New proposed rules unveiled this month by the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles drew sharp complaints from the leading companies in the field — Google, General Motors, Ford, Volkswagen and Honda — as being far too onerous and certain to slow innovation. They are among 18 firms with licenses to test autonomous vehicles in California.

A nascent industry group — The Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, whose members include Lyft, Uber Technologies and Volvo — released a statement that the rules “could greatly delay the benefits that self-driving vehicles can bring to safety and mobility for individuals.”

Among the proposed state rules spurring concern:

• A regulation that would require a one-year delay between testing a vehicle with new technology and its use on public streets and highways.

• A regulation that would require driverless vehicles being tested to have vehicle data recorders whose information is regularly provided to the DMV, which automakers fear could lead to proprietary information leaking out.

• A regulation that allows police to demand that information from the vehicle data recorders be turned over within 24 hours without authorities having to get a subpoena or warrant.

• A requirement that all local governments give their permission before an autonomous vehicle could be used on their roads and highways.

The last requirement drew a sharp response from Ron Medford, the director of safety for Google’s self-driving car project, who wondered why bureaucrats didn’t grasp how much red tape this would create. Medford said the rule was “unworkable,” according to a Reuters report.

Perhaps the only state action that was greeted warmly was regulatory language that suggested the DMV would be willing to accept testing of vehicles without steering wheels more quickly than expected.

Sharp contrast between state, federal approach

The state’s framework is based in many ways on ideas outlined in a federal proposal unveiled in September. That proposal generally won praise from autonomous automakers and from such tech websites as Ars Technica for heeding industry recommendations — especially in how to categorize levels of autonomy in vehicles being developed. Instead of using outdated language crafted by federal officials, the U.S. Department of Transportation adopted what are known as the SAE standards, which classify vehicles from 0 (totally human controlled) to 5 (totally automated).

But the reason the federal proposal won cheers while the California DMV’s plan won jeers is that the federal proposal amounts to a collection of guidelines, not hard rules. The Obama administration also underlined how important it considered autonomous vehicles to be in our future economy by having Jeffrey Zients, director of the National Economic Council, join Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx at the news conference unveiling the rules. This was reflected in the headline on The New York Times coverage of the event: “Self-Driving Cars Gain Powerful Ally: The Government.”

The California state government sought to offer reassurance that its rules were drafts open to revision and that it wanted and welcomed input from the 18 companies testing autonomous vehicles in the state.

But the assurance didn’t come from Gov. Jerry Brown or one of his top aides. It came from Brian Soublet, deputy director of the California DMV, who said, “The goal is making sure that we can get this life-saving technology out on the streets.’

The draft regulations, issued last week, “would mandate that autonomous vehicles be operated by a licensed driver who could take over if necessary. That driver would also be on the hook for traffic violations,” as the New York Times reported.

Automakers, meanwhile, faced a litany of potentially cumbersome requirements. “The manufacturers of self-driving cars would have to subject their vehicles to a third-party safety test. And they would apply for three-year permits that would allow them to lease but not sell self-driving cars to the public,” the paper noted. “Manufacturers would also have to regularly report accidents, come up with security measures to prevent hackers from taking over cars, and tell passengers what kind of data, beyond whatever information is needed to safely run the car, the companies are collecting about them.”

Broad challenges

From both the public and private sector, criticism has been swift. The DMV’s “incomplete rules came more than 11 months after the department’s deadline,” as the Los Angeles Times observed. “Google said Wednesday that it was ‘gravely disappointed,’ and that the aim of its program is to improve safety on roads,” the Times added, while Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom “warned last week that the rules might be too onerous and block innovation.”

 “Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Transportation, which declined to comment on California’s rules, has focused most of its efforts on a narrow slice of robotic safety. It is addressing communication signals between autonomous vehicles, but not the broader question of determining if these robot cars will be safe.”

Beltway observers hoped to land objections to the California regulations that might reverberate at the federal level in the future. “As currently constructed, these proposed rules work at cross-purposes with operator and passenger safety and with the state’s desire to ensure a livable planet in the future,” wrote R Street’s Ian Adams in a Sacramento Bee op-ed. “But given some thoughtful modifications, they could present a real opportunity for California to lead the world into its next era of transportation.”

Some tech watchers have claimed that the DMV’s proposed rules would actually create greater driver risk in their push for safety. Earlier this year, in remarks at the influential SXSW conference, Google’s Astro Teller had cast doubt on the idea that human drivers would increase protections inside self-driving cars. “Even though people had sworn up and down ‘I’m going to pay so much attention,’ people do really stupid stuff when they’re driving,” he said, according to Forbes. “The assumption that humans could be a reliable back up for the system was a total fallacy!”

Forging ahead

Nevertheless, new-entrant car companies like Google, as well as traditional automakers, have determined to forge ahead with self-driving and driverless projects. Ford has been heavily rumored to have struck a collaborative partnership with Google, with an announcement expected in January. “In September, Google hired former Ford and Hyundai executive John Krafcik as CEO of Google’s Self-Driving Car Project,” the Chicago Tribune noted, while former Ford CEO Alan Mulally sits on Google’s board of directors. “Google parent Alphabet is planning to make the project its own unit to compete in the car-sharing business,” the Tribute reported.

This month, Ford joined the ranks of self-driving contenders signed up with California’s mandated Autonomous Vehicle Testing Program. “Manufacturers working on autonomous driving vehicles in California that want to test these vehicles on the streets need to enroll,” as Silicon Angle noted — a requirement that has so far drawn compliance from a litany of big names. “Volkswagen Group of America, Mercedes-Benz, Google, Delphi Automotive, Tesla Motors, Bosch, Nissan, Cruise Automation, BMW and Honda” have all signed up, according to the site.

By John Seiler

The problem with public-employee unions getting collective bargaining is that they then sit on both sides of the negotiating table. “This is our opportunity to elect our own bosses,” as union leader Ronda Walen put it in an election two years ago.

If you elect your “own boss,” then it’s not surprising that your “boss” — you — is over-generous with pay and benefits because other people — the taxpayers — pick up the bill.

As public coffers dive down in bankruptcy, people around the country are reacting.

In Wisconsin, Republican Gov. Scott Walker pushed through reforms that limited government-union power. A state judge just struck down the reforms, but there will be appeals.

In California, we have on the November ballot Proposition 32, the “Paycheck Protection Initiative,” which would ban unions heisting money directly from members’ paychecks.

Also, in Michigan, voters will need to reject Proposal 2, the so-called “Protect our Jobs Amendment.” The unions are pushing it because it would, among other things, “Invalidate existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain collectively, and to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including employees’ financial support of their labor unions. Laws may be enacted to prohibit public employees from striking.”

Basically, it would ban the Michigan Legislature from itself passing something like Walker’s reforms. Initiatives still could do so by effectively repealing Proposal 2, should it pass.

Michigan is a heavily unionized state. But its unions, unlike in most places, largely are in the private sector, especially the United Auto Workers union. The problem is not private-sector unions. If you don’t like the UAW, you don’t have to buy GM, Ford or Chrysler cars. You can buy something else.

But with government unions, you have no choice — except to move. Otherwise, if you stay put and subject yourself to their tyrannies, you become their tax slave.

Of course, the limit eventually is reached when the tax slaves’ backs start breaking from the immense load placed upon thems, which is where we are now, especially on the public pension issue.

The government-worker unions can elect their “own bosses” all they want to, but now, like in “Spartacus” (1960 movie picture above), the tax slaves are revolting.