Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 12, 2019, 04:47:26 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions close today at noon

  Atlas Forum
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Gustaf, Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  S.19.4-1: Transport Industry Jobs Protection Act (Statute)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: S.19.4-1: Transport Industry Jobs Protection Act (Statute)  (Read 460 times)
Southern Speaker Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,956
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 28, 2019, 04:46:03 am »
« edited: November 21, 2019, 12:03:29 am by Southern Speaker Punxsutawney Phil »

Quote
Section I: Title and Terms
1.1) This shall be known as the "Transport Industry Jobs Protection Act" or "TIJ-Pro Act"
1.2) Terms
a) Self Driving Vehicle Technology (SDVT)
b) Trucking Industry – Vehicles that fall under the description of Commercial Drivers Licenses (CDLs), Rail Road, water going vehicles used for the transportation goods.
c) Passenger Transport Industry – Taxis, buses, public transport & mass private transport (anything greater than 6 passengers).

Section II: Self Driving Vehicle Technology Ban
2.1) SDVT is banned for use for both trucking and passenger transport industries in the Southern Region.
2.2) Any businesses currently using SDVT at the implementation of this bill has two month phasing out period.

Section III: Exemptions & Registration Fees
3.1) SDVT is legal for use on one private vehicle.
3.2) Private vehicles using SDVT will pay an additional registration fee of $240 annually.
3.3) Luxury vehicles using SDVT will incur an additional registration fee of $2,400 annually.
sponsor: Muaddib
Logged
Southern Speaker Muaddib
Muaddib
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 853
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2019, 05:23:13 am »

Fellow Delegates,

It behooves us to to be diligent with respects to the welfare of all Southerners. Transport Jobs are a great source of employment not only in our great region but also of the whole of Atlasia. I have therefore put forward this bill to protect our hard working Southern drivers from being replaced en mass by artificial intelligences. The cost to families, both financially and in dignity to our truckers, taxi drivers, and others, of being replaced by a machine in the name of "progress" is not one our society should pay. Protecting these jobs is a matter of principle. I am of course open to improvements to this bill. I encourage all delegates to back this bill to ensure the protection of these jobs.
Logged
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,561
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2019, 07:35:07 am »

Suggesting an amendment, solely for clarity's sake. Four minor additions shown here in bold.
Quote
Section I: Title and Terms
1.1) This shall be known as the "Transport Industry Jobs Protection Act" or "TIJ-Pro Act"
1.2) Terms
a) Self Driving Vehicle Technology (SDVT)
b) Trucking Industry – Vehicles that fall under the description of Commercial Drivers Licenses (CDLs), Rail Road, and/or water going vehicles used for the transportation of goods.
c) Passenger Transport Industry – Taxis, buses, public transport & mass private transport (anything greater than 6 passengers).

Section II: Self Driving Vehicle Technology Ban
2.1) SDVT is banned for use for both trucking and passenger transport industries in the Southern Region.
2.2) Any businesses currently using SDVT at the implementation of this bill has a two month phasing out period.

Section III: Exemptions & Registration Fees
3.1) SDVT is legal for use on one private vehicle without incurring a SDVT registration fee.
3.2) Private vehicles using SDVT will pay an additional registration fee of $240 annually.
3.3) Luxury vehicles using SDVT will incur an additional registration fee of $2,400 annually.
Logged
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,561
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 28, 2019, 07:42:25 am »

Quote
Section I: Title and Terms
1.1) This shall be known as the "Transport Industry Jobs Protection Act" or "TIJ-Pro Act"
1.2) Terms
a) Self Driving Vehicle Technology (SDVT)
b) Trucking Industry – Vehicles that fall under the description of Commercial Drivers Licenses (CDLs), Rail Road, water going vehicles used for the transportation goods.
c) Passenger Transport Industry – Taxis, buses, public transport & mass private transport (anything greater than 6 passengers).

Section II: Self Driving Vehicle Technology Ban
2.1) SDVT is banned for use for both trucking and passenger transport industries in the Southern Region.
2.2) Any businesses currently using SDVT at the implementation of this bill has two month phasing out period.

Section III: Exemptions & Registration Fees
3.1) SDVT is legal for use on one private vehicle.
3.2) Private vehicles using SDVT will pay an additional registration fee of $240 annually.
3.3) Luxury vehicles using SDVT will incur an additional registration fee of $2,400 annually.
sponsor: Muaddib
A few questions to the Deputy Speaker:

How were the amounts of $240 and $2,400, respectively, chosen? How is "luxury vehicle" defined in this bill? Is there a cutoff price-tag for vehicles to denote regular private vehicles vs. luxury ones?

Can't a taxi (van) have more than six passengers (one in the passenger seat, three in each of the typical two back rows equates to seven)?

Is a two-month phasing out period sufficient and how was this value chosen?

Finally, as my conservative friends would say: Isn't this an obstruction of the free market? Won't businesses using or planning on utilizing SDVT in the near future move operations to other countries, or more easily, to other regions?
Logged
Southern Speaker Muaddib
Muaddib
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 853
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2019, 03:58:24 am »

I thank the honorable Delegate from North Carolina for his questions.


Quote from: Southern Delegate West_Midlander
A few questions to the Deputy Speaker:

How were the amounts of $240 and $2,400, respectively, chosen? How is "luxury vehicle" defined in this bill? Is there a cutoff price-tag for vehicles to denote regular private vehicles vs. luxury ones?

Now the figure of $240 was derived from a base charge of $20 a month. $2,400 for luxury vehicles was that base charge times 10. If the Delegate West_Midlander has a better figure I'm happy to hear it. I am happy to amend these figures should a "better" rate be put forward. It could be halved.

There was an assumption that there was a pre-existing definition for luxury vehicles. I am fine for us to add a definition for example of "Any road vehicle over $50,000 is a luxury vehicle"



Quote from: Southern Delegate West_Midlander
Can't a taxi (van) have more than six passengers (one in the passenger seat, three in each of the typical two back rows equates to seven)?

Hence why there is a clarification that any vehicles over the capacity of 6 are covered by this bill. Maybe this could have been worded better.


Quote from: Southern Delegate West_Midlander
Is a two-month phasing out period sufficient and how was this value chosen?

Two months was chosen from the assumption that there are no existing businesses with an mass of vehicles with SDVT as this technology is quite young and this bill is a preventative measure against mass job loss from labor replacement technology. Does delegate West_Midlander, have a suggestion for a more sufficient time frame?


Quote from: Southern Delegate West_Midlander
Finally, as my conservative friends would say: Isn't this an obstruction of the free market? Won't businesses using or planning on utilizing SDVT in the near future move operations to other countries, or more easily, to other regions?

Yes, this is a regulation to prevent mass job losses. There are regulations of all kinds it's always a matter of degree. Can you explain how a business that provides transportation to a set geographical area gains a better market position by moving to a new area where there is already preexisting competition, abandoning their existing market share?

Should this happen this would create a gap in the market for a new local business. Considering that the South already has the most business friendly laws in Atlasia, I find it highly unlikely scenario that transportation businesses will en mass up and leave due to a law that essentially is just ensuring a continuation of the existing status quo.


Now on another point, having re-read the bill I think there is room for improvement by having a more specific definition of the level of SDVT. From looking at the various levels of SDVT anything greater than two I think should be what is outlawed in this bill. I'm not entirely opposed to including level 3 as legal. However I'd like to hear from other delegates before putting forward a specific amendment.
Logged
Southern Speaker Muaddib
Muaddib
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 853
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2019, 04:06:53 am »

Suggesting an amendment, solely for clarity's sake. Four minor additions shown here in bold.
Quote
Section I: Title and Terms
1.1) This shall be known as the "Transport Industry Jobs Protection Act" or "TIJ-Pro Act"
1.2) Terms
a) Self Driving Vehicle Technology (SDVT)
b) Trucking Industry – Vehicles that fall under the description of Commercial Drivers Licenses (CDLs), Rail Road, and/or water going vehicles used for the transportation of goods.
c) Passenger Transport Industry – Taxis, buses, public transport & mass private transport (anything greater than 6 passengers).

Section II: Self Driving Vehicle Technology Ban
2.1) SDVT is banned for use for both trucking and passenger transport industries in the Southern Region.
2.2) Any businesses currently using SDVT at the implementation of this bill has a two month phasing out period.

Section III: Exemptions & Registration Fees
3.1) SDVT is legal for use on one private vehicle without incurring a SDVT registration fee.
3.2) Private vehicles using SDVT will pay an additional registration fee of $240 annually.
3.3) Luxury vehicles using SDVT will incur an additional registration fee of $2,400 annually.

Thankyou Delegate West_Midlander, I was quite tired when I wrote this bill and am glad to have theses typos corrected.

I believe the Blue amendments are fine.
The Maroon amendment is not what I intended in the original bill.
Logged
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,561
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2019, 07:08:43 pm »

I thank the Deputy Speaker for his reply.

Thankyou Delegate West_Midlander, I was quite tired when I wrote this bill and am glad to have theses typos corrected.

First of all, I would like to say I understand completely on the Deputy Speaker's first remark.

I believe the Blue amendments are fine.
The Maroon amendment is not what I intended in the original bill.

Second of all, I trust the Deputy Speaker has no objection to the "and/or" addition in Section 1.2, part b?

I'll quote my amendment below as a reference:

Suggesting an amendment, solely for clarity's sake. Four minor additions shown here in bold.
Quote
Section I: Title and Terms
1.1) This shall be known as the "Transport Industry Jobs Protection Act" or "TIJ-Pro Act"
1.2) Terms
a) Self Driving Vehicle Technology (SDVT)
b) Trucking Industry – Vehicles that fall under the description of Commercial Drivers Licenses (CDLs), Rail Road, and/or water going vehicles used for the transportation of goods.
c) Passenger Transport Industry – Taxis, buses, public transport & mass private transport (anything greater than 6 passengers).

Section II: Self Driving Vehicle Technology Ban
2.1) SDVT is banned for use for both trucking and passenger transport industries in the Southern Region.
2.2) Any businesses currently using SDVT at the implementation of this bill has a two month phasing out period.

Section III: Exemptions & Registration Fees
3.1) SDVT is legal for use on one private vehicle without incurring a SDVT registration fee.
3.2) Private vehicles using SDVT will pay an additional registration fee of $240 annually.
3.3) Luxury vehicles using SDVT will incur an additional registration fee of $2,400 annually.

Now the figure of $240 was derived from a base charge of $20 a month. $2,400 for luxury vehicles was that base charge times 10. If the Delegate West_Midlander has a better figure I'm happy to hear it. I am happy to amend these figures should a "better" rate be put forward. It could be halved.

Thirdly, it was not my intent to change the purpose of the bill. I was under the impression that no fee would be incurred with the registration of one private SDVT vehicle. The Deputy Speaker references "a base charge of $20 a month." I interpret this as a charge of $20 monthly on the first private vehicle. Is this the intent of the bill? I may be out of the loop but is the $20 charge a mainstay of current regional/federal law or is this a change sought by this bill? If the $20 charge on the first private vehicle is a reform sought by this bill, perhaps it should be stated more clearly. If the $20 stands already as law, then I apologize to the Deputy Speaker for being ill-informed on this point.
Logged
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,561
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2019, 07:32:13 pm »
« Edited: October 29, 2019, 07:53:52 pm by Southern Delegate West_Midlander »

Now the figure of $240 was derived from a base charge of $20 a month. $2,400 for luxury vehicles was that base charge times 10. If the Delegate West_Midlander has a better figure I'm happy to hear it. I am happy to amend these figures should a "better" rate be put forward. It could be halved.

There was an assumption that there was a pre-existing definition for luxury vehicles. I am fine for us to add a definition for example of "Any road vehicle over $50,000 is a luxury vehicle"

The values provided by the Deputy Speaker seem fair. I have no will for an amendment to the $240 or $2400 values withholding substantial argument in favor of a reduction or an extension of this value by my fellow Delegates.

Hence why there is a clarification that any vehicles over the capacity of 6 are covered by this bill. Maybe this could have been worded better.

Quote
c) Passenger Transport Industry – Taxis, buses, public transport & mass private transport (anything greater than 6 passengers).

I wonder if the Deputy Speaker's intent is to exclude taxis transporting 6 or fewer passengers (from this definition) or to include the listed transport regardless of the number of passengers ("Taxis, buses, public transport & mass private transport") in addition to any commercial transport carrying 7+ passengers?

Two months was chosen from the assumption that there are no existing businesses with an mass of vehicles with SDVT as this technology is quite young and this bill is a preventative measure against mass job loss from labor replacement technology. Does delegate West_Midlander, have a suggestion for a more sufficient time frame?

The Deputy Speaker has a good point. Unless my fellow delegates can argue otherwise, I have no opposition to the two-month-long phaseout.

Yes, this is a regulation to prevent mass job losses. There are regulations of all kinds it's always a matter of degree. Can you explain how a business that provides transportation to a set geographical area gains a better market position by moving to a new area where there is already preexisting competition, abandoning their existing market share?

Should this happen this would create a gap in the market for a new local business. Considering that the South already has the most business friendly laws in Atlasia, I find it highly unlikely scenario that transportation businesses will en mass up and leave due to a law that essentially is just ensuring a continuation of the existing status quo.

I had not considered the following: While SDVT is growing nationally, the leading companies in this endeavor are national companies, scarcely regional ones, and not reliant on SDVT by and large.

The Deputy Speaker makes an excellent argument in his second paragraph to which I have no objection.

In closing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you greatly for your lengthy reply and your patience with my queries.

EDIT: I forgot to address my position on the levels of automation as invoked by Deputy Speaker Muaddib. I have mixed feelings as of yet and so am currently unsure what would be the best level at which to ban, if at all, automation, and which levels to regulate, perhaps heavily.

I do think the level of SDVT allowed should be clearly stated, though, as cruise control falls under Level 1 and I trust my fellow delegates would dislike this semi-common feature to come under scrutiny due to this law.

Also, I'm withdrawing my previous amendment and submitting a revised one.

Quote
Section I: Title and Terms
1.1) This shall be known as the "Transport Industry Jobs Protection Act" or "TIJ-Pro Act"
1.2) Terms
a) Self Driving Vehicle Technology (SDVT)
b) Trucking Industry – Vehicles that fall under the description of Commercial Drivers Licenses (CDLs), Rail Road, and/or water going vehicles used for the transportation of goods.
c) Passenger Transport Industry – Taxis, buses, public transport & mass private transport (anything greater than 6 passengers).
d) Luxury vehicle – Any road vehicle with a selling price, in new condition, of over $50,000

Section II: Self Driving Vehicle Technology Ban
2.1) SDVT is banned for use for both trucking and passenger transport industries in the Southern Region.
2.2) Any businesses currently using SDVT at the implementation of this bill has a two month phasing out period.

Section III: Exemptions & Registration Fees
3.1) SDVT is legal for use on one private vehicle without incurring a SDVT registration fee.
3.2) Private vehicles using SDVT will pay an additional registration fee of $240 annually.
3.3) Luxury vehicles using SDVT will incur an additional registration fee of $2,400 annually.

The bold portions are additions kept from the old amendment and the underlined portion is a new addition using mostly the language suggested by the Deputy Speaker.

Pending other changes to this amendment, particularly the likely removal of the "without incurring a SDVT registration fee" clause upon clarification from the Deputy Speaker.
Logged
Southern Speaker Muaddib
Muaddib
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 853
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2019, 02:42:57 am »

I trust the Deputy Speaker has no objection to the "and/or" addition in Section 1.2, part b?

Delegate West_Midlander, your trust is not misplaced. I missed marking that in blue.

I was under the impression that no fee would be incurred with the registration of one private SDVT vehicle. The Deputy Speaker references "a base charge of $20 a month." I interpret this as a charge of $20 monthly on the first private vehicle. Is this the intent of the bill? I may be out of the loop but is the $20 charge a mainstay of current regional/federal law or is this a change sought by this bill? If the $20 charge on the first private vehicle is a reform sought by this bill, perhaps it should be stated more clearly. If the $20 stands already as law, then I apologize to the Deputy Speaker for being ill-informed on this point.

This is a new fee and relates to vehicles using SDVT. The fee is to be charged as a part of the yearly car registration. The intent was to have a limit of one private vehicle eligible for SDVT.
Logged
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,561
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2019, 09:01:58 am »
« Edited: October 30, 2019, 09:18:29 am by Southern Delegate West_Midlander »

I request the Deputy Speakers' input in regard to his intent for the definition referenced below. I understand entirely if he overlooked this question as I had this query buried in the middle of my latest reply.

(Putting my comments in bold simply so they do not get buried amidst the referenced quotes).


Quote
c) Passenger Transport Industry – Taxis, buses, public transport & mass private transport (anything greater than 6 passengers).

I wonder if the Deputy Speaker's intent is to exclude taxis transporting 6 or fewer passengers (from this definition) or to include the listed transport regardless of the number of passengers ("Taxis, buses, public transport & mass private transport") in addition to any commercial transport carrying 7+ passengers?

Once again, I thank the honorable Deputy Speaker for his reply.

I trust the Deputy Speaker has no objection to the "and/or" addition in Section 1.2, part b?

Delegate West_Midlander, your trust is not misplaced. I missed marking that in blue.

I was under the impression that no fee would be incurred with the registration of one private SDVT vehicle. The Deputy Speaker references "a base charge of $20 a month." I interpret this as a charge of $20 monthly on the first private vehicle. Is this the intent of the bill? I may be out of the loop but is the $20 charge a mainstay of current regional/federal law or is this a change sought by this bill? If the $20 charge on the first private vehicle is a reform sought by this bill, perhaps it should be stated more clearly. If the $20 stands already as law, then I apologize to the Deputy Speaker for being ill-informed on this point.

This is a new fee and relates to vehicles using SDVT. The fee is to be charged as a part of the yearly car registration. The intent was to have a limit of one private vehicle eligible for SDVT.

I misinterpreted the language of the bill, and for this, I apologize to the Deputy Speaker. I had interpreted the $240 annual fee to be on the second and following vehicles utilizing SDVT. I had mistakingly interpreted no fee, and later, a $20 fee as applicable to the first private vehicle utilizing SDVT. As a result, I'm withdrawing the second version of my second amendment and resubmitting it under modification.

Quote
Section I: Title and Terms
1.1) This shall be known as the "Transport Industry Jobs Protection Act" or "TIJ-Pro Act"
1.2) Terms
a) Self Driving Vehicle Technology (SDVT)
b) Trucking Industry – Vehicles that fall under the description of Commercial Drivers Licenses (CDLs), Rail Road, and/or water going vehicles used for the transportation of goods.
c) Passenger Transport Industry – Taxis, buses, public transport & mass private transport (anything greater than 6 passengers).
d) Luxury vehicle – Any road vehicle with a selling price, in new condition, of over $50,000.[/b]

Section II: Self Driving Vehicle Technology Ban
2.1) SDVT is banned for use for both trucking and passenger transport industries in the Southern Region.
2.2) Any businesses currently using SDVT at the implementation of this bill has a two-month phasing out period.

Section III: Exemptions & Registration Fees
3.1) SDVT is legal for use on one private vehicle.
3.2) Private vehicles using SDVT will pay an additional SDVT registration fee of $240 annually.
3.3) Luxury vehicles using SDVT will incur an additional SDVT registration fee of $2,400 annually.
Bold sections are additions, including all of section 1.2, part d. The underlined portion of section 1.2, part d should remain in bold if the amendment passes.

EDIT: Added a hyphen to change language above to "two-month."

Also, changed "an additional registration fee" to "a SDVT registration fee" for clarity in Section 3.2 and 3.3.
Logged
Southern Speaker Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,956
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2019, 01:00:52 am »

the impact this bill would have on productivity in the Southern economy is deeply concerning to me.
Logged
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,561
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2019, 08:36:58 am »
« Edited: November 01, 2019, 03:10:52 pm by Southern Delegate West_Midlander »

the impact this bill would have on productivity in the Southern economy is deeply concerning to me.
Advanced automation is already in the works in this country by companies such as Uber, Google, Lyft, etc. I am uncommitted to the regulation of the self-driving vehicle industry at this time and it seems there is a lack of (sufficient) sentiment in the Chamber to regulate the SDVT industry, especially to come to an agreeable arrangement on the specific level of automation allowed.

As a result, and given no motion by the Deputy Speaker or any other delegate to put forth an amendment elaborating on the level of automation allowed under this bill, I move to table this bill.

EDIT: Withdrawing the motion to the table. I believe we can afford to let this bill stew for some time given that we have two bills on the floor. I jumped the gun, but I am reluctant to support the regulation of SDVT. I encourage my fellow delegates to consider where to draw the line on the level of automation allowed. Personally, I lean toward the Speaker's arguments. I don't think we should regulate the industry, whatsoever. I encourage my colleagues to consider whether an amendment addressing the level of vehicular automation allowed, a final vote, or reviving a tabling motion is appropriate.
Logged
Representative fhtagn
fhtagn
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,599
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 02, 2019, 01:13:52 am »

the impact this bill would have on productivity in the Southern economy is deeply concerning to me.
Lost jobs if this isn't passed would be a much bigger concern in the long run.
Logged
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,561
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 02, 2019, 06:43:42 am »

the impact this bill would have on productivity in the Southern economy is deeply concerning to me.
Lost jobs if this isn't passed would be a much bigger concern in the long run.
Madam President: Given your position on this bill, what level(s) of automation do you find appropriate to remain legal?

EDIT: When I say "levels of automation," I am referencing this:

Now on another point, having re-read the bill I think there is room for improvement by having a more specific definition of the level of SDVT. From looking at the various levels of SDVT anything greater than two I think should be what is outlawed in this bill. I'm not entirely opposed to including level 3 as legal. However I'd like to hear from other delegates before putting forward a specific amendment.
Logged
Southern Speaker Muaddib
Muaddib
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 853
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 04, 2019, 04:17:59 am »

I am once again going to express my great disappointment that the chamber is not willing to even engage in discussion. I thank the Honorable Delegate, West_Midlander for demonstrating a commitment to the people of the region by demonstrating his willingness to serve by not only engaging in discussion, but also putting forward bills.

the impact this bill would have on productivity in the Southern economy is deeply concerning to me.

Mr Speaker can you elaborate on this position?
Any increase in productivity means nothing if we have mass unemployment. Surly as a member of the labor party you are pro-worker and don't wish to see an entire sector of workers faced with the very real possibility of mass unemployment? Technology is supposed to be our tool not our replacement.

Would Delegates be open to SDVT level 4 & 5 being banned?
Logged
Southern Speaker Muaddib
Muaddib
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 853
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 04, 2019, 04:54:27 am »

Quote from: Amendments to TIJ Pro Act
Section I: Title and Terms
1.1) This shall be known as the "Transport Industry Jobs Protection Act" or "TIJ-Pro Act"
1.2) Terms
a) Self Driving Vehicle Technology (SDVT), technology that makes a vehicle is capable of performing all driving functions under certain conditions or under all conditions.
b) Trucking Industry – Vehicles that fall under the description of Commercial Drivers Licenses (CDLs), Rail Road, and/or water going vehicles used for the transportation of goods.
c) Passenger Transport Industry – Taxis, buses, public transport & mass private transport (anything greater than 6 passengers).
d) Luxury vehicle – Any road vehicle with a selling price, in new condition, of over $50,000.

Section II: Self Driving Vehicle Technology Ban
2.1) SDVT is banned for use for both trucking and passenger transport industries in the Southern Region.
2.2) Any businesses currently using SDVT at the implementation of this bill has a two-month phasing out period.

Section III: Exemptions & Registration Fees
3.1) SDVT is legal for use on one private vehicle.
3.2) Private vehicles using SDVT will pay an additional SDVT registration fee of $240 annually.
3.3) Luxury vehicles using SDVT will incur an additional SDVT registration fee of $2,400 annually.

I have made all the edits in blue.
My new amendment on top of Delegate West_Midlander's is to Section 1.2a
Logged
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,561
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 04, 2019, 06:57:05 am »

Quote from: Amendments to TIJ Pro Act
Section I: Title and Terms
1.1) This shall be known as the "Transport Industry Jobs Protection Act" or "TIJ-Pro Act"
1.2) Terms
a) Self Driving Vehicle Technology (SDVT), technology that makes a vehicle is capable of performing all driving functions under certain conditions or under all conditions.
b) Trucking Industry – Vehicles that fall under the description of Commercial Drivers Licenses (CDLs), Rail Road, and/or water going vehicles used for the transportation of goods.
c) Passenger Transport Industry – Taxis, buses, public transport & mass private transport (anything greater than 6 passengers).
d) Luxury vehicle – Any road vehicle with a selling price, in new condition, of over $50,000.

Section II: Self Driving Vehicle Technology Ban
2.1) SDVT is banned for use for both trucking and passenger transport industries in the Southern Region.
2.2) Any businesses currently using SDVT at the implementation of this bill has a two-month phasing out period.

Section III: Exemptions & Registration Fees
3.1) SDVT is legal for use on one private vehicle.
3.2) Private vehicles using SDVT will pay an additional SDVT registration fee of $240 annually.
3.3) Luxury vehicles using SDVT will incur an additional SDVT registration fee of $2,400 annually.

I have made all the edits in blue.
My new amendment on top of Delegate West_Midlander's is to Section 1.2a
I thank the Deputy Speaker for being so willing to make changes to his bill. I only request that we strike one word in Section 1.2a for clarity. I move that the Speaker open the floor for objections to the amendment (with my one-word omission) for a period of 24 hours and given no objection declare the amendment passed.
Logged
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,561
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 04, 2019, 07:04:06 am »
« Edited: November 04, 2019, 07:16:41 am by Southern Delegate West_Midlander »

I am once again going to express my great disappointment that the chamber is not willing to even engage in discussion. I thank the Honorable Delegate, West_Midlander for demonstrating a commitment to the people of the region by demonstrating his willingness to serve by not only engaging in discussion, but also putting forward bills.
I thank the Deputy Speaker for his words, not just for their content but for his activity. I share the same sentiments he has in regards to the lack of activity in the Chamber. When we do not participate as legislators the greatest loss is dealt to the Southern people.

EDIT: Accidentally posted having only addressed the first part of the Deputy Speaker's post.

the impact this bill would have on productivity in the Southern economy is deeply concerning to me.

Mr Speaker can you elaborate on this position?
Any increase in productivity means nothing if we have mass unemployment. Surly as a member of the labor party you are pro-worker and don't wish to see an entire sector of workers faced with the very real possibility of mass unemployment? Technology is supposed to be our tool not our replacement.

I could give my reasons but I will allow the Speaker to answer questions directed toward him.

Would Delegates be open to SDVT level 4 & 5 being banned?
On one hand I am reluctant to impede technological progress. On the other, I worry about partial automation vehicles like in Level 3 where as the article says:

Quote
If the issue is an impending wreck the car can’t handle, the driver might not have enough time to fully asses the situation.

Article linked by the Deputy Speaker above

I wonder where the other delegates stand on what levels should be banned, if any, and on the issue I brought up.
Logged
Southern Speaker Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,956
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 04, 2019, 08:01:11 am »

I do not generally hold the view that self-driving vehicles will result in lesser safety - if anything the reduction of the threat posed by human error is something to welcome. Thus this bill, unintentionally in my view, actually harms the long-term safety in regards to transport in the south, relatively speaking.
Logged
Representative fhtagn
fhtagn
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,599
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 04, 2019, 09:34:23 am »

I do not generally hold the view that self-driving vehicles will result in lesser safety - if anything the reduction of the threat posed by human error is something to welcome. Thus this bill, unintentionally in my view, actually harms the long-term safety in regards to transport in the south, relatively speaking.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/driverless-cars-arent-safe-or-ready-for-the-road-robotics-expert.html
Quote
Currently, there are no state or federal regulations around how driverless cars are tested, Jason Levine, executive director at the Center for Auto Safety

https://gizmodo.com/the-deadly-recklessness-of-the-self-driving-car-industr-1831027948
Quote
-According to an email recently obtained by the Information, Uber’s self-driving car division may not only be reckless, but outright negligent. The company’s executive staff reportedly ignored detailed calls from its own safety team and continued unsafe practices and a pedestrian died. Before that, a host of accidents and near-misses had gone unheeded.
- At least one major executive in Google’s autonomous car division reportedly exempted himself from test program protocol, directly caused a serious crash, injured his passenger, and never informed police that it was caused by a self-driving car. Waymo, now a subsidiary of Google, has been involved, by my count, in 21 reported crashes this year, according to California DMV records, though it was at fault in one.
- On two separate occasions, Autopilot, Tesla’s semi-autonomous driving system, was engaged when drivers suffered fatal car crashes. In October, a Florida Tesla owner sued the company after his car was in a serious crash while on Autopilot, claiming the company “has duped consumers ... into believing that the autopilot system it offers with Tesla vehicles at additional cost can safely transport passengers at highway speeds with minimal input and oversight from those passengers.” (Tesla, of course, refutes this characterization.) These cases are muddier because Tesla explicitly warns not to let the system drive the car entirely and has safeguards installed to deter this type of bad driver behavior. Yet Tesla continues to advertise that it offers “Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars” on its website, and its own engineers told regulators that they anticipated some drivers would rely fully on the system. Yet publicly, Tesla continues to deny that their system might engender in drivers any dangerous reliance on its semi-autonomous system.
Logged
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,561
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 04, 2019, 12:57:47 pm »

I do not generally hold the view that self-driving vehicles will result in lesser safety - if anything the reduction of the threat posed by human error is something to welcome. Thus this bill, unintentionally in my view, actually harms the long-term safety in regards to transport in the south, relatively speaking.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/driverless-cars-arent-safe-or-ready-for-the-road-robotics-expert.html
Quote
Currently, there are no state or federal regulations around how driverless cars are tested, Jason Levine, executive director at the Center for Auto Safety

https://gizmodo.com/the-deadly-recklessness-of-the-self-driving-car-industr-1831027948
Quote
-According to an email recently obtained by the Information, Uber’s self-driving car division may not only be reckless, but outright negligent. The company’s executive staff reportedly ignored detailed calls from its own safety team and continued unsafe practices and a pedestrian died. Before that, a host of accidents and near-misses had gone unheeded.
- At least one major executive in Google’s autonomous car division reportedly exempted himself from test program protocol, directly caused a serious crash, injured his passenger, and never informed police that it was caused by a self-driving car. Waymo, now a subsidiary of Google, has been involved, by my count, in 21 reported crashes this year, according to California DMV records, though it was at fault in one.
- On two separate occasions, Autopilot, Tesla’s semi-autonomous driving system, was engaged when drivers suffered fatal car crashes. In October, a Florida Tesla owner sued the company after his car was in a serious crash while on Autopilot, claiming the company “has duped consumers ... into believing that the autopilot system it offers with Tesla vehicles at additional cost can safely transport passengers at highway speeds with minimal input and oversight from those passengers.” (Tesla, of course, refutes this characterization.) These cases are muddier because Tesla explicitly warns not to let the system drive the car entirely and has safeguards installed to deter this type of bad driver behavior. Yet Tesla continues to advertise that it offers “Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars” on its website, and its own engineers told regulators that they anticipated some drivers would rely fully on the system. Yet publicly, Tesla continues to deny that their system might engender in drivers any dangerous reliance on its semi-autonomous system.
I agree with the Speaker that eventually it would be safer on the road, in the workplace, etc. due to automation but as the former President has shown this technology is nowhere near ready for the road.

How should we go about regulating the development of this technology and/or what level(s) of SDVT does everyone think should be banned if any?
Logged
Southern Speaker Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,956
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 04, 2019, 05:36:05 pm »

I do not generally hold the view that self-driving vehicles will result in lesser safety - if anything the reduction of the threat posed by human error is something to welcome. Thus this bill, unintentionally in my view, actually harms the long-term safety in regards to transport in the south, relatively speaking.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/driverless-cars-arent-safe-or-ready-for-the-road-robotics-expert.html
Quote
Currently, there are no state or federal regulations around how driverless cars are tested, Jason Levine, executive director at the Center for Auto Safety

https://gizmodo.com/the-deadly-recklessness-of-the-self-driving-car-industr-1831027948
Quote
-According to an email recently obtained by the Information, Uber’s self-driving car division may not only be reckless, but outright negligent. The company’s executive staff reportedly ignored detailed calls from its own safety team and continued unsafe practices and a pedestrian died. Before that, a host of accidents and near-misses had gone unheeded.
- At least one major executive in Google’s autonomous car division reportedly exempted himself from test program protocol, directly caused a serious crash, injured his passenger, and never informed police that it was caused by a self-driving car. Waymo, now a subsidiary of Google, has been involved, by my count, in 21 reported crashes this year, according to California DMV records, though it was at fault in one.
- On two separate occasions, Autopilot, Tesla’s semi-autonomous driving system, was engaged when drivers suffered fatal car crashes. In October, a Florida Tesla owner sued the company after his car was in a serious crash while on Autopilot, claiming the company “has duped consumers ... into believing that the autopilot system it offers with Tesla vehicles at additional cost can safely transport passengers at highway speeds with minimal input and oversight from those passengers.” (Tesla, of course, refutes this characterization.) These cases are muddier because Tesla explicitly warns not to let the system drive the car entirely and has safeguards installed to deter this type of bad driver behavior. Yet Tesla continues to advertise that it offers “Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars” on its website, and its own engineers told regulators that they anticipated some drivers would rely fully on the system. Yet publicly, Tesla continues to deny that their system might engender in drivers any dangerous reliance on its semi-autonomous system.
do tell, how many car accidents do Atlasians involve themselves in every year? In relative terms what you just talked about is mere small potatoes...
I'm not dead-set against regulation of these sorts of things but to villainize them is folly.
Logged
Southern Speaker Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,956
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 04, 2019, 05:41:49 pm »

I do not generally hold the view that self-driving vehicles will result in lesser safety - if anything the reduction of the threat posed by human error is something to welcome. Thus this bill, unintentionally in my view, actually harms the long-term safety in regards to transport in the south, relatively speaking.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/driverless-cars-arent-safe-or-ready-for-the-road-robotics-expert.html
Quote
Currently, there are no state or federal regulations around how driverless cars are tested, Jason Levine, executive director at the Center for Auto Safety

https://gizmodo.com/the-deadly-recklessness-of-the-self-driving-car-industr-1831027948
Quote
-According to an email recently obtained by the Information, Uber’s self-driving car division may not only be reckless, but outright negligent. The company’s executive staff reportedly ignored detailed calls from its own safety team and continued unsafe practices and a pedestrian died. Before that, a host of accidents and near-misses had gone unheeded.
- At least one major executive in Google’s autonomous car division reportedly exempted himself from test program protocol, directly caused a serious crash, injured his passenger, and never informed police that it was caused by a self-driving car. Waymo, now a subsidiary of Google, has been involved, by my count, in 21 reported crashes this year, according to California DMV records, though it was at fault in one.
- On two separate occasions, Autopilot, Tesla’s semi-autonomous driving system, was engaged when drivers suffered fatal car crashes. In October, a Florida Tesla owner sued the company after his car was in a serious crash while on Autopilot, claiming the company “has duped consumers ... into believing that the autopilot system it offers with Tesla vehicles at additional cost can safely transport passengers at highway speeds with minimal input and oversight from those passengers.” (Tesla, of course, refutes this characterization.) These cases are muddier because Tesla explicitly warns not to let the system drive the car entirely and has safeguards installed to deter this type of bad driver behavior. Yet Tesla continues to advertise that it offers “Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars” on its website, and its own engineers told regulators that they anticipated some drivers would rely fully on the system. Yet publicly, Tesla continues to deny that their system might engender in drivers any dangerous reliance on its semi-autonomous system.
I agree with the Speaker that eventually it would be safer on the road, in the workplace, etc. due to automation but as the former President has shown this technology is nowhere near ready for the road.

How should we go about regulating the development of this technology and/or what level(s) of SDVT does everyone think should be banned if any?
No levels of SDVT should be banned, but if need be we can put in place some safeguards.
Logged
Southern Delegate West_Midlander
West_Midlander
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,561
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 04, 2019, 05:57:29 pm »

do tell, how many car accidents do Atlasians involve themselves in every year? In relative terms what you just talked about is mere small potatoes...
I'm not dead-set against regulation of these sorts of things but to villainize them is folly.
Very true.
No levels of SDVT should be banned, but if need be we can put in place some safeguards.
I tend to agree with this stance.

Mr. Speaker (or any other delegate): What do you think could be put in place as safeguards, specifically?
Logged
Southern Speaker Muaddib
Muaddib
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 853
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 06, 2019, 03:00:59 am »

Quote from: Delegate West_Midlander of North Carolina
How should we go about regulating the development of this technology and/or what level(s) of SDVT does everyone think should be banned if any?

As per the current amendment "technology that makes a vehicle is capable of performing all driving functions under certain conditions or under all conditions." Which covers level 4 & 5. This means that Drivers get benefits of limited automation without the risks of having their jobs replaced by machines.

This isn't about an outright ban. SDVT is still legal for private citizens. This is about the long term protection of Transport industry jobs, which is a major sector of employment not only in the South but Atlasia wide.

How very neoliberal of y'all to not want to put some form of protection for the hark working drivers of the South. The governor said he was against neo-liberalism yet this chamber doesn't seem to want to actually take a stand to provide protection to the workers in the Transport Industry.

Would y'all be more amenable if a sunset clause was included into TIJ Pro?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC