8 ms·

Uber Wants to Make It Illegal to Operate Your Own Self-Driving Car in Cities

49 points by ctoth 9y ago

IntronExon 9y ago
i want to say something along the lines of, “Oh how quickly the disruptor becomes the regulator,” but really isn’t it a bit early in the autonomous vehicle game to pull the proverbial ladder up behind you? Besides, given the likely cost of such vehicles, even when they really exist, they’re not going to be in most households. Killing competition that doesn’t exist in a tech space that may be decades away from bearing fruit. Uber.
- taneq 9y ago
  At least they're proactive. >.<
- blacksmith_tb 9y ago
  Agreed, wouldn't it match their business model to just demand interoperability, and maybe subsidies to get autonomous vehicles into the hands of people who'd take the risk of buying and insuring them to ferry Uber fares around?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Agreed, wouldn't it match their business model I think you've confused “cultivated PR image” with “business model”.
randyrand 9y ago
How ridiculous. At some point you drive enough to warrant not having a middle man between you and a car. This really does not need to be regulated. Just let people make their own economic decisions. Not to forget, some people also like or need to keep belongings in their car.
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  Why couldn't people have personal pods with their stuff in it, with their preferred upholstery, sound system, etc. that got moved by a third-party owned motor unit?
  - chriscappuccio 9y ago
    Because we have cars
tyingq 9y ago
I suppose someone will call me out as alarmist, but this sounds almost like the first step into a dystopian movie. Ban personal self driving cars, then when the fleets outnumber personal non-self-driving cars, ban them too. Presto...big brother now knows where you are, all the time. (Yes, I get that cell phones serve that purpose now, but the workaround is pretty easy)
- munk-a 9y ago
  I think that's a bit overly alarmist, there could certainly be competition in this space. _But_ this is an absolutely despicable move on Uber's part that would slow the adoption of self-driving vehicles to prop up their own (at that point failing) business model.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    "there could certainly be competition in this space" I was assuming governments forcing all fleets to share data. Probably via some "safety / think of the children / OMG terrorists" bill.
    - munk-a 9y ago
      I think for safety you might get benefit out of cars communicating intent to neighbors. Pervasive tracking and reporting would be unnecessary - but that is the logic, of course various governments could require all sorts of stuff in the name of anything. So yea, good point.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        Beyond uses of local comms, N Non-local coordination could improve long-range routing, and even support automated allocation of infrastructure (like the way some roads—especially expensive-to-build-and-maintain ones like tunnels—reconfigure lanes for different directions of travel at different times of day to match traffic patterns, but dynamically and in more places.)
hartror 9y ago
> Due to the transformational potential of autonomous vehicle technology, it is critical that all AVs are part of shared fleets, well-regulated, and zero emission. Shared fleets can provide more affordable access to all, maximize public safety and emissions benefits, ensure that maintenance and software upgrades are managed by professionals, and actualize the promise of reductions in vehicles, parking, and congestion, in line with broader policy trends to reduce the use of personal cars in dense urban areas. Sounds reasonable to me, imagine how much premium land could be unlocked if car parks were relegated to a thing of the past? Not to mention adding more throughput on smaller urban streets choked with parking. Or god forbid, more cycling lanes . . .
- jack9 9y ago
  > it is critical that all AVs are part of shared fleets, well-regulated, and zero emission. Nope. > Shared fleets can provide more affordable access to all, ... Nope. Dressing up a monopoly as more efficient, is not fooling anyone anymore.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
303space 9y ago
If you open the link SMPLC is actually Zipcar’s NGO and basically every mobility startup signed this proposal. Full list of signatories: “BlaBla Car, CityMapper, Didi, Cityway, Jetty, Keolis, LimeBike, Lyft, Mobike, Motivate, Ofo, Ola, Scoot, Transit, Uber, Via and ZipCar”
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  So every mobility startup wants to ban consumers from owning what the mobility companies want to try to get people to rent. Surprise, surprise.
rayiner 9y ago
There needs to be a planned phase-out of human-driven vehicles. Supporting legacy incumbents can hugely hamstring automated technology.[1] It's a double-whammy: (1) enormous investment must go into designing around human drives in the first place, and (2) the existence of human-driven vehicles dramatically reduces the traffic mitigation advantages of self-driving vehicles (reducing the incentive to make the investment in (1) and adopt self-driving vehicles).[2] [1] I spent the beginning of my career working on radios that dynamically share spectrum among themselves, instead of relying on FCC central planning. The need to support incumbents like television stations has probably set the technology back a decade or two, not to mention cost millions upon millions of dollars. [2] E.g. https://readwrite.com/2017/06/06/hyperlane-self-driving-tl4/ https://readwrite.com/2017/06/06/hyperlane-self-driving-tl4/
- peapicker 9y ago
  You can pry my human-driven gas-burning vehicle out of my cold dead hands.
  - zild3d 9y ago
    Well if you're one of the (un)lucky 1.3 million people a year, that is certainly possible
    - peapicker 9y ago
      In the US, the # is just over 37,000 driving deaths per year, or about 35 times less than 1.3 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...
  - rayiner 9y ago
    You can keep the car and drive it on your farm. But as to public roads, they're a limited public resource, and the government has an obligation to ensure they are utilized as efficiently as possible. That will be achieved by only allowing self-driving cars.
hprotagonist 9y ago
The sidebar suggested I read another CEI article entitled "stop forcing unions on your workers". Uh huh. This article sure seems like it represents facts in an unbiased way..
- klez 9y ago
  Look, you don't like CEI? Fine, me neither, from the looks of it. Are they spinning a libertarian agenda? Yes they are. Is this article mostly an attack on uber and "shameless, greenwashed crony capitalism"? Yes it is. BUT Is it true that a group outlined those 10 proposals? Yes it is.[0] Is it true that proposal #10 is about only permitting fleets to operate EVs? Yes it is. Is it true that Uber (and Lyft, and Bla Bla Car, and...) signed this proposals? Yes it is.[1] Will those companies greatly profit from that kind of regulation? You betcha! That is the gist of the article, and that is what we should be discussing about. [0] https://www.sharedmobilityprinciples.org/ https://www.sharedmobilityprinciples.org/ [1] https://www.sharedmobilityprinciples.org/signatories/ https://www.sharedmobilityprinciples.org/signatories/ EDIT: OT, but is your name a reference to Snow Crash? Because if it is, good job! :)
noonespecial 9y ago
Oldest trick in the crony-cap playbook. Convince the gov that a special licence is required because think of the children, bribe and lobby your way to being the only one who can practically get one. Profi... Rent-seek.
ughira 9y ago
Why was Uber mostly singled out in this article? If anyone reads the article, it makes it seem like there is some agenda behind it, especially when seeing the full list of signatories for the initiative [1]. The article also reads with some bias as the initiative itself seems to make some sense, based on my cursory review. [1] https://www.sharedmobilityprinciples.org/signatories/ https://www.sharedmobilityprinciples.org/signatories/
- adfm 9y ago
  Consider the source. "The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty." "...CEI crafts advocacy campaigns in order to reach policy makers..."
et2o 9y ago
Incredible.
anfilt 9y ago
All these companies should burned for pushing for state sanctioned monopolies.
mnm1 9y ago
I love self driving cars, but more and more it seems when they will arrive, the cons might outweigh the pros if we're not careful. With thinking like this, I think I'll keep driving myself and seriously consider voting against any legislation that might lead to this outcome. Uber should rethink what its ultimate strategy is. If we can't deter Uber because it's a giant US corporation, we can certainly deter self-driving car technology. And that would be a giant loss for all of humanity, including the greedy Uber execs.
mebebil 9y ago
I give three years after the IPO for Ackman to short the fuck out of UBER. What a disgusting company.
ohiovr 9y ago
Why does uber get to have government regulations on their side when they violate local laws constantly? They have been banned by several governments entirely. https://www.google.com/search?q=uber+banned&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari&dlnr=1&sei=qmx0WpTCAsjAjwTvo7qYCw https://www.google.com/search?q=uber+banned&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-...
TheCoelacanth 9y ago
Stupid idea. Just get rid of all parking minimums and the favorable tax treatment of parking lots in commercial areas and the problem of having too many personal cars in city centers will take care of itself without heavy-handed regulation.

49 points by ctoth 9y ago

i want to say something along the lines of, “Oh how quickly the disruptor becomes the regulator,” but really isn’t it a bit early in the autonomous vehicle game to pull the proverbial ladder up behind you? Besides, given the likely cost of such vehicles, even when they really exist, they’re not going to be in most households. Killing competition that doesn’t exist in a tech space that may be decades away from bearing fruit. Uber.

taneq 9y ago
At least they're proactive. >.<
blacksmith_tb 9y ago
Agreed, wouldn't it match their business model to just demand interoperability, and maybe subsidies to get autonomous vehicles into the hands of people who'd take the risk of buying and insuring them to ferry Uber fares around?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Agreed, wouldn't it match their business model I think you've confused “cultivated PR image” with “business model”.

randyrand 9y ago

How ridiculous. At some point you drive enough to warrant not having a middle man between you and a car. This really does not need to be regulated. Just let people make their own economic decisions. Not to forget, some people also like or need to keep belongings in their car.

Turing_Machine 9y ago
Why couldn't people have personal pods with their stuff in it, with their preferred upholstery, sound system, etc. that got moved by a third-party owned motor unit?
- chriscappuccio 9y ago
  Because we have cars

tyingq 9y ago

I suppose someone will call me out as alarmist, but this sounds almost like the first step into a dystopian movie. Ban personal self driving cars, then when the fleets outnumber personal non-self-driving cars, ban them too. Presto...big brother now knows where you are, all the time. (Yes, I get that cell phones serve that purpose now, but the workaround is pretty easy)

munk-a 9y ago
I think that's a bit overly alarmist, there could certainly be competition in this space. _But_ this is an absolutely despicable move on Uber's part that would slow the adoption of self-driving vehicles to prop up their own (at that point failing) business model.
- tyingq 9y ago
  "there could certainly be competition in this space" I was assuming governments forcing all fleets to share data. Probably via some "safety / think of the children / OMG terrorists" bill.
  - munk-a 9y ago
    I think for safety you might get benefit out of cars communicating intent to neighbors. Pervasive tracking and reporting would be unnecessary - but that is the logic, of course various governments could require all sorts of stuff in the name of anything. So yea, good point.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      Beyond uses of local comms, N Non-local coordination could improve long-range routing, and even support automated allocation of infrastructure (like the way some roads—especially expensive-to-build-and-maintain ones like tunnels—reconfigure lanes for different directions of travel at different times of day to match traffic patterns, but dynamically and in more places.)

hartror 9y ago

> Due to the transformational potential of autonomous vehicle technology, it is critical that all AVs are part of shared fleets, well-regulated, and zero emission. Shared fleets can provide more affordable access to all, maximize public safety and emissions benefits, ensure that maintenance and software upgrades are managed by professionals, and actualize the promise of reductions in vehicles, parking, and congestion, in line with broader policy trends to reduce the use of personal cars in dense urban areas. Sounds reasonable to me, imagine how much premium land could be unlocked if car parks were relegated to a thing of the past? Not to mention adding more throughput on smaller urban streets choked with parking. Or god forbid, more cycling lanes . . .

jack9 9y ago
> it is critical that all AVs are part of shared fleets, well-regulated, and zero emission. Nope. > Shared fleets can provide more affordable access to all, ... Nope. Dressing up a monopoly as more efficient, is not fooling anyone anymore.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

303space 9y ago

If you open the link SMPLC is actually Zipcar’s NGO and basically every mobility startup signed this proposal. Full list of signatories: “BlaBla Car, CityMapper, Didi, Cityway, Jetty, Keolis, LimeBike, Lyft, Mobike, Motivate, Ofo, Ola, Scoot, Transit, Uber, Via and ZipCar”

dragonwriter 9y ago
So every mobility startup wants to ban consumers from owning what the mobility companies want to try to get people to rent. Surprise, surprise.

rayiner 9y ago

There needs to be a planned phase-out of human-driven vehicles. Supporting legacy incumbents can hugely hamstring automated technology.[1] It's a double-whammy: (1) enormous investment must go into designing around human drives in the first place, and (2) the existence of human-driven vehicles dramatically reduces the traffic mitigation advantages of self-driving vehicles (reducing the incentive to make the investment in (1) and adopt self-driving vehicles).[2] [1] I spent the beginning of my career working on radios that dynamically share spectrum among themselves, instead of relying on FCC central planning. The need to support incumbents like television stations has probably set the technology back a decade or two, not to mention cost millions upon millions of dollars. [2] E.g. https://readwrite.com/2017/06/06/hyperlane-self-driving-tl4/ https://readwrite.com/2017/06/06/hyperlane-self-driving-tl4/

peapicker 9y ago
You can pry my human-driven gas-burning vehicle out of my cold dead hands.
- zild3d 9y ago
  Well if you're one of the (un)lucky 1.3 million people a year, that is certainly possible
  - peapicker 9y ago
    In the US, the # is just over 37,000 driving deaths per year, or about 35 times less than 1.3 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...
- rayiner 9y ago
  You can keep the car and drive it on your farm. But as to public roads, they're a limited public resource, and the government has an obligation to ensure they are utilized as efficiently as possible. That will be achieved by only allowing self-driving cars.

hprotagonist 9y ago

The sidebar suggested I read another CEI article entitled "stop forcing unions on your workers". Uh huh. This article sure seems like it represents facts in an unbiased way..

klez 9y ago
Look, you don't like CEI? Fine, me neither, from the looks of it. Are they spinning a libertarian agenda? Yes they are. Is this article mostly an attack on uber and "shameless, greenwashed crony capitalism"? Yes it is. BUT Is it true that a group outlined those 10 proposals? Yes it is.[0] Is it true that proposal #10 is about only permitting fleets to operate EVs? Yes it is. Is it true that Uber (and Lyft, and Bla Bla Car, and...) signed this proposals? Yes it is.[1] Will those companies greatly profit from that kind of regulation? You betcha! That is the gist of the article, and that is what we should be discussing about. [0] https://www.sharedmobilityprinciples.org/ https://www.sharedmobilityprinciples.org/ [1] https://www.sharedmobilityprinciples.org/signatories/ https://www.sharedmobilityprinciples.org/signatories/ EDIT: OT, but is your name a reference to Snow Crash? Because if it is, good job! :)

noonespecial 9y ago

Oldest trick in the crony-cap playbook. Convince the gov that a special licence is required because think of the children, bribe and lobby your way to being the only one who can practically get one. Profi... Rent-seek.

ughira 9y ago

Why was Uber mostly singled out in this article? If anyone reads the article, it makes it seem like there is some agenda behind it, especially when seeing the full list of signatories for the initiative [1]. The article also reads with some bias as the initiative itself seems to make some sense, based on my cursory review. [1] https://www.sharedmobilityprinciples.org/signatories/ https://www.sharedmobilityprinciples.org/signatories/

adfm 9y ago
Consider the source. "The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty." "...CEI crafts advocacy campaigns in order to reach policy makers..."

et2o 9y ago

Incredible.

anfilt 9y ago

All these companies should burned for pushing for state sanctioned monopolies.

mnm1 9y ago

I love self driving cars, but more and more it seems when they will arrive, the cons might outweigh the pros if we're not careful. With thinking like this, I think I'll keep driving myself and seriously consider voting against any legislation that might lead to this outcome. Uber should rethink what its ultimate strategy is. If we can't deter Uber because it's a giant US corporation, we can certainly deter self-driving car technology. And that would be a giant loss for all of humanity, including the greedy Uber execs.

mebebil 9y ago

I give three years after the IPO for Ackman to short the fuck out of UBER. What a disgusting company.

ohiovr 9y ago

Why does uber get to have government regulations on their side when they violate local laws constantly? They have been banned by several governments entirely. https://www.google.com/search?q=uber+banned&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari&dlnr=1&sei=qmx0WpTCAsjAjwTvo7qYCw https://www.google.com/search?q=uber+banned&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-...

TheCoelacanth 9y ago

Stupid idea. Just get rid of all parking minimums and the favorable tax treatment of parking lots in commercial areas and the problem of having too many personal cars in city centers will take care of itself without heavy-handed regulation.