Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 249 posts

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#61

Post by bmm6o »

escoz wrote: post #32
JamilD wrote: post #19

Earlier 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...

CA law says every autonomous car in testing needs to have an operator in charge, so technically all incidents are due to human error. Also: Uber is not listed in the CA DMV list of companies allowed to test autonomous vehicles? https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testi...

They seem to claim that it's assistive technology, not self-driving and therefore not required to register as autonomous: http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/12/uber-tests-self-driving-...

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#62

Post by dmix »

czep wrote: post #56
dmix wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I was talking about the autonomous vehicle permit in this particular case. I removed that part of my comment because people are mistaking what I said apparently.

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#63

Post by aetherson »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #4

I 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.

I don't think that the taxi industry has a lot of pull at the state level. Perhaps in some cities, but Uber has generally not had a lot of difficulty besting taxis politically in California thus far.

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#64

Post by krasin »

brilliantcode wrote: post #37

This is really worrying for Uber. It's supposedly burning 2 billion dollars a year. It doesn't own any fleet of vehicles or it's drivers. Neither is there a sustainable cost savings that doesn't involve lighting pile of cash on fire. It desperately needs driverless cars before Tesla and Google kills their business off. Now Uber has finally hit a regulatory wall which it won't be able to pay off. It's likely to hit mo…

Michigan just passed a set of very pro-self-driving cars laws: http://fortune.com/2016/12/09/michigan-self-driving-cars/

So, Uber only hit the wall in SF, and can still continue testing elsewhere.

That said, I don't like the aggressive gambling with pedestrians lifes like Uber or Tesla do.

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#65

Post by sundaeofshock »

skepticaldrunk wrote: post #55
Daviey wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As long as the vehicle requires human intervention, they should not be allowed to enter autonomous mode in a dense, urban environment.

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#66

Post by greglindahl »

johnchristopher wrote: post #33
JamilD wrote: post #15

I want self-driving cars to happen as quickly as possible, but Uber seems like they were extremely reckless and negligent here. Why not apply for a permit and stay on the safe side? And with at least two reported incidents of these cars running red lights, it seems like driver training and attentiveness was lacking. If the software wasn't ready, fine, but you have to be aware of that and train your drivers to be 100%…

Then we are better off driving for real because `not driving, meaning not being in control, but being ready to take the helm at any time` must be more exhausting (because you have to focus on everything not under your control vs focus on everything that you don't have control minus what you actually control) and increase our reaction time (since some time will pass between the moment you notice you have to take the h…

Being ready to take the helm at any time is required by law, at this point. It applies to Google's test cars, to Tesla Autopilot, etc.

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#67

Post by eanzenberg »

JamilD wrote: post #19
stuckagain wrote: post #3

Self-driving Uber car blows red signal at crosswalk in SF: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CdJ4oae8f4

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...

I mean it is due to human error. The human error resides somewhere within Uber-hq.

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#68

Post by ijustdontgetit »

goalieca wrote: post #30
dsl wrote: post #8

Uber is a company built on ignoring laws. Everything they did in the beginning was against some form of taxi or car hire regulation, in the name of disruption. (Regardless of what you think of the laws in question, they were still being broken in the eyes of most regulators) I don't know how I feel about that type of corporate philosophy (or Facebook's "move fast break things") in light of projects where people can a…

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.

So I have an off topic question?

I originally got into tech because I hate my life and thought that tech was this outlet that could actually make some change. I come from a world of violence and abuse and never really cared for the powers that be. Tech seemed like the answer.

So my question to the people who don't feel this way: why are you in tech? Serious question. Tech only seems interesting because you can move fast. What value do you find from working in this field if you don't feel this way? If you have to work inside some system?

This comes from a person who lived in an abusive household most of my life and still struggling to find something outside of QA while I work on my own projects, but I don't really get the appeal of this field if all you want is a house with kids and work within the system. It comes off as mediocre to me. So as a person reaching almost 30 who hates life the way it is and wants to see a change, please explain to me what you get out of this.

Thanks for those who answer this seriously.

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#69

Post by swang »

escoz wrote: post #32
JamilD wrote: post #19

Earlier 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...

CA law says every autonomous car in testing needs to have an operator in charge, so technically all incidents are due to human error. Also: Uber is not listed in the CA DMV list of companies allowed to test autonomous vehicles? https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testi...

unsure if the dmv requires a human operator since uber's argument for not needing dmv's permission is there is a human operator in the car, and therefore it's not a self-driving car.

Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco

#70

Post by aetherson »

brilliantcode wrote: post #37

This is really worrying for Uber. It's supposedly burning 2 billion dollars a year. It doesn't own any fleet of vehicles or it's drivers. Neither is there a sustainable cost savings that doesn't involve lighting pile of cash on fire. It desperately needs driverless cars before Tesla and Google kills their business off. Now Uber has finally hit a regulatory wall which it won't be able to pay off. It's likely to hit mo…

It's not clear that Uber has hit a regulatory wall. The DMV wrote them a stern note, yes. Uber has received various scary-sounding threats of government sanction and has overcome them in the past (for example, at one point a German judge threatened to fine them 250k euros per car per day). They have often been successful in arguing their case or in going above or around uncooperative regulators.

The California state government is not a monolith, and Uber is an experienced lobbyist and negotiator. It's certainly possible that the DMV will prevail here, but not a certainty. And even if the DMV does prevail, Uber can get the appropriate permits and then resume, or else just pilot the program in one of the 49 other states.

Post reply on HN