13 ms·

Uber is stubbornly refusing to apply for a $150 permit for its self-driving cars

detaro 10y ago
front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13198079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13198079
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 Should have just opened the article with this.
- dullgiulio 10y ago
  He is not exactly without bias. Should we just take his word for it?
grogenaut 10y ago
This got me thinking, how does a police officer tell a self driving vehicle to pull over? Or do they have to pull out the road strips? Does the car just keep going when it's been disabled? Do they have to do a bump turn? How do they react and get out of the way of an emergency vehicle?
- fred256 10y ago
  AFAIK all the self-driving cars currently on the road still have a human at the wheel to take over in cases like these.
  - grogenaut 10y ago
    Seems like a big gap to getting them live on the road.
    - ____nope 10y ago
      Exactly. The biggest impediment is going to be insurance and liability. What do you think it will cost to insure a robotic driving vehicle? On whom does the liability fall in the case of an accident – the owner, or the manufacturer?
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        It will likely cost less to insure self driving systems. Especially over time. It won't get ever get drunk, it won't get tired. It will be less likely to operate a vehicle that is in disrepair, it will be less likely to operate a vehicle in weather it can't cope with. It won't be in a hurry. It won't be eating. It will learn from mistakes made by other self driving systems. It's also pretty likely that whatever framework develops to license the systems will address liability (I think by requiring the operator of record to insure the vehicle).
        abalone 10y ago
        It is unclear how the existing insurance system will translate to a future where all liability is concentrated on the manufacturer. Currently major fatal accidents often result in bankruptcies and may even incur criminal charges. They are not fully covered by insurance. All precedent is that auto manufacturers are responsible for manufacturing defects that lead to injury or death, not the owner or driver. Even the term "operator of record" has new meaning in the fully autonomous era. Bottom line if software bugs cause injury it's the software writers that are responsible. You mention many problems with human drivers. But software has been known to have bugs too, and the world is an almost infinitely complex learning environment. It is most likely that the safer future will involve the intersection and mutual augmentation of these two control systems, not the swift replacement of one by the other. As is the case for example with aircraft.
        maxerickson 10y ago
        Currently major fatal accidents often result in bankruptcies and may even incur criminal charges. They are not fully covered by insurance. How often is the driver in those cases under insured? I also wonder how often criminal charges pop up for drivers that weren't being negligent.
  - KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
    Waymo's demo video showed a blind man traveling alone in their vehicle.
    - agildehaus 10y ago
      Their video from 2012 also showed the same man (Steve Mahan) and it also showed the car going through a Taco Bell drive thru on its own. It's going to be some time before both of them are reality.
    - dimino 10y ago
      It's a promotional video, representing what will be possible, not what is currently happening on public roads.
- JshWright 10y ago
  I don't believe there is any particular standard for this at the moment, and it likely on a list of special cases where the human "observer" takes over. In general though, I don't think this is something that automated vehicles will have trouble with. Picking out strobing lights is pretty trivial for computer vision, and a couple of external microphones located on opposite sides of the vehicle would have an easy time localizing the direction of sirens even before the EV is in line-of-sight. I suspect eventually there will be some sort of preemption signal that EVs will be able to transmit that communicates their intended route to vehicles in their path. I look forward to the day that I have a big ol' "get out of my way" button on the dashboard of my ambulance...
  - js2 10y ago
    I look forward to the day that I have a big ol' "get out of my way" button on the dashboard of my ambulance... I think I saw a light change on demand in my hometown (Wake County, NC) for an ambulance the other day. It was late at night with minimal traffic and the light had just turned red ahead of me. The ambulance was between me and the light and the light immediately cycled back to green as the ambulance approached. I'd never seen or heard of this before, but do you know whether emergency vehicles are now able to influence traffic signals? edit: apparently so - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_signal_preemption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_signal_preemption
    - mikeyouse 10y ago
      Yep. A few people got busted for buying/selling the devices on Ebay a couple years ago. Not so legal to mess with traffic signals to speed up your commute -- damn tempting though. One such article: https://boingboing.net/2006/04/18/man-fined-50-for-usi.html https://boingboing.net/2006/04/18/man-fined-50-for-usi.html
      - tempestn 10y ago
        Only a $50 fine! Makes it even more tempting. :P
    - 10y ago
- cbhl 10y ago
  The same way they should react and get out of the way of a cyclist -- building a machine learning model of a police car with its lights and sirens on, and then making sure the car pulls over in that situation.
  - grogenaut 10y ago
    Sure but all the talk about cars on HN usually is about how ready for the road they are. Also I don't think police are going to be too happy about a vehicle that is going to be probabilistic about pulling over. Nor would I really be happy about that in the back of an ambulance.
devereaux 10y ago
And I'm very glad Uber is doing that! The DMVs need valid "reasons" to extract money. With human drivers, they can argue a database record must be maintained for traffic violations, a new license reissued every N years, etc. This is "plausible deniability", because there is no reason why it would cost tens of dollars per row in a database. With self driving cars, plausible deniability goes away. There is no reason whatsoever. If the algorithm does not follow traffic laws, it won't be allowed on the road. Another nice thing to notice: the DMV is double dipping. I mean, one fee for the self-driving car, another fee for the human behind the wheel, what a profitable operation! But why exactly? What kind of good services is it offering? None at all. Self driving cars could mean the end of DMVs, and I would see that as a very good thing.
- eridius 10y ago
  It's not $150 per vehicle. It's just $150. It's a permit for the company, not a license for the car. Edit: It's very slightly more complicated. The human "drivers" in the car also have to be enrolled in the DMV's Employer Pull Notice program (which is a separate pre-existing program that basically lets employers keep track of the driving records of their drivers), and I believe the fee for that is $5. So it's basically pocket change for the company. The PDF that lists that fee is the Employer Pull Notice Application Checklist (https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/1c4c241b-70be-45f3-aece-5269fe9df5c5/inf2113.pdf?MOD=AJPERES https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/1c4c241b-70be-45f3...).
- silencio 10y ago
  You have to pay vehicle registration fees every year. I don't see how this is all that different from that. I can't imagine that $150 - even if it was per car, which it's not - even covers the overhead of ensuring that the company trying to test vehicles on public roads meets their minimum criteria. The requirements are pretty straightforward - following NHTSA guidance, insurance to cover injury/death, having a program in place to train drivers... this is the bare minimum responsible amount I would want these companies to be asked to do.
- Mtinie 10y ago
  I pay more for a minimally-sized instance for a non-trafficked web app on DigitalOcean every year. Uber has no legitimate reason to not pay the fee, regardless of the validity. This is just a company attempting to "screw the Man", even though they are basically the peak representation of SV Man.
programmarchy 10y ago
DMV is stubbornly insisting on higher taxation of life-saving innovation.
- Mtinie 10y ago
  $150?
  - programmarchy 10y ago
    Just pointing out the spin. To be honest, I don't really like Uber the company all that much. But I do appreciate their irreverent attitude towards meddling bureaucrats. On principle, would you give a bully your lunch money? It's only $5...
    - thewhitetulip 10y ago
      I really don't think they are doing it for the money, it is probably being done aso that they do don't have to disclose accidents, they don't even disclose self driving car % as per the article + they call out that Tesla doesn't require it, that's apples to oranges and the article also states that Tesla does have the permit.
tomc1985 10y ago
His analogies don't make any sense. Tesla's 'autopilot' is much more narrow in scope than self-driving taxis.
chillingeffect 10y ago
I wonder if AI-enabled taxis will use machine image-editing techniques to synthesize false evidence against each other in the future? :)
fludlight 10y ago
It's not about paying $150, but about agreeing to additional regulation, which businesses generally don't want. Uber might actually prevail, since tech is the most vibrant sector in the Northern California economy and all the local politicians want a local company, not one in Michigan, to bring this tech to fruition. Edit: I don't understand the downvotes. I'm not saying that regulation is bad, just that businesses are generally anti-regulation. I'm also not saying that the California DMV should or should not regulate self-driving cars, just that the government might give them a pass.
- an_account 10y ago
  I'm not sure why you're being downvoted... Clearly its about the implications of the permit, not the fee to get the permit.
- crazy1van 10y ago
  What worries me the most is when businesses start welcoming regulation. That means they are entrenched and just trying to keep out fresh competition.
  - Frondo 10y ago
    I imagine restauranteurs who welcome food safety regulations may do so out of a genuine desire for the restaurant business not to sicken the public. I also imagine light-industry manufacturers who welcome pollution controls would do so out of regard for people and families living nearby. In fact, I think there's probably significant amounts of regulation that would be non-controversial to business owners, and not merely intended to "keep out fresh competition".
    - Hondor 10y ago
      If a business is welcoming such regulation, it's probably already doing it right and trying to keep out the competition that's undercutting them by doing it dangerously. Really, if a restaurant owner didn't want his customers getting sick, he'd give them hygienic food without the need for any regulation.
KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
Regardless of whether Uber is right or wrong, what benefit does the public derive from this $150 permitting process?
- swyman 10y ago
  It covers the costs of ensuring the applicant meets the agreed-upon regulatory requirements. Next question.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - marcrosoft 10y ago
    Agreed upon by whom? I certainly didn't agree on this.
    - atonse 10y ago
      No but you probably voted for someone who helped put those rules in place. (Or maybe you didn't, but the point is that we "hire" others by voting, to sweat the details)
      - marcrosoft 10y ago
        That system sucks :(
        learc83 10y ago
        You want to put every single traffic regulation to a vote?
        marcrosoft 10y ago
        I wouldn't want someone else making these choices for me so yes, yes I would.
zodiac 10y ago
I'm not sure why so many people here are ignoring Levandowski's stated reason for not applying for the permit / downvoting people who agree with him, without explaining why they think Levandowski's argument is incorrect. This isn't a case of them willfully disobeying a regulation, it's them disagreeing with the regulating agency about the interpretation of the regulation. And this disagreement isn't a necessarily a bad thing; I think the regulation is unclear, and in such cases the only way to "clarify" it is to wait for the regulating body to sue you and have both sides present their arguments in court. (You can't just ask them to clarify it, as they have no obligation to respond).
hlandau 10y ago
I think I agree with Uber on this one. Self-driving functionality, at least for the time being, is a tool used by a human operator to achieve their objectives with regard to the vehicle. This is distinct from a vehicle with no driver, for which regulation is obviously necessary. It's no different from a pilot using autopilot. If someone wanted to make an unmanned passenger plane, there'd need to be huge regulatory changes (not saying it's necessarily a good idea), but pilots use autopilot all the time without great regulatory upheaval, because it's just a tool the pilot is using to fly the plane as they wish. So long as a human operator is in control of, and responsible for, the vehicle, it shouldn't matter in particular what method they use to operate it.
- tadfisher 10y ago
  Interesting choice of example, considering the relative level of regulation between the aviation and automotive industries. The use of "autopilot" in aviation is not without controversy, and there are a number of schools of thought on the spectrum between "it saves lives" and "it dumbs down pilots and kills people". FWIW, the FAA at least requires a functioning autopilot (or "automatic altitude control system") when flying in RVSM airspace, or the altitude where most commercial jets fly, so regulation is on the side of automation here.
Hondor 10y ago
The definition is: "any vehicle equipped with technology that has the capability of operating or driving the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person..." [1] Seems like Uber is right as long as their cars can't function without drivers, which is probably true. [1] 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...
- fabianhjr 10y ago
  > without the active physical control As in not turning the steering wheel or pushing the gas or break pedals? Because that sounds like what Uber's Self Driving car does. (Even on the promotional videos, the "drivers"/testers are not turning the steering wheel.
  - Msurrow 10y ago
    You're only quoting part of the statement. > without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person... Its the physical control OR monitoring of a human. Ubers cars may not require [human] active physical control, but it does require monitoring of a human and so this doesn't apply to Ubers cars.
    - fabianhjr 10y ago
      Well, every single self-driving car bein tested requires the monitoring of a person. Google Self-Driving car for example. (And even Tesla has the permit)

front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13198079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13198079

>Asked if Uber was trying to avoid disclosing accidents involving its self-driving cars, as permit holders are required to do, Levandowski denied this Should have just opened the article with this.

dullgiulio 10y ago
He is not exactly without bias. Should we just take his word for it?

grogenaut 10y ago

This got me thinking, how does a police officer tell a self driving vehicle to pull over? Or do they have to pull out the road strips? Does the car just keep going when it's been disabled? Do they have to do a bump turn? How do they react and get out of the way of an emergency vehicle?

fred256 10y ago
AFAIK all the self-driving cars currently on the road still have a human at the wheel to take over in cases like these.
- grogenaut 10y ago
  Seems like a big gap to getting them live on the road.
  - ____nope 10y ago
    Exactly. The biggest impediment is going to be insurance and liability. What do you think it will cost to insure a robotic driving vehicle? On whom does the liability fall in the case of an accident – the owner, or the manufacturer?
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      It will likely cost less to insure self driving systems. Especially over time. It won't get ever get drunk, it won't get tired. It will be less likely to operate a vehicle that is in disrepair, it will be less likely to operate a vehicle in weather it can't cope with. It won't be in a hurry. It won't be eating. It will learn from mistakes made by other self driving systems. It's also pretty likely that whatever framework develops to license the systems will address liability (I think by requiring the operator of record to insure the vehicle).
      - abalone 10y ago
        It is unclear how the existing insurance system will translate to a future where all liability is concentrated on the manufacturer. Currently major fatal accidents often result in bankruptcies and may even incur criminal charges. They are not fully covered by insurance. All precedent is that auto manufacturers are responsible for manufacturing defects that lead to injury or death, not the owner or driver. Even the term "operator of record" has new meaning in the fully autonomous era. Bottom line if software bugs cause injury it's the software writers that are responsible. You mention many problems with human drivers. But software has been known to have bugs too, and the world is an almost infinitely complex learning environment. It is most likely that the safer future will involve the intersection and mutual augmentation of these two control systems, not the swift replacement of one by the other. As is the case for example with aircraft.
        maxerickson 10y ago
        Currently major fatal accidents often result in bankruptcies and may even incur criminal charges. They are not fully covered by insurance. How often is the driver in those cases under insured? I also wonder how often criminal charges pop up for drivers that weren't being negligent.
- KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
  Waymo's demo video showed a blind man traveling alone in their vehicle.
  - agildehaus 10y ago
    Their video from 2012 also showed the same man (Steve Mahan) and it also showed the car going through a Taco Bell drive thru on its own. It's going to be some time before both of them are reality.
  - dimino 10y ago
    It's a promotional video, representing what will be possible, not what is currently happening on public roads.
JshWright 10y ago
I don't believe there is any particular standard for this at the moment, and it likely on a list of special cases where the human "observer" takes over. In general though, I don't think this is something that automated vehicles will have trouble with. Picking out strobing lights is pretty trivial for computer vision, and a couple of external microphones located on opposite sides of the vehicle would have an easy time localizing the direction of sirens even before the EV is in line-of-sight. I suspect eventually there will be some sort of preemption signal that EVs will be able to transmit that communicates their intended route to vehicles in their path. I look forward to the day that I have a big ol' "get out of my way" button on the dashboard of my ambulance...
- js2 10y ago
  I look forward to the day that I have a big ol' "get out of my way" button on the dashboard of my ambulance... I think I saw a light change on demand in my hometown (Wake County, NC) for an ambulance the other day. It was late at night with minimal traffic and the light had just turned red ahead of me. The ambulance was between me and the light and the light immediately cycled back to green as the ambulance approached. I'd never seen or heard of this before, but do you know whether emergency vehicles are now able to influence traffic signals? edit: apparently so - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_signal_preemption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_signal_preemption
  - mikeyouse 10y ago
    Yep. A few people got busted for buying/selling the devices on Ebay a couple years ago. Not so legal to mess with traffic signals to speed up your commute -- damn tempting though. One such article: https://boingboing.net/2006/04/18/man-fined-50-for-usi.html https://boingboing.net/2006/04/18/man-fined-50-for-usi.html
    - tempestn 10y ago
      Only a $50 fine! Makes it even more tempting. :P
  - 10y ago
cbhl 10y ago
The same way they should react and get out of the way of a cyclist -- building a machine learning model of a police car with its lights and sirens on, and then making sure the car pulls over in that situation.
- grogenaut 10y ago
  Sure but all the talk about cars on HN usually is about how ready for the road they are. Also I don't think police are going to be too happy about a vehicle that is going to be probabilistic about pulling over. Nor would I really be happy about that in the back of an ambulance.

devereaux 10y ago

And I'm very glad Uber is doing that! The DMVs need valid "reasons" to extract money. With human drivers, they can argue a database record must be maintained for traffic violations, a new license reissued every N years, etc. This is "plausible deniability", because there is no reason why it would cost tens of dollars per row in a database. With self driving cars, plausible deniability goes away. There is no reason whatsoever. If the algorithm does not follow traffic laws, it won't be allowed on the road. Another nice thing to notice: the DMV is double dipping. I mean, one fee for the self-driving car, another fee for the human behind the wheel, what a profitable operation! But why exactly? What kind of good services is it offering? None at all. Self driving cars could mean the end of DMVs, and I would see that as a very good thing.

eridius 10y ago
It's not $150 per vehicle. It's just $150. It's a permit for the company, not a license for the car. Edit: It's very slightly more complicated. The human "drivers" in the car also have to be enrolled in the DMV's Employer Pull Notice program (which is a separate pre-existing program that basically lets employers keep track of the driving records of their drivers), and I believe the fee for that is $5. So it's basically pocket change for the company. The PDF that lists that fee is the Employer Pull Notice Application Checklist (https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/1c4c241b-70be-45f3-aece-5269fe9df5c5/inf2113.pdf?MOD=AJPERES https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/1c4c241b-70be-45f3...).
silencio 10y ago
You have to pay vehicle registration fees every year. I don't see how this is all that different from that. I can't imagine that $150 - even if it was per car, which it's not - even covers the overhead of ensuring that the company trying to test vehicles on public roads meets their minimum criteria. The requirements are pretty straightforward - following NHTSA guidance, insurance to cover injury/death, having a program in place to train drivers... this is the bare minimum responsible amount I would want these companies to be asked to do.
Mtinie 10y ago
I pay more for a minimally-sized instance for a non-trafficked web app on DigitalOcean every year. Uber has no legitimate reason to not pay the fee, regardless of the validity. This is just a company attempting to "screw the Man", even though they are basically the peak representation of SV Man.

programmarchy 10y ago

DMV is stubbornly insisting on higher taxation of life-saving innovation.

Mtinie 10y ago
$150?
- programmarchy 10y ago
  Just pointing out the spin. To be honest, I don't really like Uber the company all that much. But I do appreciate their irreverent attitude towards meddling bureaucrats. On principle, would you give a bully your lunch money? It's only $5...
  - thewhitetulip 10y ago
    I really don't think they are doing it for the money, it is probably being done aso that they do don't have to disclose accidents, they don't even disclose self driving car % as per the article + they call out that Tesla doesn't require it, that's apples to oranges and the article also states that Tesla does have the permit.

tomc1985 10y ago

His analogies don't make any sense. Tesla's 'autopilot' is much more narrow in scope than self-driving taxis.

chillingeffect 10y ago

I wonder if AI-enabled taxis will use machine image-editing techniques to synthesize false evidence against each other in the future? :)

fludlight 10y ago

It's not about paying $150, but about agreeing to additional regulation, which businesses generally don't want. Uber might actually prevail, since tech is the most vibrant sector in the Northern California economy and all the local politicians want a local company, not one in Michigan, to bring this tech to fruition. Edit: I don't understand the downvotes. I'm not saying that regulation is bad, just that businesses are generally anti-regulation. I'm also not saying that the California DMV should or should not regulate self-driving cars, just that the government might give them a pass.

an_account 10y ago
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted... Clearly its about the implications of the permit, not the fee to get the permit.
crazy1van 10y ago
What worries me the most is when businesses start welcoming regulation. That means they are entrenched and just trying to keep out fresh competition.
- Frondo 10y ago
  I imagine restauranteurs who welcome food safety regulations may do so out of a genuine desire for the restaurant business not to sicken the public. I also imagine light-industry manufacturers who welcome pollution controls would do so out of regard for people and families living nearby. In fact, I think there's probably significant amounts of regulation that would be non-controversial to business owners, and not merely intended to "keep out fresh competition".
  - Hondor 10y ago
    If a business is welcoming such regulation, it's probably already doing it right and trying to keep out the competition that's undercutting them by doing it dangerously. Really, if a restaurant owner didn't want his customers getting sick, he'd give them hygienic food without the need for any regulation.

KKKKkkkk1 10y ago

Regardless of whether Uber is right or wrong, what benefit does the public derive from this $150 permitting process?

swyman 10y ago
It covers the costs of ensuring the applicant meets the agreed-upon regulatory requirements. Next question.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- marcrosoft 10y ago
  Agreed upon by whom? I certainly didn't agree on this.
  - atonse 10y ago
    No but you probably voted for someone who helped put those rules in place. (Or maybe you didn't, but the point is that we "hire" others by voting, to sweat the details)
    - marcrosoft 10y ago
      That system sucks :(
      - learc83 10y ago
        You want to put every single traffic regulation to a vote?
        marcrosoft 10y ago
        I wouldn't want someone else making these choices for me so yes, yes I would.

zodiac 10y ago

I'm not sure why so many people here are ignoring Levandowski's stated reason for not applying for the permit / downvoting people who agree with him, without explaining why they think Levandowski's argument is incorrect. This isn't a case of them willfully disobeying a regulation, it's them disagreeing with the regulating agency about the interpretation of the regulation. And this disagreement isn't a necessarily a bad thing; I think the regulation is unclear, and in such cases the only way to "clarify" it is to wait for the regulating body to sue you and have both sides present their arguments in court. (You can't just ask them to clarify it, as they have no obligation to respond).

hlandau 10y ago

I think I agree with Uber on this one. Self-driving functionality, at least for the time being, is a tool used by a human operator to achieve their objectives with regard to the vehicle. This is distinct from a vehicle with no driver, for which regulation is obviously necessary. It's no different from a pilot using autopilot. If someone wanted to make an unmanned passenger plane, there'd need to be huge regulatory changes (not saying it's necessarily a good idea), but pilots use autopilot all the time without great regulatory upheaval, because it's just a tool the pilot is using to fly the plane as they wish. So long as a human operator is in control of, and responsible for, the vehicle, it shouldn't matter in particular what method they use to operate it.

tadfisher 10y ago
Interesting choice of example, considering the relative level of regulation between the aviation and automotive industries. The use of "autopilot" in aviation is not without controversy, and there are a number of schools of thought on the spectrum between "it saves lives" and "it dumbs down pilots and kills people". FWIW, the FAA at least requires a functioning autopilot (or "automatic altitude control system") when flying in RVSM airspace, or the altitude where most commercial jets fly, so regulation is on the side of automation here.

Hondor 10y ago

The definition is: "any vehicle equipped with technology that has the capability of operating or driving the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person..." [1] Seems like Uber is right as long as their cars can't function without drivers, which is probably true. [1] 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...

fabianhjr 10y ago
> without the active physical control As in not turning the steering wheel or pushing the gas or break pedals? Because that sounds like what Uber's Self Driving car does. (Even on the promotional videos, the "drivers"/testers are not turning the steering wheel.
- Msurrow 10y ago
  You're only quoting part of the statement. > without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person... Its the physical control OR monitoring of a human. Ubers cars may not require [human] active physical control, but it does require monitoring of a human and so this doesn't apply to Ubers cars.
  - fabianhjr 10y ago
    Well, every single self-driving car bein tested requires the monitoring of a person. Google Self-Driving car for example. (And even Tesla has the permit)