skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Robot Cars: The Case for Laissez-Faire
From Alex Tabarrok of Marginal Revolution.
"Very few people imagined that self-driving
cars would advance so quickly or be deployed so rapidly. As a result,
robot cars are largely unregulated. There is no government testing
regime or pre-certification for robot cars, for example. Indeed, most
states don’t even require a human driver because no one imagined that
there was an alternative. Many people, however, are beginning to
question laissez-faire in light of the first fatality
involving a partially-autonomous car that occurred in May and became
public last week. That would be a mistake. The normal system of
laissez-faire is working well for robot cars.
Laissez-faire for new technologies is the norm. In the automotive
world, for example, new technologies have been deployed on cars for over
a hundred years without pre-certification including seatbelts, air
bags, crumple zones, abs braking systems, adaptive cruise control and
lane departure and collision warning systems. Some of these technologies are now regulated but regulation came after
these technologies were developed and became common. Airbags began to
be deployed in the 1970s, for example when they were not as safe as they
are today but airbags improved over time and by the 1990s were fairly
common. It was only in 1998, long after they were an option and the
design had stabilized, that the Federal government required airbags in
all new cars.
Lane departure and collision warning systems, among other
technologies, remain largely unregulated by the Federal government
today. All technologies, however, are regulated by the ordinary rules of
tort (part of the laissez-faire system). The tort system is imperfect
but it works tolerably well especially when it focuses on contract and disclosure.
Market regulation also occurs through the insurance companies. Will
insurance companies given a discount for self-driving cars? Will they
charge more? Forbid the use of self-driving cars? Let the system evolve
an answer.
Had burdensome regulations been imposed on airbags in the 1970s the
technology would have been delayed and the net result could well have
been more injury and death. We have ignored important tradeoffs in drug regulation to our detriment. Let’s avoid these errors in the regulation of other technologies.
The fatality in May was a tragedy but so were the approximately
35,000 other traffic fatalities that occurred last year without a robot
at the wheel. At present, these technologies appear to be increasing
safety but even more importantly what I have called the glide path
of the technology looks very good. Investment is flowing into this
field and we don’t want to forestall improvements by raising costs now
or imposing technological “fixes” which could well be obsolete in a few
years.
Laissez-faire is working well for robot cars. Let’s avoid
over-regulation today so that in a dozen years we can argue about
whether all cars should be required to be robot cars."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.