9 ms·
Uber stops self-driving pilot in SF after DMV revokes its cars' registrations
- 100ideas 10y agoIt seems like Uber wanted this to happen. But why?
- jsjohnst 10y agoMy thoughts exactly. I just can't fathom an angle where this works out to their advantage. From what I've seen, this permit is literally a formality, so did they just not want to test in California?
- synicalx 10y agoFree publicity maybe? In any case though, the whole thing is a bit weird...
- jsjohnst 10y agoFree publicity is a possibility, but I don't necessarily see it as an advantage, especially with the tone of the articles. The adage that all publicity is good publicity is simply not always true.
- yladiz 10y agoThey probably want to be able to blame someone else (the DMV) for the reasons they're not actively testing in CA. I wouldn't be surprised to see a proposition next year that wants to allow companies to test their autonomous vehicles without permits, with Uber pushing millions of dollars into advertising into it.
- labster 10y agoMillions for a ballot battle sounds way cheaper than paying $250 per car while in a testing phase? Were they planning to use more than 8000 autopiloted cars like this in the near future? It'd be cheaper to lobby the legislature anyway, I bet they could get their bill out of the Waze and Means Committee.
- yladiz 10y agoThat argument doesn't really work considering Uber (along with Lyft) spent a combined $8MM in Austin fighting fingerprinting legislation when it would have been significantly cheaper to just fingerprint their drivers.
- labster 10y agoSo basically Uber and Lyft are just bad at business. Right. I'll adjust my investments accordingly.
- jsjohnst 10y agoUber will lose over 3 billion dollars this year. It lost 2 billion last year. Personally, that should influence your investments more than them avoiding a $150 permit or an attempt to avoid invading their drivers rights more than they already do.
- Steko 10y ago> I just can't fathom an angle where this works out to their advantage Trump appoints Travis Kalanick Grand Moff of Western US Kidding! It will be Peter Thiel of course. Also always amusing when I see articles like this artificially flagged down the frontpage.
- dragonwriter 10y agoThey've also just (after first announcing their intent to defy the permit requirement in their CA pilot) revealed that their cars do not handle turns across bike lanes safely or (under California law, at least) legally, so, in addition to using it as a PR mechanism to create pressure for favorable regulation, they may in part be trying to use controversy over the proper regulatory regime for self-driving vehicles to provide a distraction for the media so that there is less focus on safety issues particular to their system. That especially makes sense if they knew they were going to be releasing the safety information before they announced the plan to defy regulations (getting enough attention on that first, so that when they did pull the project it would have some chance as being seen to be about the regulatory issue of permitting, and not the safety defect.)
- fullshark 10y agoPossibly 1. They didn't want to reveal the accidents the technology was involved in as dictated by the permit 2. They wanted to have Tesla be held to the same standard and have to apply for permits for all their autopilot vehicles
- WalterSear 10y agoI think they underestimated the rapidity and effectiveness of the DMV's response, and were perhaps anticipating a lawsuit they could draw out and spin to their advantage, knowing that corporate malfeasance is rarely meted appropriate punishment.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- rahimiali 10y agoi'm not sure what uber's intention was, but there's a silver lining: 1) The barrier to entry in this space is somewhat low and now it's higher. Within 4 months, a small talented group can build a decent self-driving system from scratch. The DMV's action might have a (slight) chilling affect on small self-driving car operations, and gives (a small) advantage to big operations like Uber. 2) If uber thought their launch was a failure (maybe the supervisors had to intervene too often), scuttling the launch in this way buys them some time to incorporate the lessons they learned from their brief foray.
- jayjay71 10y ago"Within 4 months, a small talented group can build a decent self-driving system from scratch." What makes you think that? It's a lot more work than that. For starters, self-driving cars still aren't a commercial reality despite decades of research and many many millions of dollars in funding. I've never heard of a team build anything other than a super limited prototype in that time frame - nothing anyone would reasonably call a self-driving car.
- dragonwriter 10y agoLike every other time Uber publicly throws a fit about a rule, it's an effort to get the rule changed in their favor.
- cdolan92 10y agoAppears to me that Uber just really did not want to allow a government to dictate what exactly their vehicle & technology actually is. I wonder if their logic is that by applying, they've set a precedent that their vehicle is fully autonomous, and also that local governments can now try to regulate them under this area. They already fought the existing taxicab legislation, I think they're trying to outrun/ignore autonomous car legislation for as long as possible.
- danso 10y ago> In California an autonomous vehicle is defined as having the capability of driving “without the active physical control or monitoring” of a person. The state allows for the driving and testing of autonomous vehicles on public roadways, but requires the operator to obtain a $150 permit to drive in the state. 16 test vehicles. $150 for each permit. Is the refusal to register some kind of moral stance?
- veidr 10y agoAnother HN thread[1] revealed that the permit not only costs $150, but also mandates that Uber report accidents. (And other stuff?) [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13198277 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13198277
- danso 10y agoI believe self-reporting of accidents was a regulation that Google had to operate under. Funny enough, I just checked where they used to have their monthly accident reports but now it's just a Waymo landing page: https://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/reports/ https://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/reports/ Internet archive snapshot: https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20161011014050/https://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/reports https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20161011014050/https://www.... Sample report (PDF) https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20161213211933/http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en//selfdrivingcar/files/reports/report-0516.pdf https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20161213211933/http://stati...
- schiffern 10y agoThe official accident reports are still available, as they always have been, on the California DMV's website.[1] I remember only a few months ago folks were holding up Google as the model for SDC transparency.[2] How times change! [1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/autonomousveh_ol316+ https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/auton... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12082893 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12082893
- 10y ago
- LargeCompanies 10y agoIt's the Uber way ... spoiled douchebag brats!
- dang 10y agoThis comment violates the site guidelines by calling names. Please don't do that. Also, please don't post unsubstantive comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this one from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13234483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13234483 and marked it off-topic.
- LargeCompanies 10y agoUmmm I was upvoted a lot for this comment and other similar comments because those who run Uber are not good people... greed and power are the most important thing to them!
- dang 10y agoAlas, lots of bad things routinely get upvoted: snark, rage, and name-calling are a few. HN is not governed by upvotes alone. There are also rules, and we ban people for violating them, so please follow them from now on. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
- captaincrowbar 10y agoThe likely reason Uber wouldn't play ball is that they wanted to be able to carry paying passengers in their test vehicles, which probably wouldn't be allowed under the test regulations, or even if it was, would leave them open to much more liability if there was an accident.
- akira2501 10y agoThat's probably part of it, but the DMV seems to consider it a "manufacturers testing permit," which means that Volvo would have to be substantially involved in the process on Uber's behalf as they do not already have a permit of their own. [0] The draft rules also require quite a bit of insurance and items like "autonomous test driver training programs" to be in place for a legal operation. [1] [0]: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testing https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testi... [1]: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/211897ae-c58a-4f28-a2b7-03cbe213e51d/avexpressterms_93016.pdf?MOD=AJPERES https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/211897ae-c58a-4f28...
- usaphp 10y agoDo Tesla drivers have to get that permit as well, a lot of them drive their cars on highways “without the active physical control or monitoring” too?
- iopq 10y agoThey're supposed to have active physical control and monitoring. That's the difference, Tesla is not a fully self-driving car.
- mahyarm 10y agoIsn't that the same argument uber is doing?
- invisible 10y agoAren't there uber drivers still that are suppose to monitor the situation? How is that different except the government is upset?
- BryantD 10y agoTesla is very carefully keeping within the definition of a level 2 autonomous vehicle. For example, Teslas won't shift lanes automatically -- the driver has to tell it to shift lanes. Similarly, Tesla drivers are supposed to keep their hands on the wheel at all times. The Ubers are level 3 -- the car is responsible for monitoring and making decisions. Significant difference.
- invisible 10y agoI definitely should have drawn that conclusion as well - I guess I'm just thinking about the logical progression of vehicles. Eventually Tesla will reach level 3 as well. Does it really make sense for each of those be registered differently with additional associated fees and monitoring? I don't know but it definitely errs on the side of exerting control.
- mmel 10y agoWhy is Uber so belligerent when it comes to complying with laws of the land? I can't think of any other corporation that so blatantly acts in the manner of, "we don't like that law, we're going to ignore it or flaunt it". I know other large corporations will use lobbyists to get laws changed to suit their wants, but Uber just acts as if the law doesn't apply to them in the first case. In Australia, they single-handedly managed to get themselves their operation legalized, while running as an illegal taxi service in the interim. Only minor fines were applied in a couple of cases prior to the governments rolling over for them, and I think even these applied to the Uber drivers, not to Uber themselves.
- WalterSear 10y agoBecause it has mostly been working out to their advantage.
- niftich 10y agoUber is one of the most illustrative examples of 'it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission'. They hope to outlast the laws against them until those laws are changed or entirely new ones are enacted [1], pay any fines -- not that there have been very many -- and all the while continue to offer rides below cost to starve their competition until they all disappear. In this particular case, it seems they're not willing to let the DMV put them into this particular category (for whatever reason), so they'd rather fight or wait it out until different rules are created in their favor. Although, I'm not sure what leverage they have over the State of California with this particular issue. [1] http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M077/K112/77112285.PDF http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M077/K1...
- WalterSear 10y agoIn this case, considering the issues that the cars have had already, and the tremendous pressure uber is under not to have their business technologically stolen from under them, I think someone realized their cars weren't in a position to acquire or maintain DMV approval and was gambling on being able to stall long enough to get their driving technology to that point. The more I think about it, the more absolutely despicable that would be, if it were the case. But, even in the best case, it's incredibly stupid, and dangerous to uber; do they want to be the first company to have a self driving car fatality? Whatever their reasons, they must be very desperate.
- chrismealy 10y agoUber's self-driving cars are garbage and they're creating this little drama to fool dumb investors into thinking it's just local government holding them back.
- mslate 10y agoAre they wrong?
- dragonwriter 10y agoYes, since they are refusing to get the necessary permits, which they could easily do.
- btian 10y agoYes. Government regulation didn't cause Uber's car to beat red light.
- Navarr 10y agoIt was my understanding that a human driver did that.
- iloveluce 10y agoAt $150 a permit, Uber likely did this to get a ton of free publicity. Judging from the number of articles I've read, it seems to have worked to their advantage.
- jayjay71 10y agoIt all seemed like really bad publicity though. Everything I saw described Uber as reckless and having subpar technology.
- jskopek 10y agoIt might make sense if they assumed that they'd be successful. If the press spends all their time talking about how Uber is flaunting the rules by putting out a self driving car into their fleet and all the while this thing performs perfectly, it's fantastic press. They probably just assumed that their cars weren't going to run red lights and terrorize bicyclists.
- eridius 10y agoAs best as I can tell, they don't even need $150 per car, they just need a $150 permit for the company as a whole. Their test drivers do need to be enrolled in the Employer Pull Program, but it looks like that's just $5 (this program lets companies track the driving record of their enrolled employees).
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]