Slashdot Mirror
Uber Pulls Self-Driving Cars From San Francisco, Sends Them To Arizona (sfgate.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from SFGate: Uber is moving its self-driving pilot to Arizona, one day after the California Department of Motor Vehicles ordered the autonomous vehicles off the roads in San Francisco. "Our cars departed for Arizona this morning by truck," an Uber spokeswoman said Thursday afternoon in a statement. "We'll be expanding our self-driving pilot there in the next few weeks, and we're excited to have the support of Governor Ducey." After starting its San Francisco pilot on Dec. 14, the ride-hailing company angered the mayor and officials at the DMV by refusing to get a permit to operate its self-driving cars. And so, around noon on Thursday, a fleet of Uber self-driving cars passed through the South of Market area on the backs of several flat-bed trucks. Commuters gawked at the fleet with their distinctive hoods, backing up traffic as the convoy slowly drove by. In a statement Thursday, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey called California's regulations "burdensome" and said Arizona welcomes Uber's self-driving car pilot with "open arms." "While California puts the brakes on innovation and change with more bureaucracy and more regulation, Arizona is paving the way for new technology and new businesses," he said. It is unclear which city -- or cities -- the cars are headed to.
Unregulated self-driving cars. What could go wrong?
"While California puts the brakes on innovation and change with more bureaucracy and more regulation, Arizona is paving the way for new technology and new businesses," he said"
What he meant was that a campaign contribution was made by relevant lobbyists.
Companies move manufacturing/testing/production to less-regulated areas all the time (usually third world countries), why is it such a big story that Uber moved it's testing phase to somewhere less burdened by bureaucratic red tape?
What a surprise -- regulation works!
California regulates self-driving cars (the part of regulation Uber most likely didn't like was the reporting requirement), and when Uber didn't want to play by the rules, they went somewhere that apparently doesn't care about making their public streets into unregulated test grounds for new technology.
I was tired of having to pay humans to drive me around. Suck on that, uber drivers! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
I hope you guys enjoy being homeless! LMAO!!
Take the rest of your shitty business with you.
We don't want you here.
If these bullies can't manage to obey the law in San Francisco, then going someplace else is a good idea. Now to get rid of the rest of their Gypsy cabs what do we have to do? They have put thousands of extra black cars on the streets causing traffic congestion for special snowflakes who then go on about bicycles, cars, and carbon neutrality as if they aren't contributing massively to congestion, accidents, and pollution. We won't miss them.
Those self-driving cars will need an "asshole defense" mode.
"It is unclear which city -- or cities -- the cars are headed to."
Oh please oh please, let it be Maricopa.
#DeleteChrome
At least the blender joke "I'll do my own self-driving car fleet test with black jack and hookers" would be funnier.
If the goal of the regulation was to chase away people who are doing cool stuff, this regulation worked.
I prefer regulations that promote doing things with an appropriate level of safety. By that standard, this regulation failed - they aren't doing it California at all now.
That's why I prefer dealing with regulatory agencies with relatively few people they regulate, such as the local ATF and FAA offices. (Versus the DMV). They tend to engage licensees to find ways to do things safely, rather than declaring you can't do it at all unless you do it exactly *this* way, a way that doesn't work.
The vehicle title office, which has a thousand times as many "customers", is particularly difficult to deal with if anything about your situation doesn't exactly fit the typical case they designed the forms for.
Arizona politicians are going to have massive egg on their faces if somebody gets seriously hurt or killed from the experiments.
The regulation-vs-risk debate is rather involved and complicated, but politically they are taking a big gamble.
They would be better off leveling with voters. Example:
"Arizona is willing to accept some risk to advance our economy and the entrepreneurial spirit of Arizona. We are sons of pioneers; exploration and its risks are part of who we are."
Table-ized A.I.
Uber's "justification" for not getting the autonomous driving license that California requires for self-driving vehicles, a license that 20 other companies already have, was that their vehicles were "not sophisticated enough." Guess that was right, given the numerous reports in the past weeks of autonomous Uber cars failing to stop at street lights and signs.
Good luck Arizona; your governor just sold the safety of your streets out for a quick soundbite.
If the goal of the regulation was to chase away people who are doing cool stuff, this regulation worked.
Public streets aren't meant for "cool stuff", do that on an off-road track. If you want to do cool stuff on the streets, then expect some oversight -- a $150 permit and reporting requirements sounds like pretty light regulation for something that's being tested alongside the general public.
I prefer regulations that promote doing things with an appropriate level of safety. By that standard, this regulation failed - they aren't doing it California at all now. That's why I prefer dealing with regulatory agencies with relatively few people they regulate, such as the local ATF and FAA offices. (Versus the DMV). They tend to engage licensees to find ways to do things safely, rather than declaring you can't do it at all unless you do it exactly *this* way, a way that doesn't work
The FAA has a $15B budget, and has over 7000 people working in their aviation safety division alone -- they issue on average 5 - 10 Airworthiness Directives per day. Are you sure that's a good example of a hands-off, low oversight agency? Try to get a GPS certified for use in the air, and try the same thing for a car, and tell me which agency was easier to deal with (hint, the California DMV doesn't care as long as you don't hang it on the windshield).
While the GOP may have been traditionally biased against LGBT, that's never been true of Trump. Not when he was a Democrat, and neither when he became a Republican. While he may have flipped on a lot of things from Left to Right - like single payer, support for LGBT is something he retained even after switching parties.
As long as you don't let your employees off for MLK Day, you can do whatever you want, Uber. It's Alabama but with more heat and hate.
For inside or outside of the car?
Half joking, but half seriously. I mean, lotsa highways, no bike lanes on inter States. Is there a more detailed mapping info needed first?
Trust me when I tell you the FAA is way, way worse. I had family running a small business doing aerial photography with drones over a decade ago -- when the FAA had no rules at all about drones. The person piloting the drones was an actual plane pilot and put in a flight plan for every flight.
We're talking cutting edge helicopter drones with high-end cameras and zero regulation. The business was booming -- real estate agencies contracted with them, police agencies used it for tracking fugitives. YET, the local competition -- full sized aircraft photographers complained to the FAA constantly (and lied about location, times, and flight plans in their complaints). The FAA drug their feet for YEARS creating regulations that my family wanted so they could show they were within the regulations (since there weren't any -- and no rules at all to go by). Instead of creating regs, they basically had a moratorium on flying drones for those without military clearance until they could create them. So, my family members lost their business over threats from the FAA, allegations, and eventually the moratorium.
Now, those family members fly drones for a military contractor.... again, cutting edge stuff, only this time top secret. Things end up working out just fine, but if not for the FAA's incompetence and poor regulation of an emerging industry, my family could have been franchising aerial video and photography services long before it became so common that anyone could fly a drone without any aviation experience.
> California DMV doesn't care as long as you don't hang it on the windshield
I can use a Tomtom, or any other GPS, on my plane, AND I can stick it on my windshield.
> Try to get a GPS certified for use in the air
The certification you're probably thinking of is IFR certification - flying when you can't see, relying only on the instruments. Which is actually a lot like an autonomous car relies on it's instruments. Which one is easier to do legally? Hint - instrument rating in the US requires 105 hours.
> Are you sure that's a good example of a hands-off, low oversight agency?
Reading comprehension problem? Let me say the words again real slow for you:
engage licensees to find ways to do things safely
Just days after Uber cars are seen doing stupid things on San Francisco streets, they decide to return to Arizona. What if they weren't concerned with the regulations at all? Legally, it's unclear if they need the California license since there are laws in place that permit cars registered in one state to travel through other states. So, if it wasn't the laws, could it be that Uber realized that their technology couldn't handle San Francisco traffic? I've driven in both places, and Arizona is MUCH easier to drive in. Most of the Arizona cities were laid out after the era of the car, so the roads are generally wide and straight. And the Phoenix area is mostly flat. In contrast, San Francisco is a nightmare of hills and narrow streets. Maybe Uber realized they weren't ready for the big leagues, and the regulations were just a convenient excuse to leave.
Send it down SR-179 and let's if it gets stuck in one of the many roundabouts. Perhaps stuck in a infinite loop.
heh.
You mean it was a radio controlled helicopter?
It makes a pretty photo op, but they could do it with 1/3 the trucks using car carriers.
This is just the cover story. The cars became sentient and mostly decided to emigrate to Arizona.
-Dave
Since Uber is currently losing $700 million per quarter, and they just backed out of their Chinese investment which means the loss is probably more like $1.2 billion per quarter, I don't think we'll have Uber around to worry about much longer.
The real reason they didn't want to register their cars in California (they'll still have to register them in Arizona, by the way), is that they would be required to report any accidents they were involved in to the state, and they didn't want the public to find out how shitty their robot cars really are.
You are welcome on my lawn.
uh, no. When the self-driving cars are going through red lights and making dangerous turns then they clearly aren't ready for testing on public roads... in this case, the safety regulations were successful.
No, they were pretty explicit about what the disagreement was. California wanted to permit them as special driverless cars that required extra permits, dollars and hurdles. Uber insisted that because they had drivers in the seat who could take control at any time, they were no more "driverless" than a Tesla, Mercedes, BMW etc. equipped with autonomous cruise control. Since they don't require the extra permitting for the owner of a Mercedes E class with Drive Pilot, Uber says they shouldn't be required to pay the extra vig to the state and put up with the extra paperwork for their version.
They do have a point, from that point of view.
Being programmed does seem to be a requirement there...
And that's what people don't understand. Meanwhile, they decided to bring their untested vehicles to operate in Arizona. Trust me, Arizona saw what type of businesses were leaving California and they aren't too happy about them either. The rapidly growing sweatshops in Arizona and also Texas has triggered regulators just the same as it has in California. Where are they going to next?
the extra paperwork
That extra paperwork being the requirements to report all traffic incidents involving one of Uber's automated vehicles. They simply want to get away with as much as possible, manipulating the headlines and astroturfing to cover up any embarrassing accidents.
City driving is difficult for the current generation of self driving cars. We see this technology already being use on the highway and rural areas and this makes for safer development until the technology improves.
So where do you carry out the live experiments to slide down that learning curve?
Someplace where driving is complicated and where you have a lot of opportunities to kill people like California, or someplace where there's enough room and people are sparse like Arizona?
No prizes for coming up with Arizona.
When those autonomous cars have proven themselves there is ample time to allow them in more densely populated areas. Which is where those cars can generate the most revenue.
Seriously, what's the problem with that?
Everyday there's an article of "Uber" in the newspaper here, even it's barely used in this town...
The FAA is *doing its job*. Far too many federal agencies see it as their duty to interfere with society instead of do the job they were founded to do. Apply for an FAA permit, and they award or deny the permit by looking at the facts of the case, not the color of your skin. That's what everyone means by rational and hands-off.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
No, they were pretty explicit about what the disagreement was. California wanted to permit them as special driverless cars that required extra permits, dollars and hurdles. Uber insisted that because they had drivers in the seat who could take control at any time, they were no more "driverless" than a Tesla, Mercedes, BMW etc. equipped with autonomous cruise control. Since they don't require the extra permitting for the owner of a Mercedes E class with Drive Pilot, Uber says they shouldn't be required to pay the extra vig to the state and put up with the extra paperwork for their version.
They do have a point, from that point of view.
Autonomous cruise control doesn't make turns for you. It doesn't handle stoplights. Neither does Uber's car, but it's intended to and the so-called drivers were testing how the cars would handle those decisions. That's autonomous driving, not lane assist, regardless if there was a human ready to take control. Uber's conning people, and you got suckered in.
Since Uber is currently losing $700 million per quarter, and they just backed out of their Chinese investment which means the loss is probably more like $1.2 billion per quarter, I don't think we'll have Uber around to worry about much longer.
The real reason they didn't want to register their cars in California (they'll still have to register them in Arizona, by the way), is that they would be required to report any accidents they were involved in to the state, and they didn't want the public to find out how shitty their robot cars really are.
I think it could really be that Uber management doesn't know what it is doing, as evidenced by the losses you cite. We had another article yesterday on Uber pulling the cars off the California roads without any information on where they were going next. As one poster very accurately pointed out, this whole autonomous car thing actually makes no business sense. Uber has to buy the cars, get the autonomous driving stuff put in, pay for maintenance and insurance. Heck, in my state you can easily pay more than $150 a year just to get your license plate renewed and I assume California has similar fees. Drawing a line in the sand over $150 doesn't make any sense given how this whole idea doesn't seem to make any financial sense over all. Maybe this is some horribly misguided upper management designed plan to make Uber look hipper than Lyft, who is now advertising successfully in the US with the simple message that you can tip your driver in the Lyft app and who knows why you can't do that in Uber. We're moving all the time to a more cashless society and I can see how having to carry around some smaller bills all the time just to avoid stiffing your Uber driver on the tip is a negative for some riders. Maybe this is some crazy idea that if Uber owns the cars and they are autonomous then you don't have to tip and that will give them an advantage over Lyft, but offhand this seems like a dumb way to deal with the fact that some users don't like having to tip with cash.
Here, I'll play.
Let's talk about tinting windows. In California, you can tint a car's back windows and rear window with whatever you want. Front passenger windows have to have at least 70% transparency. No approval necessary. What does it take to get an STC to put window tint on an aircraft?
Let's talk about engine systems. In California, you can replace an ignition system with another ignition with any system designated as valid by the manufacturer of that ignition system. Go look at the ElectroAir electronic ignition STC: you still need a magneto system, and that STC was probably quite expensive to get.
Let's talk about upholstery. In California, there appears to be no regulation on upholstery for car interiors. The FAA requires certain fire resistance, and the lab testing is apparently around $1000.
Let's talk about carriage for hire. In California, Uber and Lyft appear to operate without regulation. The FAA would nail you requiring an Air Carrier certificate (Part 135) if you did what they did in aviation.
Why on earth do safety conscious Volvo want to be in bed with reckless Uber? I think Volvo has a lot to lose in that relationship.
Just think - if they'd stayed in California, they'd have lost $700,000,150. Shareholders don't like that sort of thing ;-)
I agree they just want to do this in secret and are making as much of a song-and-dance about it as possible for the headlinez. Meanwhile, others seem to be doing just fine in California and have considerably more successes to their names.
Instead of getting on a truck?
Actually no they don't but thinks for playing.
Do you have fun completely making shit up that has no relation to reality whatsoever?
> In California, you can replace an ignition system with another ignition with any system designated as valid by the manufacturer of that ignition system
Actually it requires an Executive Order to allow another ignition system. If you go to the California Air Resources Board web site, you'll find a list of ignition systems and parts that they've certified, with the executive order number for that particular part.
> In California, there appears to be no regulation on upholstery for car interiors. The FAA requires certain fire resistance, and the lab testing is apparently around $1000.
The lab test, which is NOT required, takes 20 seconds to do yourself, or for resale purposes you can get a lab to do it and issue a certificate for $40. To do the test yourself, light a sample of the material you're thinking about using with a Bic lighter and see if the flame goes out when you take the lighter away. Or don't spend the 20 seconds and trust the catalog description or salesperson - the FAA requires that the material not burn readily, it doesn't require certification of that fact.
While we're at it, can we put some of our SF homeless people into the cars and ship them to Arizona too? Cheaper and better for them and us.
Or they're just another crybaby business that's confused free will with freedom from consequences and responsibility.
There are plenty of other people in CA doing exactly the same 'cool stuff' that Uber is trying to do. In fact, there are 20 companies in CA who are using the Autonomous Vehicle Testing Permit system from the DMV, including VW, Ford, Honda, Google, Tesla, BMW, NVIDIA and more (list here https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/...). Clearly the regulations are not so burdensome that they are limiting this type of testing. They mostly require reporting to the DMV of any accidents involving the autonomous vehicles.
The bigger problem here is the standard Uber business practice of 'we don't need to follow the rules' that we've seen before. And its not the first time they've been affected by that stance, and it certainly makes them look like petulant whiners when they don't get their way, even when breaking the law.
If you want to do cool stuff on the streets, then expect some oversight -- a $150 permit and reporting requirements sounds like pretty light regulation for something that's being tested alongside the general public.
that is not true, its not only 150$, you are also forbidden to drive real customers and take their money, until its done test phase, and this part could cost millions in lost revenue, just because something is being tested does not mean it is not allowed to make money
, regarding reporting, i am sure they don't need company help, all they need to is tell traffic cops "if you see one of this bling-y cars in accident forward us detailed report"
As one poster very accurately pointed out, this whole autonomous car thing actually makes no business sense. Uber has to buy the cars, get the autonomous driving stuff put in, pay for maintenance and insurance
It feels like a company that has a very successful core business, then just got distracted by a total tangent to that.
If you want to do cool stuff on the streets, then expect some oversight -- a $150 permit and reporting requirements sounds like pretty light regulation for something that's being tested alongside the general public.
that is not true, its not only 150$, you are also forbidden to drive real customers and take their money, until its done test phase, and this part could cost millions in lost revenue, just because something is being tested does not mean it is not allowed to make money
Is that true? There's nothing on the permit application that mentions any restrictions on carrying passengers for hire:
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/...
, regarding reporting, i am sure they don't need company help, all they need to is tell traffic cops "if you see one of this bling-y cars in accident forward us detailed report"
The reporting goes beyond simple accident reporting, the state also requires autonomous disengagement reports, which sounds quite useful for determining how useful the technology is and areas where it needs improvement:
Program Participant Annual Reporting of Disengagement
Pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 227.46, a manufacturer shall retain data related to the disengagement of the autonomous mode caused by the failure of the technology or when the safe operation of the vehicle requires the test driver to take immediate manual control of the vehicle. Data shall be reported annually by January 1st of each year, which summarizes the prior month(s) specified activities.
A form is not provided by the department; however, the report should summarize the following:
The total number of disengagements
The circumstances or testing condition at the time
The location or environment (i.e. highway, rural, parking facility)
A brief description can include weather conditions, roadway, etc.
The total number of miles each vehicle traveled in autonomous technology mode on public roads.
The period of time elapsed from when the autonomous vehicle test driver was alerted of the failure and the when driver assumed manual control of the vehicle.
I didn't get suckered in to anything. I'm clarifying their argument which has been straw-manned into obscurity by this crowd.
I don't have to agree with them to be able to understand and articulate their argument.
> How about my other two examples?
If you insist. You suggest that Uber in California is an example of regulators "engage licensees to find ways to do things safely"? I suppose if running undercover stings to arrest Uber drivers is engaging with them to find ways to do things safely:
www.scpr.org/news/2016/11/14/65778/uber-lyft-drivers-nabbed-in-lapd-stings-funded-by.amp
> In California, you can tint a car's back windows
And I can have solid sheets of aluminum, no back windows at all, on my plane if I choose.
I can call up my local FAA or ATF field office and discuss my *particular plans* with the officer in charge and we'll find a way to do it safely. For example, the ATF may waive/reduce a safety distance requirement when I explain that the shells I'm using don't so much explode as pop open, releasing a cluster of inner effects.
Try calling up California DOT and getting someone with authority to even LISTEN to what you want to do that's outside the rules, let alone figure out compensating safety controls with you and issue a waiver. Maybe tell them you want to tint the front windows darker, but you'll only drive in the day time. That's reasonable. See how far you get with that.