Proposed California rules would require self-driving Apple car to have human backup during testing

Draft rules proposed by the California Department of Motor Vehicles would mandate that all self-driving vehicles — including Apple's — have a human driver at the helm at all times, among other stipulations.

The rules are still subject to a period of public commentary before any approval, Reuters noted on Wednesday. Companies would also have to pass certifications, including third-party testing, and submit regular reports to the DMV for three years, while also obtaining approval to collect any data beyond safety systems.

Although imposing demands on carmakers, the rules are also meant to set out a firm direction for testing self-driving technology. The DMV's data will be used to guide future regulations.

At the moment 11 companies have permits to test the technology on California roads, all of which are already required to have human backups.

Any regulations will almost certainly affect Apple, which is believed to be working on a self-driving car for release in 2019 or 2020. Although Apple is likely to test in secrecy for as long as possible, any practical product will have to be put through government evaluation and real-world driving conditions, exposing it to the public early on.

29 Comments

melgross 21 Years · 33631 comments

About 9 years ago

What does the author mean by saying "including Apple"? Of course, including Apple. Why would Apple be special in any way?

eightzero 15 Years · 3149 comments

melgross said:

What does the author mean by saying "including Apple"? Of course, including Apple. Why would Apple be special in any way?

The journalist fails to make the obvious point explicit: If the rule is enacted, the records of meeting this requirement would be a public record. Thus, Apple would be confirming it is somehow working on making a self driving car.

But...I can then see Apple deciding to not drive it in CA for testing so as not needing to comply.

sflocal 17 Years · 6141 comments

They can simply choose to do it outside of California (like New York?) where for now, they're not regulating that part, and if the kinks are worked out and deemed safe, I see no reason why California would need to keep that law.

I think it's inevitable that driverless cars will be the norm. I think California is just thinking that these cars will run amok and start running over pedestrians. Surely, the self-drive folks have implemented safeguards to prevent such a thing?

jdw 19 Years · 1457 comments

Which of course is safe but still makes driverless cars a dream. We need to eliminate silly driver's licenses. These rules would retain that. Furthermore, while companies wouldn't like it, liability in case of accidents with driverless cars with no driver at the helm would fall on the car company, rather than anyone inside the car. The elimination of driver liability (since the car would be the driver) would be big and have a big impact on insurance that we "riders in cars" would or wouldn't have to pay. THAT, is the real future of driverless cars.

entropys 14 Years · 4318 comments

Of course it will need a human to take over. Otherwise driverless cars will become the new overlords via skynet.
Seriously though, it reminds me of those early laws that required someone to walk in front of a horseless carriage to warn the populace. It would also make a potential taxi service/uber disrupter using driverless cars not very disruptive.