Skip to main content

California DMV Lays Down Automated Vehicle Testing Rules

Autonomous vehicles have been legal within the state of California for a while. However, the California DMV just set down some new testing regulations that are now in effect. The new regulations are fairly stringent. 

Autonomous vehicles now require a person to be seated in the driver's side. Drivers must be employed by the manufacturer and must have a special testing permit, which can only be acquired after going through a training program. Drivers must remain attentive during testing periods and are required to report to the DMV any time they manually override the car's controls or get into an accident.  

Testing is also not going to come cheap for manufacturers, as the DMV is requiring automated vehicles to have at least $5 million dollars worth of liability insurance.

The full text of regulations can be found on the California DMV website.

  • deksman
    Idiotic. The whole purpose of autonomous driving is that you don't need people to drive.
    Besides, these systems have been thoroughly tested and are far more reliable than Humans.

    As for potential mishaps such as accidents... Humans produce those, not the autonomous system.
    Besides, these things can be designed with so much redundancy that no amount of Human attentiveness is needed.

    If Humans do take over the controls, the system can be programmed to automatically detect this.

    Seems to me they are being overtly cautious and inventing unnecessary licenses and rules for the purpose of making more money.
    Reply
  • SessouXFX
    What a laugh! No sense in having a vehicle that can drive itself, if there's a person in the driver seat, now is there?

    Aside from that, I don't see the need for a vehicle that can drive itself. Hackers would have a field day with this. I can actually see more harm than good coming out of a self driven motor vehicle on crowded streets.
    Reply
  • southernshark
    Cops are getting nervous. Remove the driver, remove the revenue.

    As for the cost of insurance, I feel pretty confident that the companies making and testing these vehicles can afford it.
    Reply
  • southernshark
    What a laugh! No sense in having a vehicle that can drive itself, if there's a person in the driver seat, now is there?

    Aside from that, I don't see the need for a vehicle that can drive itself. Hackers would have a field day with this. I can actually see more harm than good coming out of a self driven motor vehicle on crowded streets.

    I see a lot of value in it as I like to drink. As for crowded streets, that's the point of designing it and testing it, so that it can handle crowded streets....

    As for hackers, maybe it's a big deal, maybe not. I don't see a lot of people using EMP blasters to subdue cars at the moment. Sounds to me like the typical arguments for gun control, just idiocy.
    Reply
  • antilycus
    don't like it? leave CALIFORNIA for good. Take action with your wallets, nothing else will do it. If you aren't willing to, then shutup nobody cares about your empty threat
    Reply
  • house70
    Everyone relax. Remember, this is just for certification testing purposes.

    The vehicles that will eventually reach the public WILL be driving themselves.

    As far as the redundancy of testing (they have already been tested and continue to be tested by their manufacturers), well... it's just another cash cow for the local govt.
    Reply
  • spectrewind
    don't like it? leave CALIFORNIA for good. Take action with your wallets, nothing else will do it. If you aren't willing to, then shutup nobody cares about your empty threat

    Probably the most applicable comment on this article. Nobody hears complainers. Take the money away, then a few ears become unclogged.
    Reply
  • WyomingKnott
    13360293 said:
    As for potential mishaps such as accidents... Humans produce those, not the autonomous system.
    Besides, these things can be designed with so much redundancy that no amount of Human attentiveness is needed.

    Autonomous systems can and do make mistakes in situations for which they were not designed and tested. California is setting up a longer shake-down period so that more testing can be done in real-world scenarios. Good for them.
    In addition, there is simply no law currently for what happens when a person is injured or property damaged by an error by an autonomous systm. Who will be sued? Who will be jailed? The software designer? The testers who missed the issue? The car's owner, who was using the car exactly as intended when s/he sent it to pick up a buddy from the train station? The car?
    Reply