2 ms·

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 ve

by 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?
    - Johnny555 10y ago
      Plus additional reporting requirements. I think that's what they wanted to avoid, not a $150 permit for a $50,000 car.
- stale2002 10y ago
  It is not about the 175 dollars. It is about all the other rules and regulations that come with being a "self-driving" car. And the law doesn't apply to situations where a human is at the wheel, so the extra rules and regulations shouldn't.
Dylan16807 10y ago
> I believe that "no permit required" is for the permit office and the legislature to decide. Yes, but importantly the legislature overrides the permit office. The permit office has the right to decide in some situations, but in others situations their decisions can be objectively correct or incorrect.

by ajamesm 10y ago

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?
  - Johnny555 10y ago
    Plus additional reporting requirements. I think that's what they wanted to avoid, not a $150 permit for a $50,000 car.
stale2002 10y ago
It is not about the 175 dollars. It is about all the other rules and regulations that come with being a "self-driving" car. And the law doesn't apply to situations where a human is at the wheel, so the extra rules and regulations shouldn't.

Dylan16807 10y ago

> I believe that "no permit required" is for the permit office and the legislature to decide. Yes, but importantly the legislature overrides the permit office. The permit office has the right to decide in some situations, but in others situations their decisions can be objectively correct or incorrect.