State regulators demand Uber halt self-driving car program

[jyl]

I am a big fan of self driving cars. But they are not ready yet, as Tesla has shown. Tesla's Autopilot has a much higher fatality rate than Tesla driven manually, even though Musk pretends otherwise. Do we think Uber is a order of magnitude better at self driving tech than Tesla? We can't have every company letting self driving cars out on the road without some oversight. It is immature, experimental technology. I'd expect any experimental technology being tested on the public to at least tell the regulator what they are doing, i.e. a permit.

[ossiblue]

If the information in the linked article is correct, Uber is playing games by taking the law out of context, and ignoring salient words.

According to the article, Uber claims they do not need a permit because their vehicles do not meet the strict definition of "Autonomous Vehicle."

From the article:
"In California, it said, the motor vehicle department defines autonomous vehicles as those that drive “without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person.” Uber said its self-driving cars, which require a person at the wheel to monitor or control them, did not fall under that strict definition." (Emphasis, mine.)

That is not how the law defines autonomous vehicles. The law defines Autonomous Vehicles as,"(b) “Autonomous vehicle” means any vehicle equipped with technology that has the capability of operating or driving the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person, whether or not the technology is engaged,..." (Emphasis, mine.)

It's very clear from the words of the law that presence of the technological equipment and capability to use that equipment qualifies the vehicle as autonomous. It's also interesting that Uber edited out those key words when defending it's position.

The definition of "Autonomous Mode" states the vehicle is being operated without the active physical control of a person. Monitoring the vehicle by the driver does not qualify as active physical control.

Twenty other companies have applied for and received permits. Only Uber has not done so.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/d48f347b-8815-458e-9df2-5ded9f208e9e/adopted_txt.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID =d48f347b-8815-458e-9df2-5ded9f208e9e

[jyl]

Uber's self driving cars are blatantly running red lights in SF, documented on video.

Also Uber's programming doesn't seem to understand bike lanes and the laws for driving through them.


DMV is ordering Uber to take them off the road, Uber is refusing and claiming that it doesn't need any permit/permission to operate experimental self driving cars on public roads, so it can't be forced to stop doing so. Seems like most of you agreed with Uber.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/14/uber-self-driving-cars-run-red-lights-san-francisco

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/19/uber-self-driving-cars-bike-lanes-safety-san-francisco

[BlueSkyJaunte]

https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/21/uber-losses-expected-to-hit-3-billion-in-2016-despite-revenue-growth/

[rusnak]

If Uber has a CEO, he should be punched in the nut sack. Secondly, it's clear that Calif is simply doing it's normal money grab and does not care about safety. But that doesn't mean that you can pick and choose which laws to follow. You gotta follow them all.

[jyl]

Originally Posted by rusnak

If Uber has a CEO, he should be punched in the nut sack. Secondly, it's clear that Calif is simply doing it's normal money grab and does not care about safety. But that doesn't mean that you can pick and choose which laws to follow. You gotta follow them all.

Again, the fee for the permit is all of $150, so why do you keep saying California is doing a money grab?

[RKDinOKC]

Way back in 1991 I toured American Airlines scheduling facility in DFW. The comment was made that they are fully capable of pilotless flights and have made several with cargo planes. As it was all the pilot really did was push a button to choose between 3 possible flight paths. AA figured nobody would get on a plane without a pilot. I saw where if something went wrong on an airplane control could be taken from the center and it could be flown remotely. Those systems, just for the possibility of control had 4 backups that would take over instantaneously.

With the faults I see in modern computerized cars just to keep the motors running with sensors going bad, etc., I personally would be reluctant to put my life in the hands of a automobile grade computer. I am still arrogant enough to think that my defensive driving skills are less likely to make a fatal mistake.

Sure, it's coming, but it is not there yet. The space shuttle had 5 backup computers on board and still had a pilot. How many do autonomous cars have? Is there a system in place to stop the car if it has any sort of error? Is there a remote monitoring system to determine if the on-board systems are operating properly and shut it down or take over if amiss?

At the current state of technology, no thanks, I'll walk.

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by Gogar

The idea of a self driving car - with a human passenger - will never be realized. Good, I say.

There is a self driving car with reliable safety and predictability. It's called a train.

No kidding.

I've zero interest in seeing driverless cars. I think PoP has it all wrong.

[ossiblue]

In today's paper it was reported that Uber has removed all of its autonomous cars from the road in California. The DMV had revoked all of the registrations of those vehicles based on Uber's failure to secure the proper permit. Though Uber talked tough about not complying and that the law didn't apply to them (though it did to 20 other companies), it nevertheless pulled its vehicles from the streets. My guess is Uber's lawyers actually read the law and advised the company to comply.

[Gogar]

I always thought the 'zipper' concept was a good one for distance travel where your car clicks into a high-speed track and clicks out a few hundred miles later.

IMO it's just going to be a real legal poo-storm that first time a driverless Uber runs over a baby or a homeless guy or a homeless baby or something.

[rusnak]

Originally Posted by jyl

Again, the fee for the permit is all of $150, so why do you keep saying California is doing a money grab?

Funny, how you are such a tightwad when it comes to repairing your own home's sewer and installing security cameras, but when it comes to a tax, or to spending other people's money, you are all for it.

It's California. The government is all about grabbing money. And if you could have shown how taxing business makes consumers safer, then you would have done so.

[Tervuren]

I like the idea of driver less car's, right up to the point it can lead to not being able to drive a car on public roads.

Rusnak, the reason Uber didn't go the permit route, is it created a time delay, it wasn't the money. Its been a few months since I read about this, so I'm not 100% sure, but I do remember the red light being ran by a test vehicle, and Uber not getting permits.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by DanielDudley

Yeah, and they will never have little phones you can carry in your pocket either.

It's unpossible.

OK, that right there. That's funny!

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by Tervuren

I like the idea of driver less car's, right up to the point it can lead to not being able to drive a car on public roads.

Rusnak, the reason Uber didn't go the permit route, is it created a time delay, it wasn't the money. Its been a few months since I read about this, so I'm not 100% sure, but I do remember the red light being ran by a test vehicle, and Uber not getting permits.

Not questioning your point, but the article I read indicates the permit can be issued within 72 hours. I don't see that as a time delay and Uber never broached that as a reason.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/21/14049070/uber-san-francisco-self-driving-removed-registration-revoked

[Tervuren]

Originally Posted by ossiblue

Not questioning your point, but the article I read indicates the permit can be issued within 72 hours. I don't see that as a time delay and Uber never broached that as a reason.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/21/14049070/uber-san-francisco-self-driving-removed-registration-revoked

At this point, trying to find an article several months ago is hopeless, this latest one is bigger news, and whites out any search I just tried to do.

Was there some other ride sharing company other than Uber trying to do this, that I am mixed up about?

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by Tervuren

At this point, trying to find an article several months ago is hopeless, this latest one is bigger news, and whites out any search I just tried to do.

Was there some other ride sharing company other than Uber trying to do this, that I am mixed up about?

Mixed up? Probably not. The article I linked indicates the DMV is willing to work with Uber to speed up the permit process and could issue the permit within 72 hours. However, the legislation behind the permit (see my other link earlier in this thread) indicates the process time is 10 days. Still, that doesn't seem to be extremely long for a permit.

It's possible the article you read, months ago, was base on Uber's rationalizations as to why they didn't need/want a permit. Just a guess.

BTW, if someone actually reads the text of the legislation, the reasons why a permit is necessary for test vehicles becomes very clear. Public safety and company responsibility are clearly evident. $150 for a permit to operate 10 vehicles doesn't seem too excessive to me.

[rusnak]

I think Uber wanted to avoid their test program being classifed as "driverless". Most likely, because of perceived safety and also driver obsolescence. Both are a problem for the company. Think about it. Any incident can doom the cars from the demand standpoint, and they rely on drivers working for them.

[jyl]

Originally Posted by rusnak

Funny, how you are such a tightwad when it comes to repairing your own home's sewer and installing security cameras, but when it comes to a tax, or to spending other people's money, you are all for it.

It's California. The government is all about grabbing money. And if you could have shown how taxing business makes consumers safer, then you would have done so.

$150 per permit from each of 21 big companies isn't a money grab, that's just a silly thing you said, probably without even knowing how much the fee was.

What is really going on is that the permit requires the self driving car company to report accidents during its tests, and report incidents when humans are forced to take control to avoid accidents. Uber didn't want to have to report these things to the regulators, so it tried to bluster its way around the regulations. It failed, so it is moving its testing to another state.

The thing is, that most likely Uber and other self driving car developers will eventually have to test in California, and in each major city in California, because each state and city has different traffic laws, signage, road markings, human behaviors, and conditions. A self driving system tested in Pittsburgh isn't necessarily ready for San Francisco, and vice versa. So Uber will come back and meekly apply for the California permit. Sooner or later.

[rusnak]

^ And you call yourself a product liability attorney?

It's $150 per car, per year. Also, the costs of regulatory oversight added to the program. But you don't care about that, because you don't operate a business, and don't know or want to know how government really runs, other than within your narrow normative view of how things should be. The upshot is that businesses will not operate this type of business in California, and many businesses have come to that same conclusion already. California simply costs too much to operate in.

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by rusnak

^ And you call yourself a product liability attorney?

It's $150 per car, per year. Also, the costs of regulatory oversight added to the program. But you don't care about that, because you don't operate a business, and don't know or want to know how government really runs, other than within your narrow normative view of how things should be. The upshot is that businesses will not operate this type of business in California, and many businesses have come to that same conclusion already. California simply costs too much to operate in.

It's $150 per year for up to 10 cars.

(1) The manufacturer shall submit a fee of One Hundred and Fifty dollars ($150) for the processing of the application which will permit the operation of up to 10 autonomous vehicles and up to 20 autonomous vehicle test drivers.