Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

Uber Self-Driving Cars Hit the Streets of San Francisco (go.com) 47

Uber is bringing a small number of self-driving cars to its ride-hailing service in San Francisco -- a move likely to excite the city's tech-savvy population and certain to antagonize California regulators. From a report on AP: The Wednesday launch in Uber's hometown expands a public pilot program the company started in Pittsburgh in September. The testing lets everyday people experience the cars as Uber works to identify glitches before expanding the technology's use in San Francisco and elsewhere. California law, however, requires a test permit for self-driving prototype vehicles, and Uber does not have one. The company argues that the law doesn't apply because its cars require a human backup. Uber has a history of testing legal boundaries. Although the company has been around less than a decade, it has argued with authorities around the world about how much of its drivers' histories should be covered in background checks and whether those drivers should be treated as contractors ineligible for employee benefits.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Uber Self-Driving Cars Hit the Streets of San Francisco

Comments Filter:
  • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @09:05AM (#53482813)
    Seems like using "self-driving car" and "hit" in the same sentence might be a bad combination.
    • No doubt every car will be its own LLC or a franchise owned by a separate person or stock company. Otherwise aren't they liable and if they own the fleet aren't they a taxi company? But driverless cars will be better for hook ups. Do the seats fold down? Though I guess they will need to have a camera on you the whole ride. (else vanadalism). maybe they will let you ride for free provided you let them stream your sex act to UberPorn amateur channel.

    • At least they didn't miss the streets...

    • by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @12:54PM (#53484445)

      Yes, that was my first reaction. Unfortunately, the less funny and real story is this:

      The company argues that the law doesn't apply because...

      Typical Uber, huh? I'm always torn when discussing Uber. I dislike the entrenched monopolies of taxis and love the idea of Uber, but damn, those guys really represent the worst of Silicon valley in terms of ethics.

      • Under California law, it doesn't matter if there is a person sitting in the driver's seat or not. If the car is in "autonomous" mode (self-driving), then the manufacturer must get a testing permit. Uber is full of shit here and is likely trying to get around the $5 million dollar insurance requirement that California imposes on manufacturers testing autonomous vehicles on public roads.
    • Seems like using "self-driving car" and "hit" in the same sentence might be a bad combination.

      It's a 17 second clip from LA but this seems obligatory:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1ZSGGTcE74 [youtube.com]

  • requires a test permit for self-driving prototype vehicles,

    It is like the human test permit? Where you can flat out fail but they go "eh, we're backed up. Don't do that thing you failed for again". Can you goad it into violating the rules of the road because "They won't work for this intersection" like my BMV employee had me do?

  • by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @09:13AM (#53482843)
    >> Uber Self-Driving Cars Hit the Streets of San Francisco

    Better than the pedestrians, amiright? Is this thing on?
  • No they didn't. These cars actually have TWO drivers in them. Stop with the self-driving cars hype. They don't exist.
    • The two guys in the front only take over if necessary to avoid a crash; but the car will drive itself most of the time. So they are self-driving.
      • Image a game you watch being played by the computer instead of you. The joystick moves, apeing the computer's decisions. You can override if the character does something idiotic. Now, how long til your brain shuts off, and you react too late when the character runs into a sword.

        Now: imagine it's a car. You are in it. Your hand hovers over the wheel, trying every second to outguess the computer. You have a quarter second to react. You fail. You die.

        • by ColdSam ( 884768 )

          How many idiotic things does the human playing that video game do that the computer would easily avoid? How many times does that human back up over a ledge or blow himself up with a rocket straight into a wall?

          Your analogy fails to prove whatever point your trying to make. A bot controlled player would kick your ass 99 to 1 at whatever game you're imagining, but you will surely gloat over how superior you are when you get that 1 kill/point.

    • No they didn't. These cars actually have TWO drivers in them. Stop with the self-driving cars hype. They don't exist.

      Well of course they can't drive by themselves until they are 16.

    • Fist bump, my brother.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Under California law, it doesn't matter if there is a person sitting in the driver's seat or not. If the car is in "autonomous" mode (self-driving), then the manufacturer must get a testing permit. Uber is full of shit here and is likely trying to get around the $5 million dollar insurance requirement that California imposes on manufacturers testing autonomous vehicles on public roads.

  • What about the CEO doing hard time in san quentin when that unpermited car messes up?

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by Calydor ( 739835 )

      Uber: "But laws about computer security don't apply to us!"

      • Uber: "But laws about computer security don't apply to us!"

        And to judge by Uber's absurdly high valuation, nor do the laws of common sense.

  • Time to break out the popcorn, sit back, and watch the fun on Lombard Street [google.ca]

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

Working...