Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Businesses Government Software Hardware

Uber Pulls Self-Driving Cars From San Francisco, Sends Them To Arizona (sfgate.com) 150

Posted by BeauHD from the on-the-road-again dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Uber Pulls Self-Driving Cars From San Francisco, Sends Them To Arizona More

Uber Pulls Self-Driving Cars From San Francisco, Sends Them To Arizona

Comments Filter:

  • What Could Go Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

    by notsteve ( 650350 ) on Thursday December 22, 2016 @07:54PM (#53540817)
    Unregulated self-driving cars. What could go wrong?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 )

      Unregulated self-driving cars. What could go wrong?

      We should focus less on what "could" go wrong with SDCs, and focus more on what actually goes wrong with HDCs everyday: About 80 deaths per day in America alone, thousands of injuries, and more than $2 billion per day (over $800B annually) in medical costs, legal costs, and property damage. Almost all of these accidents are a result of human error.

      • And a significant number of those accidents are due to 'distracted driving.' Yet it's trivial for the GPS function built into most smartphones to detect motion and disable themselves.

        • One fatal flaw in that logic:

          No smart phone is smarter than a human.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Imrik ( 148191 )

          Far less trivial to detect if the owner of the phone is currently the one driving.

        • As opposed to the self driving car that ran a red light...
      • So you want to add to the carnage? Is that really the way to go here? It's going to take four generations for this to gain mass adoption and long before that, the manual cars will probably be talking to each other and preventing accidents anyway.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by swb ( 14022 )

        So let's call "almost all" of the accidents that are human caused 8 out of 10 of all accidents.

        Do you think that any of those 8 will be replaced by machine driven accidents?

        Surely there are machine failure modes we can't see yet once SDCs are turned loose at mass adoption levels on the full variety of possible roads and conditions. The tech will get better and those numbers will go down, but you have to introduce it to get any benefit out of it and you can't wait until the potential for machine failure is

        • This.

          The same logic blows up conversations regarding smart guns.

          - What if the batteries die? (don't use batteries, and even then ... what if the round stovepipes? You'll run out of bullets first))
          - Someone will hack the WiFi and disable or discharge the weapon ("smart" = phone?)
          - What about the documented failure of (insert pilot here)? (the pilot programs were killed)

          As for statistics, I point out that gun owners will most likely kill themselves (suicide, accidental discharge) or be killed by their own gun

  • said vs meant (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 22, 2016 @08:10PM (#53540895)

    "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.

    • Autonomous cars are at the start of a long learning curve. One that might take a decade to complete.

      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

      • With the money Uber has, they could build a fake test town ten times over, then run different scenarios with professionals who know what they are getting themselves into.
      • You know those cars are going to end up in Phoenix where your average driver is kind of crappy, plenty of old ass "snow birds" and a fine mix of folks who can't legally drive but do anyway. Though I do look forward to taking out one of those SDCs after they do something stupid in front of me -- my new goal in life actually...
      • Really? Then why did Uber start in California and get all pissy because they had to follow proper regulations...

  • Regulation works! (Score:3)

    by hawguy ( 1600213 ) on Thursday December 22, 2016 @08:22PM (#53540943)

    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.

    • 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 declari

      • Re:I prefer regulations that promote safe operatio (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hawguy ( 1600213 ) on Thursday December 22, 2016 @09:15PM (#53541197)

        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).

        • > 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 hour

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by jbf ( 30261 )

            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 electron

            • 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.

              > I

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by jbf ( 30261 )

                Real classy, attack the person, not the claims.

                CARB says: "The manufacturer of replacement electronic ignitions determines which of their models are considered replacements for original equipment. These replacement electronic ignitions are then listed by vehicle year, make, model and engine size in the manufacturer's catalogue. Electronic ignitions or electronic point replacement units for vehicles not originally equipped with these items require an Executive Order to be legal for street use. Swapping elect

                • > 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

        • 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.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Ramze ( 640788 )

        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. YE

      • Re:I prefer regulations that promote safe operatio (Score:4, Interesting)

        by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Thursday December 22, 2016 @11:40PM (#53541727) Journal

        If the goal of the regulation was to chase away people who are doing cool stuff, this regulation worked.

        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.

        • 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

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            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.

          • Actually no they don't but thinks for playing.

        • 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 t

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Rakarra ( 112805 )

            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.

        • 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.

      • 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/... [ca.gov]). 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 bi

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mysidia ( 191772 )

      Yeah, well, Oh.... by the way, while they're based in Arizona; California cannot legally encumber Uber's self-driving cars from passing through their state while traveling from another state to a different state, thus, they could still include routes through California in their travel.

      If your car is legal to operate in the state that issued its registration, then the constitution causes all states to be required to honor the vehicle's registration and license issued by the home state to operate; In som

  • Good Riddance! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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.

    • Good riddance to to the Bay Area with its tech-hating protesters, and welcome to Arizona!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by plopez ( 54068 )

        I lived there. It's a hole. Nothing burbs as far as the eye can see, racism, drug running, bandits, real estate sharks, and an under class of poor white and latino workers to support it all. Get out while you can.

  • "It is unclear which city -- or cities -- the cars are headed to."

    Oh please oh please, let it be Maricopa.

    • As a former resident of Maricopa County, it's a great idea. Can't be any worse than the drivers already there.

      And don't blame me for Arpaio - I regret that I only had one opportunity to vote against him, but it was not enough. He's really gone of the deep end now that he finally lost his re-election bid though.

  • At least the blender joke "I'll do my own self-driving car fleet test with black jack and hookers" would be funnier.

  • 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."

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Sorry to say, but it will happen. Someone will get seriously injured by one of these cars. And Arizona has just partnered with a company that has shown over and over again that it doesn't give a shit about individuals, only the all mighty dollar.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Kohath ( 38547 )

        Versus regular cars, which never crash or injure anyone.

      • Arizona has a high percentage of very old, and otherwise handicapped, drivers. A reasonable SDC implementation would be just what they're looking for.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Rakarra ( 112805 )

          Arizona has a high percentage of very old, and otherwise handicapped, drivers. A reasonable SDC implementation would be just what they're looking for.

          But then you'll have to substantially change the plot of the Driving Miss Daisy remake.

    • "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."

      Sounds like exactly what they're doing. Good for them. Someone should give this a try. If Arizona has a greater risk tolerance, then Federalism is working.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        But, they didn't actually say that. Instead, they trash California for "over-regulation" with little or no mention of the downsides.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luthair ( 847766 )
      Darwin at work, people remove regulation, get killed by things that should be regulated.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        No, it won't kill enough to make a significant genetic change. It will just make the rich richer and some regular folks dead. The 99% are the sacrificial lambs.

    • Arizona politicians are going to have massive egg on their faces if somebody gets seriously hurt or killed from the experiments.

      Arizona? They'll be fine with it as long as it's not a white person or fetus who gets killed. If it's some 80 year-old retiree from Chicago, there will be great screaming and gnashing of teeth for about five minutes, until the coroner shows they actually died in 2003 and it's was just mummified remains that were run over.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by plopez ( 54068 )

      Let's call it what it is, Apha testing in production. That's what happens when the company is run by marketdroids and the developers are clueless code monkeys.

  • Come back when you can learn to drive, Uber (Score:5, Informative)

    by TheEyes ( 1686556 ) on Thursday December 22, 2016 @09:00PM (#53541135)

    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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • This is just the cover story. The cars became sentient and mostly decided to emigrate to Arizona.

  • Everyday there's an article of "Uber" in the newspaper here, even it's barely used in this town...
  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

The computer is to the information industry roughly what the central power station is to the electrical industry. -- Peter Drucker

Close