Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence
1–10 of 48 posts
Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence
#2Genius? If you hurt someone on the road by doing something explicitly illegal which you have been explicitly warned against doing, you are looking at massive financial liability to victims and potential involuntary manslaughter charges against executives.
TechCrunch's suggestion that this is the thin edge of a wedge to get to do self-driving without regulation is preposterous. There is no future reality in which the Department of Transportation does not strictly regulate self-driving vehicles.
Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence
#3Genius? If you hurt someone on the road by doing something explicitly illegal which you have been explicitly warned against doing, you are looking at massive financial liability to victims and potential involuntary manslaughter charges against executives. TechCrunch's suggestion that this is the thin edge of a wedge to get to do self-driving without regulation is preposterous. There is no future reality in which the…
It's about the public's perception as well though.
Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence
#4Genius? If you hurt someone on the road by doing something explicitly illegal which you have been explicitly warned against doing, you are looking at massive financial liability to victims and potential involuntary manslaughter charges against executives. TechCrunch's suggestion that this is the thin edge of a wedge to get to do self-driving without regulation is preposterous. There is no future reality in which the…
I can't believe they can find engineers that want to "drive" the car.
Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence
#5Genius? If you hurt someone on the road by doing something explicitly illegal which you have been explicitly warned against doing, you are looking at massive financial liability to victims and potential involuntary manslaughter charges against executives. TechCrunch's suggestion that this is the thin edge of a wedge to get to do self-driving without regulation is preposterous. There is no future reality in which the…
It's about the public's perception as well though.
Although to me there's a big difference between "innovating" on bureaucracy and ignoring "public safety"
Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence
#6Genius? If you hurt someone on the road by doing something explicitly illegal which you have been explicitly warned against doing, you are looking at massive financial liability to victims and potential involuntary manslaughter charges against executives. TechCrunch's suggestion that this is the thin edge of a wedge to get to do self-driving without regulation is preposterous. There is no future reality in which the…
Yeah, either Techcrunch doesn't understand this or I don't.
Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence
#7Not really. The CA DMV can suspend or revoke a self-driving permit for bad driving, as with any other driver's license.
§ 227.36. Refusal, Suspension, Revocation of Manufacturer’s Testing Permit
The department may refuse an application for a Manufacturer’s Testing Permit, or for the renewal of a Manufacturer’s Testing Permit, and may suspend or revoke a Manufacturer’s Testing Permit:
(a) For a violation of Vehicle Code section 38750 or this Article.
(b) For any act or omission of the manufacturer or one of its agents, employees, contractors or designees which the department finds makes the conduct of autonomous vehicle testing on public roads by the manufacturer an unreasonable risk to the public.
It's pretty straightforward. This works just like regular bad driving enforcement. There are now two reports of Uber self-driving cars running red lights and complaints about bad turns through bike lanes, so DMV can reasonably deny a permit. Google doesn't seem to have those problems.
[1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/d48f347b-8815-458e...
Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence
#8So Uber are on course to make a huge (multi-billion dollar) loss this year, and on top of that they choose a course of action which could lead to jail-time, might kill someone, and result in massive civil liability. They also make autonomous vehicles look like a half-baked kludge with no real place on the roads and might even cause some regulators to ban them indefinitely. Brilliant.
Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's about the public's perception as well though.
Although to me there's a big difference between "innovating" on bureaucracy and ignoring "public safety"
Yea the laws uber broke were mostly bad regulations that nobody cared about and ultimately didn't harm anyone (other than in a competition harms incumbents).
But beta testing their cars on real streets could lead to disaster. Even from a non-legal PR risk perspective, it's dicey.
If one of these things runs over a cute kid, the attempt to skirt the law will backfire. That said challenging the law isn't necessarily skirting the law, but that's how techcrunch is portraying it. I'm too lazy to read the docket of the case.
Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's about the public's perception as well though.
Although to me there's a big difference between "innovating" on bureaucracy and ignoring "public safety"
Plus, not all penalties are necessarily financial.
Given that Uber is perceived as a symbol of 'Silicon Valley greed' to some politicians/constituents, a few high profile accidents would present a witch hunt opportunity for someone.
Not sure how much practical damage politicians could do but at a $50B-ish valuation there's little room for fatal error. Even a 1-2 year delay in getting self-drivers on the road would cost Uber billions.