Google Asks Congress For Self-Driving Car Help

17 March 2016 Dashboard Insights Blog

As reported almost everywhere, on Tuesday, March 15, Google told a Senate Hearing that Congress should pass legislation regulating self-driving cars. Google, through Chris Urmson (Director, Self-Driving Cars), explained that already there are 53 pieces of legislation in 23 states that relate to self-driving cars. Understandably, and predictably, these are not always consistent.

Google of course has its own preferences for what this legislation should include. For example, Google prefers that self-driving cars not have steering wheels or pedals. And, that passengers not be able to override a vehicles autonomous system. Certain states, like California, feel differently and have regulations at odds with Google’s preferences. 

Whether the roads, and people, are ready for self-driving cars to be in mass use is certainly up for debate. Regardless, Google was joined by GM and Lyft in making the point that there should be one, consistent, set of regulations and laws. This makes some sense, but is it how things are now? Most states have their own rules of the road. States, notably California, even have their own emissions standards. Getting Congress to act on anything, let alone in an election year, may be a tall challenge – taller than perfecting self-driving cars for mass use.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services