Slashdot Mirror


Uber Stops Self-Driving Car Pilot In San Francisco After The DMV Steps In (engadget.com)

93 Escort Wagon writes: San Francisco bicyclists can breathe a sigh of relief now that Uber has suspended testing of its autonomous fleet in the city. The company announced the decision after the California Department of Motor Vehicles suspended the registration of the vehicles involved in the testing. Uber remains "100 percent committed to California and will be redoubling our efforts to develop workable statewide rules," the company said. A spokesperson for Uber told Recode, "We are open to having the conversation about applying for a permit, but Uber does not have plans to do so."

10 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. DMV offered to bend the rules for Uber. by mjwx · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is a case of Uber being recalcitrant, not that the laws were restrictive or unfair.

    As per this article, the DMV tried to work with Uber to get permits for the vehicles.

    The DMV told Uber that if it had obtained a permit, the regulator would have given the green light to the self-driving pilot. DMV director Jean Shiomoto said in a letter sent to Uber that she would "personally help to ensure an expedited review and approval process", which she said could take less than three days.

    So it's not like the city was trying to stop Uber.

    Another 20 companies exploring self-driving cars — including Alphabet's Google, Tesla Motors and Ford Motor Co — have obtained California DMV permits for 130 cars.

    It seems its not difficult for other companies either.

    Its just that Uber doesn't want to play by the rules, even when the rules are being bent for their benefit. The Recode article in the fine summary said it would be $150 per vehicle so it's not like they were trying to kill them with fees either.

    Either that, or Uber knows it's autonomous car program is not ready for prime time.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  2. I'm a fan of Uber by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But really fuck them for this. Taking down a taxi cartel by breaking laws designed to prop up a monopoly is one thing.

    Not abiding by a permit with dangerous test vehicles on the road is quite the other.

  3. Uber + Autonomous vehicles = Dumb by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its just that Uber doesn't want to play by the rules, even when the rules are being bent for their benefit.

    I get the impression that is something of a cultural thing with Uber at this point. They're not even trying to get along. They are just acting the part of a bully and trying to do whatever they want. I think their corporate mantra is "better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" but they don't even bother with the forgiveness bit.

    Either that, or Uber knows it's autonomous car program is not ready for prime time.

    I think this is probably close to the mark. Uber getting involved in autonomous cars makes absolutely zero business sense. Their entire business model is based on an asset-light utilization of vehicles owned by the people that drive for them. They are basically a middle-man matching and scheduling taxi service. Actually owning the vehicles would cost a ton of money for no obvious benefit to Uber. Uber owning the vehicles (autonomous or not) would A) undermine their (absurd) argument that they aren't a taxi service and B) require a HUGE investment in assets and the attendant insurance, maintenance, upkeep, registration, and tracking. Uber has no infrastructure to do this nor do they have the capital to buy such a fleet.

    Uber getting into autonomous vehicles smacks of marketing more than engineering. They want to project an image and seem hip but this is a project well outside their wheelhouse and they don't curently have the profits to support projects like this like Google or Apple or even Amazon does. I think they are trying to steal a page from the Netflix playbook and be ready for what they think will be the next industry evolution but it would make a LOT more sense for them to let someone else figure out the autonomous vehicle thing and just buy them when the time comes. They are a me-too entry into what is already a crowded field and they have no particular advantage in making autonomous cars and some very obvious disadvantages.

  4. Re:The big news: Uber follows the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Call me when Trump sets up an illegal email server with Top Secret emails on it - connected to the internet.

    Call me when Clinton does. The FBI investigated and found no meaningful wrong doing. Stop pretending that this is a thing that matters. Your favorite asshole won the election. Let it go.

    Then lies about it.

    You're seriously going to pretend that Trump doesn't lie constantly? You are seriously going to pretend that Trump doesn't break any laws?

  5. Re:Pirst Fost by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fuck Uber

    I will second this. It seems almost every time I see a car pulling some bonehead maneuver in traffic, it's an Uber. Almost every time some jackass is sitting in a lane, blocking traffic with their hazards on, it's an Uber. Almost every time I see someone jam on their brakes and dive for the side of the road, it's an Uber.

    I know Uber is cool and cheap and convenient for its users. But the drivers are amateurs, and it shows. They don't know where they're going and will pull over anywhere, blocking traffic, to pick up their fares. Because of the draconian, passenger-centric rating system, the drivers are terrified of offending their passenger and will become a nuisance on the road to keep them happy. Taxi's are at least marked, so you expect them to be pulling over in traffic. But Ubers look like any other car, leaving other drivers to wonder why this guy is suddenly slamming on the brakes and double parking in the middle of a busy street.

    Uber sucks for anyone not using the service. I'd like to see the taxi companies step up their game to counter Uber. But unfortunately, it's the taxi industry's fecklessness that made room for Uber in the first place.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  6. Re:Pirst Fost by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This article is not about Uber drivers. It's about Uber without drivers.

  7. Law Breaking by StormReaver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you or I drove down a California street without a valid driver's license, the penalty would be anything from a ticket (first time offense, no injuries to others) to an arrest (multiple offender, injuring people) and possible incarceration.

    If the standard penalties were applied to whichever Uber executive authorized the law-breaking, then Uber would come into compliance rather quickly.

    1. Re:Law Breaking by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is a general problem when it comes to laws broken by companies. No-one is personally responsible, no-one really cares. At worst the company goes bankrupt and those responsible take their severance packages and move on to the board of another company.

  8. Re:Pirst Fost by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Taxi drivers can retrain and get better jobs

    If retraining and getting a better job is an option for unemployed taxi drivers, why isn't it a good option for employed taxi drivers?

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  9. Re:Pirst Fost by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, their soul sucking jobs are stopping them from retraining. If you spend 12 hours a day waiting on fares, you can't be studying or practicing other skills.