S.19.4-1: Transport Industry Jobs Protection Act (Statute) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:20:09 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  S.19.4-1: Transport Industry Jobs Protection Act (Statute) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: S.19.4-1: Transport Industry Jobs Protection Act (Statute)  (Read 1677 times)
fhtagn
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,521
Vatican City State


« 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
fhtagn
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,521
Vatican City State


« Reply #1 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
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 13 queries.