Slashdot Mirror
Uber: We Don't Need a Permit For Self-Driving Cars (cnet.com)
Uber has a simple approach to business: Don't ask for permission, but be prepared to seek forgiveness. Its foray into self-driving cars in California is no different. From a report on CNET: Confirming news that CNET broke Tuesday, the ride-hailing company officially announced Wednesday that it's rolling out a fleet of self-driving cars to passengers in San Francisco, making California only the second state in which Uber offers such services. But Uber didn't run the plan past the California Department of Motor Vehicles, which requires a permit for such cars. Now, the DMV told Uber to cut it out... or else. "It is illegal for the company to operate its self-driving vehicles on public roads until it receives an autonomous vehicle testing permit," the DMV wrote in a letter to Uber on Wednesday. "Any action by Uber to continue the operation of vehicles equipped with autonomous technology on public streets in California must cease." [...] The DMV warned Uber a month ago that it needed a permit to operate self-driving cars in the state, according to Brian Soublet, the department's chief legal counsel, who held a conference call with reporters on Wednesday. Soublet said he told the company the same thing Tuesday before its launch. But Uber didn't appear to listen. "We understand that there is a debate over whether or not we need a testing permit to launch self-driving Ubers in San Francisco," Anthony Levandowski, Uber's vice president of self-driving technology, wrote in a blog post Wednesday. "We have looked at this issue carefully and we don't believe we do."
We want to make a PR stunt to show that regulation is killing innovation in the industry and that we're the hip and cool future while our legal team thinks we'll be able to backpedal in time to avoid major economic penalties.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It's the same old Silicon Valley crap. Laws? What laws? Who needs laws when you have other people's money?
"We have looked at this issue carefully and we don't believe we do."
Translation: "We'll do whatever we want until a judge tells us to stop. Maybe not even then."
I don't really get why Uber would give a shit about autonomous vehicles. Their entire business model is based around an asset light setup. They don't own or insure the cars that Uber drivers use. Going to autonomous vehicles in any substantial way would require a very hefty capital investment AND it would ruin their (bogus) argument that they aren't a taxi service. It doesn't make much sense to me.
I'd say the government is the one responsible for managing conduct on the roads, and dealing with the consequences when people make mistakes and harm others.
This includes their robots, horses, and whatnot.
Uber's arrogance and lack of co-operation makes them a company I don't choose to do with business with. Vote with your dollars, its apparently the only thing some people pay attention to.
"Autonomous vehicle testing permit?" Who is the government to say they know more about autonomous vehicle testing than the people actually creating it?
Permits have nothing to do with knowing all about vehicle testing, though in actual fact state and federal government agencies actually know quite a bit. The reason for the permits has to do with ensuring that public safety is respected and that companies aren't behaving recklessly. If someone is going to be testing experimental and possibly dangerous vehicles on public roads where injuries to citizens might result then the government ABSOLUTELY SHOULD be involved. Nobody else is going to protect me from Uber's reckless pursuit of the almighty dollar. I'm quite sure Uber would literally run people over if there were no consequences for doing so. I have to get an operators permit to drive a vehicle on public roads. It should not be any different for Uber needing a permit to do the same with a computer driven car.
So those road signs and the marks on the road and the traffic lights... those have no legal standing? They weren't put up by the government? They're just decorations? Driver's licenses are optional and there's no law against driving without one as long as you have insurance? You can drive drunk?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
As long as Uber (or anyone else for that matter) meets those criteria already established, and validly registers the vehicle (to ascertain ownership in the event of an issue on the road), I don't see the need for additional regulation.
I do. We're talking about unproven technology operating the vehicle in a location that could result in physical harm to others. I absolutely want the government breathing down their necks to ensure that they are taking appropriate precautions to ensure public safety. I don't give a shit if they have insurance and a pile of cash. That doesn't bring people back from the dead after a wreck.
If Uber (or others) want to play on public roads with experimental equipment then a little oversight is completely justified.
Certainly not until the situation gets out of hand, which it won't.
That is a bogus assertion that you cannot possibly back up. There is a very real chance that someone might get hurt by one of their vehicles.
The liability these companies are taking by having their cars on the road is enough to make them take all the proper precautions.
Bullshit. Companies take risks that injure people all the time and the mere threat of liability is demonstrably not enough to stop them. Especially if the profit from their actions exceeds the likely cost of the liability. Ask GM about their ignitions and let me know how much the threat of liability helped the people who are now dead.
Who is the government to say they know more about autonomous vehicle testing than the people actually creating it?
Here's a little bit of Civics 101 for you, kid:
A business exists to make money. A government doesn't. Uber has a financial incentive to put these cars on the road as fast as possible. Our government's job is to make sure that entities of all kinds (individual and now, corporate) don't unnecessarily injure others. That's the responsibility of government in our society. So, based on the financial incentive alone, it's a smart idea for the government to regulate these kinds of things.
I don't respond to AC's.
Oh, just fuck off.
I don't respond to AC's.
Following the rules is the responsibility of the operator. Setting the rules is the responsibility of the government. In this case the government has set a rule, so why do you think Uber should be exempt from this rule and not from all the others?
And establishing and enforcing those rules is the responsibility of the government. Including rules like "You need a driver's license to legally operate a motor vehicle" or "you need an autonomous vehicle permit to legally operate an autonomous vehicle"
Basically, in either case you are required to *prove* your implied claim that the vehicle will be operated safely to the relevant regulatory body if you want to do so legally.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Sure.
Uber is at present running all of their autonomous vehicle tests with a driver in place. Now, which is easier to believe, that a professional driver in an instrumented test would run a red light, or that Uber would lie about which system was in control of the car at the time of the incident?
fat lot of good that does the dead person.
hence trying to stop problems before they are problems.
typical libertarian nonsense.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Do you object to driver's licenses being required and being issued upon passing a series of tests? For example, blind people fail the vision test and can't get their license so can't legally operate a vehicle on public roadways. Would you like to the requirement for driver's licenses eliminated - after all, if a blind guy drives, he is "responsible" so he should be allowed to drive? How about prohibitions on driving with a BAC above 0.08? If you want to drive with a BAC of 0.25, why shouldn't you -- after all, you are responsible?
If one believes in licenses being required by human drivers, isn't it reasonable to require some sort of license (part of which involves a real-live skills test) for "robotic" drivers?
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
"Operator" typically being the physical driver of the vehicle, ie someone who has been trained to drive, already, and has already passed a test wherein they demonstrated as much, not the owner/developer of an autonomous vehicle who's "operator" under this definition is its software.
your argument is specious and you damn well know it.
or should.
if you don't, more shame and ignorance on you.
Uber wants the public to carry the risk of their testing on public roads, without following the public's rules regarding the threshold the public has set for accepting that risk.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The cars need to be registered, the operators need an operators permit. I believe both already have them, and we don't need more.
You deliberately left out the part about the "operator" not actually driving the car -- the autonomous system is (at least some of the time) driving the car. So that autonomous system needs to be licensed or permitted to prove that it can operate safely. Just like the human operator.
Honestly, your argument is dishonest at best.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.