[deleted]
Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence
21–30 of 48 posts
Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence
#22I genuinely do not get Uber's strategy here. Even once self-driving cars are mature, they'll occasionally screw up and sometimes kill someone. And Uber's cars are so incredibly far from mature that operating without legal cover is... just insane. If they kill and hit someone, Kalanick is easily portrayed as a ready-made movie villain. Wantonly ignoring state and local laws in the hopes of getting ahead of the pack, s…
Totally agree.
I also think Uber's move is advancing its own lead at the risk of slowing down the overall self-driving car transition. Their move, as you described, when go wrong, not only damage the company, but also general public's acceptance of self-driving technology. That damage could be more profound and harmful in the long run.
Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence
#23I genuinely do not get Uber's strategy here. Even once self-driving cars are mature, they'll occasionally screw up and sometimes kill someone. And Uber's cars are so incredibly far from mature that operating without legal cover is... just insane. If they kill and hit someone, Kalanick is easily portrayed as a ready-made movie villain. Wantonly ignoring state and local laws in the hopes of getting ahead of the pack, s…
Uber's is laying the groundwork to make the legal case that Tesla owners using autopilot are in fact 'testers', presumably in hopes of tangling Tesla up.
'Levandowski compared Uber’s technology to Tesla’s autopilot feature, saying: “It’s hard to understand why the DMV would seek to require self-driving Ubers to get permits when it accepts that Tesla’s autopilot technology does not need them."
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/16/uber-defi...
Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence
#24uber. i have nothing against improving these services, but doing it with such blatant disregard to the law.
if this was just some guy on the street, or even most businesses the authorities would come down on them like a ton of bricks... but its a silicon valley posterchild so we don't.
its so difficult to see and not feel anger about it. if i don't do my due diligence or act intelligently i feel uncomfortable like i'm taking a stupid risk... why don't they?
Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence
#25I genuinely do not get Uber's strategy here. Even once self-driving cars are mature, they'll occasionally screw up and sometimes kill someone. And Uber's cars are so incredibly far from mature that operating without legal cover is... just insane. If they kill and hit someone, Kalanick is easily portrayed as a ready-made movie villain. Wantonly ignoring state and local laws in the hopes of getting ahead of the pack, s…
Uber's is laying the groundwork to make the legal case that Tesla owners using autopilot are in fact 'testers', presumably in hopes of tangling Tesla up. 'Levandowski compared Uber’s technology to Tesla’s autopilot feature, saying: “It’s hard to understand why the DMV would seek to require self-driving Ubers to get permits when it accepts that Tesla’s autopilot technology does not need them." https://www.theguardian.…
That's interesting, if it's actually the case. It seems a bit of a stretch to me--Uber is still opening itself up to existential risk--but if by doing so it can plausibly kneecap Tesla and if it views Tesla similarly as an existential risk, this move might make sense.
ETA: That is, from a business perspective. The fact that you might kill a couple people in the meantime is kind of a deal breaker from a moral point of view.
Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uber's is laying the groundwork to make the legal case that Tesla owners using autopilot are in fact 'testers', presumably in hopes of tangling Tesla up. 'Levandowski compared Uber’s technology to Tesla’s autopilot feature, saying: “It’s hard to understand why the DMV would seek to require self-driving Ubers to get permits when it accepts that Tesla’s autopilot technology does not need them." https://www.theguardian.…
That's interesting, if it's actually the case. It seems a bit of a stretch to me--Uber is still opening itself up to existential risk--but if by doing so it can plausibly kneecap Tesla and if it views Tesla similarly as an existential risk, this move might make sense. ETA: That is, from a business perspective. The fact that you might kill a couple people in the meantime is kind of a deal breaker from a moral point of…
I could be wrong, but I haven't heard a better theory. I doubt they're just being cowboys, Uber's lawyers and stratgists are demonstrably skilled in the dark arts, I suspect they've calculated their outs.
Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 sk…
Like minimum wage laws. Right.
There they just followed the existing model of taxis.
Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence
#28I genuinely do not get Uber's strategy here. Even once self-driving cars are mature, they'll occasionally screw up and sometimes kill someone. And Uber's cars are so incredibly far from mature that operating without legal cover is... just insane. If they kill and hit someone, Kalanick is easily portrayed as a ready-made movie villain. Wantonly ignoring state and local laws in the hopes of getting ahead of the pack, s…
Uber's is laying the groundwork to make the legal case that Tesla owners using autopilot are in fact 'testers', presumably in hopes of tangling Tesla up. 'Levandowski compared Uber’s technology to Tesla’s autopilot feature, saying: “It’s hard to understand why the DMV would seek to require self-driving Ubers to get permits when it accepts that Tesla’s autopilot technology does not need them." https://www.theguardian.…
Except Tesla has a permit to operate autonomous vehicles in California and Uber does not. What am I missing here? How does Uber not complying with a state law tangle up Tesla?
Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence
#29Not 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 Co…
Exactly this.
A friend of mine is a reckless driver, who think of himself as a rally pilot. He often drives at twice the speed limit, passes other cars when there’s a continuous line, etc. After a wedding dinner, (where he drunk more than enough) he announced he was driving home. I had to ask:
- Are you sure you should be doing this?
- Yeah, even with a glass or two (I counted a good half-dozen) I’m a better driver than 90% on the road anyway…
- I mean, that might get points off your license. [He had mentioned losing some during the dinner.]
- Nah, it’s OK: I don’t have a license anymore, so I have no points to lose. I’m smart like that, you see?
I agree with TechCrunch: Uber is smart like that too.
Re: Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uber's is laying the groundwork to make the legal case that Tesla owners using autopilot are in fact 'testers', presumably in hopes of tangling Tesla up. 'Levandowski compared Uber’s technology to Tesla’s autopilot feature, saying: “It’s hard to understand why the DMV would seek to require self-driving Ubers to get permits when it accepts that Tesla’s autopilot technology does not need them." https://www.theguardian.…
Except Tesla has a permit to operate autonomous vehicles in California and Uber does not. What am I missing here? How does Uber not complying with a state law tangle up Tesla?
Tesla has a permit, but private Tesla owners don't. Uber may be able put a judge in a position where he/she either has to require Tesla owners all get testing permits to use autopilot, or let Uber operate more or less unchecked. A win/win for Uber.