6 ms·

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

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.
    - tluyben2 10y ago
      Exactly. You do not need regulations for that if you have laws against poisoning people in place already.
      - sgift 10y ago
        Yeah, waiting until someone dies of food poisoning and then judge people instead of checking first if their shop follows basic sanitary requirements.
        tluyben2 10y ago
        Well, you are running a restaurant right? There must be some balance and regulations are too easy to exploit both ways. As you well know, there are many toilets cleaner than some food places and yet they passed the regulations at some time. I would not want to have my name under a restaurant that runs that risk, while everyone games regulations and avoids the risk legally. If I pass regulations (at one particular moment in time), the insurance will cover damages; if it was the law I would go to prison/pay a high fine. How do you keep regulations fair and enforceable?
      - matthewmacleod 10y ago
        Flouting regulations doesn't mean that you will hurt anybody; you're not necessarily going to cause a large e-coli outbreak if you incorrectly store your meat, for example. But the point is that such risks are increased from a public health perspective – that's what regulations seek to prevent. Waiting until someone becomes poisoned and using the legal system to fix the issue just seems bafflingly short-sighted.
        tluyben2 10y ago
        What I am saying is that, here in Spain and probably elsewhere, the regulations are easy to game and when something happens you cannot use the law as you have a signed paper the place is up to spec.
    - 10y ago
  - tluyben2 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. If that is the real reason then maybe, but for instance where I live it is doubtful that that is the only reason. There are so many rules we have to comply with as a restaurant that blatantly point to protection of big companies that go under the name 'satefy' that I for one do not welcome them at all. 1% of those rules would prevent to sicken the public, the rest is just to protect big booze, meat, fish etc vendors.
    - viraptor 10y ago
      Can you tell us about some specific rules? This sounds interesting.
    - matthewmacleod 10y ago
      Yeah, I think we'll need some examples of that. There are a whole bunch of food safety regulations. Most of these are good, and it's really pretty awesome that most of us can purchase and eat food from a restaurant without risking sickness. It's virtually certain that without these regulations there would be a race to the bottom.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - Artistry121 10y ago
        "Virtually certain" You may want to update your confidence. Most of SE Asia has no hygiene laws for restaurants and yet tourists flock and rarely does anything terrible result. Why would restaurant eating be a race to a bottom? It already can't compete on cost with cooking at home.
        judahmeek 10y ago
        > Most of SE Asia has no hygiene laws for restaurants and yet tourists flock and rarely does anything terrible result. Please cite your sources.
veidr 10y ago
Laws are not something that corporations or citizens have to agree with. They apply regardless. This is the equivalent of Uber deciding not to pay its federal taxes. Sure, it could concoct a theory that the corporate income tax "doesn't apply to Uber", and in theory there's a possibility that the IRS might somehow agree. In practice, however, there is none. The major difference here is simply that the penalties for failing to pay taxes are well-defined and severe, while the penalties for failing to obtain a state permit for autonomous vehicle testing are not. Uber is betting on the eventual penalties for their (flagrant and straightforward) violation of these laws will end up being something they prefer over making the relevant disclosures required by the permit.
- dimino 10y ago
  You're completely begging the question by comparing this to not paying taxes. Uber's argument (and they may be right) is they don't need to "pay taxes" under current law.
- jasode 10y ago
  >Laws are not something that corporations or citizens have to agree with. They apply regardless. That simplistic reductionism is not true. There are concepts of civil disobedience.[1] History has shown that many laws (e.g. copyright laws, sodomy laws, Jim Crow laws) are more like an ongoing dialogue/battle between the citizens and government for universal compliance. Other laws such as homocide seem more stable for straightforward compliance without controversy. The DMV didn't write the autonomous vehicle laws -- they are interpreting it -- to their benefit. Likewise, Uber didn't write the law either, they are also interpreting it -- to their benefit. Those 2 interpretations differ. I have no idea who is "more correct" in their interpretation. The DMV may have the last word and win. We don't know yet. >This is the equivalent of Uber deciding not to pay its federal taxes. No, the analogy is somebody disagreeing with a government agency's interpretation of the law. An example would be a taxpayer who disagreed with IRS and won the case.[2] It's similar to one entity claiming that early VCR users taping shows were "breaking the law."[3] If VCR consumers and Sony disagree and say it's "fair use", responding to that with "copyright laws apply to everybody regardless" doesn't actually analyze the differing interpretations. Eventually, the consumers and Sony got the Supreme Court to agree with their interpretation by a very close 5-4 majority ruling. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/arts/design/tax-court-ruling-is-seen-as-a-victory-for-artists.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/arts/design/tax-court-rul... [3] Betamax "fair use" Supreme Court ruling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive....
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

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.
  - tluyben2 10y ago
    Exactly. You do not need regulations for that if you have laws against poisoning people in place already.
    - sgift 10y ago
      Yeah, waiting until someone dies of food poisoning and then judge people instead of checking first if their shop follows basic sanitary requirements.
      - tluyben2 10y ago
        Well, you are running a restaurant right? There must be some balance and regulations are too easy to exploit both ways. As you well know, there are many toilets cleaner than some food places and yet they passed the regulations at some time. I would not want to have my name under a restaurant that runs that risk, while everyone games regulations and avoids the risk legally. If I pass regulations (at one particular moment in time), the insurance will cover damages; if it was the law I would go to prison/pay a high fine. How do you keep regulations fair and enforceable?
    - matthewmacleod 10y ago
      Flouting regulations doesn't mean that you will hurt anybody; you're not necessarily going to cause a large e-coli outbreak if you incorrectly store your meat, for example. But the point is that such risks are increased from a public health perspective – that's what regulations seek to prevent. Waiting until someone becomes poisoned and using the legal system to fix the issue just seems bafflingly short-sighted.
      - tluyben2 10y ago
        What I am saying is that, here in Spain and probably elsewhere, the regulations are easy to game and when something happens you cannot use the law as you have a signed paper the place is up to spec.
  - 10y ago
- tluyben2 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. If that is the real reason then maybe, but for instance where I live it is doubtful that that is the only reason. There are so many rules we have to comply with as a restaurant that blatantly point to protection of big companies that go under the name 'satefy' that I for one do not welcome them at all. 1% of those rules would prevent to sicken the public, the rest is just to protect big booze, meat, fish etc vendors.
  - viraptor 10y ago
    Can you tell us about some specific rules? This sounds interesting.
  - matthewmacleod 10y ago
    Yeah, I think we'll need some examples of that. There are a whole bunch of food safety regulations. Most of these are good, and it's really pretty awesome that most of us can purchase and eat food from a restaurant without risking sickness. It's virtually certain that without these regulations there would be a race to the bottom.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Artistry121 10y ago
      "Virtually certain" You may want to update your confidence. Most of SE Asia has no hygiene laws for restaurants and yet tourists flock and rarely does anything terrible result. Why would restaurant eating be a race to a bottom? It already can't compete on cost with cooking at home.
      - judahmeek 10y ago
        > Most of SE Asia has no hygiene laws for restaurants and yet tourists flock and rarely does anything terrible result. Please cite your sources.

veidr 10y ago

Laws are not something that corporations or citizens have to agree with. They apply regardless. This is the equivalent of Uber deciding not to pay its federal taxes. Sure, it could concoct a theory that the corporate income tax "doesn't apply to Uber", and in theory there's a possibility that the IRS might somehow agree. In practice, however, there is none. The major difference here is simply that the penalties for failing to pay taxes are well-defined and severe, while the penalties for failing to obtain a state permit for autonomous vehicle testing are not. Uber is betting on the eventual penalties for their (flagrant and straightforward) violation of these laws will end up being something they prefer over making the relevant disclosures required by the permit.

dimino 10y ago
You're completely begging the question by comparing this to not paying taxes. Uber's argument (and they may be right) is they don't need to "pay taxes" under current law.
jasode 10y ago
>Laws are not something that corporations or citizens have to agree with. They apply regardless. That simplistic reductionism is not true. There are concepts of civil disobedience.[1] History has shown that many laws (e.g. copyright laws, sodomy laws, Jim Crow laws) are more like an ongoing dialogue/battle between the citizens and government for universal compliance. Other laws such as homocide seem more stable for straightforward compliance without controversy. The DMV didn't write the autonomous vehicle laws -- they are interpreting it -- to their benefit. Likewise, Uber didn't write the law either, they are also interpreting it -- to their benefit. Those 2 interpretations differ. I have no idea who is "more correct" in their interpretation. The DMV may have the last word and win. We don't know yet. >This is the equivalent of Uber deciding not to pay its federal taxes. No, the analogy is somebody disagreeing with a government agency's interpretation of the law. An example would be a taxpayer who disagreed with IRS and won the case.[2] It's similar to one entity claiming that early VCR users taping shows were "breaking the law."[3] If VCR consumers and Sony disagree and say it's "fair use", responding to that with "copyright laws apply to everybody regardless" doesn't actually analyze the differing interpretations. Eventually, the consumers and Sony got the Supreme Court to agree with their interpretation by a very close 5-4 majority ruling. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/arts/design/tax-court-ruling-is-seen-as-a-victory-for-artists.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/arts/design/tax-court-rul... [3] Betamax "fair use" Supreme Court ruling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive....

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]