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."
There are already mandatory financial liability minimums for traveling down the roadway. Also, the cars are designed to meet certain criteria in terms of bumper dimensions, impact ratings, passenger restraints, stopping distances, light indicators, etc.. etc...
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. Certainly not until the situation gets out of hand, which it won't. The liability these companies are taking by having their cars on the road is enough to make them take all the proper precautions. Imagine a wrongful death suit against a company like Uber where its software can be analyzed and its mistake pointed out exactly by a lawyer in a court-room. The mountain of evidence, and the big fat bank account will make them prime targets, and so they have a high incentive already to build safe products.
There is also a requirement that the driver hold a valid operator's permit. Since the car is "driving", it seems like the car would need one. Carrying the analogy further, today I would think that the car basically would have its "temps". I can understand how Uber may have gotten the car to pass the maneuverability portion of the test, but I do struggle to understand how it would pass the written portion.
Actually in California all Speed Limits are suggestions rather than rules. The actual law states drive at a reasonable speed which is defined as 85 percentile of all the cars on the road. Also there needs to have been a survey of the highway/freeway during the past 5 years for the 85 percentile value to be valid. So if you ever get a speeding ticket in California just plead not guilty go to trial and ask to see the survey. 9 cases out of 10 the case will be dismissed. People just dont bother exercising their right to a fair trial when it comes to traffic offenses.
**Life is too short to be serious**
Given Uber continuously ignores the law at what point should they be considered organised crime and have their assets seized as the proceeds of crime?
Last time I looked at this (about 40 years ago), the 85% rule and current traffic survey rule applied only to radar (and, maybe, aerial) enforcement.
At that time, I got nailed by radar so went down to the city hall and requested the survey -- indeed they had one that was quite recent and it "justified" the limit.
Oddly, though, the survey was taken on the day after Christmas and the road was a main thoroughfare to the largest regional mall in the area. This was back in the era when people flocked to brick and mortar stores the day after Christmas to buy all the crap no one had bought (again, in the days before "big" data -- or even "modest" data -- was used to predict demand more accurately and optimize profits so there was a lot more junk to get rid of in stores back then). As well, upon checking the microfilm of the local newspaper for the days around the survey, I discovered it was raining fairly hard much of the day the survey was taken (a detail that the survey failed to mention). From my personal experience, I avoided this road (and the general area) in the week or two leading up to Christmas and just after Thanksgiving because it was so congested but used it regularly the rest of the time.
When I was nailed, it was mid-morning on a clear, warm, dry, summer day nowhere near a holiday. Traffic was so light that there were maybe five cars visible to me on a three lane (each way) road, wide shoulders, a full width double-double yellow "divider lane", posted no parking on both sides, no pedestrian traffic present (and there were generous sidewalks if there had been), no residences or businesses fronting on the street (just a continuous block wall behind large housing developments, and only the occasional side street (all of which had dedicated left turn pockets onto them from the street I was on and either were signal controlled or were non-through streets with "one-way" stop signs and with clear visibility both ways).
I thought about fighting it based on the traffic survey not being representative of normal traffic flow about 350 days of the year, including the day I was driving, but was too busy with school and work so didn't. To this day I regret not fighting it as I'm sure thousands of people got unjustified tickets over the years on that stretch of road and most (in pre internet days) wouldn't have thought to research the law let alone actually get a copy of the traffic survey and known the game the city was playing.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading