I recommend reading the actual letter from the DMV. It's impressively well-written, balanced, and thoughtful about autonomous technology. I was not expecting a response like that from the government.
Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco
51–60 of 249 posts
Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uber exemplifies the libertarian / anarchist subculture in tech. It seems to be a winning strategy for them so far. Edit: to clarify my position. This is why software will never be regarded as an engineering profession. There is a complete disregard for everything that would make us a profession. I'm saddened with the way the world has gone in 2016. It's like we rebelled against adulthood on a global scale.
It's not 100% clear from the article that the permit applied to Uber. And the incident in question of a car running a red light was apparently being driven by a human. > "This vehicle was not part of the pilot and was not carrying customers. The driver involved has been suspended while we continue to investigate." If their self-driving tech is still driver-assisted, then shouldn't Tesla cars also be ordered to stop d…
Nobody, until someone gets hurt.
It's a valid political position to believe that people don't need government regulation (laws) to behave themselves, not make mistakes, and not take risks that might lead to mistakes. It's the libertarian/anarchist viewpoint, as mentioned. But that's not how the government in San Francisco, California, or the US works.
Those of us who don't hold to the libertarian or anarchist positions believe that it's a good thing for laws to prohibit risky decisions that are probably going to be totally fine, if the not-fine case is particularly bad. For instance, that's why there are food inspection departments; even if you don't believe anyone is deliberately trying to poison people, there are a set of risky behaviors (not refrigerating things promptly, not washing things, etc.) that stand a small chance of getting people sick, and we believe it's worth stopping those, even if it slows down production, and even if we can't completely eliminate people getting sick.
Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who uses this cross-walk on occasion, I think the state is reacting just fine.
If the car was driving autonomous or not, there was a driver sat in the drivers seat which is fully responsible for the actions of the car. If the self-driving capability missed the red light, then it is the drivers responsibility to have intervened and stop the car. If I did this in a Tesla with autopilot enabled, would all Tesla's be banned in California? I should be punished as the driver in command of the vehicle…
The ban wasn't because of the car running the red light (though the incident may have contributed to it), it's because Uber didn't apply for a permit to test autonomous vehicles in California. Tesla, by the way, received a permit.
Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco
#54I really hope California isn't overreacting, possibly due to industry pressure from taxis etc. The state should be doing all it can to support, grow, and encourage this innovation.
There are already 20 companies that have been granted permits. Uber might have been granted one too, but they didn't even apply. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testi...
These are permits for Autonomous vehicles. Uber couldn't legitimately abide by a permit as they would need to confirm that the "autonomous vehicle is operated for testing purposes only"... and they want to use it as part of their business model straight away.
Without looking into the specific legislation, on the surface it looks like a reasonable interpretation.
All of the references from Uber state they are doing "self-driving".. which isn't IMHO Autonomous, as it is only Level 3. https://newsroom.uber.com/pittsburgh-self-driving-uber/
I'd expect Uber to obtain a license when they are ready to move towards driverless autonomous development, such as Level 4/5.
Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who uses this cross-walk on occasion, I think the state is reacting just fine.
If the car was driving autonomous or not, there was a driver sat in the drivers seat which is fully responsible for the actions of the car. If the self-driving capability missed the red light, then it is the drivers responsibility to have intervened and stop the car. If I did this in a Tesla with autopilot enabled, would all Tesla's be banned in California? I should be punished as the driver in command of the vehicle…
The problem with the thrust of your argument, I think, is that you're proposing that self-driving cars are something a driver actually needs to pay more attention to than a standard automobile.
Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uber exemplifies the libertarian / anarchist subculture in tech. It seems to be a winning strategy for them so far. Edit: to clarify my position. This is why software will never be regarded as an engineering profession. There is a complete disregard for everything that would make us a profession. I'm saddened with the way the world has gone in 2016. It's like we rebelled against adulthood on a global scale.
It's not 100% clear from the article that the permit applied to Uber. And the incident in question of a car running a red light was apparently being driven by a human. > "This vehicle was not part of the pilot and was not carrying customers. The driver involved has been suspended while we continue to investigate." If their self-driving tech is still driver-assisted, then shouldn't Tesla cars also be ordered to stop d…
> And who is losing here exactly?
Uh, pedestrians in crosswalks, apparently. I'd also add:
1) drivers who were lied to about their potential take home pay 2) customers who will have to eat 50% fare hikes once Uber gains monopoly power in order for them to ever become profitable. 3) employees who work under a CEO who lauds the company as "Boober" in honor of all the fringe benefits he gets for running it. 4) investors who will lose value once the company finally implodes.
Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Updated Uber statement: "This incident was due to human error. This is why we believe so much in making the roads safer by building self-driving Ubers. This vehicle was not part of the pilot and was not carrying customers. The driver involved has been suspended while we continue to investigate." https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/14/uber-looking-into-incident...
Seems like a reckless statement on a couple of fronts. For one, it's openly disrespectful to the human drivers upon whom they've relied to this point--seemingly regarding them as nuisances which must be discarded post-haste. And, of course, it begs the question: what would their response have been if it was due to a technical glitch, which may yet happen? Their statement could easily be used against them.
> And, of course, it begs the question: what would their response have been if it was due to a technical glitch, which may yet happen?
That's not a problem at all. They'll just use "git blame" and fire the programmer whose "human error" caused the accident.
Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it uses Uber drivers for training, heaven help us: I’ve seen illegal U-turns, constant double parking, reversing down 1-way streets, moving right turns through red lights, sudden stops, speeding 25+ mph over the legal limit, lane changes in intersections, lots of turning without signals, lack of proper yielding to obvious pedestrians, cyclists nearly side-swiped, etc. (Some subset of) Uber drivers are one of the w…
Curious, have you reported those things to uber/given appropriately bad ratings? (Uber always claims the rating system should filter unsafe actors out quickly)
I don’t have Uber installed on my phone. I mostly walk or take the bus/subway. This is just my observations as a pedestrian.
Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco
#59I really hope California isn't overreacting, possibly due to industry pressure from taxis etc. The state should be doing all it can to support, grow, and encourage this innovation.
> The state should be doing all it can to support, grow, and encourage this innovation. Obviously California does a good job at this. The innovative machine that is Silicon Valley has been impossible to replicate anywhere else on Earth, nothing else even comes close.
That happens despite California, not because of California.
Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Curious, have you reported those things to uber/given appropriately bad ratings? (Uber always claims the rating system should filter unsafe actors out quickly)
I don’t have Uber installed on my phone. I mostly walk or take the bus/subway. This is just my observations as a pedestrian.
oh, then I misunderstood. Would still be curious how passengers actually act in these cases, since "I don't want to give a bad rating" seems to be a big thing.