4 ms·

'legality' isn't the issue, it was Uber refusing to acquire the associated permitting.

by ajamesm 10y ago

stale2002 10y ago
You do not have to get a permit for lane assist technology. Tesla's cars that you can buy right now have lane assist and nobody owns any permits. If there is a human at the wheel, no permit required.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  The California DMV disagrees with you... And they revoked the registration plates for their 16 cars. https://consumerist.com/2016/12/22/uber-packs-up-its-self-driving-cars-and-takes-them-to-play-in-arizona/ https://consumerist.com/2016/12/22/uber-packs-up-its-self-dr...
  - stale2002 10y ago
    Yes they do. A politician that had no problem with what the private company was doing for months, became mad at the private company as soon as there were political consequences (and not a moment sooner!). It is unsurprising to me that a politician cares about politics and doesn't give a shit about the law. And as soon as this stuff went to court the politician would have lost, because the law is very clear on this. But it would have delayed things for a year or 2. And Uber was perfectly able to just move to Arizona. But it is no matter. Eventually this stuff will go to court and the politician who doesn't care about the law will lose.
    - nommm-nommm 10y ago
      Since when is the DMV "a politician?"
      - kelnos 10y ago
        The Director of the CA DMV is a position appointed by the Governor. While it's not an elected position, that certainly qualifies as a political office. The DMV itself may not be a politician, but it's made up of people that happen to have a politician as their boss.
- ajamesm 10y ago
  I believe that "no permit required" is for the permit office and the legislature to decide... Looking through your comment history, it looks like you have a very strong attachment to Uber! Strong to the point that you have to create alternate definitions of commonly-held terms in response to criticism of the company. Any reason?
  - stale2002 10y ago
    My reason is that I hate politicians who don't care about the law, and delay perfectly legal technologies that are going to save millions of lives. Every year, a hundred thousand people in the world die in car related incidents. Every last one of these deaths are preventable. And every year that politicians delay this technology, is 100 thousand more people dead that could have been saved. They delay it even when it clearly doesn't break the law. The laws on lane assist and cruise control are clear. This stuff is already deployed to tens of thousands of Tesla cars, that are on the road right now. I do not work for Uber, if that is what you are insinuating (although I have received recruiting emails, as I am a SF web developer. I don't really like their intense work environment.). I "merely" care a lot about the 100 thousand people that politicians, ignorant of the law, are killing every year.
    - ajamesm 10y ago
      If 100k lives are at stake, then a $175 permit is the kind of pocket change you can work out after the fact, not a reason to uproot and relocate. The argument is disingenuous on its face.
      - employee8000 10y ago
        (Uber employee) Read the story, not the headlines. The $175 permit only required verified insurance and training for the drivers. That's it. It wasn't a safety inspection at all. They didn't ensure that the cars were safe. It was simply bureaucracy. Plus, based on the actual law written, Uber's implementation wasn't covered under the permit. Uber has hundreds of lawyers, I'm pretty sure they know what they are doing. Why should they get a permit that they don't need to?

'legality' isn't the issue, it was Uber refusing to acquire the associated permitting.

by ajamesm 10y ago

'legality' isn't the issue, it was Uber refusing to acquire the associated permitting.

stale2002 10y ago

You do not have to get a permit for lane assist technology. Tesla's cars that you can buy right now have lane assist and nobody owns any permits. If there is a human at the wheel, no permit required.

nommm-nommm 10y ago
The California DMV disagrees with you... And they revoked the registration plates for their 16 cars. https://consumerist.com/2016/12/22/uber-packs-up-its-self-driving-cars-and-takes-them-to-play-in-arizona/ https://consumerist.com/2016/12/22/uber-packs-up-its-self-dr...
- stale2002 10y ago
  Yes they do. A politician that had no problem with what the private company was doing for months, became mad at the private company as soon as there were political consequences (and not a moment sooner!). It is unsurprising to me that a politician cares about politics and doesn't give a shit about the law. And as soon as this stuff went to court the politician would have lost, because the law is very clear on this. But it would have delayed things for a year or 2. And Uber was perfectly able to just move to Arizona. But it is no matter. Eventually this stuff will go to court and the politician who doesn't care about the law will lose.
  - nommm-nommm 10y ago
    Since when is the DMV "a politician?"
    - kelnos 10y ago
      The Director of the CA DMV is a position appointed by the Governor. While it's not an elected position, that certainly qualifies as a political office. The DMV itself may not be a politician, but it's made up of people that happen to have a politician as their boss.
ajamesm 10y ago
I believe that "no permit required" is for the permit office and the legislature to decide... Looking through your comment history, it looks like you have a very strong attachment to Uber! Strong to the point that you have to create alternate definitions of commonly-held terms in response to criticism of the company. Any reason?
- stale2002 10y ago
  My reason is that I hate politicians who don't care about the law, and delay perfectly legal technologies that are going to save millions of lives. Every year, a hundred thousand people in the world die in car related incidents. Every last one of these deaths are preventable. And every year that politicians delay this technology, is 100 thousand more people dead that could have been saved. They delay it even when it clearly doesn't break the law. The laws on lane assist and cruise control are clear. This stuff is already deployed to tens of thousands of Tesla cars, that are on the road right now. I do not work for Uber, if that is what you are insinuating (although I have received recruiting emails, as I am a SF web developer. I don't really like their intense work environment.). I "merely" care a lot about the 100 thousand people that politicians, ignorant of the law, are killing every year.
  - ajamesm 10y ago
    If 100k lives are at stake, then a $175 permit is the kind of pocket change you can work out after the fact, not a reason to uproot and relocate. The argument is disingenuous on its face.
    - employee8000 10y ago
      (Uber employee) Read the story, not the headlines. The $175 permit only required verified insurance and training for the drivers. That's it. It wasn't a safety inspection at all. They didn't ensure that the cars were safe. It was simply bureaucracy. Plus, based on the actual law written, Uber's implementation wasn't covered under the permit. Uber has hundreds of lawyers, I'm pretty sure they know what they are doing. Why should they get a permit that they don't need to?