Skip to main content

Consumer Watchdog calls on NHTSA to strength rules on autonomous cars

The US Consumer Watchdog has called on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to require a steering wheel, brake and accelerator so a human driver can take control of a self-driving robot car when necessary in the guidelines it is developing on automated vehicle technology. In comments for a NHTSA public meeting about automated vehicle technology, John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog's privacy project director, also listed ten questions he said the agency must ask Google about its self-
April 11, 2016 Read time: 2 mins
The US Consumer Watchdog has called on the 834 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to require a steering wheel, brake and accelerator so a human driver can take control of a self-driving robot car when necessary in the guidelines it is developing on automated vehicle technology.

In comments for a NHTSA public meeting about automated vehicle technology, John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog's privacy project director, also listed ten questions he said the agency must ask Google about its self-driving robot car program.

These include, amongst others: whether Google will agree to publish its software algorithms, including how the company's artificial car intelligence will be programmed to decide what happens in the event of a potential collision; whether Google will publish a complete list of real-life situations, such as police hand signals, the cars cannot yet understand and how it intends to deal with them; how Google will prove that self-driving cars are safer than today's vehicles; does Google have the technology to prevent malicious hackers from seizing control of a driverless vehicle or any of its systems.

"Deploying a vehicle today without a steering wheel, brake, accelerator and a human driver capable of intervening when something goes wrong is not merely foolhardy.  It is dangerous," said Simpson. "NHTSA's autonomous vehicle guidelines must reflect this fact."

Related Content

  • Front crash prevention slashes police-reported rear-end crashes, says IIHS
    January 29, 2016
    Vehicles equipped with front crash prevention are much less likely to rear-end other vehicles, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has found in the first study of the feature's effectiveness using US police-reported crash data. The study found that systems with automatic braking reduce rear-end crashes by about 40 per cent on average, while forward collision warning alone cuts them by 23 per cent. The automatic braking systems also greatly reduce injury crashes.
  • Driving forward cooperative intersection safety applications
    July 24, 2012
    Gregory Davis, FHWA, John Harding, NHTSA, and Mike Schagrin, ITS Joint Program Office (RITA) chart the course for cooperative intersection safety applications being pursued as part of the IntelliDrive programme. Crashes at intersections accounted for 8,703 highway fatalities in the US in 2008. Research and development is moving forward on IntelliDriveSM safety applications designed to help drivers avoid intersection accidents. These new safety systems could substantially drive down the highway death and inj
  • Developments in signal head lens technology
    February 3, 2012
    Heads and tails Leading manufacturers of traffic signal systems discuss developments in signal head technology as well as some of the legacy issues which affect future deployments Transparent model of Dambach's ACTROS.line technology, showing the bus electronics in the signal head Cowls could be superseded by the greater use of lens technology
  • Taking the long view of ITS
    March 24, 2015
    Caroline Visser believes the ITS industry must present a coherent case for consideration of the technology to become part of transport policy and planning. As ITS advisor and road finance director for the International Road Federation (IRF) in Geneva, Caroline Visser is well placed to evaluate quantifying the benefits of ITS implementation – a topic about which there is little agreement and even less consistency. She is pressing to get some consistency in the evaluation of ITS deployments through the use of