California governor vetoes bill banning robotrucks without safety drivers

[groundloop]

Source: Reuters

California Governor Gavin Newsom late on Friday vetoed a bill to prevent heavy-duty driverless trucks from operating in the state, in a relief for companies developing autonomous technology to haul goods across the U.S.

The labor-backed Assembly Bill 316, which requires a trained human driver to be present in autonomous vehicles weighing over 10,001 pounds, was passed by a heavy majority in both houses of the state legislature.

"Considering... the existing regulatory framework that presently and sufficiently governs this particular technology, this bill is not needed at this time," Newsom said in a veto message on Friday.

A veto by the governor can still be overturned if the legislature chooses to vote in favor of the bill with a two-thirds majority in each house. This, however, is rare and has not happened in California since 1979.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/california-governor-vetoes-bill-banning-robotrucks-without-safety-drivers-2023-09-23/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_campaign=Technology-Roundup&utm_term=092323

[NowsTheTime]

1. On the face of it, the bill sounds reasonable to me.

[cstanleytech]

2. Personally I'm not in favor of vehicles not controlled by humans as I can foresee the danger of

them being hacked and turned into weapons.
One example is gasoline carrying trucks being used to crash under bridges potentially causing a fire that destroys it or used to crash into elementary schools.

[Backseat Driver]

3. I think this advanced tech on commercial vehicles is too new and dangerously unreliable. n/t

Furthermore, steady living-wage jobs for humans are still needed in this country; bite your excessive profits that you'll still require for liability insurance, corps! EV good; driverless w/o on-board driver/pilot/tech, bad! Does everyone even have broad-band services yet? Commentor is correct about remote cyber-security being just one other concern.

[Bayard]

4. Imagine a fully loaded semi going rogue on the highway

Carnage will ensue.

[Major Nikon]

12. I don't have to imagine this happening with a human

As it already does. Given the lack of professionalism exhibited by too many commercial drivers, I can certainly imagine an automated system that is safer.

[The Unmitigated Gall]

5. Not happy with this decision at all.

[ZonkerHarris]

6. I would rather Gavin banned the robotrucks while saving trucker's jobs and protecting motorists

[Mr.Bill]

7. Driverless vehicles will be

one of the those things we learn about the hard way.

[calimary]

8. I ordinarily trust what Gavin Newsom says.

He usually can be counted on to make smart decisions. Not sure about this one, though.

[dalton99a]

9. "We must approve it right now. We can't wait for the body count."

[highplainsdem]

10. There are 3.5 million truck drivers in the US. It's one of the very best jobs

for people without college degrees.

But I guess all those drivers can just find equally high-paying and often interesting jobs elsewhere as employers replace them with AI.

[MichMan]

13. Sitting in a driverless truck doing nothing all day doesn't sound very interesting to me

What happens if they doze off?

[highplainsdem]

14. What happens to 3.5 million truckers and their families if their jobs

are lost to self-driving trucks?

That's a big loss in tax revenue, too, and contributions to SS and Medicare.

[MichMan]

15. Job occupations change all the time.

Newspaper printing press operators, bank tellers, check processors, ditch diggers, full service gas station attendants, ice deliverers, the list goes on and on....

At one time in our country, a large percentage of people were employed in agriculture; with modern farm equipment, a much greater output could be achieved with significantly less people.


Do you have the same concern for refinery workers, auto mechanics, and auto workers? Many of whom will find themselves unemployed when EV vehicles become dominant. Should the move towards EV be halted in order to save their jobs?

[BlueIn_W_Pa]

11. He's owned by Silicon Valley

This is just stupid, not even from a labor standpoint, but pure safety of the public. CA already goes out of its' way to protect these companies from liability anyway, so no surprise with what he did here.

Just one example from a few years ago:

Manufacturer Liability for Collisions Caused by AV Technology. The Nov. 30 Regulations delete a provision that held a manufacturer liable if autonomous vehicle technology was found to be at fault for a vehicle collision involving one of its test vehicles.