British Columbia Bans Level 3 and Above Autonomous Cars (thedrive.com) 86
New submitter Baloo Uriza writes: In a rare display of sanity in the automotive space, British Columbia has banned autonomous cars from its highways after years of watching autonomous cars hamper emergency response efforts in California and outright kill a pedestrian in Arizona. Let's hope this regulatory trend continues and moves into the human space by pulling licenses of drivers with a known history of poor driving. In the shared article, The Drive notes that the ban only applies to self-driving vehicles that exceed a Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) autonomy rating of Level 2.
[A full breakdown of each of the levels can be found here.] The ban is part of an update to B.C.'s Motor Vehicle Act that went into effect on April 5, 2024 and includes possible consequences of a max penalty of $2,000 (CAD) in fines and up to six months of prison time. Importantly, the ban could change as autonomous driving tech evolves in the coming years.
Since the ban doesn't affect Level 2 vehicles, Tesla owners who use Autopilot and FSD, as well as Ford and GM vehicle owners with BlueCruise and Super Cruise, will be exempt. In fact, there are currently no Level 3 autonomous vehicles for sale in Canada.
Since the ban doesn't affect Level 2 vehicles, Tesla owners who use Autopilot and FSD, as well as Ford and GM vehicle owners with BlueCruise and Super Cruise, will be exempt. In fact, there are currently no Level 3 autonomous vehicles for sale in Canada.
I would even ban cruise control (Score:1)
Re:I would even ban cruise control (Score:5, Insightful)
Adaptive cruise control is even better, my last few vehicles have had it and I get far less fatigued on long drives (3+ hours) now.
Re: I would even ban cruise control (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Mister president, is that you?
Re: (Score:3)
I had one vehicle made in 2003 that had common sense built into it. I.e. Where if the vehicle started accelerating beyond or falling too far below the set speed (going down / up a hill), cruise control would automatically adjust to maintain the set limit. That was the first vehicle I had and I drove it for almost a decade.
After having an accident that required getting a new one, the replacement (made in 2015) had a cruise control that didn't do this. Instea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Have you ever driven in an area that isn't flat? Constantly checking speed is taking your eyes off the road frequently.
At this point you've just admitted you're not fit to drive.
Checking your instrument binnacle (or your mirrors for that matter) for a second ever 10 seconds isn't dangerous and if you cant maintain a steady speed for 10 seconds without checking you really shouldn't be on the road.
People with their eyes glued ahead (most often glued to the bumper of the car in front) are amongst the most dangerous drivers.
I drive in the UK... it's not known for being flat. I also know my vehicle and how much I need t
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly 30 years on the road and only a single incident - I'd say my record is pretty good.
Congratulations on keeping your speed variance at a minimum while tackling those hilly roads in the UK without the aid of cruise control. I shall nominate you as a shining example of what all drivers should strive to be. Maybe you'll be knighted!
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever driven in an area that isn't flat? Constantly checking speed is taking your eyes off the road frequently. There's nothing wrong with cruise control and still requires attentiveness.
I am not one of those people who think that my way is the right way and must enforce it upon everyone else. That being said, to me, I never use cruise control. The only place it can be used reasonably is on a long and empty highway; otherwise, you will be constantly messing with it. With adaptive cruise control, you won't have to constantly mess it; however, there is a second issue: Your feet and mind need to be instantly available from time to time, and when using cruise control, I find that my feet and mi
Re:I would even ban cruise control (Score:5, Insightful)
While I concur with your point, I also agree with Ogive17's caveat - adaptive cruise control, ABS, and traction control are good things for cars.
I definitely do not think anything marketed as 'self-drive' should be on the market while the fine print still says it requires a human ready to take over at any instant. I wouldn't even allow the Tesla system on the road because of that - it's whole purpose is to drive for you so you don't have to pay attention, but it is absolutely not ready to do that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The current version is Tesla FSD is a much better driver than most people.
We need to come to terms with the fact that self driving cars are (or will be) better drivers than most people on the road who are easily distracted, don't stay between the lines, drive drunk, don't do a full stop at stop signs and run into the car in front of them.
Yesterday I drove 70 miles on a combination of local roads, secondary highways and divided highway using Tesla FSD. The performed flawlessly. It stopped at signs and lights
Re: (Score:2)
How much better do they need to get?
Answer: Good enough to take legal liability when it or someone around the vehicle fucks up, and / or good enough to become Dead Broke Joe's personal unpaid chauffeur.
Keep in mind, in the US there is no such thing as a robust public transit system. You either have a personal chariot or you're a social pariah that will not be able to keep a job. That's not about to be fixed either, as the US is too individually selfish* to commit to building a better public transit system. The best they will ever have is a
Re: (Score:2)
>. That's not about to be fixed either, as the US is too individually selfish* to commit to building a better public transit system. The best they will ever have is a bunch of robot chariots that they will loose their "freedom" to control of their own accord. I.e. The self-driving system is their "public transit solution."
I think it might actually be better to have a computer-dispatched self-drive equivalent of Uber or Lyft. Four seats (no driver, after all), and partitioned to keep them separate for se
Re:I would even ban cruise control (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are not paying close enough attention to keep a steady speed with your foot on the gas pedal then you should not be behind the wheel of thousands of pounds of metal going down the highway, and keep both hands on the wheel as much as possible
Spoken like someone who rides a bicycle to work, and has never driven more than 50 miles on a single trip.
If you’re going to be that anal about driver capability, any driver over the age of 40 should be passing a physical to validate vision and reflexes, and every driver under the age of 40 should be tested for smartphone addiction.
Both hands on the wheel better not be at “10 and 2” either. That was before airbags would blow your arm through the window.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it's spoken like that dude who was driving 5 km/h under the speed limit but as soon as you try and pass him always seems to end up doing 20 over.
In another reply he says "I driven 18_wheelers coast to coast for years". So actually he adds some additional tricks to the repertoire like going 20 under up the hill, spending five minutes passing some other "18_wheeler", then hitting another hill and doing it all over again.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Every driver should have to pass the driver's test every other year at a minimum, regardless of age.
To prove what? Even the alcoholic knows not to show up to DUI court drunk. The smartphone junkie will put their phone down and actually pay attention for a 10-minute driving test once a year, doesn’t mean they’re cured or you have proven roads safer.
It ain’t drunk or drugged drivers I fear on a two-lane road. It’s now every driver who can’t put their phone down and fucking drive responsibly. Only a handful (if any) of people you know drive drunk. Damn near everyone you kn
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like someone who rides a bicycle to work, and has never driven more than 50 miles on a single trip.
Spoken like someone who casually disregards the seriousness of maneuvering a machine much more massive than themselves at speeds that would tear apart a human body easier than a pitbull tearing up a child.
There are no moments, when you are traveling above 20mph (~30kmh) that it is safe to look away or 'relax'. While I do not particularly mind if you are being less safe by using cruise control, I do mind for myself. You would be doing something stupid anyway, like looking at your phone, so why worry about so
Re: (Score:3)
Oh hell no. Out on the open road, cruise control is a godsend. It's not that I can't maintain speed without it. In fact, on hills I'm better than cruise control. It's about preventing soreness and fatigue. It doesn't distract. Quite the opposite. With auto-throttle you can focus more on other things like critters that might jump out at you. Hit the brake and it's back to normal driving. I'm not a big fan of most self-driving tech; but you can have my cruise control when you pry it from my cold dead
Re: (Score:2)
I find cruise control a blessing on long drives. I can concentrate on other things, like the environment around me. Speeding tickets are also a non-issue.
My last rental car (in Texas for the eclipse) had adaptive cruise control, which I really like. I've looked in to retrofitting this to my own car (a 2016 Golf with dumb cruise control) but decided it's not worth the hassle. It also had lane assist. This showed me what it would be like to drive with an autopilot, though if it got angry with me if I took m
Are they stupid? (Score:2, Insightful)
"after years of watching autonomous cars hamper emergency response efforts in California and outright kill a pedestrian in Arizona."
So one death, basically .. that happened years ago.. because Uber blatantly ignored obvious safety issues. I guess humans killing people is no big deal? Is there any point to killing this technology so early? It's probably already a lot safer than a human driver and will only get safer. It's dumb to ban things based on an event that happened 5 or 6 years ago. Airplanes had dis
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You have made the rookie mistake of assuming the poster's commentary in the summary is in some way relevant. You'd think the first sentence would have tipped you off to their general position on the issue.
The actual government page says this:
Re: (Score:1)
You have made the rookie mistake of assuming the poster's commentary in the summary is in some way relevant. You'd think the first sentence would have tipped you off to their general position on the issue.
You made the rookie mistake of assuming I was engaged in some kind of a debate. You'd think the first sentence would have...well...you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you're one of those posters who likes to write comments for the mindless adoration of their fans. Indeed, my mistake. Carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, actually laughing out loud at that.
If I ever need an example of dramatic irony, I'll have to remember this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla FSD is already better than most drivers.
How much better do you think it should be before we let it take over from humans who kill thousands on the road every year?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Are they stupid? (Score:2)
https://www.tesla.com/VehicleS... [tesla.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Are they stupid? (Score:2)
I knew I was wasting my time with the ignorant basement dweller.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you could figure this out from the graph in the link but since you couldn't, I'll explain.
Look at the bar graph for Teslas using FSD. It's 5 to 6 million miles before an accident.
Look at the bar graph (just below) for Teslas not using FSD. It's about one million miles before an accident.
So, self driving cars are about 5 times as safe as non-self driving cars.
These are all Teslas so all of your arguments about winter, new versus old, etc. are just stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK. You are officially dense.
If you look at the graph again carefully, you will see that it gives figures for each quarter.
If you want to see the difference between winter and summer (which you seem to think is important) you will see that there is some variation between winter and summer quarters. The quarters vary between 5 and 6 million miles between accidents on FSD.
I know this might be hard for you since you don't seem to want to believe these actual facts (versus your opinion).
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla FSD is already better than most drivers.
Tesla FSD runs into barriers and aims for protected bike lanes. It is not safe at any speed. It's effectively a video game NPC given control of dangerous machinery.
How much better do you think it should be before we let it take over from humans who kill thousands on the road every year?
It absolutely should be harder to get a driver's license and easier to lose it. Drivers should be tested every other year at a minimum. The acceptable number of deaths and injuries involving cars is zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they don't want to be the test bed for the technology before it becomes super safe?
Why does it need to be "super safe" rather than just safer than human drivers?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How many pedestrian, passenger, and innocent driver deaths is that worth? I thought the laws have to try to protect as many innocent people as possible. Btw, if a situation is a reasonably unforeseen accident (such as a meteorite striking the car) then it's deemed an accident and nobody can be sued. For example, before it was known seat belts could prevent accidents you couldn't sue a company for injuries caused by a car not being equipped with seatbelts. A company can only be expected to take reasonable pr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
British Columbia, Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California all share the same pacific-coast mountain driving climates. The main difference is that California is often dry, where as BC/WA is often wet. This is the key reason why "drivers from outside BC/WA cause so many accidents in BC and WA".
People from Alberta drive in BC by slamming on the brakes at every curve in the road. People from BC tend to "lead foot" in Alberta.
Cruise Control is a wonderful thing for solving the latter. But there is no solution
Re: (Score:3)
If an autonomous car could be shown to be safer than a professional driver with years of experience that isn't tired or under the influence of alcohol or drugs then I'd be happy for that car to be on the road. But I would not be happy if the bar was set so low as that the car is barely be safer than drunk or tired drivers. I would also not be happy if the allowing the car to drive in all weather conditions on all roads if it had only achieve a good record driving only on easy roads in daylight in good weath
Re: (Score:3)
If an autonomous car could be shown to be safer than a professional driver with years of experience that isn't tired or under the influence of alcohol or drugs then I'd be happy for that car to be on the road.
So if the technology is demonstrably safer than 99% of drivers and results in a comparable reduction in deaths, you’d still be opposed to it?
The roads aren’t filled with professional drivers who have years of experience. Remember: half the drivers on the road are below average, but even the top half isn’t that great either. People are already killing people in car accidents in massive quantities every year. That’s what this technology needs to do better than. It needs to be safer tha
Re:Are they stupid? (Score:4, Interesting)
If someone drives drunk and kills someone then they can be arrested and potentially imprisoned. You can't arrest an autonomous car and the responsibility for any deaths will be too far removed - no-one will be arrested, there won't be enough deterrent to stop companies from putting shoddy autonomous systems on the road.
So yes, I don't want autonomous cars on the road that aren't far safer than your average driver when that average includes people that shouldn't be driving and aren't driving legally.
Re: (Score:2)
You’re moving the goalposts from this being about safety to it being about accountability, but neither of those are concerns in practice.
For accountability, there are obvious paths for dealing with it, the most obvious of which is that manufacturers are liable for their products’ features and functionality while operators are liable for the vehicle’s maintenance. And the fact that no one gets arrested for a product safety issue is a feature of our system, not a bug, because jail time is an
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing moved, I want autonomous cars to be as safe as good drivers like I said in the first place, I don't want autonomous cars being as dangerous as the set of people including drunk and tired drivers. No change, same reason safety AND accountability reasons, with corporations running the show there will be less accountability and less safety that's a given.
Re: (Score:1)
That’s what this technology needs to do better than. It needs to be safer than what we have today, not perfectly safe.
No, that's what a public transportation system needs. If you're going to be replacing drivers with video game NPCs, the NPCs do need to be perfect.
Re: (Score:2)
You’ve created a distinction where none exists. It doesn’t matter if the vehicle is privately or publicly owned: it’s either safer or it isn’t, but it’s on the same road regardless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"after years of watching autonomous cars hamper emergency response efforts in California and outright kill a pedestrian in Arizona."
So one death, basically .. that happened years ago.. because Uber blatantly ignored obvious safety issues. I guess humans killing people is no big deal?
I just checked. Human drivers killed something like 1,000 people in Arizona last year. By the same logic, we should ban them too.
Before everyone shouts, yes I know the stat we really care about is deaths per mile driven, not total deaths. Unfortunately, I don't have those stats handy.
Re: (Score:2)
If at least one c-level executive responsible for those safety lapses had gone to jail I might be ok with it, but they didn't so I'm not.
Re: (Score:2)
What data is this ban based on? (Score:2)
First, no autonomous level 3 (or above) cars are available for sale in BC. The articles didn't state if this is because they're illegal or there just happens to be zero. That is, why would you ban something that you either can't
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
One of the things we often do wrong is worry about the law AFTER harm has been done. While there may be reasons that this ban is stupid, it being enacted prior to the availability of the product to consumers is not one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
without data, how do you know that level 3 autonomy cars won't make streets safer?
There's no reason the data needs to come from BC. Plenty of data from other jurisdictions shows that autonomous cars are safer than human drivers.
That is, you may either be preventing harm or you may be lowering accident rates.
The goal is not to prevent harm but to get reelected.
Nobody will lose an election because human drivers kill people. That happens every day. Voters aren't demanding that politicians "do something".
But voters might blame politicians for high-profile accidents involving autonomous vehicles. It is a political risk, even if it saves lives.
People aren't rational about
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
One of the things we often do wrong is worry about the law AFTER harm has been done. While there may be reasons that this ban is stupid, it being enacted prior to the availability of the product to consumers is not one of them.
Yes, that is one of the reasons the way they went about it is stupid.
A non-stupid way would be to "not permit" level 3 autonomous driving features.
That way, decades into the future when the software works and works well, they can simply choose to "permit" it at that time.
Instead, they passed a law to ban it.
Now, decades in the future when it works, or even a decade in the future when it's in the firmware, they are stuck with this law on the books that will almost certainly never get removed.
It is almost tri
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Read the article. No data was mentioned that the ban is based on. So, I googled to see if the British Columbian government was using data, say, from California, which has a lot of autonomous cars.
California has level 4 taxis (which have had problems) but few (if any) level 3 consumer cars [autopilotreview.com]. So I'm not sure what data you think BC should be using.
I couldn't find any mention of any data or any specific concern of data in any article.
You really need folks to spell out the concerns with untested level 3 cars?
First, no autonomous level 3 (or above) cars are available for sale in BC. The articles didn't state if this is because they're illegal or there just happens to be zero. That is, why would you ban something that you either can't buy because it's already illegal? In other words, is there already a ban on level 3 cars (or above) in BC, and this is why there are zero types of these cars?
For someone complaining about data it seems to have eluded you that level 3 vehicles are so new that they haven't even made it to the Canadian market.
All that's mentioned is a quote from a BC politician who says that BC takes a "traditional" approach to this type of technology. I don't know what this means.
It means common sense. Before deploying level 3 cars on public roads they want more data.
In any case, I don't understand how a law can be passed, on a product, that may not be more dangerous (or more safe) than most drivers.
When reasonable people have a reasonable expecta
19th century memories (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
In the 19th century legislation was enacted (I forget whether in the US or the UK) whereby motor vehicles would be allowed in cities provided that a designated person would be walking in front of them waving a red flag.
That was only for lady drivers. Bonus points if you know that reference.
Remind me to stay off Baloo Uriza's lawn (Score:2)
Funny thing is, the police are constantly ticketing and arresting people driving with suspended or revoked licenses where I live. Somehow I don't think that's going to solve the problem.
Self-driving automotive technology continues to improve, but human drivers hit their limits about a century ago. If anything, the trends are going backwards for human drivers, as U.S. highway fatalities have ticked upwards in recent years.
The politicians in British Columbia can rail against progress in the short term, but
Re: (Score:3)
If anything, the trends are going backwards for human drivers, as U.S. highway fatalities have ticked upwards in recent years.
Smartphone addition, putting most of the vehicle controls on a touchscreen (read: Cannot be used without taking eyes off of the road), horrible urban design / planning (Around me, they put a Wendy's in a corner of an intersection that blocks traffic (backed up onto the six lane highway for over a mile!) for child pickup after school), poor road maintenance, enshitification of cars, etc. Might have something to do with it.
TL;DR: Humans in the US have been intentionally making driving conditions worse in re
Re: (Score:2)
AB (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
my take on self driving (Score:1)
i live in BC.
i know this is anecdotal evidence but i am my own god damn self driving autopilot.
my subconscious mind is capable of operating a vehicle
i have been practically unconscious, in a state near sleep, and arrived at my destination a great many times
furthermore i have driven hundreds of times so drunk and high i have the conscious mental capacity of a ferret (not proud of that) and arrived safely at my destination
the decisions i make while even driving subconsciously are more empathetic and reasonabl
Ban human drivers too.. (Score:3)
Re: Ban human drivers too.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Ban human drivers too.. (Score:1)
You are, in fact, entirely incorrect.
These systems commonly make mistakes that no human would ever make. Like confusing cracks in the road for lane lines, shadows for cars, for buildings for roads. And what I mean commonly, I mean you can get this to happen predictably every time if you just know what situation to put the car into. Humans don't make those kind of mistakes.
It's attitudes like yours that really show that level 2 ADAS systems should be banned. and I say this as someone who regularly uses a lev
Re: (Score:2)
Banning is smart, targeting level 3 is not. (Score:1)
They should be banning level 2 ADAS systems. Banning level 3 systems is a moot point because they simply don't exist in practice, outside of highly controlled demos.
These level 2 systems that are in many cars now a days, lure people who don't understand the short-comings of the technology, into a false sense of security.
They are so good 99% of the time, that, even an educated person, who knows the technology well, can be lulled into thinking "oh it's so good so much of the time, I can look away for just a m
This isnâ(TM)t about safety (Score:2)
If this law doesnâ(TM)t cover existing vehicles, then this law isnâ(TM)t about safety. What is this law actually protecting against?
Can you even get a Level 3 car yet? (Score:2)
Is there any car on the planet (other than a few prototypes and "robotaxis" that are all tightly controlled on how and where they can operate and that normal people can't get their hands on) that is actually capable of Level 3 or higher driving?
Re: Can you even get a Level 3 car yet? (Score:2)
There arenâ(TM)t any. This is some stupid legal motion passed with no justification. Nobody benefits, nobody is affected, except for future progress (possibly).
Comma.Ai - Level 2 Driving Add-on Kit (Score:1)