Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by Animats » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 1:43 AM UTC

dmix wrote: post #74

geofft wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 positio…

Just to play devils advocate here. Assuming Uber gets a permit to test autonomous vehicles in public, how much risk has been mitigated as a result vs not having a permit and allowing them to continue testing? Reading the legislation, the only requirement for the permit are: - have insurance with up to $5 million - the driver has a drivers license and has "Instruction on the automated driving system technology", as we…

CA DMV also requires companies testing autonomous vehicles to report all their crashes and disconnects. Here are all those reports.[1][2] 20 companies have signed up. This is basic data collection to help decide when a system is safe for deployment.

Uber apparently tried to evade this minimal level of scrutiny. Looks like it didn't work.

[1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/auton... [2] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/disen...

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

#102

Post by bko » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 1:43 AM UTC

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…

> in light of projects where people can actually get killed.

Compared to what? Most states give out licenses to 16 year old kids with a few hours of driving school. Once you get a license you never get retested for vision or driving ability. There are very dangerous elderly drivers on the road and car accidents are the leading cause of death of 1-44 year olds.

Some allowable risk has to be accepted in order to have progress and a thriving society.

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

#103

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 1:44 AM UTC

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…

[deleted]

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

#104

Post by yazaddaruvala » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 1:44 AM UTC

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…

Isn't it a fun fact that throughout history, (barring the morally exceptional[0]) each human only ever chose to do things that were in their best interest. However, since humans existed, we have continually seen a consistent improvement[1] in the average human's life.

[0] Funny thing about the morally exceptional: I can't think of any which continue to improve our current day-to-day lives.

[1] Improvement is subjective. But objectively (compared to centuries past), our housing situation has gotten better (more roofs, less exposure to the cold/heat), the average human doesn't worry about getting sick from bad water or getting bitten by a snake while in their bed, the average human dies less to disease and overall dies at a later age, and the average human is able to spend more time on hobbies rather than necessities.

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

#105

Post by kyrra » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 1:46 AM UTC

bko wrote: post #102

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…

> in light of projects where people can actually get killed. Compared to what? Most states give out licenses to 16 year old kids with a few hours of driving school. Once you get a license you never get retested for vision or driving ability. There are very dangerous elderly drivers on the road and car accidents are the leading cause of death of 1-44 year olds. Some allowable risk has to be accepted in order to have p…

Vision tests depend on the state. Colorado and Texas both require vision tests every X years (depends on age in some cases).

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

#106

Post by unclebucknasty » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 1:49 AM UTC

jgacook wrote: post #12

symlinkk wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a red light. The car, which is being driven by a computer, did not stop. That is a computer error.

The Uber self-driving cars have a human in the driver's seat that is able to take control of the vehicle. It's not clear whether the computer or the human was in control when the car blew the red light.

Some variation of that comment has been oft-repeated on this thread and it's exactly what Uber wants.

One of the main functions of that human is to accept blame (or at least obfuscate culpability) and absolve the tech in the event of an accident.

There are a ton of scenarios wherein it would be virtually impossible for a human--especially one lulled into inaction and passivity for most of the ride--would be able to intervene quickly enough to avert an accident once it became apparent that the tech was failing.

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

#107

Post by tjohns » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 1:49 AM UTC

ijustdontgetit wrote: post #68

goalieca wrote: post #30

Earlier 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.

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 f…

I enjoy working as a software engineer because I have fun building new things, because I find the science behind it intellectually stimulating, and because I feel the work our industry is doing is building the foundations for the future.

Speed is important, but isn't the biggest priority to me. It's best when things move quickly, of course... but my first priority as a professional engineer is to do things correctly, ethically, and safely. It's a point of personal pride.

I don't think there's any part of that that's in conflict with changing the world for the better. Move fast and break things; just don't break other people in the process.

Of course, there's a big difference in what's at stake when building a website, versus someone building a rocket / self-driving car / nuclear reactor / life-critical system. The engineering practices need to be adjusted accordingly in each case.

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

#108

Post by NeutronBoy » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 1:55 AM UTC

surfmike wrote: post #97

detaro wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why wouldn't you want to give a bad rating for bad driving? I almost always give 5 stars, but with the notable exception being distracted or aggressive drivers.

Because the driver will retaliate by giving you a bad rating.

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

#109

Post by Animats » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 2:09 AM UTC

Daviey wrote: post #54

sp332 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "s…

Reading the regulations and DMV's commentary, there seems to be no prohibition on carrying passengers for hire while testing an autonomous vehicle. DMV decided not to allow "commercial vehicles" in this phase, but that means heavy trucks and buses requiring commercial plates.

The draft autonomous vehicle deployment regulations are tougher.[1] They include a data recorder requirement, testing, and demonstrations.

DMV seems to be trying hard here to do a good job. Somebody has to restrain the "move fast and break things" crowd before they leave blood on the pavement.

[1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/211897ae-c58a-4f28...

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

#110

Post by dmix » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 2:10 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #101

dmix wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to play devils advocate here. Assuming Uber gets a permit to test autonomous vehicles in public, how much risk has been mitigated as a result vs not having a permit and allowing them to continue testing? Reading the legislation, the only requirement for the permit are: - have insurance with up to $5 million - the driver has a drivers license and has "Instruction on the automated driving system technology", as we…

CA DMV also requires companies testing autonomous vehicles to report all their crashes and disconnects. Here are all those reports.[1][2] 20 companies have signed up. This is basic data collection to help decide when a system is safe for deployment. Uber apparently tried to evade this minimal level of scrutiny. Looks like it didn't work. [1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/auton... [2] https://…

I can think of a number of ways to collect this data without requiring a special permit. The police are in coordination with California, so incidences involving semi autonomous vehicles can be collected using existing systems. I'm also sure there are means to shutdown Uber's autonomous testing via court order.

Additionally insurance and drivers licenses are already regulated.

I'm still not convinced of the necessity. The hammer is always looking for a new nail.

The bar for expanding bureaucracy and adding highly specific oversight is so low and so commonplace that you're labeled a techno-libertarian for questioning the basic economic cost (realistic benefits vs tradeoffs) of doing so.

You may feel more comfortable knowing someone is watching over these specific companies testing process. That doesn't automatically mean the world has been made safer as a result of their time spent writing complex legislation, building regulatory systems, enforcing it, slowing down development of technology, battling cases in court, pushing companies to other states/countries, etc.

Unfortunately questioning the realistic utility of such regulation is no longer the default and is dismissed as the foolishness of some silicon valley tech people disconnected from real life...