State regulators demand Uber halt self-driving car program

[sugarwood]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/technology/uber-self-driving-car-san-francisco.html

[Porsche-O-Phile]

DMV bureaucrats desperately trying to stop a technology that will (rightfully) render them all obsolete. I hope Uber hands their collective asses to them in court. Implementation of this technology is unquestionably the future and I for one embrace it. I will have no sympathy for the bureaucrats, insurance companies, traffic cops, sleazebag car dealers, metermaids and other profiteers that have lined their pockets and bullied the public for years because of our collective need to drive as they go the way of the dodo.

The implications here are profound for the elderly (unable to drive), those who can't get a license, etc. I think it's a great innovation that can't come fast enough. Now we get to see all those "oh-this-or-that rule / regulation / fee / fine is for safety" folks exposed for he lying POSes they are. Think of how much better off we'll be as a society when people don't have to cart around so-and-so anymore (teenage kids, elderly parents, etc.) Think of how much urban infrastructure currently dedicated to parking cars can be reclaimed and put to better use as driverless cars simply shuttle efficiently from one mission to the next... Think of how much more safe the roads will be for teenagers (historically in peril as young / inexperienced). There will be a LOT of unintended (good) side benefits to this as it inevitably comes along. The only people wailing and gnashing their teeth will be the ones that have perverted the "freedom" of driving and used it to either control the rest of us, rip us off or both. Good riddance. Bring on the self-driving cars! I want to curl up with a coffee and a book in the back seat without wasting another moment of my life in human-created gridlock again!

[petrolhead611]

Curling up with a book wont be permitted in self-driving cars.It will at least be compulsory to read from a connected screen, that may interrupt your reading pleasure with " newsflash- you are about to crash"

[Nickshu]

No doubt that many users (and many bystanders) will be martyrs on the alter of progress as this technology moves forward. The question is who will hold the liability? Will automakers be sued for every accident? Without legal immunity for automakers and their suppliers this technology will not make it. "Drivers" will claim every accident is the technology's fault and automakers will claim every accident is the driver's fault for not taking over and paying attention to watch for potential danger.

This is gonna be interesting.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Personally I see a lot of the liability shifting to manufacturers and away from individuals. The insurance companies will resist this tooth-and-nail but it really makes the most sense in an autonomous system and as a system model. I also see it as an inevitability.

The overall safety and efficiency of the system is likely to become orders of magnitude better than what we presently have as human beings are gradually removed from the control loop - with a fully autonomous system, accidents could very well drop two near zero and liability would become a footnote - hardly ever encountered in practice.

Collectively human beings have proven that they are just too stupid, emotional (either aggressive or timid), impulsive, impatient and distracted to drive and we are at a point where computers can do it far better, far more efficiently and far more safely.

[GH85Carrera]

I can see the auto-car taking over in the urban mega-cities. Much like mass transit and subways are only in the big population cities. For a trip to visit a friend that lives in a rural area or for the rural living person, it will be a LONG LONG time before the automatic car is viable. Cars will be around a long time and the bureaucracy to service them will continue. Montana, and Alaska will have personal cars and trucks for many decades to come. Residents of Slapout, Oklahoma will have to wait a while for a autonomous vehicle that individuals can afford.

[Mike80911]

UBER claims it is all about the Divers making a living wage. Many of the UBER drivers are former medallion cab drivers who complained that they could not make a living because UBER was taking away all of their business and went to work for UBER because of that. If they use driver-less cars doesn't that put the drivers that the company cares so much for out of work?

[flipper35]

So how does a self driving car, with a driver and tech in the front seats to oversee things, run a red light?

[john70t]

I'm pretty surprised that these things are in full use already given our litigious society.

My guess is that 'self-driving' will become a toned down dash push button feature for many cars. Something similar to cruise-control with automatic follow/braking/parking/collision avoidance like on many of today's high end vehicles.
But the responsibility will remain fully upon the driver.

Limited use only...

In the snow belt (and Portland ) they just won't work.
-On slick icy hills, with 2WD, you need to get a running start to make it up to the top.
-People will pull out of driveways suddenly and get themselves stuck in front of you.
-If you do stop halfway, you need to back all the way down in traffic or turn around in a driveway.
-I've once slid backwards down a curved sheet ice hill pumping my brakes and praying.

[Tervuren]

Originally Posted by flipper35

So how does a self driving car, with a driver and tech in the front seats to oversee things, run a red light?

The car wasn't self driving, it was in use by an employee as a regular car. This issue was some time ago, Uber was quite certain they are in the right according the rules. California is wishing the rules were otherwise than they are. It may have even been on Pelican before.

In short, Uber believes that because it has a person as pilot in command, that they do not fall under California's legislation as its written. According to how its written, I might agree with Uber. California can re-write its legislation and close the loop hole that Uber intended to use. That, or a court will decide something. Who knows.

[rusnak]

Just think about this for a second.

Self-driving cars set the automobile back 100 years. Why? Because they are not going to be affordable for the masses, and will only begin to take off in numbers when people start to look at automobile accidents and human casualties as inevitable, just part of the risk you take.

[Otter74]

Originally Posted by rusnak

Just think about this for a second.

Self-driving cars set the automobile back 100 years. Why? Because they are not going to be affordable for the masses, and will only begin to take off in numbers when people start to look at automobile accidents and human casualties as inevitable, just part of the risk you take.

The US already has this attitude about motor-vehicle casualties, and has for decades.

[RonDent]

“It is illegal for the company to operate its self-driving vehicles on public roads until it receives an autonomous vehicle testing permit,”......“Any action by Uber to continue the operation of vehicles equipped with autonomous technology on public streets in California must cease until Uber complies.”

California is all in favor of autonomous vehicles. You can bet Tesla has a permit to test their cars on public roads, even with a driver behind the wheel. Like some one said earlier, it is a question of liability. Had Uber had an accident when they were out "testing", without a permit, you would have no end to the lawsuits. All we need it for one company to go around the law and screw it up for everybody. And have the government impose more restrictions or better yet, to shut the whole thing down. God knows we have to do something to protect us from all of the idiots on the roads here.

California saw the need for autonomous vehicles years ago and has been working to make it happen. Stop blaming the government for making sure things are done safely and according to the law. Or better yet, how about Uber test their cars in your neighborhood! Crash into your car, flatten your dog and kids in the street. But that would be OK. Anything in the name of progress, right?

[rusnak]

Don't be so naive.

As shown by Tesla, a permit does no more to make autonomous vehicles more safe or less prone to crashing than does a driver's license.

The permit is purely about money, that is all.

And we live in a safety minded society. People think that they are saved by laws, as if you can legislate a giant prophylactic bubble over the world, free of risk. People want to foist blame on everyone else for the problems. We don't live in a society where personal responsiblilty prevails over political correctness, over the notion that some government agency will pop out of the sky with a giant hand to give you free money, phones, food, education, health care, and so on. Do you really think that we have as a society come to accept that the stuff we buy may kill us, and that we are OK with it?

[jyl]

Originally Posted by rusnak

The permit is purely about money, that is all.

The permit costs $150.

[rusnak]

Suddenly I feel like, soooo much safer

[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.

[Tervuren]

Originally Posted by RonDent

“It is illegal for the company to operate its self-driving vehicles on public roads until it receives an autonomous vehicle testing permit,”......“Any action by Uber to continue the operation of vehicles equipped with autonomous technology on public streets in California must cease until Uber complies.”

California is all in favor of autonomous vehicles. You can bet Tesla has a permit to test their cars on public roads, even with a driver behind the wheel. Like some one said earlier, it is a question of liability. Had Uber had an accident when they were out "testing", without a permit, you would have no end to the lawsuits. All we need it for one company to go around the law and screw it up for everybody. And have the government impose more restrictions or better yet, to shut the whole thing down. God knows we have to do something to protect us from all of the idiots on the roads here.

California saw the need for autonomous vehicles years ago and has been working to make it happen. Stop blaming the government for making sure things are done safely and according to the law. Or better yet, how about Uber test their cars in your neighborhood! Crash into your car, flatten your dog and kids in the street. But that would be OK. Anything in the name of progress, right?

The thing is, by the letter of the law, the Uber's vehichle isn't self driving. Uber calls it that for marketing.

[DanielDudley]

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.

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

It's unpossible.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

It'll start as an "autopilot" sort of function (already available to varying degrees on some models) but the inevitable outcome is a fully autonomous system. It'll be orders of magnitude better than what we have today. Eliminating stupid / aggressive / inattentive human behavior in driving is the single thing that can do the most to enhance safety. It's coming folks - like it or not.