8 ms·
Uber continues self-driving vehicle testing in SF in defiance of DMV
- rajathagasthya 10y ago> Levandowski was asked why Uber couldn’t just go test its vehicles somewhere else since California regulators clearly aren’t welcoming. He said that Uber’s engineers deserve to see their work displayed in the city where they work. So it's okay to violate regulations because your engineers want to see their work in their city?
- woofyman 10y agoWow, hubris and privilege. Don't they realize it's bad PR. They're reinforcing every negative SV stereotype.
- stanleydrew 10y agoReinforcing every negative SV stereotype is kind of Uber's MO, so this shouldn't really surprise anyone.
- chinathrow 10y agoThere is no bad PR in their book...
- dntrkv 10y agoIf they thought they were violating regulations, that would be true. But their official stance is that they are not violating regulations, so his point is totally valid. Official statement: https://newsroom.uber.com/statement-from-anthony-levandowski-on-self-driving-in-san-francisco/ https://newsroom.uber.com/statement-from-anthony-levandowski...
- steveax 10y agoFortunately, Uber doesn't have the final say in this matter.
- Daviey 10y agoAnd neither does the DMV... Which as stated in the previous thread on this, it seems they are exceeding the legislation that covers this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13181514 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13181514
- gopalv 10y ago> it's okay to violate regulations because your engineers want to see their work in their city? Other than the pointless flaunting of privilege in this ... I think keeping engineers very close to the project is usually a sign that not all is well with the project. I read that as "We can't let this project out of sight of the engineers ... they need to be able to make changes on a day to day basis, from direct observation." That these engineers would be moving in breakneck speed (ha!), to fix whatever they see in person rather than the usual separation of concerns in testing mission critical software. Through those glasses, it is roughly an admission that it is in "patch everyday" phase of development.
- radicaldreamer 10y agoBut that team is mostly in Pittsburgh?
- jayjay71 10y agoThe team is split between Pittsburgh and San Francisco, as Uber acquired SF based Otto.
- eagsalazar2 10y agoWhile in general I agree that Uber is being reckless and arrogant, I otherwise really don't get your comment at all. Are you suggesting that quick iterations facilitated by proximity to that which you are testing and direct observation, especially at an early stage of development, is a bad thing?? If so, I've worked on several hardware projects (IC design) and IoT projects as a software developer and I couldn't disagree more strongly. That the engineers are close to the product so they can make quick iterations without massive amounts of waiting and telephone game confusion is a sign that they are doing a good job and don't have an idiot culture of engineering bureaucracy. IMO.
- gugagore 10y agoPerhaps that engineering bureaucracy (not sure what you're referring to, to be honest) in the context of safety-critical systems is not "idiot culture".
- kbenson 10y agoAs much as I'm not a fan of Uber, I have to agree with the whole sentiment expressed by Uber in the article, which is that they are doing the exact same thing Tesla is, which is having a person behind the wheel and using the software to assist, so if Tesla isn't breaking the law, how are they?
- kjbflsudfb 10y agoTesla applied for and received a permit, did they not?
- kbenson 10y agoAccording to this[1], Tesla has a CA DMV autonomous vehicle testing permit, but the question is whether that applies to this and to Tesla's autopilot, or whether it's for future work towards an actual autonomous mode. That said, if Uber does want an actual autonomous more eventually, not getting that permit, and thumbing your nose at the authority who gives them out, is probably not a winning strategy... ... Okay, just looked into a PDF[1] linked form the other article, and according to that, autonomous clearly includes what's going on here, and with Tesla's autopilot. I think Uber may have made a big mistake. 1: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testing https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testi... 2: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/d48f347b-8815-458e-9df2-5ded9f208e9e/adopted_txt.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=d48f347b-8815-458e-9df2-5ded9f208e9e https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/d48f347b-8815-458e...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- sfilargi 10y agoThe difference is here: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testing https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testi... Tesla is there, Uber is not.
- kbenson 10y ago
- jfoutz 10y agoAt least the manhattan project engineers had the decency to drive a couple hundred miles to test their stuff.
- qyv 10y agoA true engineer would want his work to contribute to public safety and wellbeing, not disregard them in the name of vanity.
- niftich 10y agoCompany that rose to prominence by ignoring regulation ignores regulation.
- univalent 10y agoI wonder if these vehicles are programmed to pull over when cops flash their lights/sirens? Do they accept tickets? Can they be towed without the vehicle rebelling (har!)? Interested in how enforcement by the DMV would work beyond working with Uber at the corporate level.
- detaro 10y agoThey have drivers on board which probably don't want to deal with the consequences of not reacting to police. Is the possibility that the car could be driving autonomous enough to pull them over, and how to actually prove that was? (Presumably having self-driving hardware fitted isn't illegal, just using it might be?)
- xsmasher 10y agoAccording to the DMV, having self-driving hardware is enough to require a permit (the permit that Uber doesn't have / claims they don't need). If the police want to sidestep that argument, I'm sure the police could find something like "failure be in control of the vehicle" to cite the drivers with, if they see that they're not touching the wheel.
- pinkrooftop 10y agoLegislation arbitrage
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- chinathrow 10y agoThis. What a bunch of law breaking douches. Yes, let's call them what they are. No: no one is above the law. Edit: downvoters: please explain why someone should be above the law. thanks.
- madeofpalk 10y agoUber's whole MO from day one was to blatantly break the law and get away with it until the laws are changed.
- chinathrow 10y agoIndeed - flawed from day 1.
- nilved 10y agoSeems to be working well for them.
- chinathrow 10y agoDoes that legitimize illegal behaviour?
- nilved 10y agoIt ought to
- actuallyalys 10y agoWhether it works remains to be seen, I'd argue. I don't think Uber has turned a profit yet.
- concinds 10y agoThe whole ethos of Silicon Valley and the reason why it exists is lack of regulation allowing for huge amounts of innovation. What Uber is doing is perfectly reasonable and unsurprising, especially given that they don't believe they're breaking the law.
- ztratar 10y agoUber's tactics here are really nothing short of disgusting.
- chinathrow 10y agoThis. And people using them to hail a ride should really reconsider if they want to support a business like this. I don't.
- gkop 10y agoThis is HN; Hey Uber employees, there are other, better jobs for you. Think about it <3
- unclebucknasty 10y agoThat's what bugs me. I'm with you on that, but it seems the overwhelming majority of people just don't care about such "externalities" or ethical issues if their lives can be made a little more convenient or they can save a buck.
- Tempest1981 10y agoScott Adams has it right: http://dilbert.com/strip/2007-05-01 http://dilbert.com/strip/2007-05-01 Uber has become too convenient to quit, it seems.
- conanbatt 10y agoIts noticeable for me how visceral the reaction to disobeying government is for lots of people. But i think its important to have actors that do it. Argentina had an Uber-copy cat that played very nice with regulators: from day one they were working with officials and lawyers and were totally legal. They started to pick up demand and the gov. suddently passed a law specifically banning a way to ask cabs that only affected that company. They were crushed by the state one day to another, when they played as nice as they could have. AFter that I realize that Uber's strategy is necessary. The guys that played nice got their assess kicked.
- kin 10y agoSo Tesla is doing this thing where they're running in the background and logging data of decisions that they would make vs. what actually happens. I'm wondering if Uber did the same thing at all. Because at the moment, it sure doesn't feel like it. Anecdotally I've heard many stories from friends in the area encounter autonomous Ubers committing traffic violations like running red lights.
- tyingq 10y agoThis story seems to be similar: http://www.sfbike.org/news/a-warning-to-people-who-bike-self-driving-ubers-and-right-hook-turns/ http://www.sfbike.org/news/a-warning-to-people-who-bike-self...
- dawnerd 10y agoSo this is interesting. I grew up in California but now live in Oregon. The laws here are a bit different than they are in California: • Do not drive in a bike lane. You may cross a bike lane when turning or when entering or leaving an alley, driveway, or private road. • Do not move into or travel in a bike lane in preparation for a turn. Makes me wonder how these cars are going to handle individual state laws like this.
- rodgerd 10y agoBy ignoring them. If a few people get killed, Uber won't care, and neither will their defenders, any more than they care about hiring drivers who are medically unfit to drive, hiring rapists, or anything else Uber do.
- greenyoda 10y ago"Makes me wonder how these cars are going to handle individual state laws like this." Actually, traffic laws can even be specific to a city. - In NY City: No right turn on red, unless otherwise posted. - In the rest of NY State: Right turn permitted on red, unless otherwise posted.
- supercanuck 10y ago>Asked if Uber was trying to avoid disclosing accidents involving its self-driving cars, as permit holders are required to do, Levandowski denied this ...and now we see why. I'm not sure why journalists attempt to pin "intent." Enough with this "gotcha" bullshit. Simply inform the public that one of the consequences of Uber's decision to circumvent the law is that they don't have to report accidents which then provides an advantage over its competitors. simple.
- chronic92 10y agoLiterally the only people who care are SF fresh college grads. The public doesn't care about many things. They only care about their wallet, their family, and maybe the environment. Keep thinking that informing the public will actually change things. You need a different method.
- mannykannot 10y agoIt is very reasonable, and good journalism, to ask about motives. If it were reported as you suggest, Levandowski would probably complain of being the victim of innuendo. Providing the responses are accurately reported, asking about motives helps to protect the innocent while possibly stripping the guilty of cover, at least if they end up contradicting themselves.
- Xeoncross 10y agoI assume they are doing this so that they can try to change public and government option in the hopes that part of CA will support Uber. Cool! Look at that! See, the're safe! I want to try!
- MaysonL 10y agoIf one of their autonomous vehicles kills somebody while running a red light, it could well be the end of Uber. Kalanick should probably be fired at this point.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y agoIn that case, could Kalanick also be charged with manslaughter?
- ramy_d 10y agoThrough negligence?
- jayjay71 10y agoOddly enough, the answer might be yes. Tesla is under investigation by the NHTSA for their fatal autopilot crash some months ago, in addition to a homicide investigation by the Florida Highway Patrol. I really doubt anything criminal will be brought against Tesla, but it at least sets a precedent for an investigation. Considering Uber's complete refusal to follow regulation, it seems you could argue they're being negligent and if someone dies that might be interpreted as manslaughter (I am not a lawyer). At the very least, I'm sure it will be a PR nightmare and a huge court case that would put a chink in their armor. http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-gets-extension-in-nhtsa-investigation-2016-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-gets-extension-in-nhtsa...
- brillipad 10y agoExplain why you think Tesla's situation is different. Their argument is that their cars are like Teslas is all ways that matter legally. Why isn't Tesla finished after their extremely negligent death? The first automobiles killed many people and have continued to do so in ever greater numbers. I think everyone knows we're going to have some deaths moving to computer controlled cars but that the price is worth it.
- c0nducktr 10y agoIs this person wrong? Why were they flagged?
- louprado 10y agoPreviously Uber seemed indifferent to the law. Yesterday they broke the law (by running a red light). And today they deliberately defy the law. So for now I'll stop using Uber... at least for 30 days.
- jordache 10y agoReally sick of this company.
- salimmadjd 10y agoHow much of this is about getting free press? As a result the self-driving story is constantly hitting the press.
- ArlenBales 10y agoDoes anyone know why Uber didn't get a $150 permit? They've been working on autonomous vehicles for awhile, obviously they knew about the permit requirement months if not years ahead of time. Are they trying to set some sort of precedent, or are there hidden fees or restrictions people aren't talking about that Uber is trying to avoid?
- maxerickson 10y agoThe permit is for testing purposes only. So I think if they are charging for the rides they aren't really just testing the system. There's also a bunch of requirements about formally reporting incidents and so on.
- nodesocket 10y agoI'm going to be going against the echo chamber here, but I traveled around Europe and South America for five months recently (digital nomad)... The common question was "...why do you think the US/Silicon Valley has the technology and opportunities that it does...". My honest answer... Less regulation and an attitude of do what it takes to be successful in the early days. The hustle. I think people underestimate how cut-throat technology and business is, especially in the market Uber is in. Uber is doing what is takes to be successful. Ultimately you have to ask yourself, who is going to have the best and brightest minds, lawyers, and lobbyist.... Uber or the Government?
- ameister14 10y agoIt's interesting to me to read the comments here; so many references to 'running red lights' as if it was a common thing and not one reported instance where Uber says the driver was controlling the vehicle and there was no passenger. Was there some development there I missed and it turns out none of the cars recognize traffic lights?
- yarou 10y agoWho's going to stop them?
- Animats 10y agoI thought well of Levandowski, whom I've met, until this. This is typical of Uber's "blame the driver and avoid liability" approach. If Uber signs up for DMV's testing program, Uber posts a $5M bond and accepts liability. With Uber's plan, the driver has to pay, if they're not an employee. Uber's manuvering here is probably so they can have contractors drive their self-driving cars without Uber taking on liability. Uber already tries to dump as much liability as possible on the driver.[1] Tesla doesn't sell "autopilot" any more.[2] The original system was way under-sensored and responsible for at least four major crashes. (I've posted links to the videos before.) Newer Tesla cars come with better sensors, but without the software to use them. Tesla hopes to return with full self-driving, but so far, they're still testing and issuing press releases. Tesla's crashes are still in litigation in several countries, and an NTSB investigation is in progress. [1] https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=37714 https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=37714 [2] http://www.businessinsider.com/musk-tesla-remove-some-autopilot-features-new-cars-update-2016-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/musk-tesla-remove-some-autopi...
- KKKKkkkk1 10y agoDo you really believe that engineers working in Uber's self-driving division sign the same contract as the guy who's moonlighting with his Prius?
- Animats 10y agoThe people who drive Google's self-driving cars aren't engineers. Uber's drivers are even less likely to be; they're driving actual customers.
- jpalomaki 10y agoSome reasons why Uber might want to fight this: - Agreeing that they are doing testing, would probably make it more difficult to move to "production" - when do these testing requirements end? - The California regulations are quite light, but other cities might come up with more complicated requirements. Agreeing in California would set a precedent and make it harder to avoid complying in other cities. - There's requirements for the test driver. These might be difficult for Uber if they want to use semi autonomous cars in normal business. There is for example requirements for specific training, driver has to be employee or contractor of the company etc. - If they agreed to apply for testing permit, it might be that the permit is declined or later suspended. - As others have stated, not having to disclose the accidents and other statistics might allow them to avoid bad publicity and keep stuff hidden from competitors. - Looks like one part of the requirements is to enroll into "Employer pull notice program". I don't think that applies just for test vehicle drivers. Would this have some implications for company like Uber? https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_content_en/dmv/vehindustry/epn/epngeninfo https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_...
- robbrown451 10y agoI want to know if the red light run caught on video was while the car was in self driving mode. Of course there was a human in there, and Uber blames them, but what role did the self driving play? Was it a case where the self driving software messed up and the human didn't catch it in time? If so this is a pretty big deal. Wouldn't you expect the very first people they put in these things to be competent people that were doing their best? This would indicate to me that it isn't realistic to expect the humans to jump in that quickly. There's a dude stepping out into the crosswalk, fer Chrissake.
- rajathagasthya 10y ago> I want to know if the red light run caught on video was while the car was in self driving mode. Of course there was a human in there, and Uber blames them, but what role did the self driving play? I'm guessing if they had a permit, they would've had to disclose this to the DMV.
- unclebucknasty 10y ago>Wouldn't you expect the very first people they put in these things to be competent people that were doing their best? I recently mentioned on another thread that I think the primary purpose of that driver is not safety, but to absorb culpability in the event that the tech fails. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect any human to reliably perform the task of correcting the vehicle. Imagine sitting at the wheel in a passive mode for an hour as the car performs flawlessly. Then, in one intersection, it suddenly malfunctions. Now, you are supposed to a) recognize that it's failing and b) suddenly take corrective action--all in, perhaps, a split second? When you're controlling the vehicle, you know your intent. When you are "monitoring" you must assess the vehicle's intent. Even if you do so perfectly there is, by definition, some delay. That delay could be costly.
- robbrown451 10y agoYeah, completely agree on how it is unrealistic to expect them to correct in such a situation. I would think, though, that they'd still be smart enough to put someone competent in there. Because if there is an accident, it is still going to look bad on them and the tech. (and of course this supports what you are saying, that it simply isn't reasonable to expect them to do that)
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- marcrosoft 10y agoIn the long run regulation (read artificial market manipulation) hurts everyone. Law/regulation (as well intentioned as it may be) always moves slower than people's wants and needs.
- dontreact 10y agoWhat about cases where the free market is known to poorly allocate resources? I'm talking about negative externalities and public goods. As a concrete example, take regulation regarding pollution that is known to be harmful to humans and therefore have a large cost. The free market will not generally take this cost into account.
- marcrosoft 10y agoIf the public majority want to favor the environment over cheap rides that's fine. I just want the public to decide unanimously with their dollars. If pollution becomes a large enough problem to sway the public at large to reallocate their dollars I firmly believe they will react in each individual's best interest.
- aaronblohowiak 10y agoLead paint, asbestos, usury, food standards, heroin addiction (thanks, Bayer!) seatbelts, traffic lights, etc etc. In a world where all information was equally distributed, sure, maybe anarcho capitalism would work.
- marcrosoft 10y agoFortunately, with the internet the knowledge about all of these subjects are known. I'm not saying people won't make mistakes even with 100% knowledge of a given subject. I'm just saying it should be the people themselves to make the mistakes, not a select few.
- maverick_iceman 10y agoI just love the brazen in-your-face audacity of this company. :)
- williamle8300 10y agoUber is like the "brah" of all Silicon Valley startups. They just don't care about anything because they're too sloshed from all the beer pong.