Uber Begins Self-Driving Robotaxi Trial In Manchester (theguardian.com) 26
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Uber has begun a trial of autonomous vehicles on the streets of Manchester as it looks to bring robotaxis to cities around the UK. The first self-driving cars are operating, using the technology of its partner firms Pony and Verne, with whom Uber recently launched Europe's first autonomous taxi service in the Croatian capital, Zagreb. Uber said it was "excited to take this first step toward making this technology accessible to people across the UK."
In social media posts, Verne said it had "started our autonomous vehicle testing in Manchester," while Pony said there were "plans to bring robotaxis to the city" and that testing was under way. The tests involve the company mapping the streets of the city in north-west England with a safety driver behind the wheel and no passengers. Limited passenger services started last month in London, but with a safety driver in the front seat of cars supplied by Wayve under Transport for London's licensing rules for private hire vehicles.
The next steps are unclear. Opposition from Uber drivers, their unions and the capital's politicians to the rollout of robotaxis is mounting. The GMB and ADCU unions have both said thousands of drivers jobs will be lost and have called for help for those affected. A critical report from London assembly's transport committee this week called for the government to devolve authority over autonomous taxi services. It said there was "considerable uncertainty about many of the claimed benefits of autonomous passenger vehicles", and fears over the impact on public transport and congestion, as well as safeguarding and accessibility for disabled passengers. There has been no official application to launch passenger services in Manchester so far.
In social media posts, Verne said it had "started our autonomous vehicle testing in Manchester," while Pony said there were "plans to bring robotaxis to the city" and that testing was under way. The tests involve the company mapping the streets of the city in north-west England with a safety driver behind the wheel and no passengers. Limited passenger services started last month in London, but with a safety driver in the front seat of cars supplied by Wayve under Transport for London's licensing rules for private hire vehicles.
The next steps are unclear. Opposition from Uber drivers, their unions and the capital's politicians to the rollout of robotaxis is mounting. The GMB and ADCU unions have both said thousands of drivers jobs will be lost and have called for help for those affected. A critical report from London assembly's transport committee this week called for the government to devolve authority over autonomous taxi services. It said there was "considerable uncertainty about many of the claimed benefits of autonomous passenger vehicles", and fears over the impact on public transport and congestion, as well as safeguarding and accessibility for disabled passengers. There has been no official application to launch passenger services in Manchester so far.
Who's surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
This was Uber's end-goal from the very beginning. The human drivers were only a stop-gap, as Uber wanted to position itself to lead the market in self-driving private on-demand transportation. To do that it first sought to position itself as the lead in the market for conventional private on-demand transportation.
Many businesses don't care about the people that work for them because they only view them as liabilities, not as assets. This becomes more and more relevant the more a given business pushes their employees into being meat-cogs in their corporate machinery. Originally it was manufacturing but now the new hot thing is to push this into services.
So yeah, this is no surprise at all.
Re:Who's surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)
Many businesses don't care about the people that work for them because they only view them as liabilities, not as assets.
More accurately, zero businesses care about people who work for them, because businesses are legal fictions, which only exist in the legal system. They don't have brains, hearts, or emotions. People who work for them might care, but as the business increases in size, that becomes decreasingly relevant, and once it becomes publicly traded the shareholders can act to remove officers who don't follow the charter. And while corporations aren't legally obligated to maximize profits by default, the charter pretty much always says something about that, as that's why people invest.
A sole proprietor might care about you, and that might even be relevant...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who's surprised? (Score:4, Informative)
Incorrect. There are multiple classes of stocks where growth isn't expected. For instance, utilities aren't bought for growth and tend to be relatively stable in value but they provide consistent dividends from the company's profits. Value stocks are companies that also land into that category. Either they are too big to significantly grow or growth just isn't an expectation due to other reasons. They tend to be long term stable companies that consistently make money and share that with their stock holders.
Re: Who's surprised? (Score:3)
Re: Who's surprised? (Score:2)
You are wrong. The original idea was luxury limos with private drivers. Auto cars never came into it
Re: (Score:2)
The only way Uber remains profitable is if they get to the goal first and no one else can cross the line before going out of business. I don't see them being able to do that, much
They don't have the tech (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They don't have the tech (Score:4, Informative)
At least you've got plenty of time to post here since you have a fleet of self-driving Tesla is making money for you in 2016 right?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't really have anything interesting to say... (Score:4, Informative)
about Uber itself here. But as some minor trivia about Manchester: the "Man" comes from "Mamm", meaning "breast", referencing a small breast-shaped hill that used to be located in what's now the Castlewood district (it's since been lost).
The name of the city basically means "Tit Fort".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I don't really have anything interesting to sa (Score:2)
Maybe it had a perky flag.
Re: I don't really have anything interesting to sa (Score:2)
Yep. We're all tits here.
Nop Thanks (Score:4, Insightful)
As a resident of manchester.. fuck off. Manchester has spent years minimising the cars and vehicles in the city center creating an increasingly walkable, cyclable and public transport rich area that makes getting around easy and pleasant. Compared to 10 years ago its a great place to live and work and cars for city center residents are increasingly optional.
Clogging the streets up with robotaxis would be a huge backward step (footnote: i spend a lot of time in San Francisco and the density of driverless cars there is getting stupid already and SF is a car centric city by design)
Re: Nop Thanks (Score:2)
No need to worry, mate. Given how people drive in Manchester, those robotaxis will be begging for a driver in a week.
Re: (Score:2)
SF is a car centric city by design
SF was designed? It sure doesn't seem like it.
Re: (Score:2)
UK road markings are not stellar at the best of times and road designs are dealing with hundreds of years of organic growth (so no nice square street layouts like in the US) plus we all know that Uber et al. will cut every corner they can to save money.
If there is no speaker on the outside telling pedestr
Re: Which State? (Score:2)
Manchester, UK
Good luck (Score:2)
They'll need it.
Always an upside (Score:2)
There is a positive side. The grooming gangs will need to find alternative employment.
Unfortunately (Score:2)