• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

California Governor Brown signs bill clearing use of driverless cars on public roads

Bob

Well-known member
#1
Google just chalked up one of the more important victories for driverless cars. California Governor Jerry Brown has signed bill SB1298 into law, formalizing the legal permissions and safety standards needed to let automated vehicles cruise on state-owned roads. While the bill lets anyone move forward with their plans, it's clear from the ceremony that local technology darling Google is the primary impetus for the measure: Brown visited Google's Mountain View headquarters to put ink to paper, and Google co-founder Sergey Brin oversaw the signing with his Google Glass eyewear on full display. If you're dying to see driverless vehicles become mainstays of the Golden State, the official act making that possible is already available to watch after the break.


http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/25/...n-signs-bill-clearing-use-of-driverless-cars/
 

dutchbb

Well-known member
#4
Yes but dealing with the big problems is no fun, much more fun to just keep spending money you don't have and act like your bureaucratic interference is somehow required in society so you can feel important and honored.
 

Carlos

Well-known member
#5
Brown is a complete idiot. California has been in crisis for 30 years and he is worried about this ****? Figures.
Actually, if you think about it, this more or less helps because we already have a "law" for drivers with cellphones. So, this bill is more or less that whole "cause and effect" situation. The problem is, there isn't enough penetration of these driverless cars, yet. Well, not to the mainstream level, anyway.
 

Brent W

Well-known member
#6
Brown is a complete idiot. California has been in crisis for 30 years and he is worried about this ****? Figures.
Sacrifice California pays for being the technology leader for America, I guess. Maybe the Bible belt could pick up the slack and start paying more taxes, since the majority of those that don't pay any taxes live there?

http://tucsoncitizen.com/hispanic-politico/2012/09/18/a-tax-map-of-mitt-romneys-47/

Furthermore:

These are the states that get the most federal money.
10) North Dakota
> Amt. per capita net of income taxes: $10,438
> Population: 672,591
> Pct. of U.S. population: 0.22%
> Amt. per capita: $12,930
> Pct. of U.S. funds per person: 0.27%
With the third-smallest population in the U.S., North Dakota’s federal spending per capita was understandably larger than more populous states. North Dakota ranked third in the country for receiving Direct payments other than retirement and disability. What is unusual is the large amount of money that North Dakota farmers received from the federal government — the state ranked second in agricultural assistance in the nation, behind only Texas, which has a population more than 37 times that of North Dakota.
9) Connecticut
> Amt. per capita net of income taxes: $10,506
> Population: 3,574,097
> Pct. of U.S. population: 1.16%
> Amt. per capita: $15,662
> Pct. of U.S. funds per person: 1.73%
Connecticut received almost 50% more government funding per capita than the national average. In 2010, Connecticut was awarded $11.1 billion in military procurement contracts, giving the state the fourth-highest per capita federal defense expenditure — $3,351.88. The Constitution State ranked first for the amount of spending for direct payments other than retirement and disability on a per capita basis. A significant chunk of this amount — almost 60% — was spent solely on medical prescription drug coverage. At $14.1 billion, the amount of federal government expenditures on prescription drugs in Connecticut was more than any other state and over $5 billion more than Florida, the state receiving the second-most federal funds in this category. Connecticut also ranked fifth in per capita federal funding from procurement spending.
8) West Virginia
> Amt. per capita net of income taxes: $10,568
> Population: 1,852,994
> Pct. of U.S. population: 0.6%
> Amt. per capita: $11,609
> Pct. of U.S. funds per person: 0.67%
West Virginia is the only state in the top 10 where federal spending on defense was not a significant contributor to the total amount of money this state received. In fact, West Virginia ranked 48th for federal defense spending — $609 per capita. A large portion of federal spending in West Virginia, almost 16%, was for Medicare benefits, slightly more than the national rate of 15.6%. West Virginia ranked first in the country for the percentage of people using this benefit at nearly 20%. West Virginians also received more federal spending per capita on retirement and disability benefits — which includes Social Security payments, federal retirement and disability benefits, and veterans benefits — than any other state.
7) Alabama
> Amt. per capita net of income taxes: $10,656
> Population: 4,779,736
> Pct. of U.S. population: 1.55%
> Amt. per capita: $11,820
> Pct. of U.S. funds per person: 1.75%
Alabama comes in second for the amount of spending per capita — $3,761 — on retirement and disability. The Cotton State also ranks seventh for procurement spending per capita, 78% of which was defense spending, and large parts of which also included the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture. Most of this procurement spending falls under the section of Department of Defense spending. Aside from Virginia and Kentucky, Alabama is the only state on this list that is in the bottom half of states for the amount of grant spending per capita. Grant spending encompasses a vast number of federal agencies and departments within each state.
6) Kentucky
> Amt. per capita net of income taxes: $12,129
> Population: 4,339,367
> Pct. of U.S. population: 1.41%
> Amt. per capita: $13,198
> Pct. of U.S. funds per person: 1.77%
The federal government gave Kentucky more than $7,000 per person on direct payments, which included retirement and disability benefits, unemployment benefits and student assistance — all large programs. Medicare benefits accounted for nearly 57% of such payments. This was partially due to the high amount of government money going toward prescription drug coverage in the state — $5.46 billion in 2010. Kentucky received almost $1.5 billion more for prescription drug coverage than California, a state with almost nine times its population.
5) New Mexico
> Amt. per capita net of income taxes: $12,399
> Population: 2,059,179
> Pct. of U.S. population: 0.67%
> Amt. per capita: $13,578
> Pct. of U.S. funds per person: 0.87%
New Mexico received the third-highest procurement spending per capita in the U.S. at $3,641.68. A significant component of this spending was under the category of non-defense agency spending for the Department of Energy. New Mexico received more federal funding from the Department of Energy than any other state, with an amount of $4.8 billion. This is due to the three nuclear weapons facilities located within the state. New Mexico also ranks seventh for the grant expenditures it received per capita. More than 60% of these grants were from the Department of Health and Human Services. Some 22.53% of the population was on Medicaid — the fourth highest percentage in the nation — which is funded through this department.
4) Hawaii
> Amt. per capita net of income taxes: $13,709
> Population: 1,360,301
> Pct. of U.S. population: 0.44%
> Amt. per capita: $15,331
> Pct. of U.S. funds per person: 0.65%
The Hawaiian Islands have 11 military bases,contributing to the country’s highest per capita federal expenditure from the Department of Defense in 2010. Along with a large number of military personnel on the government payroll, Hawaii also had the highest federal salaries and wages. Some 77% of the salaries and wages paid are for active military personnel. The state had the 10th highest federal procurement spending per capita, at $2,017.80. Since 2006, federal expenditure on salaries and wages in Hawaii has more than doubled.
3) Maryland
> Amt. per capita net of income taxes: $13,723
> Population: 5,773,552
> Pct. of U.S. population: 1.87%
> Amt. per capita: $16,673
> Pct. of U.S. funds per person: 2.98%
Maryland had the fifth-highest federal spending per capita from the Defense Department — the state has 11 military bases. In addition, the state received more spending per capita in nonmilitary programs than any other. The state’s proximity to the capital is likely a major factor in this. The state received more than 5% of the total U.S. procurement expenditure, and ranked second in per capita procurement spending — $4,593.79 — nearly three times the national average. Of the 50 states, Maryland has the second-lowest percentage of people living below the poverty line.
2) Virginia
> Amt. per capita net of income taxes: $14,201
> Population: 8,001,024
> Pct. of U.S. population: 2.59%
> Amt. per capita: $17,008
> Pct. of U.S. funds per person: 4.21%
Virginia received more than $136 billion in federal funds in 2010. This state received more than 12% of the total Department of Defense procurement spending — the second-highest proportion in the country, behind California. The state received the highest per capita procurement funding and the third-highest per capita federal expenditures for salaries and wages. The state’s proximity to the capital is a factor in the high government expenditures. Despite receiving the second-most federal funds per capita, Virginia was very low in terms of the grant funding it received.
1) Alaska
> Amt. per capita net of income taxes: $15,197
> Population: 710,231
> Pct. of U.S. population: 0.23%
> Amt. per capita: $17,762
> Pct. of U.S. funds per person: .39%
No state in the U.S. received more money per person from the federal government than Alaska. One contributing factor is that the state had the second-highest figure for defense spending in 2010, at $7,337.59 per capita. The federal government also allocated a great deal toward wages and salaries in Alaska — $5,709.52 per capita. This was more than any state other than Hawaii, which spent $5,805.78 per person, and twice the next-closest state within the contiguous U.S. — Virginia — at $2,638.68.


Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/08/03/states-that-get-most-federal-money/#ixzz27XvZ0myd
 

Gabby

Well-known member
#7
35 years of living in Ca and seeing it destroyed by bad government, extreme liberalism, high taxes, regulations out of control and failure to protect borders, was enough for me and thousands to leave. I miss my California but not the California of today. Ironically, I'm creating a new forum about this very subject. Should be up and running in a few weeks.
 

Forsaken

Well-known member
#8
35 years of living in Ca and seeing it destroyed by bad government, extreme liberalism, high taxes, regulations out of control and failure to protect borders, was enough for me and thousands to leave. I miss my California but not the California of today. Ironically, I'm creating a new forum about this very subject. Should be up and running in a few weeks.
All of which shouldn't stop them from passing an act that would legalize driverless cars.

Seeing as there has only been a push for it for a few months, there obviously hasn't been much time wasted on it.
 

Gabby

Well-known member
#9
All of which shouldn't stop them from passing an act that would legalize driverless cars.

Seeing as there has only been a push for it for a few months, there obviously hasn't been much time wasted on it.
Really? It shouldn't? Because I can think of a thousand different things they could have been working/voting on. I'm not sure how this bill would remotely help Ca major problems, like having no money or no viable school system.:)
 

Gabby

Well-known member
#10
Oh wait. that would mean that parents would have to actually parent their children instead of making Ca schools/teachers/taxpayers do it for them. Novel idea eh? LOL
 

Brent W

Well-known member
#11
You are welcome to move to Alabama, where the right wing controls everything, the church gets more attention than schools and bingo and alcohol are the biggest threats to the people of the state.
 

Gabby

Well-known member
#12
Yes because liberals have done such a great job in states they run??? Ca, Ill..... Two of the most corrupt, broke states in the union? Pelosi, Obama = Cal and Ill... Gee not hard to see. And equally as bad as church (hypochristians) ruling ANYTHING. Yikes on both fronts. Funny though... Ca is the way it is because they can't quite get the concept that they can't spend more than they have coming in. It's called creating jobs not stupid bills that don't create jobs nor help the environment and so on. Brown is and will be a loser the second time around as well. A good moderate thinker is what Ca needs. Somewho who actually understands simple math! LOL
 

Forsaken

Well-known member
#13
Really? It shouldn't? Because I can think of a thousand different things they could have been working/voting on. I'm not sure how this bill would remotely help Ca major problems, like having no money or no viable school system.:)
Because the small amount of time and effort it's taken for this bill would have really done much for those issues, some of which are issues at a national level or can be blamed on the culture(s) in the United States.

This will have an impact on technology, economy and will cut down on idiotic drivers (Which California seems to have a surplus of). There are stupider bills that get signed else where (Banning drink sizes for example) and have wasted much more time which could have been spent on larger issues.