GM's Cruise Asks White House to Dissolve AV Testing Restrictions

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky
gm s cruise asks white house to dissolve av testing restrictions

General Motors has a long and illustrious history of receiving government favors, with 2021 likely to continue the trend. Having recently seen its request to have federal EV tax credits reset approved by the Senate Finance Committee, GM-owned Cruise is now seeking to double down by asking regulators to scale back restrictions on autonomous vehicle testing. With practically every automaker simultaneously requesting government hookups on a weekly basis, it’s hardly surprising to see this.

What is unique is the rationales given for government help and it’s often the only way to measure their merit. While most claims tend to boil down to “ we need more money,” Cruise wants regulators to get out of the way so the United States can become more competitive against China’s AV programs and is hardly the first company to make such a suggestion.

Cruise CEO Dan Ammann reportedly issued a letter to Joe Biden on May 17th asking that the president back legislation that would increase the number of autonomous test vehicles a company can legally field without their needing to adhere to the existing federal safety standards. According to Reuters, Ammann stated that “without [presidential] support and congressional action to revise these self imposed barriers, the U.S. AV manufacturing industry will lag, AI development will stall, and our foreign competitors will race ahead.”

From Reuters:

Senators John Thune and Gary Peters have been working for several years on efforts to ease restrictions on AVs. An amendment to a bill designed to address U.S. competitiveness against China proposed by Thune to raise the cap stalled last week amid opposition from labor unions and plaintiffs attorneys, but Thune and Peters are expected to continue to pursue the issue.

Thune and Peters in April circulated language for potential legislation to grant the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration the power to lift the cap and initially exempt 15,000 self-driving vehicles per manufacturer, rising to 80,000 within three years. The NHTSA would need to certify self-driving vehicles exempted are at least as safe as human-driven ones.

“China’s top down, centrally directed approach imposes no similar restraints on their home grown AV industry,” Ammann wrote. “We do not seek, require or desire government funding; we seek your help in leveling the playing field,” he said, referencing a study positing that AVs are “estimated to create and sustain 108,000 jobs over the next five years.”

Union concerns are at odds with Ammann’s own claims that advancing AVs will result in net job creation. But the point may be moot as increasingly more businesses are getting in on the action.

One issue that is more clear, however, is the incorrect assumption that China doesn’t impose strict restrictions on autonomous mules. Last time we checked, the CCP was eyeballing some fairly strict rules regarding testing protocols. Meanwhile, Chinese AVs currently have to be authorized by provincial governments before they’re legally allowed to run on public roads and vehicles have to first be tested in a closed setting with a certified safety driver to prove a level of competency. They are then given road transport permits and licenses prior to being deployed and informed of when/where they can be operated by regional authorities.

The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology issued updated national draft regulations in January that would allow more vehicles to be tested on public roads, including some without a driver. Though this also requires new safety assessments and approval from the relevant government entities, all of which require access to vehicle data. The Ministry of Public Security has been similarly pitching new regulations this year, most of which pertain to liability issues, cybersecurity, and centralized monitoring. As for those aforementioned liability rules, autonomous vehicles that crash with a human driver behind the wheel will see the human taking the blame. But cars operating without a safety driver automatically push labilities onto whoever owns it — which will likely be the manufacturer at this stage in the game.

So not having an official cap on the number of AVs that can be fielded doesn’t mean it’s running test cars without restrictions. If anything, China’s model seems to be evolving into something that’s more restrictive than what the United States currently has in place.

The right approach, however, is a matter of opinion. Deregulation often advances industries coming up with creative solutions and accelerates development. But allowing corporations to do whatever they want can result in unsavory behavior and public endangerment. Worse yet, legislators have shown themselves to have a pitiful grasp of practically every nuanced regulatory issue — though it seems especially bad whenever technology comes into play.

[Image: Temp-64GTX/Shutterstock]

Join the conversation
2 of 5 comments
  • Conundrum Conundrum on Jun 01, 2021

    GM has several joint ventures in China, flogs a coupla million vehicles, and even sends back the Buick Envision wrapped with a bow to the US. So if they think China is a better place to test out AVs, what's stopping them from doing some testing over there? Oh, I know, maybe their precious IP might be stolen by nefarious commies. What a joke. Honestly, this whole China is an enemy thing seems to be an entirely US manufactured xenophobia. It's OK to make vehicles and every conceivable consumer product there on the cheap, dump tens of millions of US jobs hollowing out the middle states and profit thereby, but as soon as it's no longer a one-sided advantage for America, up pop the squawkers saying China is out to take over the world. Which, so far as I'm aware has been the official US policy for itself since the end of WW2. "After World War II when the U.S. colossus looked down at the rest the world prostate after the war, we heard a similar sentiment from George Kennan, considered as perhaps the principal architect of postwar U.S. foreign policy: 'Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. … Our real task in the coming period is to … maintain this position of disparity …. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality …. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction. — George F. Kennan'" "More recently and equally starkly at the end of the Cold War, the Wolfowitz Doctrine was enunciated by Paul Wolfowitz Under Secretary of Defense for Public Policy. It can be summed up in a single sentence: "We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."" Seems clear enough to me. So long as the US can run the world, the sky is blue. Should some uppity country decide to run things the way it wants to for the benefit of its own people, send in the Army to set them straight. Seventy countries since the end of WW2. Because I've met few regular Americans who seem set on world domination, one presumes it's the elites who set US policy and make money from it. So the patriotic propaganda machine is always geared up to keep Americans wary of any foreign country with an independent view that could affect precious profits. Anyone with a brain can connect the dots, except, apparently, Americans. China didn't steal US jobs, American big business gave them the jobs for free to rip off their own fellow citizens to make an extra buck for the corporate bottom line. And to hell with what anyone thinks, our bombs are bigger than your bombs.

  • SoCalMikester SoCalMikester on Jun 02, 2021

    is there anyone who actually believes china stole the jobs? it doesnt work that way.

  • Sgeffe Why on Earth can’t you just get the torque specs and do it yourself if you’re so-inclined?!
  • Sgeffe As was stated in another comment, the FAA nominee went down in flames. But the NTSB chairwoman certainly didn’t, and she’s certainly not qualified either!Lots of this kind of stuff going on both sides of the aisle—Ben Carson would have arguably made a better Surgeon General than HUD Secretary under Trump, for example.
  • Art Vandelay Interesting, the Polestar 2 I had as a rental utilized Android Automotive which is what GM said it is going to exclusively, yet it still offers Apple CarPlay according to this. Wonder if GM will do the same.
  • Stuart de Baker EVs just aren't ready for prime time for those with a single car and who take road trips. Being able to charge as soon as you arrive at a charging station, and even the chargers working on your car is a crapshoot. In the former case, you could have to wait for nearly an hour while someone else is charging.I also don't find EVs particularly fun to drive (I've driven a Tesla Model S and an Ionic 5.) I LOVE driving my '08 Civic (stick). I love the handling, the feel and responsiveness of the engine, the precise steering (the Michelin Pilot Ultra Sport tires help, but even with the snows on, the car is a joy). I have 152k on the clock, and hopefully another 25 years or so of driving (I was born early in the Eisenhower Administration and I have exceptionally healthy habits), and I'm going to try to keep the Civic for the duration.My Civic causes a less global warming emissions than some of these humongous battery operated trucks.
  • FreedMike They should throw in a Lordstown pickup with every purchase. Make it the “vapor twofer.”