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
"We have looked at this issue carefully and we don't believe we do."
Translation: "We'll do whatever we want until a judge tells us to stop. Maybe not even then."
I don't really get why Uber would give a shit about autonomous vehicles. Their entire business model is based around an asset light setup. They don't own or insure the cars that Uber drivers use. Going to autonomous vehicles in any substantial way would require a very hefty capital investment AND it would ruin their (bogus) argument that they aren't a taxi service. It doesn't make much sense to me.
I'd say the government is the one responsible for managing conduct on the roads, and dealing with the consequences when people make mistakes and harm others.
This includes their robots, horses, and whatnot.
Uber's arrogance and lack of co-operation makes them a company I don't choose to do with business with. Vote with your dollars, its apparently the only thing some people pay attention to.
"Autonomous vehicle testing permit?" Who is the government to say they know more about autonomous vehicle testing than the people actually creating it?
Permits have nothing to do with knowing all about vehicle testing, though in actual fact state and federal government agencies actually know quite a bit. The reason for the permits has to do with ensuring that public safety is respected and that companies aren't behaving recklessly. If someone is going to be testing experimental and possibly dangerous vehicles on public roads where injuries to citizens might result then the government ABSOLUTELY SHOULD be involved. Nobody else is going to protect me from Uber's reckless pursuit of the almighty dollar. I'm quite sure Uber would literally run people over if there were no consequences for doing so. I have to get an operators permit to drive a vehicle on public roads. It should not be any different for Uber needing a permit to do the same with a computer driven car.
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.
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?
Oh, just fuck off.
I don't respond to AC's.
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.
But Uber is right in this case, so they're not breaking any laws.
The State of California disagrees. Note this little detail: over 20 companies have gotten permits from the State of California to test (drive) autonomous cars on public streets. That means that Uber is not acting in a regulative vacuum, it is just choosing to ignore the regulations that do exist.
Oh, so there's no law in California requiring that motor vehicles only be operated by licensed drivers? Seems unlikely.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
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
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.
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
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.