5 ms·

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 encour

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.

sundaeofshock 10y ago
As someone who uses this cross-walk on occasion, I think the state is reacting just fine.
- Daviey 10y ago
  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. If I did this in an old banged out SUV, would the car be banned? No, i'd received a citation for the offence of running a red. Which is exactly how this incident should have been handled.
  - JamilD 10y ago
    The ban wasn't because of the car running the red light (though the incident may have contributed to it), it's because Uber didn't apply for a permit to test autonomous vehicles in California. Tesla, by the way, received a permit.
  - skepticaldrunk 10y ago
    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.
    - sundaeofshock 10y ago
      As long as the vehicle requires human intervention, they should not be allowed to enter autonomous mode in a dense, urban environment.
JamilD 10y ago
> The state should be doing all it can to support, grow, and encourage this innovation. I don't think anyone disagrees. California's been very proactive in promoting and allowing self-driving car trials. But you can't allow just any driverless car on the road without ensuring that it's safe — that's why there's a permit process for it. This isn't just another app — people's lives are at stake here.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > you can't allow just any driverless car on the road In San Francisco, no less! I'm a huge fan of self-driving cars. I think they should already be legal in the dead of night in Cupertino and Wyoming. But a high-density urban space is not where you experiment with cars.
sp332 10y ago
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/testing https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testi...
- Daviey 10y ago
  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 "self-driving".. which isn't IMHO Autonomous, as it is only Level 3. https://newsroom.uber.com/pittsburgh-self-driving-uber/ https://newsroom.uber.com/pittsburgh-self-driving-uber/ I'd expect Uber to obtain a license when they are ready to move towards driverless autonomous development, such as Level 4/5.
  - sundaeofshock 10y ago
    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.
    - Daviey 10y ago
      Uber does get to decide if they follow the law and not the DMV's interpretation of it. Providing the vehicle required human monitoring the actions of the car, it isn't classed as an autonomous vehicle.. or do you disagree with my interpretation of the below? (1) “Autonomous technology” means technology that has the capability to drive a vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring by a human operator. (2) (A) “Autonomous vehicle” means any vehicle equipped with autonomous technology that has been integrated into that vehicle. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&division=16.6.&title=&part=&chapter=&article= http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xh... Providing the vehicle design still requires a human to be monitoring the car, it by my interpretation not an autonomous vehicle. Obviously, this will change in the future.. and then they will require a permit.
DoodleBuggy 10y ago
> The state should be doing all it can to support, grow, and encourage this innovation. Obviously California does a good job at this. The innovative machine that is Silicon Valley has been impossible to replicate anywhere else on Earth, nothing else even comes close.
- marknutter 10y ago
  That happens despite California, not because of California.
  - hihihduybd 10y ago
    Can't you both be wrong?
  - DoodleBuggy 10y ago
    Right, that's why there's a Silicon Valley in every state and in every nation. Obviously.
aetherson 10y ago
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.
- taneq 10y ago
  If they did, you'd think the government would be cracking down on unlicensed taxi services (which is what Uber really is) as an immediate and clearly illegal threat to the regulated market which taxis were originally promised by the state.
curried_haskell 10y ago
Ah so that's what we're calling the wreckless endangerment of pedestrians these days... innovation!

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.

sundaeofshock 10y ago

As someone who uses this cross-walk on occasion, I think the state is reacting just fine.

Daviey 10y ago
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. If I did this in an old banged out SUV, would the car be banned? No, i'd received a citation for the offence of running a red. Which is exactly how this incident should have been handled.
- JamilD 10y ago
  The ban wasn't because of the car running the red light (though the incident may have contributed to it), it's because Uber didn't apply for a permit to test autonomous vehicles in California. Tesla, by the way, received a permit.
- skepticaldrunk 10y ago
  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.
  - sundaeofshock 10y ago
    As long as the vehicle requires human intervention, they should not be allowed to enter autonomous mode in a dense, urban environment.

JamilD 10y ago

> The state should be doing all it can to support, grow, and encourage this innovation. I don't think anyone disagrees. California's been very proactive in promoting and allowing self-driving car trials. But you can't allow just any driverless car on the road without ensuring that it's safe — that's why there's a permit process for it. This isn't just another app — people's lives are at stake here.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> you can't allow just any driverless car on the road In San Francisco, no less! I'm a huge fan of self-driving cars. I think they should already be legal in the dead of night in Cupertino and Wyoming. But a high-density urban space is not where you experiment with cars.

sp332 10y ago

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/testing https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testi...

Daviey 10y ago
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 "self-driving".. which isn't IMHO Autonomous, as it is only Level 3. https://newsroom.uber.com/pittsburgh-self-driving-uber/ https://newsroom.uber.com/pittsburgh-self-driving-uber/ I'd expect Uber to obtain a license when they are ready to move towards driverless autonomous development, such as Level 4/5.
- sundaeofshock 10y ago
  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.
  - Daviey 10y ago
    Uber does get to decide if they follow the law and not the DMV's interpretation of it. Providing the vehicle required human monitoring the actions of the car, it isn't classed as an autonomous vehicle.. or do you disagree with my interpretation of the below? (1) “Autonomous technology” means technology that has the capability to drive a vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring by a human operator. (2) (A) “Autonomous vehicle” means any vehicle equipped with autonomous technology that has been integrated into that vehicle. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&division=16.6.&title=&part=&chapter=&article= http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xh... Providing the vehicle design still requires a human to be monitoring the car, it by my interpretation not an autonomous vehicle. Obviously, this will change in the future.. and then they will require a permit.

DoodleBuggy 10y ago

> The state should be doing all it can to support, grow, and encourage this innovation. Obviously California does a good job at this. The innovative machine that is Silicon Valley has been impossible to replicate anywhere else on Earth, nothing else even comes close.

marknutter 10y ago
That happens despite California, not because of California.
- hihihduybd 10y ago
  Can't you both be wrong?
- DoodleBuggy 10y ago
  Right, that's why there's a Silicon Valley in every state and in every nation. Obviously.

aetherson 10y ago

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.

taneq 10y ago
If they did, you'd think the government would be cracking down on unlicensed taxi services (which is what Uber really is) as an immediate and clearly illegal threat to the regulated market which taxis were originally promised by the state.

curried_haskell 10y ago

Ah so that's what we're calling the wreckless endangerment of pedestrians these days... innovation!