State regulators demand Uber halt self-driving car program
 

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!

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"

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

“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.”<br>
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. <br>
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?

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?

The permit costs $150.

Suddenly I feel like, soooo much safer

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.

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

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

It's unpossible.

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.

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.

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&amp;CONVERT_TO=url&amp ;CACHEID=d48f347b-8815-458e-9df2-5ded9f208e9e

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

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?

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.

No kidding.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

OK, that right there. That's funny!

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?

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.

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.

$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.

^ 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.