Skip to main content

Consumer Watchdog calls for stricter safety standards for autonomous cars

The US Consumer Watchdog is calling on the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to prohibit autonomous vehicles without a human driver capable of taking control until the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) enacts enforceable standards covering the safety performance of robot cars. NHTSA has proposed a voluntary safety checklist that contains no enforceable standards. The proposed DMV rules would require manufacturers to submit that federal checklist before testing or deployin
October 20, 2016 Read time: 2 mins
The US Consumer Watchdog is calling on the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to prohibit autonomous vehicles without a human driver capable of taking control until the 834 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) enacts enforceable standards covering the safety performance of robot cars.

NHTSA has proposed a voluntary safety checklist that contains no enforceable standards. The proposed DMV rules would require manufacturers to submit that federal checklist before testing or deploying robot cars. Consumer Watchdog claims that the checklist is inadequate to protect public safety on the roads and that DMV must therefore prohibit driverless cars until enforceable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are in place.

"The proposed DMV rules would let robot cars without a driver on our roads if the manufacturer simply answers Yes, No or Maybe to each point on NHTSA's 15-point safety checklist," said Carmen Balber, executive director of Consumer Watchdog.  "Absolutely no safety performance standards are required. We need more than a safety checklist written on toilet paper before we are sure driverless vehicles are safe to operate on public roads in California. That's why we're calling on the DMV to hold until federal regulators enact enforceable safety standards for driverless cars."

Under current NHTSA regulations so-called level 3 autonomous vehicles with a driver who can take over when the robot technology cannot handle the situation could be deployed on the nation's highways.  Level 4 or Level 5 robot cars with no steering wheel or pedals cannot be legally deployed unless NHTSA grants an exception because the vehicles would violate current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Current California DMV regulations cover the testing of autonomous vehicles in California and require a licensed test driver who can take control when the robot technology fails.  Another key requirement of that regulation is that manufacturers report all crashes involving their robot cars.

For more information on companies in this article

Related Content

  • Loop detection still has a part in traffic management
    March 2, 2012
    Bob Lees, co-founder of Diamond Consulting Services, on why the loop detector just refuses to go away. The more strident proponents of newer and emergent detection technologies are quick to highlight what they see as the disadvantages, and hence the imminent passing, of the humble inductive loop. The more prosaic will acknowledge that loops continue to have a part to play in traffic management, falling back on the assertion that it is all a question of application. And yet year after year the loop, despite
  • Drivers’ union calls on TfL to reconsider preliminary proposals on cab regulations
    February 24, 2016
    GMB, the union for professional drivers, is calling on Transport for London to reconsider some proposals that it put forward as preliminary indications as to how it wishes to proceed on the regulation of cab drivers, which it says waters down protection for passengers and drivers. It claims that mandatory Disclosure and Barring Service (DMS) checks for support staff have been watered down so that they do not apply to office-based staff. GMB consider that operators will be able to substitute office based
  • Enforcement needs automation and communication
    February 1, 2012
    TISPOL's Peter van de Beek questions whether the thought processes which drive enforcement technology development are always the right ones. Peter van de Beek sees an ever-greater role for technology in traffic enforcement but is concerned that the emphasis of technological development and discussion is not always in the right places. 'Old-fashioned' face-to-face policing remains as valid as it ever did, he feels, but adds that there should be greater communication with those engaged at the sharp end of saf
  • Use of ITS technology grows more prevalent in safety applications
    January 30, 2012
    Transportation agencies and governments are using ITS technology to protect critical infrastructure from terrorist attack and other threats to economic security and public safety. Andrew Bardin Williams reports. It is no secret that we live in a potentially dangerous world. Terrorism as seen on 9/11 in the United States, subsequent attacks in London, Moscow and Madrid and other acts of violence across the developing world have made vigilance the watchword for ensuring security. Key infrastructure is now bei