Question

Regulating a complex new technology is hard, particularly if it is evolving rapidly. With autonomous vehicles(AVs) just around the corner, what can policymakers do to ensure that they arrive safely and smoothly and deliver on their promise?

The immediate goal is to make sure that AVs are safe without preventing innovation. In America, experimental AVs are allowed on the road in many states as long as the companies operating them accept responsibility. Chris Urmson of Aurora says American regulators have got things right, working closely with AV firms and issuing guidelines rather than strict rules that might prevent the progress of the industry. “It’s important that we don’t jump to regulation before we actually have something to regulate.” he says.

On the other hand, Singapore’s government has taken the most hands-on approach to preparing for AVs, says Karl Iagnemma of Nutonomy, an AV startup that has tested vehicles in the city-state. For example, it has introduced a “driving test” that AVs must pass before they can go on the road. This does not guarantee safety but sets a minimum standard.

Elsewhere, regulators have permitted limited testing on public roads but want to see more evidence that the vehicles are safe before going further, says Takao Asami of the Renault issan-Mitsubishi alliance(联盟). “Simple accumulation of mileage(里程) will never prove that the vehicle is safe.” he says. Instead, regulators are talking to car makers and technology firms to develop new safety standards. Marten Levenstam, head of product strategy at Volvo, compares the process to that of developing a new drug. First, you show in the laboratory that it might work; then you run clinical trials in which you carefully test its safety and efficiency; and if they are successful, you ask for regulatory approval to make the drug generally available. Similarly, autonomous cars are currently at the clinical-trial stage, without final approval as yet. It is not possible to prove that a new drug is entirely safe, but the risk is worth taking because of the benefits the drug provides. It will be the same for AVs, he suggests. After all, nowadays human-driven vehicles are hardly risk-free.

1.In Chris Urmson’s opinion, _______.

A. strict rules are necessary in the progress of AVs

B. we must regulate AVs before problems occur

C. governments should take approaches to preparing for AVs

D. regulators had better cooperate with AV firms and issue guidelines

2.How is the process of developing new safety standards of AVs explained in the last paragraph?

A. By giving examples    B. By making comparisons

C. By analyzing cause and effects    D. By listing statistics

3.What is Marten Levenstam’s attitude towards AVs?

A. Positive.    B. Negative.

C. Neutral.    D. Doubtful.

Answer

1. D

2. B

3. A

【解析】

本文是一篇说明文，介绍了随着无人驾驶汽车即将问世，监管机构需要与AV 公司密切合作，发布指导方针以确保无人驾驶汽车安全到达目的地，沃尔沃产品战略主管Marten Levenstam将制定新的安全标准的过程比作研发一种新药的过程，并对此持积极的态度。

1.细节理解题。根据第二段中的“Chris Urmson of Aurora says American regulators have got things right, working closely with AV firms and issuing guidelines rather than strict rules that might prevent the progress of the industry.”可知，Urmson认为美国监管机构做得很对，他们与AV 公司密切合作，发布指导方针，故D项正确。

2.细节理解题。根据最后一段中的“Instead, regulators are talking to car makers and technology firms to develop new safety standards. Marten Levenstam, head of product strategy at Volvo, compares the process to that of developing a new drug.”可知，沃尔沃产品战略主管Marten Levenstam将制定新的安全标准的过程比作研发一种新药的过程，故B项正确。

3.观点态度题。根据最后一段中的“It is not possible to prove that a new drug is entirely safe, but the risk is worth taking because of the benefits the drug provides. It will be the same for AVs, he suggests.”可知，要证明一种新药完全安全是不可能的，但由于它所提供的好处，这种风险是值得的，无人驾驶技术也是一样，由此可知，Marten Levenstam是无人驾驶技术的态度是积极的，故A项正确。