Uber: We Don't Need a Permit For Self-Driving Cars (cnet.com) 357
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."
What about red lights? (Score:5, Funny)
Will Uber pay for a permit to have their autonomous cars not run red lights? :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Looks like a good counterpoint, until you consider:
http://www.snopes.com/driverle... [snopes.com]
Pays to do better research before trying to post gotcha comments.
Re:What about red lights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure.
Uber is at present running all of their autonomous vehicle tests with a driver in place. Now, which is easier to believe, that a professional driver in an instrumented test would run a red light, or that Uber would lie about which system was in control of the car at the time of the incident?
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I want to disagree with you, I can't.
Re: (Score:2)
According to Uber the driver was driving the car - it wasn't in autonomous mode.
Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you tell me exactly what the Permitting of autonomous cars does, exactly. I mean exactly what difference is there between Uber running autonomous cars with or without a permit? Exactly what change has occurred in the process, besides Government suddenly being involved. Is the state going to take any responsibility for monitoring Uber's (or anyone else's) autonomous cars differently than if they didn't have a permit?
My guess is that there is no functional difference, in which case, we have regulation jus
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Uber is just getting the jump on all those things the status quo protectors scream about before they disappear as irrelevant.
See:
No tests needed for drivers!
No worries about criminal drivers!
No worries about payment or overcharges!
Only as many cars on the road as needed!
Those puking up echo chamber derogations of Uber in favor of established taxis (and the politicians receiving kickbacks from the medallion cartel) should be higher than a kite with joy at this news!
Re: (Score:2)
relatively safe before they get on the road
No it doesn't. Besides, liability laws do that.
Actually it does, explained previously.
And no, liability laws do not.
But then youre libertarian who, by definition, has not from history when companies, even while constrained (according to you) by liability laws, did cause harm anyway because they calculated how much harm the can afford to actually cause before it affects profitability.
liability laws exist to provide a mechanism for redress of grievance after someone is harmed.
permits and licenses seek to prevent the harm in the first place.
again: you ar
Re:Translation (Score:4, Informative)
relatively safe before they get on the road
No it doesn't. Besides, liability laws do that.
Have you ever sued anybody?
Lawsuits are expensive, the judgment doesn't pay your lawyer's fees if you win, and if a pedestrian or passenger with horrible damages sues a driver who doesn't have a lot of money, all he can collect is the limit of the insurance policy, which may be only a fraction of the damages. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/0... [nytimes.com]
New York City had this problem with taxi drivers, so they raised the insurance coverage, and they also changed the partition between the passenger compartment and the driver's compartment, which gave drivers some protection against robbery but also caused some severe facial injuries in minor accidents.
The other problem with your libertarian ideas is that your fellow-travellers, the Republican pro-business conservatives, are working on tort "reform" which makes it more difficult for people who are injured to collect damages commensurate with the injuries.
Workers Compensation is like that. Would you want to lose an arm, and be compensated for a 25% disability under the no-fault disability system with $175 a week? Most people would rather be working in a factory with government regulations that prevents them from losing the arm in the first place.
The other stunt that your corporate masters are pulling is to put "arbitration clauses" into the fine print of contracts that you can sign. https://www.uber.com/legal/ter... [uber.com]
Any lawyer who handles personal injury cases can tell you that it's a lot easier and cheaper to prevent accidents in the first place than to go to court and try to compensate the victim afterwards. The drivers don't care. If they wind up with a million dollar judgment, they'll just go bankrupt or move back to the third-world country they came from.
Re:Translation (Score:5, Informative)
There's oversight involved if you have a permit. For example, you have to report any accidents or other incidents and those become part of the public record. If you aren't in the testing program then you don't need to report those.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's pretty reasonable to require that a human have a license, and I don't really see why the same shouldn't apply to an "autonomous driver" (i.e., the particular hardware/software/etc. implementation used).
Re:Translation (Score:5, Informative)
You think an autonomous permit has anything to do with certification of software and systems of an autonomous vehicle?
Yes, [ca.gov]
because that's [ca.gov]
EXACTLY [ca.gov]
what it does. [ca.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
I keep wondering why an automotive software system for autonomous driving shouldn't have to pass software design/coding standards at least as strict as DO178B Level A, i.e. "Catastrophic – Failure may cause a crash. Error or loss of critical function required to safely fly and land aircraft" with a similar failure rate (10^^9 hr between failures).
The current situation with cars is as if the FAA let Boeing test experimental software on revenue flights of their airplanes. NOBODY would accept that. Why d
Re: (Score:2)
Can you tell me what is the functional difference between someone picking tomatoes in California with a work permit and visa and without one? Exactly what change has occurred in the process, besides Government suddenly being involved. Is the state going to take any responsibilities for tomatoes picked by legal labor any differently than if they didn't have a permit?
My guess is that there is no functional difference, in which case, we have regulation just for the sake of regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of like Uber wants to have a benefit for their cars (drive without government papers) that isn't given to citizens?
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that in order to acquire a permit you have to demonstrate that you're following some reasonable, basic software development and testing protocols, and not just throwing untested, dangerous software on the road.
Re: (Score:2)
its the same difference between driving with a license and without one:
namely, the license is a statement from the government, or specifically the driving regulatory authority, to the public, who owns, maintains, and uses the roads, that Driver A has passed the minimum rules to be considered safe and not a hazard around other drivers.
that's what licenses do.
whether its cars, restruants, or whatever.
and its what the permit for the autonomous cars do as well.
and if you really needed that explained to you, the
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Or, our legal team actually thinks we don't need such a permit and the CA DMV is incorrect in their conclusion.
Believe it or not, sometime entities disagree about the interpretation of the law. And, even more shocking, the disagreement often breaks along the lines of government agencies believing that the regulation is expansive and the regulated entity believes that the regulation is permissive[1].
I mean, I'm curious to learn really which party has the better of the law as it currently exists. And if that'
Re: (Score:3)
We don't need no stinking badges (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the same old Silicon Valley crap. Laws? What laws? Who needs laws when you have other people's money?
Re:We don't need no stinking badges (Score:4, Informative)
But Uber is right in this case, so they're not breaking any laws.
The State of California disagrees [sfgate.com]. 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.
Re:We don't need no stinking badges (Score:4)
Oh, so there's no law in California requiring that motor vehicles only be operated by licensed drivers? Seems unlikely.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems likely that Uber's lawyers have read the law carefully, and having someone in the driver's seat ready to take over counts as "operating", just as with cruise control.
Stupid Idea From The Get-Go (Score:2)
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.
Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 am guessing Uber believe if they don't go the direction of autonomous vehicles now they will be left behind when their competitors do.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Asset light (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Owning a fleet of taxis is not the same as you might think, as that taxi is leased to a driver for his shift.
They are double dipping against the driver who is also not an employee but a "self employed" entity
This is Uber AND Taxi services.
Re:Translation (Score:5, Informative)
Their entire business model is based around an asset light setup. They don't own or insure the cars that Uber drivers use.
This WAS their model until drivers started getting uppity about being sucked into it not really understanding what this meant for their cars, car related expenses, and "self employment" expenses, NOW the model is to move to fleets of autonomous vehicles and eliminate the contract drivers asap.
Still makes no sense (Score:2)
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 tra
Re: (Score:2)
If Uber wasn't BSing, then there is no reason it would take years because the ROI for autonomous vehicles is pretty quick.
If an autonomous vehicle costs $100k and is somehow valueless after 5 years, then Uber needs to make $20k more per vehicle per year to break even. I'm sure th
Re: (Score:2)
Owning a fleet would be cheaper than employing drivers, even in their "gig" manner. You don't need to worry about background checks or criminal records, you dont have to worry about customers being harassed or assaulted (or drivers for that matter). Cars last a long time and they don't cost that much, even including maintenance.
Re: (Score:3)
"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.
Uber's biggest asset isn't their drivers, it's all the customers who have installed the Uber app and keep using it.
Talking about self-driving cars generates a lot of free advertising and brings them customers.
And if they ever do get the tech and regulatory approval they'll be able to raise more than enough capital to start fleets for their core markets.
Re: (Score:2)
Let your car drive you to work, and then let your car go work for Uber for a few hours in exchange for a small payment
Uber would then be paying for just the car, instead of a car and driver
Re: (Score:3)
Communal car ownership won't happen (Score:3)
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 ti
Re: (Score:3)
We don't have any public transportation outside of the highest density cities, now. A car is a necessity all of the US except for a very few large cities (NYC, Chicago, etc.)
How is communal ownership going to work with rush hour?
I would assume it'd be trivial for software to put people going to the same place in the same v
Re: (Score:3)
You sound like a millennial. Lots of people in older generations enjoy cars and driving. And what a boring world it would be if we were all the same.
Re: (Score:3)
Following into the steps of the big brother (Score:2)
Who needs Uber? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Uber is a mega con . It has always lost money and will always lose money. The only reason it is still getting funded is with a 0% rate environment pension funds are putting Mom and Pop's pension money in the hands of VCs and VCs have so much money they are desperate to fund something anything even something loss making as long as it is scalable. They do not have the mental badwidth to handle a 1000 1 million dollar investments as they are trying to deploy billions in pension money. As long as its a scalable
Declare sanctuary! (Score:2)
How odd... (Score:4)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
contracts driving out to private contractors
Because they see the end of that business model coming [slashdot.org].
Certification Standards (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You may not agree with a system of "royal permits", but it has been established as being quite legal for state and local governments to regulate businesses.
Just because California chooses not to govern as a libertarian would prefer doesn't mean the state has done something illegal or even unethical.
Criminal Enterprise (Score:4, Interesting)
Just when I thought... (Score:3)
... 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.
Re: Basic small-government argument. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 the
Re: Basic small-government argument. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 [bloomberg.com] in the bank.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re: Basic small-government argument. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 c
Re: Basic small-government argument. (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re: (Score:3)
> 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.
Re: Basic small-government argument. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Mandated by whom?
Re: Basic small-government argument. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It wouldn't be your fault if the chimps crashed. They're independent contractors!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
fat lot of good that does the dead person.
hence trying to stop problems before they are problems.
typical libertarian nonsense.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:Basic small-government argument. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Threat of liability is not enough (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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.
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.
No. No no. 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. Same thing happens when you kill someone on the road. You are responsible. So Uber would be also. These cars will however be so much safe
Re: (Score:2)
yes they do die everyday.
and that's with regulations and controls.
its worse without them.
and no, no one is calling for 100% safety.
what we are calling for is reasonable safety, ie, at least as safe as human drivers.
that is the goal, and it will happen one day.
and once driverless cars are safer than drivers, they will become the norm.
but we aren't there yet.
and while the tech is being tested and developed Uber, and their idiot libertarian supporters like you, need to stfu and follow the law, law created to
Minimizing harm (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL at 20k.
Most factories have something like $5k per finger joint. So bad gamblers are ... shorthanded.
Re: (Score:3)
For example:
First day of Uber testing, car runs red light.
http://digg.com/video/self-dri... [digg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Basic small-government argument. (Score:2)
Re: Basic small-government argument. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Government should regulate this (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Basic small-government argument. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Basic small-government argument. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
ignorant troll you
What has government ever done for us? (Score:2)
"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,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Basic small-government argument. (Score:2)
Tesla and Uber? (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.