A proposal to pave the way for driverless cars in California hit a detour Tuesday after the auto industry objected that it could set them up for lawsuits if the new technology is installed in one of their cars and causes a crash.

Members of the Senate Transportation Committee voted to support the legislation by Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) but sent it back to other committees for additional hearings on the liability issues.

Google and other technology companies have been working for years on “autonomous vehicle” systems that would allow cars to operate safely without a human driver. Anthony Levandowski of Google told the lawmakers that technology is possible “that drives better than a person” and would reduce the number of car accidents on California roads.

SB 1298 would direct the California Highway Patrol to develop standards and performance requirements for the safe testing and operation of autonomous vehicles on the state’s roads and highways, Padilla said.

But the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which includes Ford, Chrysler and Toyota among others, is concerned that allowing others to convert the cars they make to operate without drivers could put them at risk of being taken to court if accidents occur.

“Who’s going to get sued? We are,” Gene Erbin, a lobbyist for the alliance told the committee. For that reason the Transportation Committee approved the bill but sent it to the Rules Committee for possible assignment to another panel for review on the liability question.

ALSO:

Tea party lawmaker’s agenda suffers another blow

Pension reform panel looking at alternative hybrid plan

Assemblyman Chris Norby cleared of alleged campaign fund abuse

–Patrick McGreevy in Sacramento

Article source: http://feeds.stateline.org/~r/StatelineorgRss-Transportation/~3/0qcnZ2Ofwxg/auto-makers-put-speed-bump-in-front-of-bill-on-driverless-cars.html

- NEWSROOM BLOGS –

Alaska Politics

Alaska sportfishing

Art Snob

Crime Scene

Dog Blog

Editor’s Blog

Hollywood Alaska

Julia O’Malley

Play Blog

Photo Blog: Focal Point

Rural Blog

Woody on Hockey

- COMMUNITY BLOGS –

AK Bulletin Board

Alaska Voices

Church Visits

Frontier Scientists

Independent Traveler

All blogs

Article source: http://feeds.stateline.org/~r/StatelineorgRss-Transportation/~3/ThvGX2E6WGI/ban-on-texting-moves-to-senate.html

 Twelve years after Colorado legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, more than 85,000 people have been certified by the state health department to use it. Now, there is increasing concern about a rise in traffic accidents caused by people under the influence of marijuana. Between 2006 and 2010, more than 300 fatal accidents involved drivers who tested positive for cannabis, according to the Colorado Department of Highway Safety.

That’s why Republican state Senator Steve King wants Colorado to set a legal limit for marijuana intoxication, somewhat similar to the 0.08 percent blood alcohol limit states put on driving under the influence of alcohol. And in California, Democratic Assemblywoman Norma Torres wants to set a zero-tolerance ban on driving under the influence of any drug, including marijuana.

But bills put forward by both King and Torres have run into opposition from those who say the science around what marijuana does to the body and mind is not conclusive enough to set a legal limit. In Colorado, critics also note that King’s approach would cost the state public defender’s office about $600,000 per year to defend those accused of “drugged driving” charges.

Yet concerns over cannabis intoxication won’t go away. Voters in Colorado and Washington State will decide whether to legalize recreational marijuana use, while a dozen more states are considering legalizing marijuana for medical purposes. In this explainer, Stateline examines the research surrounding marijuana and road safety, and explores why it’s so difficult to say how high is too high to drive.

How does marijuana affect the body? The active ingredient in marijuana is called delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. Whether marijuana is ingested through smoking or eating, THC rapidly goes through the bloodstream to the brain. In the brain, THC slows down receptors that communicate brain functions between synapses, throwing the brain’s natural information flow off balance. Users experience diminished pain sensitivity, which explains marijuana’s medicinal purpose. But users also experience slowed reaction time, impaired memory function, impaired coordination and altered judgment.

How does marijuana’s effect on drivers compare to alcohol? Although the

Article source: http://feeds.stateline.org/~r/StatelineorgRss-Transportation/~3/SsCpNYV9wsE/story

Ross William Hamilton/The OregonianDavid Farah, owner of a company that arranges interlock installations, checks a device that has been installed in a car in Southeast Portland. The Portland woman blew into a tube on the newly installed electronic device in her car until an indicator box was filled with green. In a moment, her blood-alcohol level — 0.000 — flashed on the screen.

“Pass,” the display screen informed her. “Enjoy your drive.”

The woman, who didn’t want to give her name because she was embarrassed about her drunken-driving arrest, didn’t crack a smile. She said she thought about not driving instead of installing the new device, known as an ignition interlock.

“I’m going to have take a second job to pay for all of this,” she grumbled before driving away from the Southeast Portland auto shop that installed the interlock.

An increasing number of Oregon drivers now have to do the same thing when they get behind the wheel. A new state law has greatly expanded the number of drivers ordered to install ignition interlocks, which are designed to keep people from driving if they have been drinking.

Use of the devices has soared across the country in recent years as legislators, spurred on by groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, adopted laws requiring offenders to install the interlocks. Congress is also considering language in the new transportation bill that would penalize states that don’t adopt mandatory interlock laws.

Supporters say re-arrest rates plummet for drivers using the electronic devices while also providing a safe way for people to continue to drive to work or ferry their kids around. Offenders have to pay the costs of the equipment and it appears to be politically popular: the Oregon Legislature unanimously approved interlock bills in 2011 and 2012.

Still, the growth of interlocks has also raised plenty of doubts and criticism. The majority of drunken drivers required to install an interlock get out of the requirement, typically by waiting out their license suspensions

Article source: http://feeds.stateline.org/~r/StatelineorgRss-Transportation/~3/sPi3nlEDwow/oregon_turns_heavily_to_igniti.html

Responding to a report by the Government Accountability Office that found he had overstated the cost of the tunnel to New Jersey, the governor also derided the tunnel plan, though he had said when he canceled the project in October 2010 that he believed in its merits. While the tunnel would have expanded the number of subway lines available to those who commute to Pennsylvania Station in New York City, he characterized it on Tuesday as a dead-end to a department store.

“So when they want to build a tunnel to the basement of Macy’s, and stick the New Jersey taxpayers with a bill of three-to-five billion dollars over — no matter how much the administration yells and screams, you have to say no,” he said in a speech at a conference on taxes and the economy in Manhattan held by the George W. Bush Institute.

“You have to look them right in the eye, no matter how much they try to vilify you for it, and you have to say no,” the governor told an audience that included Mr. Bush, Karl Rove and other prominent Republicans and business executives. “You have to be willing to say no to those things that compromise your principles.”

The tunnel would have doubled capacity for commuters on New Jersey Transit and Amtrak trains, which now share two 100-year-old single track tunnels to cross the Hudson. The tracks are at capacity, and commuter demand is expected to rise 38 percent by 2030.

While the governor forcefully defended on Tuesday his decision to scrap the tunnel plan, he did not directly mention the report or address its specifics.

Mr. Christie said in 2010 that his steering committee for the project, known as ARC for Access to the Region’s Core, had told him that

Article source: http://feeds.stateline.org/~r/StatelineorgRss-Transportation/~3/riL8pojlsF0/christie-stands-by-his-decision-to-cancel-trans-hudson-tunnel.html

Ed Murray/The Star-LedgerAssemblyman John Wisniewski is pictured in this January 2011 file photo. A Port Authority official has accused him of only investigating the agency because it has not given any of his political donors special treatment.

TRENTON — A top Port Authority official Tuesday says he suspects Assemblyman John Wisniewski is scrutinizing his agency because political donors favored by the powerful Democrat were not given special treatment.

“I have to tell you, this looks like a shakedown,” Bill Baroni, deputy executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, told The Star-Ledger.

But Wisniewski said Baroni is wrong, and accused him of trying to distract from the issues of patronage and waste at the Port Authority. Wisniewski chairs the Assembly Transportation, Public Works and Independent Authorities Committee, which today plans to vote on a resolution to issue subpoenas to examine the $7 billion bi-state agency’s finances.

“Mr. Baroni now needs to create a conspiracy theory as to why I would want to, as chairman of the committee, look into the Port Authority,” said Wisniewski.

Wisniewski, who leads the state Democratic Party, has accused Republican Gov. Chris Christie of using the Port Authority as a patronage pit. Baroni, a former Republican state senator and assemblyman, was appointed by Christie to represent New Jersey’s interests in the agency.

The skirmish centers around a Jan. 26 meeting Baroni said engineering firm CME Associates partners David Samuel and Jay Cornell had with the Port Authority’s director of procurement, Lillian Valenti, to pitch their services.

Baroni said Valenti told them they had to fill out forms like all other firms seeking contracts. It was a routine meeting, Baroni said, adding he did not get the impression that CME was seeking special treatment.

RELATED COVERAGE:

• How N.J. PACs are skirting the law on pay-to-play

• Gov. Christie sets sights on reforming financial disclosure laws for legislature

• State’s pay-to-play law has done little to curb loopholes, report says

• Port Authority unveils reforms intended to

Article source: http://feeds.stateline.org/~r/StatelineorgRss-Transportation/~3/159TdsEDs9g/official_legislator_only_invet.html