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.
Link?
Don't even know what DMV is.
Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco
71–80 of 249 posts
Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco
#72Earlier 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…
Sorry about your experiences.
Purely anecdotal but I enjoy tech because I enjoy building things and the rabbit hole that is technology is near unendingly deep.
The salaries are great, benefits are great, paid time off is great. It's hard to complain.
Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco
#73Earlier 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…
Uber doesn't get to decide if they are in violation of California regulations.
As for the permit, there is no guarantee that Uber will get one if they apply for it; the state can refuse such an application. If they keep showing callous disregard for public safety, they may not even be around to get refused by the State of California.
Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco
#74Earlier 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…
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 well as defensive driving training
Those both sound like reasonable, common-sense things to have. I'd also want a company testing their vehicle to have insurance and know how to drive their car. But at the same time if this permit didn't exist, how much less safe would the world be? Really?
They're not stress testing the software, they're not analyzing the code, they aren't testing the competency of the people who built the software, etc, etc. They aren't doing any of that for a good reason. So ultimately this is mostly just theatre or an exercise in letting Uber know who the boss is.
Because I highly doubt Uber doesn't have the insurance or experienced drivers. Nor do I think there will be any significant amount of tech companies wrecking havoc on California because they didn't think to buy auto insurance before starting an automobile software company, save a permit.
Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco
#75Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco
#76Earlier 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'm in tech because I'm an idealist and believe very seriously that, done right, technology can change people's lives for the better. For the record, I don't think I could be convinced work at Uber.
Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco
#77This 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.
>That said, I don't like the aggressive gambling with pedestrians lifes like Uber or Tesla do.
We gamble with pedestrian's lives every time we get in a car.
No one has seen how these vehicles perform in real world scenarios. It seems very possible they could perform better than humans on average.
Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco
#78This 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…
>Now Uber has finally hit a regulatory wall which it won't be able to pay off.
I wouldn't be surprised if they just can say "sorry, misunderstanding", apply for a permit like everybody else and continue with a bit more oversight.
Re: Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San Francisco
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
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-...
Funny , because they say "self driving" on their own website:
https://newsroom.uber.com/san-francisco-your-self-driving-ub...