A fully autonomous vehicular world - why am I feeling the heebie-jeebies?

Let me get one thing clear. I am all for progress. Being a high-tech executive (reformed I may add), and based in Silicon Valley, I live and breathe this stuff. But I always question the price of progress, especially in this day and age of AI and IoT. But I digress. This is about one thing - truly autonomous cars - not the ones with a bored driver behind the wheel - but one where there is no carbon life form inside the metal cage.

I was jolted out of my misery on the treadmill this morning when I heard in the morning news that California would be allowing fully autonomous cars on the road in April of this year. #WaitWhat? I did some Googling and found it was not #FakeNews and it was indeed true. With my 'Cyber Moralist' lens, I had to dig deeper. And that meant wading through my favorite website - dmv.ca.gov. After a couple of hours of 'research', this is what I uncovered. I am just citing two sections where my mental equilibrium was seriously impacted.

Under Section 227.18 of the elegantly titled 'AV_Second15Day_Notice_Express_Terms.pdf', I uncovered this

§227.18. Manufacturer's Testing Permit and Manufacturer's Testing Permit - Driverless Vehicles.

 (b) A manufacturer shall not test autonomous vehicles on public roads unless the manufacturer has tested the autonomous vehicles under controlled conditions that simulate, as closely as practicable, the real world conditions that the manufacturer intends to subject the vehicles to each Operational Design Domain in which the manufacturer intends the vehicles to operate on public roads and the manufacturer has reasonably determined that it is safe to operate the vehicles on public roads under those conditions in each Operational Design Domain. "

Your Honor - this is my problem with this above. "Manufacturer has tested the autonomous vehicles under controlled conditions that simulate, as closely as practicable". WTF? If it was not practical to test the vehicle with sleet on the road and blinding horizontal rain, that is OK? Or unable to test it at school dismissal time near an elementary school? And why is "real world conditions that the manufacturer intends to subject the vehicles to" struck out? I have some conspiracy theories but let's table that for now.

And then this

Under Section 227.38 -

§227.38. Manufacturer's Permit to Test Autonomous Vehicles that do not Require a Driver"

(b) The manufacturer certifies that, to the extent the manufacturer's autonomous technology causes the autonomous vehicle is to be at-fault in a collision, the manufacturer shall assume liability for damages caused by the autonomous vehicle in such collision, but subject to applicable law.

The above has been completely struck out and this companion doc "AV_Second_Modified_Statement_of_Reasons.pdf" has the brilliant argument supporting this strikeout and it reads - "Subdivision (b) has been deleted. Many comments received during the 45 day comment period and in response to the Notice of Modification recommended that the department delete this subdivision because existing law provides well-established principles that assist in determining fault and apportioning liability for automobile crashes.

Now you can guess why I am hopping mad! Are you aware of 'well-established principles that assist in determining fault and apportioning liability for automobile crashes for autonomous cars'? Is it the software programmer who had a bias against a certain community? Or the automation tester forgot to test a corner case?

There are tons of other juicy sections about the manufacturer needs to ensure the communication link between the remote operator and the vehicle is available at all times. What about DoS, Man-in-the-middle …- don't get me started.

Here is what I think is happening - complete speculation I may add. The mad rush to this human free roadways is due to pressure from the auto manufacturers, Uber, Waymo, Tesla …, and California is leading the way and maybe there is some quid-pro-quo about keeping jobs in the state in exchange for this. Nothing inherently wrong with that IF the vendors take an adequate share of their responsibility. If you think I am being unduly paranoid, check this out - late last year California regulators narrowly nixed a plan that would let self-driving car manufacturers evade liability for crashes if the vehicle hasn't been maintained according to manufacturer specifications. The bill was sponsored by GM. On the other end of the spectrum - back in 2015, Volvo CEO H?kan Samuelsson stirred the pot by stating that Volvo would accept full liability whenever its cars are in autonomous mode. Respect Herr. Hakan.

In this brave new world where manufacturers have a moral compass, this is what I would envision

1.   Public disclosure of what testing has been performed in what conditions and keep this updated on a continual basis

2.   A 'pledge of integrity on speedy and complete disclosure when an autonomous car is involved in an accident versus blame shifting to the human driver or the pedestrian. And the autonomous car is always 'at-fault' until proven otherwise.

3.   Certification of the autonomous driver programmers in a code of ethics and bias-free programming

There is no blueprint for the brave new world we are entering. Manufacturers have a big role to play. And regulatory authorities like the CA DMV should always have the consumer interest in mind. What a wonderful 'autonomous' world that would be.