GM Lobbyist Says Company Doesn't Push Bills, Lawmakers Disagree
For now, legislation restricting the use of those pesky self-driving cars is mainly up to individual states. Because no one wants an experimental, untested car piloting their local roadways, states have erected legislative safety barriers that, for the most part, restrict pilot projects in certain areas, or on certain roads.
As everyone waits for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to make up its mind and put blanket regulations in place, an angry chorus of complaints from Silicon Valley startups is growing louder, accusing state lawmakers of favoring the old guard when it comes to fostering automotive technology.
Only naturally, concerns about corporate money influencing government decisions arose. One automaker’s political action fund seems more active than others
When Michigan declared itself open for self-driving business late last year, the legislative package contained a big asterisk. The door was open, but only for the testing of autonomous cars build by established automakers. This pleased the Detroit Three, as well as other automakers using the state’s facilities and roadways, but tech startups cried foul.
While the declaration was dialed back to include technology companies before being passed into law, other states simply took the original Michigan bill and used it as a template. No Uber or Waymo-friendly amendments in sight. Include Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and Tennessee in that list.
Speaking to the Associated Press, GM’s top lobbyist for cyber and connected cars, Harry Lightsey, said that automakers push for restrictive legislation on autonomous vehicles out of a concern for safety.
For self-driving vehicles to flourish, “public acceptance of the technology is going to be very critical,” he said. “If somebody is allowed to put technology on the roads and highways that proves to be unsafe, that could have very harmful repercussions.”
Lightsey claims GM does not grease the wheels of self-driving legislation. “These bills aren’t being introduced at GM’s urging,” he said.
Four lawmakers who passed bills similar to Michigan’s say otherwise. Illinois state Rep. Mike Zalewski (D) said he sponsored a bill after GM sought him out and encouraged him to get behind the legislation.
Campaign contributions, in allowable amounts from above-board donors, are perfectly legal, yet remain a favorite target for those seeking to promote political purity and the separation of the corporate and political worlds. And with good reason: the optics stink.
As the Associated Press reports:
State records show Zalewski has received $2,000 in GM campaign contributions. The bill’s Republican co-sponsor, state Rep. Tom Demmer, has received $2,500 from GM and the bill’s state Senate sponsor, Democrat Martin Sandoval, has received $3,500.
Zalewski told AP he doesn’t draw connections between donations and policy. It’s worth noting that Zalewski saw more donations from various trade unions than GM during his 2016 state run, which shouldn’t shock anyone who’s ever dug through campaign finances. As for the optics of influence, any politician will tell you that no one sells out for a couple grand.
While the General Motors Company Political Action Committee remains a very active campaign donor, it isn’t alone. The Ford Motor Company Civic Action Fund is equally active but, in this case, its donations don’t overlap with GM’s.
Maryland state Sen. William Ferguson (D) introduced a similar bill after being contacted by GM lobbyists who said the automaker would “certainly look more favorably toward expanding [a transmission plant] in Maryland if there were a legal framework to test and develop (self-driving cars) more freely.” Ferguson later added to his remarks, claiming there was no specific promise made by GM.
In Tennessee, a Michigan 1.0-type bill introduced last year is slowly advancing towards becoming a law. GM, including Lightsey, applauded the proposed legislation, which would allow automakers to run pilot projects for autonomous ride-sharing fleets. Once again, GM’s cash makes an appearance.
The political action committee for Sen. Mark Green (R), the bill’s sponsor, received $3,000 from GM. House sponsor William Lamberth II (R) saw $2,000 from the automaker before the bill’s introduction. Green is on record as saying he would like the legislation to be more competitive.
In Arizona and Colorado, lobbying efforts by GM have so far failed to result in restrictive legislation that favors established automakers.
“We didn’t want to pick winners and losers in the autonomous vehicle arena,” Colorado state Rep. Faith Winter (D) told AP.
[Image: General Motors]
Akear on Feb 25, 2017
When this technology is found to be unsafe all this will be for nothing. I would never trust a computer to run a car autonomously at highway speeds. If a deer runs on to the road at those speeds there is no match for the human brain to respond quickly. Would an onboard computer really be able to instantly identify an object in its path fast enough to avoid it? This technology is just not capable of making the subtle distinctions that the human brain can. The place to test artificial intelligence is not on the nation’s highways, but in the lab. Autonomous driving vehicles are just the latest fade that the industry is latching onto. I predict after a few horrific accidents this technology will gradually fade away. In fact, there have already been quite a few accidents. That is not to say some of this technology does not have a place in the future. In Collison avoidance, this technology could be beneficial. Also, in case the driver is incapacitated in some way the self-driving technology could took over control and bring the vehicle to a stop. This technology has a part to play in the future, but I just don’t see it taking over the entire process of driving a vehicle. Auto pilot is fine for aviation since collisions can be predicted way in advance. However, in the congested environment of highway driving split second reaction times are necessary and I don’t believe autonomous vehicles will react fast enough. I say give this technology a few more years until reality finally takes over and it fades away. However, there will some benefits to this research that will make driving safer in the long term.
Latest Car ReviewsRead more
Latest Product ReviewsRead more
- DenverMike When was it ever a mystery? The Fairmont maybe, but only the 4-door "Futura" trim, that was distinctively upscale. The Citation and Volare didn't have competing trims, nor was there a base stripper Maxima at the time, if ever, crank windows, vinyl seats, 2-doors, etc. So it wasn't a "massacre", not even in spirit, just different market segments. It could be that the Maxima was intended to compete with those, but everything coming from Japan at the time had to take it up a notch, if not two.Thanks to the Japanese "voluntary" trade restriction, everything had extra options, if not hard loaded. The restriction limited how many vehicles were shipped, not what they retailed at. So Japanese automakers naturally raised the "price" (or stakes) without raising MSRP. What the dealers charged (gouged) was a different story.Realistically, the Maxima was going up against entry luxury sedans (except Cimarron lol), especially Euro/German, same as the Cressida. It definitely worked in Japanese automaker's favor, not to mention inspiring Lexus, Acura and Infiniti.
- Ronnie Schreiber Hydrocarbon based fuels have become unreliable? More expensive at the moment but I haven't seen any lines gathering around gas stations lately, have you? I'm old enough to remember actual gasoline shortages in 1973 and 1979 (of course, since then there have been many recoverable oil deposits discovered around the world plus the introduction of fracking). Consumers Power is still supplying me with natural gas. I recently went camping and had no problem buying propane.Texas had grid problems last winter because they replaced fossil fueled power plants with wind and solar, which didn't work in the cold weather. That's the definition of unreliable.I'm an "all of the above" guy when it comes to energy: fossil fuels, hydro, wind (where it makes sense), nuclear (including funding for fusion research), and possibly solar.Environmental activists, it seems to me, have no interest in energy diversity. Based on what's happened in Sri Lanka and the push against agriculture in Europe and Canada, I think it's safe to say that some folks want most of us to live like medieval peasants to save the planet for their own private jets.
- Car65688392 thankyou for the information
- Car65688392 Thankyou for your valuable information
- MaintenanceCosts There's no mystery anymore about how the Japanese took over the prestige spot in the US mass market (especially on the west coast) when you realize that this thing was up against the likes of the Fairmont, Citation, and Volaré. A massacre.