for the article.

    [Reply]

  2. Darryl Malcolm says:

    I agree with Mr. Miller in that we are way too over-regulated in the U.S., and it hampers innovation and competitiveness. That said, I think he has oversimplified the complexities and immaturity of this technology. His views are on the opposite extreme of what he complains about (he doesn’t even think there should be driver controls). I would think we need to collect information on the safety and operational quirks of a technology which will operate at high speeds and with the potential of loss of life in a failure. I particularly find amusing his question of whether the DMV smart car manufacturers, “will put out a bad product that’s not up to their usual sky-high standards and is a magnet for litigation?”. Litigation concerning the systemic failures of “dumb cars” have been in the news for years. Its as if he thinks Tesla, Apple at all are somehow god-like in their execution and infallibility. He reminds me of so many technology-phobes I have known who are so excited about technology that they hate to see anything in the way of its implementation and do not consider practical application issues.

    [Reply]

  3. Bill Graves says:

    Sadly, the Federal government follows suit with California in many regulatory ways, particularly with environmental regulation. Do not be surprised if the Feds follow suit with this regulatory behavior concerning autonomous vehicles.

    [Reply]

  4. Steve Cruver says:

    My issue with self driving cars is the uncertainty of what happens when the car has to choose between hitting an animal or pedestrian, another car, or driving off a cliff while being tailgated by a logging truck. Many of us more experienced drivers have had to make these kind of choices. In my experience, I’ve been able to avoid all of these kinds of incidents by quick thinking in a fast changing situation that the autonomous cars are incapable of accomplishing. Autos of the past and present give Americans the feeling of freedom. When you jump into your car and drive away, you feel better about life because you have control of something that no one else has. I fear that people will quickly figure out that Driverless cars will just give them that “caged animal” feeling that only adds additional stress to their lives. The only solution I can see is to allow total driver override so that the owner can drive the vehicle for fun and to retain the feeling of freedom that traditionally is provided by driving your own vehicle.

    [Reply]

  5. Marguerite Cottenot says:

    Dear Greg Miller,
    First of all I wish you a Very Happy 2016.
    It seems nobody likes the Department of Motor Vehicles but they do have to think about cases of unseen people suddenly running into the path of a driverless vehicle. Also, will all driverless vehicle run on any roads or will there be also special roads for them?

    [Reply]

  6. Ted Wark says:

    As sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, whenever something good for humanity comes along there will be California, ready to stand in the way of it with their stupid,thoughtless politicians and their ALWAYS stupid and thoughtless political ideas. Sometimes one wonders if it wouldn’t be in the best interests of everyone (Californians included) if the entire state just slipped quietly into the Pacific.

    [Reply]

  7. Larry says:

    Maybe it is time for the tech companies to move out of CA.

    [Reply]

  8. Dolores Tamoria says:

    I cannot support all of your contentions of the DMV
    I would not dream of purchasing a car entirely dependant on computer technolog without the
    ability of human intervention. Computer technology is not infallible. You may say humans are not infallible either. However, if I happen to be in a life or death situation I would prefer it would be my choice and not a computers.

    [Reply]

  9. Terry Cornell says:

    I would never buy one so it is a moot point with me. Half the fun of driving a car IS driving the car. I also don’t like anything that thinks it knows more about what I want than I do. Besides, driving a car is one of the few things that makes young drivers learn to use their brains and make good quick decisions.

    [Reply]

  10. Kevin Beck says:

    May I suggest a change in lexicon here?
    What is talked about is not “regulation;” it’s “restriction,” and it should properly be called such. And by calling it what it really is, the legal leg for these rules can be more easily toppled. Remember that the activity has to exist before it can be made regular, which is what regulations actually do.

    [Reply]

  11. william smith says:

    I am sure the driverless vehicles will be safer than most driver-cars, since about 60% of drivers are not good.
    Ever airplanes are computer driven, so what is wrong with driverless cars?

    [Reply]

  12. william smith says:

    Ever airliner is computer driven so what is wrong with driverless cars?

    [Reply]

  13. Dave says:

    Perhaps you should limit yourself to the financial industry, and not the technical or road safety industry. As one with much closer than the average financial blogger ties to the autonomous vehicle industry, I can tell you that California’s regulations are about safety, not bureaucracy. The information required by the DMV that was released today shows hundreds of instances where the human had to take over controls, both because of external factors and software or hardware failure.
    Autonomous vehicles represent a sea change in transportation. Your enchanted “market place” brought us shrapnel propelling air bags and engine killing ignitions.
    I’ll take a “great” and “safe” autonomous vehicle in 10 years rather than a “pretty good” and “fairly safe” one in 5 years.
    And BTW, early adopters can be very stupid. The only qualification for being one is eagerness and adequate money.

    [Reply]

  14. Gary says:

    My 2 cents on autonomous cars is this. No mention has been made of duplicate systems running at same time in these cars. Running duplicate and even triplicate systems totally power independently would eliminate any possible failure of any 1 system. Also they could be monitoring each others’ sensors to make sure they were correct. The government people should know about the backup systems because the Feds use this all the time in the military applications. I worked for them as a consultant contractor and they worked well. Never did they have a failure of continuity when I worked there for 3 years. With the miniturization of electronics today, it would be simple to add the duplication of systems. The backup type system would also add the added safety of making split second decisions if a possible rear-end accident was possible.

    [Reply]

  15. Bruce daniel says:

    Driverless cars? Stupid idea, that I can sum up in the single wise word my Garmin is so accustomed to saying. Recalculating…. Or the display on my iPhone. No Service… What could possibly go wrong here? I do not wish my life in danger inside of one of these weapons, nor do I wish to be endangered by sharing the road with a weapon of this magnitude. Anyone ever heard of hackers? Financial analysts should probably stick to numbers and not render opinions on technology.

    [Reply]

Add Comment