State regulators demand Uber halt self-driving car program

[rusnak]

...give or take $5,000,000. The issue is that for Uber to comply, the costs to the company to insure, train, and pay wages to the drivers is unworkable. They could not agree to the license when you actually read the conditions of the license. Chump change I know, they can afford it, say the Democrats. They always say that about other people's money.

[rusnak]

Not sure if that $150 figure for 10 vehicles is right or what. But again, the cost is in compliance, not the fee. And if the tech takes off, you better believe that this is going to be a money grab by California.

https://www.cars.com/articles/california-halts-self-driving-ubers-1420692800293/

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by rusnak

Not sure if that $150 figure for 10 vehicles is right or what. But again, the cost is in compliance, not the fee. And if the tech takes off, you better believe that this is going to be a money grab by California.

https://www.cars.com/articles/california-halts-self-driving-ubers-1420692800293/

No dog in this fight for me, just trying to keep things on track. The declaration of the $150 fee for 10 cars in my last post was a cut and paste from the actual legislation. You can read the whole law, if you choose, by following the link in my first post. (#22 in this thread.)

[rusnak]

Understood, and I don't use Uber, so I don't care about them either.

But Uber can't comply with the conditions of the license, and never will operate in California under that requirement (see article). It changes the entire cost structure that they use to get to market.

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by rusnak

Understood, and I don't use Uber, so I don't care about them either.

But Uber can't comply with the conditions of the license, and never will operate in California under that requirement (see article). It changes the entire cost structure that they use to get to market.

Well, IMO only, the facts in the article are somewhat in doubt and I wonder about the "cost structure" that seems so high.

The article incorrectly states the fee is $150 per vehicle, which it is not, and then brings up the $2400 per vehicle to meet DMV requirements, but never discloses what those requirements are. Are they requirements that apply to all vehicles on California roads, or requirements only for test vehicles? Is it the cost of drivers plus insurance? Wouldn't any responsible company want to insure their vehicles and pay their drivers? The cost of an annual incident report and logging incidents? Seriously? This is a testing program on public roads. Should we leave it to the companies and the "honor system" to be sure they have adequate insurance, trained drivers and record the times the systems had to be overridden? I simply question that the so-called costs are excessive due to having to meet the state requirements for a permit. If one actually reads the legislation, it becomes clear the requirements are not oppressive nor unreasonable. They are, in short:

1) The manufacturer must be conducting the tests.

2) The vehicle is operated by a driver trained and employed by the manufacturer to operate such a vehicle.

3) The manufacturer provides proof of ability to satisfy a judgement of $5 million for personal injury, liability, and property damage, either through an insurance company, a surety bond, or statement of self-insurance.

4) The manufacturer has a permit.

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

Twenty other manufacturers have gotten permits. If Uber truly cannot secure one because the costs are prohibitive, there is something seriously wrong with their business model. It also becomes clear, IMO, that Uber simply doesn't want to comply and expose their development, or lack thereof, to public scrutiny. It's not about money.

Of course, the above opinion does not address your point about future money grabs by the government once the technology is perfected. But that's not the point of the thread nor of Uber's failure to secure a test permit. That's a discussion for another day.

[rusnak]

^ Go back and read your own link.

Uber must hire it's drivers. They must work for Uber. Uber must pay for their training.

You must also insure your employees and pay payroll tax. Also, show financial responsiblity to the tune of $5,000,000.

Just stating the facts, as you say, from your own link.

None of the above are what Uber does. The drivers are independent contractors, and must pay their own costs. All of that changes if they must comply with the license requirements.

That is why Uber will not place self driving cars in California.

[sugarwood]

227.18.b says the driver can be a contractor.

[Por_sha911]

CA is just looking for the money. Right now its only $150 per car but once the camel gets its nose in the tent, the rest will follow. Eventually, there will be special registration fees that will escalate as more vehicles hit the roads, special higher annual vehicle testing fees, and each "driver" will have to have a special endorsement (for a higher fee of course).
Other schemes the govt used to get the camel's nose in the tent:
-the "temporary war tax" on income.
-temporary toll for NYC bridge to cover the cost of building it.

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by rusnak

^ Go back and read your own link.

Uber must hire it's drivers. They must work for Uber. Uber must pay for their training.

You must also insure your employees and pay payroll tax. Also, show financial responsiblity to the tune of $5,000,000.

Just stating the facts, as you say, from your own link.

None of the above are what Uber does. The drivers are independent contractors, and must pay their own costs. All of that changes if they must comply with the license requirements.

That is why Uber will not place self driving cars in California.

Agree with the above facts except the employee part. As posted, they can be contractors. But those facts do not reflect oppressive costs because Uber is not operating as it was originally designed.

Everything you mention and everything in the law are basic requirements for safety and responsibility. If "none of that are what Uber does," then Uber needs to get out of the testing game. Originally, they claimed to be a service to connect drivers with passengers, but they have entered a new field by their own choice--development of autonomous vehicles. It has a new set of rules and responsibilities. Seriously, would anyone believe any company should be allowed to test vehicles on public highways without accountability for its drivers' competency and financial liability? Of course Uber should train and certify it's drivers. Who else should do it? They are the ones developing the technology. They are the ones who know it best. They are the ones who are trying to enter a new field, and this new field has costs beyond their original business model. It was Uber's choice to expand its business horizon.

There is nothing in the law that require Uber to pay payroll tax nor insure the driver. Contractors may be used. The requirements of the law is in addition to already required provisions to operate vehicles in California, which includes the vehicle be insured. If Uber is going to operate any of it's own vehicles, even non-autonomous ones, they must have them insured. If a driver is legally licensed, they are covered. Uber never had to do this before because they used the vehicles of their drivers. But, again, Uber has entered a different arena and now must expect to meet the expenses.

Uber dodged a bullet. When their autonomous vehicle ran the red light, it could have easily killed someone. Where is the financial responsibility? Demonstrating a $5million financial responsibility is something that, to me, makes common sense given the context of testing autonomous vehicles on public streets. Is it a cost to do business? Certainly, but that is the business Uber has chosen to enter. If they can argue that they should not have to show they have adequate assets to cover liabilities stemming from their operations, I'd like to hear it.

Uber may very well decide not to bring autonomous vehicles to California, but that will be a decision to come later. The issue today is testing, not implementation. Uber doesn't want to play by the testing rules. Their choice. Maybe they'll perfect their technology in another state and, once perfected, bring it back to the roads of California. At that time, they, along with any other autonomous vehicle manufacturer, will have to meet the, as yet, unknown legislative requirements to do so. That will be another, different discussion.

Like you, I have no interest in Uber, but I find the discussion interesting. Whatever happens, happens. Thanks for the input and counter points, and enjoy the holidays!

[rusnak]

^ I agree that Uber is not operating as originally designed. But that is not the point.

The point is that they are not going to be able to operate self driving cars in Calif.

And as far as the hypothetical of using independent contractors to test self driving cars - come on now. Even if they did, cost structure is same. The independents would have to enroll in the required safety class, permit the vehicles for the test, install equipment, buy insurance, and on and on and on.

I think the fact that Uber has abandoned California with respect to self driving cars is evident, and a foregone fact now.