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."
Basically, they're doing what everybody did before the government injected itself into every facet of life. "Autonomous vehicle testing permit?" Who is the government to say they know more about autonomous vehicle testing than the people actually creating it?
With this great liberty comes risk, of course. The moment someone gets run over, the jig is up.
Will Uber pay for a permit to have their autonomous cars not run red lights? :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I guess Uber are hoping trump gets in before the proceedings can start.
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?
This is what happens when making money is more important than the well being of our society. Someone saw some stupid shit in a movie and thought it was feasible and worthwhile. Snowflake fucks.
Uber's Motto.
"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.
That will show them. Amirite?
Glad to see CEO of Uber and the administration pushing aside BS regulation.
They have learned from the best...government agencies.
sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
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.
It seems that digital companies need to disrupt everything in order to be successful. Including law.
Wait...I thought San Francisco was a 'Sanctuary City' where people who break the laws are protected from the consequences. Is that what Uber means when they 'looked at this issue carefully and we don't believe...'?
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.
Badges we don't need no stinking badges! (For those to young to know, this is a classic line from the movie Treasure of the Sierra Madre starring Humphrey Bogart. If you've never watched it, you should, its awesome & 'classic' and you'll realize why this line fits this situation so well).
I thought Uber was an internet service company that contracts driving out to private contractors. What do they need self-driving cars far?
I mean, it's obvious that Uber is just trying to bullshit everyone, but don't companies like this usually rely on others to negate their arguments for them?
Their business is not an asset light setup.
Like hell it isn't. They don't own the cars. Owning a fleet of taxi vehicles is a hugely expensive asset. QED Uber's business model is asset light. They facilitate transactions and process payments but don't have to own much in the way of assets beyond a data center and some software. That's the very definition of an asset light business model. Don't conflate their business tactics with the amount of assets the actually own.
The problem with computer engineering is, you have no physical constraints, thus is sprung an ego trap that tends to grow the ego in proportion to the perception of skill the individual has. This is why the top 5% of IT staff; Tier 3 network engineers, Systems Engineers, Software Architects, and so forth, are legendary for being epic jerks and getting away with it. It's a mentality that's a lot like jocks at the gym competing to lift the biggest weights. That in turn feeds an over-inflated sense of self-importance, which leads to different operating theories such as Fail Fast, Fail Often.
The reality of the situation is, most technologies are needlessly complex for the sake of it, some technologies terminally so. All business systems, for example, do nothing more than e-forms as a replacement for the Xerox printer, and data basing, reports, dashboards, and so forth for the back-office processing. It's far more profitable to charge for a generic system with all the forms pre-built, and perform studies on how that system will present cost-savings to the organization and figure out a given companies cut, than it is to buy a rapid prototyping system with most of the forms pre-built and easily accessible.
Those who fall into the ego-trap don't think long term.
It's inevitable this kind of thinking would begin hitting the real world at some point as computing infrastructure matured, and in this instance, we've got Uber taking flak from the dept. of labor viewing it's only way out as this self-driving car fiasco.
NOW the model is to move to fleets of autonomous vehicles and eliminate the contract drivers asap.
That makes zero sense. A) there are no commercially available autonomous vehicles on the road today and won't be for a non-trivial number of years yet to come. Uber's efforts towards developing one might help but won't dramatically change the time frame. B) Owning the vehicles will be a huge cost and fundamentally alter their business model from an asset light one to an asset heavy one. While that isn't impossible it's unclear that Uber will be able to pull it off. Few companies manage to make such transitions successfully.
If they are hoping to replace drivers with automation it's going to be quite a while before the economics of that make any kind of sense. Autonomous vehicles will not be cheaper than human driven ones for quite a while.
For example, when running a red light. Does it automatically become a slow speed police chase?
If a level of government decides to tow a parked car, for example because no permit, does it randomly run over the tow truck operator when it accepts a new ride?
Individual car ownership is going to go away in all of the populated parts of the country as soon as automated cars work well.
Nonsense. We already have public transportation and taxi services available and those haven't impacted car ownership hardly at all outside of some of the highest population density cities. The fact that a car is autonomous will not affect the cost model significantly. I could today call a taxi to take me everywhere but I don't. It's more expensive to do that than it is to own a car in most of the US.
How is communal ownership going to work with rush hour? Everybody will need a car at roughly the same time and those extra cars are going to be mostly idle just like they are now between commutes. I own a car because I need to drive a substantial number of miles daily, getting a taxi would cost more and I don't have to wait for my ride to arrive. Communal car ownership makes little to no sense for most people in the US.
I hear that vandalism and theft are "technically" legal in some jurisdictions, too, so I'm sure Uber won't mind if Californians, "borrow" Uber's care for, say, scrap metal.
Rule 35 of the internet: "If it can be hacked, it will be". - Charles Stross
Yeah, I'm sure that when there's an accident Ãoeber will turn over all the logs and source code and hardware designs without any fight at all and the facts will prevail in court.
Have you tried writing for prime time TV? You have the imagination for it.
What are they? What regulations do Uber (or any other autonomous vehicle manufacturers) have to comply with? Or is this just California demanding that they issue royal permits to the local tradespeople? Given California's track record with regulation, I'd be more comfortable with standards set by NHTSA. California is going to have to deal with autonomous vehicles driven in from other states anyway. So better that we have nationwide standards.
Have gnu, will travel.
"public roads"
Well besides public roads what has government ever done for us?
"Well there is is an educated work force"
OK, besides public roads and an educated work force what has government ever done for us?
"Traffic control"
OK, besides public roads, traffic control, and an educated work force what has government ever done for us?
"The internet"
OK, besides public roads, traffic control, an educated work force, and the internet what has government ever done for us?
"Basic RnD into AI."
OK, besides public roads, traffic control, an educated work force, the internet, and AI what has government ever done for us?
etc.
Basically they want all the benefits of government without paying for it. Basic libertarian crap. Government isn't injected into the economy, it is an integral part of the economy. It always has been, back to Hammurabi and the Pharaohs, and always will be.That will never change and there will always be winners and losers. The basic question becomes what sort of society we want; one where there is opportunity and economic security for the many, or opportunity and economic security for the few. Civilization vs. brutality.
I know which one I want and I am willing to pay for it.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
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?
I tuned into one of the local news last night to see how they'd cover this. They actually found three riders that had just completed a trip. They interviewed them on the sidewalk. It wasn't lost on one of them that Uber "autonomous" driving is pretty much nowhere at this time. Uber's system cannot even change lanes by itself. That would explain how the press demo Tuesday night, although finding the right address, ended in the middle lane of a busy street and not where it would be safe to stop a vehicle.
Now, I understand one is wasting his energy trying to complain about the reckless risks that Uber is taking on the backs of residents of this town and its visitors. This is SF, most things are broken, so Uber fits right in. This goes out to you, co-piloting engineer and driver:
Remember you will be personally liable for a situation like running a red light with endangerment as seen in that video that a cabbie shot at SF Moma yesterday.
Remember if you think insurance will have your back: DMV just told Uber to stop operating like this, so good lucking getting any claim approved.
It you happen to run somebody over and that person ends in a wheelchair, you will be personally responsible for medical, disability, lost income etc. This meas basically for the rest of your life: Garnished wages. If you're dreaming of making engineering director or something at Uber one day if you just hang i on to the wagon - given the maturity of the technology: It would appear WalMart greeter is the more likely outcome. I want to encourage you to think about this before next time you pick up the keys of one of the Volvos.
Uber is going to face some cold hard facts when someone gets hurt. Their policy of intentionally ignoring regulations will likely bankrupt them in their first injury case.
I wouldn't recommend buying Uber stock.
The meat of any Slashdot discussion!
Here's a link to the regulation requiring a permit for manufacturers testing autonomous vehicles on pubic roads in California.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/forms/about/lad/pdfs/auto_veh2/adopted_txt.pdf
(BTW California, what's with the copy protection on public documents? Lame.)
Methinks the $5 million surety bond requirement may be one reason Uber is not abiding by the regs. Cheap bastards.
(c) The manufacturer has in place and has provided the department with evidence of the
manufacturer’s ability to respond to a judgment or judgments for damages for personal injury,
death, or property damage arising from the operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads in
the amount of five million dollars ($5,000,000), in the form of: an instrument of insurance issued
by an insurer admitted to issue insurance in California; a surety bond issued by an admitted
surety insurer or an eligible surplus lines insurer, and not a deposit in lieu of bond; or a
certificate of self-insurance.
Some other stuff:
227.22. Autonomous Vehicle Test Driver Training Program.
A manufacturer conducting testing of autonomous vehicles on public roads shall maintain a
training program for its autonomous vehicle test drivers and shall provide the department with a
course outline and description of the autonomous vehicle test driver training program. The
autonomous vehicle test driver training program shall include, but not be limited to the
following:
(a) Instruction on the automated driving system technology to be tested in the manufacturer’s
vehicles, including behind the wheel instruction provided by an experienced driver on the
capabilities and limitations of the manufacturer’s automated driving systems.
(1) For purposes of this section, an “experienced driver” is one who has met the
qualifications provided in Section 227.20, subsections (a) and (b)(1) of this Article and
through training and experience has developed skill and knowledge in the operation of
the manufacturer’s autonomous technology.
(b) Defensive driver training, including practical experience in recovering from hazardous
driving scenarios.
c) Instruction that matches the level of the autonomous test vehicle driver’s experience
operating the specific type of automated driving system technology with the level of technical
maturity of the automated system
You don't want some inexperience yahoo driver behind the wheel in case the autonomous system suddenly becomes sentient and fancies a game of Death Race 2000.
227.46. Reporting Disengagement of Autonomous Mode.
(a) Upon receipt of a Manufacturer’s Testing Permit, a manufacturer shall commence retaining
data related to the disengagement of the autonomous mode. For the purposes of this section,
“disengagement” means a deactivation of the autonomous mode when a failure of the
autonomous technology is detected or when the safe operation of the vehicle requires that the
autonomous vehicle test driver disengage the autonomous mode and take immediate manual
control of the vehicle.
and so on...
Tesla vehicles have an autopilot mode. They seem to be driving all over the world without extra permits.
Why is the Uber situation substantially different, regulation-wise?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
If Uber doesn't need a permit, then neither do I.
And I don't need a permit to let my horse run loose in the streets, carriage or not, right?
Does Uber have its own self-driving technology or are they just using Volvo's? If it's not their technology, is Uber's 'testing' even useful in improving the self-drive ability of these cars?
The whole premise behind drivers' licenses and vehicle registration and regulation is that the government build the roads, so they get to decide the rules which apply if you want to use those roads. If Uber builds their own roads, they can run their self-driving vehicles on those roads all day if they want. But if they want to run them on government roads, they need to play by the government's rules. Even if public safety weren't an issue, they'd still need to play by the government's rules. (The same reasoning applies to easements for utility lines, which is how we ended up with government-approved cable and phone monopolies. So I'm not saying this always results in the best outcome. Just that this is the way it works.)
But people die anyway. If your requirement is that unless you can absolutely guarantee that no one will be hurt you can not operate, then people shouldn't be allowed to drive cars either. Fail.
Nobody is calling for perfect safety. That is impossible. What we want is to minimize the hazard and that CANNOT happen without regulation. What I'm not ok with is an unregulated wild west when I'm in the line of fire. We regulate things that are dangerous for a reason so that we can minimize the damage. No reason it should be different for Uber's autonomous vehicles.
There is an absolute chance that someone will get hurt. Thats why there is financial compensation to make whole as best as possible those you are responsible for hurting.
That's for the accidents that cannot be avoided. You cannot make someone whole who is injured or dead. We can avoid a lot of accidents by proper regulation. Failing to regulate companies results in unnecessary harm to people. No amount of insurance money after the fact will resurrect someone who was killed because we couldn't be bothered to oversee an irresponsible company.
GM would not have committed the engineering mistake if it could have avoided it, and the ignition defect didn't contribute to GM's profits as you are alleging
It doesn't matter if the mistake was intentional or not. They failed to address it in a timely manner and to all appearances covered up the problem for a long time. Covering up the errors absolutely did add to GMs profits. Recalls are crazy expensive and GM failed to act about a known problem. Whether this was through greed or incompetence is irrelevant. The fact is that their actions hurt people in pursuit of greater profits. GM is merely one in a LOOOOONG line of companies that have killed and injured people in order to realize greater profits. If you need examples I refer you to BP, Union Carbide, Hooker Chemical, and I can keep going for hours.
"We understand that there is a debate over whether or not we need a testing permit to launch self-driving Ubers in San Francisco,"
I understand that there is a debate over the legitimacy of my ordering an Uber car and then completely dismantling it when it arrives. I have looked at this issue very carefully and believe t is in my best interest to dismantle and scrap as many Uber vehicles as I can. Do you expect to get any support from the state of California in any disagreement you might have with me over this, Uber?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Its not autonomous if there is a driver in the seat. Therefore no permit is necessary.
Is that what passes for a thought-process in hipsters?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Don't get me wrong, I think they're violating all kinds of taxi laws in various markets. However, in this case, I would have to stay they're in the right. If there is a licensed driver behind the wheel, then it's not a "self driving car", it's just a car with kick ass cruse control.
In our overly regulated society, from City Hall to the Federal Government, unless coercive penalties are certain one should always act first and seek permission only when necessary. This is especially true when the regulations are there only to benefit some entrenched monopoly to the detriment of enterprising individuals or startups.
https://joejarvisv.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/licensing.jpg
... I couldn't hate this company more, they do this. I like the idea of what they do, but the disdain for the rule of law is unforgiveable.
"Science is the power of man"
Uber tried this same stunt in Utah at the Sundance film festival. They decided they didn't need a permit to land choppers in a regular neighborhood right in town. For a whole day the damn things were flying low over people's houses and dropping off people in a field next to someone's house. No safety equipment, lights, nor even a proper walkway. Just some spray paint on a field
They claimed they had the right and didn't need a permit. It all stopped when the local sheriff informed the pilot of the chopper that if he landed one more time he would impound the chopper and that would be it. Uber then tried to claim they could use the helipad at the sheriff's office under FAA rules. You can guess at this point the pilot had enough and was not willing to continue.
Then we had to pass a bunch of explicit rules against this at the county level, all due to this foolishness and publicity stunt that clearly was not about actually starting an uber chopper business. I expect this will turn out the same.
Makes me wonder if driverless cars are programed to pull over when a cop shows up behind them with lights on, let alone follow instructions over the loudspeaker. even if they do pull over, how do they provide license, registration, insurance, or take tickets? Are passangers always responsible in such cases? What if there are no passengers? I wonder how a driverless car handles getting impounded and towed?
Setting aside the flame war around this post, the basic issue is thus: The government wants to require all autonomous vehicles to be certified before operating on public roadways. This absolutely makes sense if you are talking about Johnnycab, where the software is the only operator. Uber's position is that they are testing their driving software, but that there is a human driver with their hands on the wheel ready to take over immediately if they feel uncomfortable. Because of this, the Uber vehicles aren't really autonomous, but more like the adaptive driving of a Tesla, which does not require a special autonomous car permit from the state. Uber's position is actually quite tenable and they will probably win in court if the state pushes it that far. Technically the self driving systems are only augmenting the driver and not replacing them at this point. If and when Uber takes the human driver out of the vehicle, they will definitely need the autonomous license.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
If one of their cars kills someone, there is not a jury in the land that will convict the family members from sniping at Uber's managerial team.
Uber will succeed because (1) rides will be free, subsidized by in-vehicle advertisers; (2) usage data will allow them to predictively position vehicles more efficiently than human drivers and (3) vehicles will operate 24/7/365 without their lazy drivers needing to sleep and eat.
Although they act like pigs/bullies, they have a sound business path forward. Why does anyone expect these assholes to be so kind and respectful?
All the wonderful things that "government" has done for us ... with OUR wealth!
None of those "government" services would be possible without people actually producing and providing valuable goods and services and creating the wealth which the government then confiscates to do all of these wonderful things.
You're really "willing" to pay for all this government stuff? How much do you pay in taxes above and beyond the absolute minimum amount that the government demands from you? If you think about it, you don't "willingly" pay taxes to fund any of these things. You pay taxes because you know that the government will use force against you if you refuse to pay up. Don't pay and they'll try to throw you in a cage. Resist being thrown in a cage, and they will kill you.
Yet you dare to suggest that this system based on extortion, coercion and the ever-present threat of violence is "civilization" whereas a system based on voluntary associations(libertarianism/anarcho-capitalismc) is "brutality"?
"opportunity and economic security for the many, or ... the few."
In the USA, we have a federal government with an annual budget of over $4 TRILLION! The various state and local governments spend roughly another $3 trillion. Where's all of this "opportunity" and "economic security" that you're talking about? My impression is that "the many" are struggling under crushing debt burdens, working longer hours for less pay and are seeing increasingly fewer economic opportunities.
I have determined I don't need a license to drive on the roads either.
Agreed
A government doesn't.
TBD...
Uber has a financial incentive to put these cars on the road as fast as possible.
Agreed
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.
Agreed, so long as the definition of "government" is textual clauses upon a piece of paper. Should that definition shift to "politicians with a budget in a bureaucratic office", the role of government more closely aligns with that of a business. Specifically, to make money. And what easier way to make money than under the barrel of a sheriff's gun justified by a legislator's "law" supported by a judge?
Sure, they won't actually admit to it, but all too often the city/county/state/fed "wants their money too" under the justification of "regulation" or "safety". Once you factor in the lobbying (in this case, the taxis and their million dollar permits, and the "public" transportation funded and profited by the government), the "role" of government becomes even more suspicious.
This reminds me of communities who provide their own wifi. We applaud them and chastise the "government" for folding and bowing to the whims of the incumbent providers who decreed it illegal to provide one's own network services. However, when it comes to autonomous ride-sharing, we criticise Uber for not folding and bowing to the whims of the incumbent taxi and government-provided transportation lobbyists and existing favorable legislation.
I realize this is California, with the appropriate political slant, but I'm confused. Do we want to shake up the current state of affairs, or not?
You got the point. We give some wealth and power to the government(s) in return for services. No government is not an option, responsible government is.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
http://esq.h-cdn.co/assets/cm/15/07/54daefbf96e49_-_airplane-auto-pilot.jpg
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
If you operate a commercial vehicle in any State in the Union you have to have a different license than if you operate one personally. This should not be much of a surprise or terribly controversial.
As to what kind of safety there is with such a license? I really don't think that is the *only* point of a commercial licensing process. Remember that a licensing process also gives a government the ability to restrict the number of commercial vehicles that use the roads. The qualifications of the driver come into play as well with a commercial vehicle, especially one that is carrying passengers or dangerous material. Not that a limousine license should be much of a burden for a company like Uber. (I'm sure Uber claims otherwise)
Call my a cynic, but for the CA DMV the main purpose of license and registration is to collect a tax that pays a big part of the Police department. That's not a great reason to keep the system around, but it is the current system and changes in legislation would be required to fix it.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
This seems like a really stupid fight to pick. If the state wants to impound the cars, they can just sign up for rides and Uber will deliver them :-)
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us