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."
Will Uber pay for a permit to have their autonomous cars not run red lights? :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
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.
"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.
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.
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.
so, basically, your argument is that back in 1803, the government had no laws concerning road usage, so since then, laws have been created to govern road usage and that is wrong!
Okay, so you're a moron. Got it. Without law, whomever is the most strong simply takes what they want, until someone else comes along and kills them. That is what is wrong with your anarchistic statement. Laws on the roads exist for the safety of the people on the roads (in rare circumstance's they also exist to line people's pockets).
So, fuck you and your 'no laws' concept, WHO IS GOING TO ENFORCE your 'the jig is up' bullshit if there are no laws?
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.
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...'?
Mandated by whom?
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
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.
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.
I hope you're not the one who gets run over. If so, my condolences.
I comment occasionally so that I can mod others -1 overrated or -1 offtopic.
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.
It's small consolation to the person wrongfully killed that their next of kin will get a payout. The permits are in place to make sure that the system has been built to a certain level of safety. These are public roads where the risk of using them are shared by all and Uber's system should have to go through a vetting process just as human operators are required to pass a license test.
If anyone gets hurt out of this Uber execs should go to jail for manslaughter. Not fined, jail.
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.
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 legislature, but that doesn't matter. They have mandated that you are responsible.
Weapons-grade baloney. Companies are willing to absorb financial risk at the cost of human life. That's why we have regulations and laws that make financial liability not the only consideration for companies to make in their decision making process.
"Old man yells at systemd"
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.
Oh, just fuck off.
I don't respond to AC's.
And they have mandated that you must have a license and that your car must be registered in a way that is compatible with its usage. The government gets to determine how its roads are used... thats part of the deal. Other states might not require such permitting for testing of autonomous vehicles... perhaps Uber could go test their vehicles in those states, or comply with the regulation in California.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
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?
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.
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**
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?
Apparently so, if you you have $ 8 billion or so in the bank.
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
ignorant troll you
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.
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+
How brave of them to risk others lives in the name of progress. Because Uber can afford to kill a few people if needs be, take their word for it.
I have a car driven by a team of angry chimps. I also have stacks of money to blow and can insure my car. Looks like it's all legal and I'm good to go!
In this case, the permit is kind of like a "Drivers License". So it is like their cars need to take a drivers test before they can drive on California rules. I am a programmer, I would MUCH prefer the state making sure the car stops correctly for pedestrians, etc, then finding out after their car kills my grand kids.
Scott Carr
Do these cars have people in them ready to take over at all times?
If so, I don't really think a permit is (should be) needed. I don't even see how it's any added danger actually.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
the People = the Government, the People decided they don't want dangerous or risky behavious on the roads and created various rules and regulations therefore.
including the new ones regarding autonomous vehicle testing, because if possible we'd rather stop things from hurting people...before they do rather than after.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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
You forgot rampant food poisoning and buildings that fall down on people in a strong wind.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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?
"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.
No moron. I'm saying without a problem, we shouldn't introduce legislation "just because we can". If there is a problem, and it is not fixed by the counts (wrongful death, gross negligence, found liable for...), then legislators should act to fix the problem. Just because you can make a law doesn't mean you have to or should. There are laws already in place and they protect us to a suffficnent degree.
are the engineers present in the vehicle and ready to take over?
no?
then stfu.
also, equating cruise control, a device that simply preserves the speed of your vehicle, but not respond to any external stimuli, to an autonomous vehicle only further reveals your stupidity.
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.
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
It wouldn't be your fault if the chimps crashed. They're independent contractors!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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?
The concept of having a human ready to take over is bullshit. By the time he's realised that he needs to and reached the controls it's going to be too late.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
So when an Uber runs a red we can send tickets to all the software schmucks? Is every line written by an engineer with a DL in California?
You really want to use this line of reasoning?
Wouldn't have to. When you are in a car and you press "set" on the indicator stock, you are operating the vehicle and delegating a part of that operation to the car. This is a natural extension of that. Uber engineers have DLs and know the rules of the road. You don't license the car or the equipment, you license the operator and they delegate.
I'd be extremely surprised if there were no laws defining what a street legal car is and rules for safety critical systems and what is and is not delegated. If we go back to before ABS was ubiquitous, it was my responsibility to pump-brake so I could steer and brake at the same time. If I floor it now in a car with ABS, I'd say it's the car's responsibility. The liability would be a civil matter and a matter between me and the car company, but when did the criminal responsibility with regards to negligence and reckless driving pass? That's between me and the law. I assume it passed in some form of approval process.
I expect that whatever system Uber has installed is experimental and not approved and thus illegal. If it was purely informational and advisory like say GPS navigation or a rear view camera it would be okay, but once you have a system that can actually interfere in the driving I can't imagine that it's free reign. You can't road test your new brake system just because you want to and will pay the bills.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.)
In my city, you can tell when they are doing the traffic survey on any particular street: highly visible police presence just before and during the survey to reduce the average speed.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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.
Which are laughably low. So low that they are almost meaningless.
In the UK, the limits on liability are measured in millions. Before the Great Heck rail crash, which cost the driver's insurance company almost $30M, I believe it was typically unlimited. There is still no limit for personal injury and death claims by third parties.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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.
That is factually incorrect. California has what is known as a Basic Speed Law which stops at 55MPH. The Basic Speed Law does behave as you say for any road with a limit posted at or below 55MPH. If you're going 1 MPH over 55MPH, you can no longer use the basic speed law to get out of a ticket regardless of what the speed limit is.
"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.
Except that not the line. It's 'badges - we don't need no badges'.
And yes, it's a great film.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
> someone has to make the leap and the risk, even a few deaths, is worth the reward. US society is not technologically progressive enough to allow for this in the next few decades so capitalism provides. Uber is as good as anyone to bear the brunt of the risks (and inevitable lawsuits).
Go ahead then, you offer up your life first and we'll all reap the rewards. Moron.
Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
As you point out, these rules exist for a reason. They make the roads safer. The rules against SDCs, even when there is a human in the driver's seat, do not make the roads safer in any demonstrable way. They exist only because of bureaucratic inertia. 38,300 people died in traffic accidents in America last year. So if by pushing back against petty rules, Uber brings forward the widespread adoption of SDCs by even one day, they will have saved 100 lives.
Agreed... otherwise, if we follow grandparent's argument, my 5 year old can drive on the roads if I call myself the "operator".
In aviation the operator can be the pilot, or it can be the airline he works for. In road vehicles, I think we can all read "operator" as "entity that moves the controls".
My daughter recently got her driver's license here in MA. Not sure I think any of the current autonomous vehicles would pass that test. It was pretty tough.
I spent about 10 min researching the CA DMV web site looking for this. Perhaps 10 min isn't enough but would you mind providing a citation. This is the closest I've been able to find... https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/...
Specifically, I'm looking for information on the "reasonable speed which is defined as 85 percentile of all the cars on the road" part. I see a reference to "reasonable speed but my own interpretation of this doesn't agree with your assessment.
Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
... 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"
Only if the driver of the autonomous vehicle passes a driver's test, then you'd be correct. But it hasn't.
Of course the autonomous vehicle's driver also isn't insured, so it may be hard to get a license plate as well. Those are the rules after all.
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.
In many cases, this could invalidate the survey because the presence of law enforcement by itself changes the way people drive.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
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?
They make the roads safer by not allowing any idiot with a Raspberry Pi or BeagleBone and a tenuous grasp of engineering to run their own "self driving car". If you want to test an SDC on CA roads, you have to get a permit. Even if it doesn't demonstrably make the streets safer, it certainly reduces the RISK of something bad happening.
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
it certainly reduces the RISK of something bad happening.
There is nothing "certain" about this. You can use a Raspberry Pi to control your brakes or steering, as long as it is not fully self driving, and anyone willing to take risks like that is unlikely to worry about the risk of not having the permit. There is little reason to believe these rules have saved even one life, and plenty of reason to believe they are costing thousands of lives by impeding progress. It is not even clear that Uber is actually breaking any law, but they are certainly on the side of morality. I, for one, applaud them for their stance on this.
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?
I don't think Uber is arguing that it's exempt from this rule. It's arguing that the rules in place don't require a permit because they have a human driver behind the wheel.
The fact that the bureaucrats from the relevant government agency disagree doesn't mean they're right. Such bureaucrats are charged with administering and enforcing the rules defined in the law, and in some cases the law specifically delegates certain rulemaking authorities to them, but even then they don't get to just make rules arbitrarily, they have to write them down and publish them as regulations. There's usually a regulation-making process which includes public comment, etc.
So if Uber's attorneys have examined the relevant laws and regulations and they believe that Uber does not, in fact, need a permit, then they're free to proceed. If the DMV disagrees, it can take action in court, where a judge may grant an injunction to either stop or allow Uber from proceeding while the question is properly adjudicated.
Note that I'm not claiming that Uber doesn't need a permit. I don't know, and neither do you. I'm just saying that it doesn't look to me like Uber is asking to be exempt from any rules, but instead claiming that the rules don't say they need a permit.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
So, your argument is that because nobody who is willing to risk safety would worry about getting a permit, we should just get rid of the permits? That's the stupidest thing I have heard today (so far).
I have no idea what CA's requirements are to obtain a permit, but I would presume that any company that is serious about SDC's should be able to get one with little difficulty. If they aren't, I most certainly wouldn't want to share the road with them. This is just Uber being a petulant child because they don't think they have to play by the same rules everyone else does, and I REALLY don't want to share the road with a company that can't be bothered to even get a damn permit. I mean if they don't want to follow that (presumably simple) rule, what other rules or laws are they going to break?
Except for the part where the autonomous cars don't handle themselves like a real person driving a vehicle does, which causes unexpected behavior that leads to accidents. Google's self-driving car was only liable in 1 accident, I believe, but was found to have done behavior that induced numerous other accidents to occur.
You don't think a professional is capable of watching everything and taking over?
That's how I learned to drive.
I think that the drivers that are taking over are the ones that need special licensing, not the cars personally.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
I've seen how the humans drive where I live. I think the odds of dying at the hands of the humans is far higher than the odds of dying at the... well not hands, but whatever the equivalent is for autonomous vehicles.
Is it worth the deaths? That's a trolley problem and humankind hasn't really been able to answer it. But if you ask most people, they'd tell you they prefer a one in a billion chance of dying over a one in a million chance.
Humans are tremendously versatile, and capable of doing many things better than any machine to date. Making unfailing good decisions while driving is not among those things. The question here isn't whether or not machines will kill less people than humans, but rather what approach will get us to fewer deaths quickest. Uber, Google and Musk are taking the approach of getting the tech deployed and working as quickly as possible.
I don't trust the motives, but I do recognize the conflict. If our society can deploy the tech starting today that will save a thousand lives in the next year, isn't it worth scaring a bunch of people and pissing off a bunch of politicians? I'd say yes, but that's a big if. I'm still on the fence as to whether it might not save more lives to have more controlled and regulated testing that slows such deployment.
Fortunately, there is a way to get sufficient test data to make a rational decision as to whether the tech will save lives. Michigan has made it tremendously easier to test self driving cars than California. I wish Uber would concentrate all their resources into making Michigan the test case. If they can get to ten percent autonomous cars in Michigan, then we should see a corresponding decline in traffic related deaths. Do that for a year and point out how many Californians died needlessly next year to every news outlet that will listen and we'll have our revolution.
So, your argument is that because nobody who is willing to risk safety would worry about getting a permit, we should just get rid of the permits?
I am saying that the current permit process is pointless and isn't preventing any accidents. A sensible permit process, focused on public safety, would be fine, but that is not what we have now.
I just used the defense last month for a ticket of going 67 in a stretch marked 55 (ridiculously so since its a grade separated 8 lane highway). I didnt even have to speak a word. All I did was send a registered delivery proof required letter to the DA's office asking for the survey a week before trial date. On trial day the Officer turned up and told the traffic commisioner they dont have a survey and the commisioner dismissed the charge.
**Life is too short to be serious**
The rules against SDCs, even when there is a human in the driver's seat, do not make the roads safer in any demonstrable way.
Except by ensuring the car has been tested to be as safe or safer than a human operated vehicle.
uber can bring forward the adoption all they want.
I applaud the effort.
but before they test the damn things on public roads they absolutely shoul dhave to comply with regulatory rules designed to ensure the car actually is safe to drive on a public road, even as a test vehicle.
This is no different from companies proving safety of drugs to the best of their ability before beginning widespread human trials.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
how is it not certain?
no the risk is not reduced to 0, but no one is calling for that.
what is being called for is for the company to prove to the public, via its regulatory agencies, that they've done all they can to make it as safe as they can, before proceeding to public road testing.
that's what this permit does.
and no, ignoring this regulation and potentially endangering people does not put them on the side of morality.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
You do not argue with the officer. You take your ticket which is after all only an accusation not a conviction. You go to the traffic office and plead not guilty. Go to walk in arraignment and plead not guilty ask for a speedy trial and then send off a letter to the DA's office asking for the survey. Turn up for your trial date and the commisioner will dismiss your case. It needs you to turn up twice and spend 2 hours each time but it may be worth getting a 400 dollar ticket dismissed. I have done it myself. In fact if I was really speeding I would probably pay the ticket but what got me really irritated was I was on a highway with overpasses and the cop got me coming down a slope when the car tends to accelerate by itself and got me for 67 on grade separated 8 lane (4 each way) highway. 55 was a ridiculously low speed limit for an 8 lane road. So I fought it and won. Probably thought I was a tourist who would just pay up as it was middle of the day and not the typical rush hour. Didnt know I was just going back to office after attending a School conference meeting at my sons school. This was my locality and it was barely 5 min drive for me to go to the traffic court. I could just popin twice before work so no hassle to get it dismissed.
**Life is too short to be serious**
A government runs a deficit for 100 years? Everybody is happier, healthier, and just all around more pleased with life.
Sounds all good to me, why would you want the government to run like a business when faced with that?
Because the happiness is based on a lie or - at the very least - a very unstable foundation. Ask Greece.
I just used the defense last month for a ticket of going 67 in a stretch marked 55 (ridiculously so since its a grade separated 8 lane highway). I didnt even have to speak a word. All I did was send a registered delivery proof required letter to the DA's office asking for the survey a week before trial date. On trial day the Officer turned up and told the traffic commisioner they dont have a survey and the commisioner dismissed the charge.
Yes. They have to have a survey showing why all speed limits exist. But the fact that "speed limits are suggestions rather than rules" comes from the basic speed law, which is only for speeds of 55 MPH and lower. If they had a traffic survey showing that the speed limit was set in accordance with federal and state guidelines then you could not argue the case. Under 55 MPH you can still argue that your speed was safe regardless of what the posted limit is.
Not necessarily.
SDCs are not going to react like humans to unusual situations and humans are used to others reacting like humans. SDCs, for financial liability reasons (and, to avoid racking up so many traffic tickets that they are uneconomical), must always "work to rule" -- this, just like "work to rule" work actions whose entire intent is to destroy productivity, would be very disruptive.
Consider, for example, emergency vehicles with lights and siren are responding to a life threatening emergency. They come up on a red light or some other situation where cars are blocking their way. Every car (SDC or HDC) has pulled as far to the right as they can and stopped -- unfortunately, since they were already stopped and the light is red, they can't move further to the right (that would require both moving - oops, and ignoring a traffic control device - oops). The emergency vehicles come up behind the line of stopped cars blocking the intersection and, what they do in my area, get on their PA system and order me to drive through the red light (it's then legal for me to do so -- official emergency response personnel orders take priority over traffic control devices). Someone in the cab is also usually gesticulating with non-uniform, but understandable, gestures given the situation and the limited number of options. Even when the wind is howling and the rain is pounding down and the guy in the truck has a heavy accent, HDCs do what they are told (it sometimes takes a bit for them to grok it, but they seem to within seconds). Will SDCs do the same (and not do it when some guy, in a fit of road rage, is just yelling out the window telling them to drive through the red light)? If the SDCs fail to move, the delay could cost someone their life.
Or consider that cars approaching a signal which is out are supposed to treat it as a stop sign. But, humans are reasonable, if the signal is new, all but one of the lights is still covered by cardboard, there's no evidence of a power outage, the cross traffic still has a stop sign, humans on the main street won't stop suddenly and create a traffic hazard on the (correct) assumption that the wind just blew the cardboard cover off one of the lights. On the other hand, even if the signal is new but appears to be fully deployed, and the power in the area appears to be off, humans (usually) do the right thing. The SDC may not have gotten the message yet that the signal is active so it may make the wrong decision in this case (or the wrong decision in the prior case).
If there is a pedestrian who wants to cross at an intersection (with, or without, a stop sign, with, or without, a painted crosswalk), cars must yield to the pedestrian. However, people stand on street corners and chat, sometimes they wave the driver on (indicating they don't want to cross but, maybe, are just waiting for someone), sometimes they are buried in their phone and showing no signs of actually crossing. In these situations humans are pretty good at figuring out the situation and responding correctly. SDCs, probably not so much yet. Recall the google car case of a google car following a garbage truck from house to house, stopping at each one as the truck picked up the trash, instead of passing it like humans do. This creates a hazard because now it's more dangerous for a HDC to pass because it has to not only pass the truck (as expected) but ten SDCs which have piled up behind the garbage truck in the past ten minutes. Or, recall the google car that was horribly confused by the bicyclist (who did not have the right of way and had stopped to yield it at a four way stop) but the bicyclist was doing a track stand -- which meant he was moving a bit and this caused the google car to "stutter step" across the intersection -- potentially confusing other drivers. Or, recall the google car that assumed (I have no idea why) that a big bus would just yield to it (even though the bus had the right of way) when it swerved into its lane to avoid a waddle (or similar) around a storm drain.
Where I live, w
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
You are aware that cruise control itself had to go through a similar review process to the one being proposed here, aren't you? The regulating body (NTSB in the case of cruise control, I think, it was approved before I was born) had to approve the designs and implementations since it's an electronic safety system.
Do recall, you ARE completely free to drive your vehicle on PRIVATE land/roads without a license. No one is preventing that. However, the public roads are a shared resource and cars are large, hard, objects with a lot of momentum.
Are you against traffic signals on public roads also?
And against drunk driving laws (until you actually kill someone, you should be able to drive drunk shouldn't you?)?
And against blind people driving (until you actually kill someone, you should be able to drive without vision shouldn't you?)?
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Like most libertarian proposals, this is insanity. You are basically saying anyone can drive right up until they are convicted for some crime, say like injuring/killing someone, causing irreversible harm (even if possibly, partially, monetarily compensated for via insurance or a civil settlement). We already know there is a substantial likelihood of this happening -- even with licensing schemes in place -- and can measure and predict rather well using aggregate economic harm that would result of a no-license regime. A license provides a low cost, easy to administer method to reduce this economic harm by validating some basic level of skill at driving and ability to pay some later civil settlement should you fail (or just get unlucky). Now if you want to argue the administrative or social cost outweighs the benefit here and/or there is a better system, please present your large, comprehenive, well researched , peer reviewed study.
Licensing seems like a good idea to me.
If the autonomous vehicle follows all the rules already in place, then it shouldn't be prohibited. Why change the rules just because of how it works? The rules are the rules.
The government has set the rules already, and the rules state that the operator is the one responsible. We already know this. Its right there in the drivers handbook!
ooooh but its autonomous, there is no operator!
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
That's laughably naive of you. Where'd you learn that, high school? That's not the point of government. The point of government is to steal as much money as you can by manipulating it in your favor. See: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and the rest of the DC Establishment.
Isn't that the job of the police, in the USA? Civil forfeiture "Thats OBVIOUSLY drug money *yoink*"
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Except that not the line. It's 'badges - we don't need no badges'.
And yes, it's a great film.
Close, but no cigar. "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!"
what is being called for is for the company to prove to the public, via its regulatory agencies, that they've done all they can to make it as safe as they can, before proceeding to public road testing.
that's what this permit does.
No, that is NOT what the permit does. The permit tests the ability to jump through bureaucratic hoops, and patiently wait for months with the application sits in some inbox.
ignoring this regulation and potentially endangering people does not put them on the side of morality.
Every day that progress is impeded, another 100 families lose a father, mother, son, daughter in a needless traffic accident ... and that is just in America. There is a thousand more elsewhere. These are real deaths not "potential endangerment".
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+
In the my state in the US, occasionally you need to go in to get at least the vision test. Past some age, the "in person" and perhaps "driving test" becomes more frequent.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
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