9 ms·

Arizona governor and Uber kept self-driving program secret, emails reveal

172 points by LaSombra 9y ago

fapjacks 9y ago
I was waiting for the moment when this would come up. A friend of mine had worked for Uber for a few years, and a couple of times when she came back to town, she'd mentioned over drinks that they have been "secretly" running autonomous vehicles around the ASU campus in Tempe for some years now.
IAmEveryone 9y ago
Most of these interactions actually seem rather benign. Politicians routinely attend company events, and I don't think there's a general problem with a photo-op wearing some company gear. What's really surprising, however, is the sort of decisions a US governor (or maybe just Arizona) is apparently involved in. In my small European country, a license to operate some new and potentially dangerous technology is a matter for some executive agency, which would routinely involve at least one expert on the technology and a lawyer. Now, obviously, that agency is part of the executive branch and theoretically below the Governor in a hierarchy. But in practice it's very similar to the federal US Government: the US President actually can't directly order some low-level bureaucrats at the FDA/SEC/etc to do anything. Such an order has to go through all the levels of that hierarchy. And if anyone refuses, their firing also has to follow that path. Individual decisions are almost completely independent from top leadership. A series of questionable decisions will probably get you reassigned to the mail room, but even then past decisions would usually remain in force. That system does not only strengthen the role of subject matter experts in the process and reduce the appearance of arbitrary favouritism. It's also in the best interest of politicians: to put your signature under an order allowing an individual safety-critical project without following some sort of established process is almost certain to end your career the first time one of those projects goes south. Less relevant nitpicks: - What exactly did Arizona stand to gain from a few hundred autonomous cars with minimum-wage drivers behind the wheel? It's not like Uber was going to move their software engineering to Tuscon, was it? - Getting free use of Uber's offices in San Francisco is obviously bribery if it was for personal or campaign staff. Although I guess it's technically legal in the US if properly reported.
- purple-again 9y ago
  One of the main points of the federation model was that it should be able to scale. Local regions rule themselves in nearly all things (the governor is the president of Alabama) and the regions people are only required to comply with a small number of issues that effect everyone (like national defense). Of course we all know how that ended up. The federal powers increased steadily until we got where we are. This is one of the reasons you see so much anger against the coasts and cities.
  - IAmEveryone 9y ago
    I didn't mean that the federal agencies should necessarily have a role here. I would think that many US states also have agencies charged with administrating the law, something like a "Arizona Roadway Authority" or whatever. My comment was trying to explain how even within a single hierarchy like a state's executive, which a Governor at the top and traffic engineers somewhere below, it's peculiar to see someone jump so many levels of that hierarchy to assume control of a rather low-level decision.
  - Steltek 9y ago
    With some exceptions, Federal powers increased because we couldn't agree that human beings are not property, among other basic rights issues. The touchstone moments were not simple disagreements on policy, it was the pot boiling over into extreme violence. Even the Federal model requires some basic level setting for it to function. There's either a rebalancing or the whole thing falls apart. Regardless, GP's points are notable just a local level. States have different weights assigned to executive and legislative. It appears that Arizona leans heavily towards a strong executive branch although I have to wonder if any laws were broken here. People expect corruption in US politics at this point but this incident has some staying power in the news.
    - bm1362 9y ago
      More so federal funding has bent states into the shape that the federal government wants them to be. Funding with strings and the interstate commerce clause subdued the States’ power realistically.
Slartie 9y ago
Now THAT explains a lot of that "she came from the shadows" and "a human driver could not have prevented this" and "The car didn't do anything wrong" bullcrap we've been reading from the Tempe Police right after the accident, as well as the quick release of the highly misleading (in terms of lighting situation) dashcam video. Don't bite the hand that feeds you...
- xvf22 9y ago
  Yup, I was wondering why the police put up such a strong defence even before an investigation. I suppose this may explain at least some of that. I wonder if the post crash emails will ever come out.
  - panarky 9y ago
    The Uber-Arizona story is the American economic-political dystopia in microcosm. For-profit corporation helps elected politician maintain power. Elected politician uses the power of the state to promote the corporation and eliminate oversight that would have been in the public interest. All of this is done in secret, of course. The rubes who elected you don't need to know what their "representatives" are doing in their names. The politician wins, the corporation wins, and the public is the big loser.
- shard972 9y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by don't bite the hand, I understand that the police would have a vested interested in defending uber but I couldn't imagine the police destroying their credability over some stupid little thing in the big scheme of things.
  - Slartie 9y ago
    Imagine the police people having seen their governor (who effectively is their boss, as far as I know, so he is the "hand that feeds them") repeatedly be very, very protective and favorable towards Uber and the self-driving car testing program. Even if they never got an explicit order of the likes of "Courteously close your eyes when dealing with Uber!", they will be much more protective of Uber than they were if their boss was known as very critical regarding Uber. This is basic human instinct, and instinctive behavior often leads to decisions which might turn out to be obviously stupid in the long run.
mtgx 9y ago
If after all the deregulation companies got at the federal level, plus even more deregulation in Arizona, they still had to do this, then something smells very bad here.
coldcode 9y ago
Secrecy in policy has no place in a democracy. Keeping your spies hidden or war plans makes sense, but not things that directly affect the public.
- avs733 9y ago
  As well as rules and regulations being privitized. No one should have to pay someone like ASME to access the law.
- Fricken 9y ago
  This article is pretty sensational, it's not really a secret. Ducey has been a big proponent of autonomous vehicles, it's known to anyone paying attention. When Uber, Waymo, and GM (the 3 biggest autonomous development operations in America) started testing in the Phoenix metro area it was publicly announced. Michigan, Florida, and Georgia also have similarly lassiez faire policies towards autonomous vehicle testing, but most of the action has been around Phoenix because of Ducey's active courting of the autonomous driving industry. In the wake of the Uber incident, a violation of Ducey's trust in Uber's obligation to test responsibly, he has ordered Uber to suspend their operations: https://mobile.twitter.com/biancabuono/status/978428032632279040?s=21 https://mobile.twitter.com/biancabuono/status/97842803263227... Interestingly, cities don't have much power to decide whether, or how, autonomous vehicles can test in their cities. When NY state governor Andrew Cuomo and Cruise Automation jointly announced GM's plan to begin testing in NYC, Bill de Blasio and the mayor's office were surprised, they hadn't heard anything about it, but NYC testing appears to be going ahead anyhow.
RoyTyrell 9y ago
If this was a company from any other sector, such as a bank, people would start crying corruption; not that there probably was any. I think the governor was trying to court one of the largest Silicon Valley companies and that's trying to develop some "exciting" new technology and bent over backwards for them, which is cool and all, but he didn't perform his due diligence. I find it interesting how the governor just "trusted" that the company was obeying all federal laws and guidelines and didn't check to see if: (a) they were indeed complying (b) there were any outside of the car itself (c) if any exist about self-driving cars, how those guidelines ensure public safety. This is the exact kind of thing that ends up driving knee-jerk legislation to go the opposite direction. Does anyone know what federal laws and guidelines (from NTSB or other dept) exist that govern self-driving cars?
- letlambda 9y ago
  Just guidelines at this point. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-dot-releases-new-automated-driving-systems-guidance https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-dot-releases-new-aut...
  - buvanshak 9y ago
    > NHTSA strongly encourages States not to codify this Voluntary Guidance (that is, incorporate it into State statutes) as a legal requirement for any phases of development, testing, or deployment of ADSs. Allowing NHTSA alone to regulate the safety design and performance aspects of ADS technology will help avoid conflicting Federal and State laws and regulations that could impede deployment. Can someone clarify that this please? To me it appears that this body is saying that, "States, Please don't make laws requiring minimal standards for SDVs for things, including deployment on public roads, because that would impede deployment. Allow us to handle all that" But they didn't do it, right? SDV's were on roads even before the "safety design and performance aspects of ADS technology" was regulated, right?
    - JibJabLab 9y ago
      >not to codify this Voluntary Guidance ... as a legal requirement for any phases of development, testing, or deployment I don't think it's meant to impede anything. It's just saying "don't use this as a go-ahead to base your state's SDV laws and guidances since this document will change".
maximumtoss 9y ago
I got trashed at a party with a leader of Uber's self driving program. He told me it was normal to lie about who was in control when incidents happen. He said everybody does it. He said nobody's numbers were as good as they said and deception is standard practice. After an extended conversation with him I have no doubt this crash is due to negligence
- notyourwork 9y ago
  That’s a bold claim.
  - joejerryronnie 9y ago
    But not necessarily wrong
- Applejinx 9y ago
  Sounds like rationalization. Even if it's TRUE it's still rationalization and a way to talk oneself into irresponsibility: lowering the bar.
  - maximumtoss 9y ago
    Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment, but this was months ago. No rationalizing needed.
- doctorsher 9y ago
  Being trashed doesn't exactly provide confidence in what was spoken and the memory of it for later.
buvanshak 9y ago
I asked this [1] in ask HN sometime back https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16696681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16696681 No comments and it is removed from the ask page as far as I can see.... Why are people so indifferent and why are they just standing by and not asking relevant questions and not demanding for proper test/procedures in place before continuing the test of SDVs?
- nashashmi 9y ago
  Accidents like this will spur the AV community of companies to form a body (AVI?) to protect AVs from bad press by enacting a set of rules for all AVs to abide by. Eventually, gov't policy will take AVI rules and recommendations and formalize them into their own books. But until then, the whole thing is deeply experimental. And regulation is premature. Otherwise, you may be crushing potentially great ideas unknowingly.
  - buvanshak 9y ago
    >But until then, the whole thing is deeply experimental. And regulation is premature If it is deeply experimental, then it should be conducted in experimental settings, and not on public roads. If regulation is premature, then public tests are also premature. I am surprised I have to explain this. To be on public road the vehicle should pass a minimum benchmark that shows that it can consistently handle at least all the common scenarios.. There is no urgent need for self driving vehicles. It is not like they are going to solve some of the pressing issues that humanity is facing right now. It is just a curiosity, and can may be boost the profits of some corporations. That is about it. I don't think it is worth or just to risk lives of unsuspecting public towards that end..
    - rory096 9y ago
      >There is no urgent need for self driving vehicles. It is not like they are going to solve some of the pressing issues that humanity is facing right now. It is just a curiosity, and can may be boost the profits of some corporations. That is about it. If you don't consider the second leading unnatural cause of death in the United States (only recently surpassed by suicide) killing 40,000 people a year an "issue", then sure.
meesterdude 9y ago
If you watch the video, it's clear uber/the safety driver were at fault. Which made the rapid announcement that "nothing could have been done" by the police so surprising when the evidence was so clear. But now with this coming out, it all makes sense. I like that uber called the governor a "thought leader" as doublespeak for someone in their pocket, or who at least gave them their ear. But doing this in secret is the real icing on the cake. great leadership there. Should we expect anything different from republicans/russians at this point?
taxicabjesus 9y ago
I had a passenger (circa 2015) who was gung-ho about driving for Uber. He'd driven for the taxi company for a few shifts, but couldn't make money. He'd ordered a taxi to take his family to the airport because they had luggage. He couldn't risk getting a miniature uber that wouldn't be big enough. He'd bought the cheapest black BMW he could find so that he could get Uber Black fares too, and was going through the state's procedures to become a vehicle-for-hire. He whined about how much commercial insurance was going to cost him... Governor Ducey threw us taxi drivers under the bus as soon as he took office in January 2015. (edit2: the NFL's Superbowl was in Glendale, AZ that month.) Arizona has very minimal regulations for taxis and vehicles for hire -- basically a vehicle inspections, background checks for drivers and commercial insurance. Anyone who wants to become a taxi company is welcome, no medallion required. Taxi companies are trusted to take care of the regulations for themselves. Essentially Ducey said he was going to stop enforcement of the state's existing minimal laws pertaining to private transportation until the legislators came up with replacements. Ducey's predecessor, Jan Brewer, vetoed a bill that gave personal vehicles transporting passengers for "ride sharing" an exemption from having commercial insurance - at the time Uber's insurance was "trust us, you're covered". The company I drove for spent a ton of money on their lobbyists to get that bill vetoed, and for a bill that was somewhat-fair for everyone. > Arizona was not always a friendly state for Uber. In April 2014, then-governor Jan Brewer vetoed legislation that would have exempted taxi-hailing companies from insurance regulations imposed on traditional taxis. (I believe this is a typo - the veto'd bill exempted personal vehicles used for "ride share" from the insurance regulations for taxis). The taxi company I drove for is doing fine. They've adapted, and now lease unbranded vehicles that drivers can use with any of the app-based services. Their contracts pay better than the apps' non-surge fares. One of my driver-friends said the scene on the ground is okay - fare volume is down, but quality is up (calls are from people people who really want a ride). (minor edits)
sunstone 9y ago
Move fast and break things may not be suitable for all development projects after all.
nashashmi 9y ago
I just saw the dashcam of the bicyclist getting hit. It seems like had waymo's lidar been installed, the cyclist would have been detected.

172 points by LaSombra 9y ago

I was waiting for the moment when this would come up. A friend of mine had worked for Uber for a few years, and a couple of times when she came back to town, she'd mentioned over drinks that they have been "secretly" running autonomous vehicles around the ASU campus in Tempe for some years now.

IAmEveryone 9y ago

Most of these interactions actually seem rather benign. Politicians routinely attend company events, and I don't think there's a general problem with a photo-op wearing some company gear. What's really surprising, however, is the sort of decisions a US governor (or maybe just Arizona) is apparently involved in. In my small European country, a license to operate some new and potentially dangerous technology is a matter for some executive agency, which would routinely involve at least one expert on the technology and a lawyer. Now, obviously, that agency is part of the executive branch and theoretically below the Governor in a hierarchy. But in practice it's very similar to the federal US Government: the US President actually can't directly order some low-level bureaucrats at the FDA/SEC/etc to do anything. Such an order has to go through all the levels of that hierarchy. And if anyone refuses, their firing also has to follow that path. Individual decisions are almost completely independent from top leadership. A series of questionable decisions will probably get you reassigned to the mail room, but even then past decisions would usually remain in force. That system does not only strengthen the role of subject matter experts in the process and reduce the appearance of arbitrary favouritism. It's also in the best interest of politicians: to put your signature under an order allowing an individual safety-critical project without following some sort of established process is almost certain to end your career the first time one of those projects goes south. Less relevant nitpicks: - What exactly did Arizona stand to gain from a few hundred autonomous cars with minimum-wage drivers behind the wheel? It's not like Uber was going to move their software engineering to Tuscon, was it? - Getting free use of Uber's offices in San Francisco is obviously bribery if it was for personal or campaign staff. Although I guess it's technically legal in the US if properly reported.

purple-again 9y ago
One of the main points of the federation model was that it should be able to scale. Local regions rule themselves in nearly all things (the governor is the president of Alabama) and the regions people are only required to comply with a small number of issues that effect everyone (like national defense). Of course we all know how that ended up. The federal powers increased steadily until we got where we are. This is one of the reasons you see so much anger against the coasts and cities.
- IAmEveryone 9y ago
  I didn't mean that the federal agencies should necessarily have a role here. I would think that many US states also have agencies charged with administrating the law, something like a "Arizona Roadway Authority" or whatever. My comment was trying to explain how even within a single hierarchy like a state's executive, which a Governor at the top and traffic engineers somewhere below, it's peculiar to see someone jump so many levels of that hierarchy to assume control of a rather low-level decision.
- Steltek 9y ago
  With some exceptions, Federal powers increased because we couldn't agree that human beings are not property, among other basic rights issues. The touchstone moments were not simple disagreements on policy, it was the pot boiling over into extreme violence. Even the Federal model requires some basic level setting for it to function. There's either a rebalancing or the whole thing falls apart. Regardless, GP's points are notable just a local level. States have different weights assigned to executive and legislative. It appears that Arizona leans heavily towards a strong executive branch although I have to wonder if any laws were broken here. People expect corruption in US politics at this point but this incident has some staying power in the news.
  - bm1362 9y ago
    More so federal funding has bent states into the shape that the federal government wants them to be. Funding with strings and the interstate commerce clause subdued the States’ power realistically.

Slartie 9y ago

Now THAT explains a lot of that "she came from the shadows" and "a human driver could not have prevented this" and "The car didn't do anything wrong" bullcrap we've been reading from the Tempe Police right after the accident, as well as the quick release of the highly misleading (in terms of lighting situation) dashcam video. Don't bite the hand that feeds you...

xvf22 9y ago
Yup, I was wondering why the police put up such a strong defence even before an investigation. I suppose this may explain at least some of that. I wonder if the post crash emails will ever come out.
- panarky 9y ago
  The Uber-Arizona story is the American economic-political dystopia in microcosm. For-profit corporation helps elected politician maintain power. Elected politician uses the power of the state to promote the corporation and eliminate oversight that would have been in the public interest. All of this is done in secret, of course. The rubes who elected you don't need to know what their "representatives" are doing in their names. The politician wins, the corporation wins, and the public is the big loser.
shard972 9y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by don't bite the hand, I understand that the police would have a vested interested in defending uber but I couldn't imagine the police destroying their credability over some stupid little thing in the big scheme of things.
- Slartie 9y ago
  Imagine the police people having seen their governor (who effectively is their boss, as far as I know, so he is the "hand that feeds them") repeatedly be very, very protective and favorable towards Uber and the self-driving car testing program. Even if they never got an explicit order of the likes of "Courteously close your eyes when dealing with Uber!", they will be much more protective of Uber than they were if their boss was known as very critical regarding Uber. This is basic human instinct, and instinctive behavior often leads to decisions which might turn out to be obviously stupid in the long run.

mtgx 9y ago

If after all the deregulation companies got at the federal level, plus even more deregulation in Arizona, they still had to do this, then something smells very bad here.

coldcode 9y ago

Secrecy in policy has no place in a democracy. Keeping your spies hidden or war plans makes sense, but not things that directly affect the public.

avs733 9y ago
As well as rules and regulations being privitized. No one should have to pay someone like ASME to access the law.
Fricken 9y ago
This article is pretty sensational, it's not really a secret. Ducey has been a big proponent of autonomous vehicles, it's known to anyone paying attention. When Uber, Waymo, and GM (the 3 biggest autonomous development operations in America) started testing in the Phoenix metro area it was publicly announced. Michigan, Florida, and Georgia also have similarly lassiez faire policies towards autonomous vehicle testing, but most of the action has been around Phoenix because of Ducey's active courting of the autonomous driving industry. In the wake of the Uber incident, a violation of Ducey's trust in Uber's obligation to test responsibly, he has ordered Uber to suspend their operations: https://mobile.twitter.com/biancabuono/status/978428032632279040?s=21 https://mobile.twitter.com/biancabuono/status/97842803263227... Interestingly, cities don't have much power to decide whether, or how, autonomous vehicles can test in their cities. When NY state governor Andrew Cuomo and Cruise Automation jointly announced GM's plan to begin testing in NYC, Bill de Blasio and the mayor's office were surprised, they hadn't heard anything about it, but NYC testing appears to be going ahead anyhow.

RoyTyrell 9y ago

If this was a company from any other sector, such as a bank, people would start crying corruption; not that there probably was any. I think the governor was trying to court one of the largest Silicon Valley companies and that's trying to develop some "exciting" new technology and bent over backwards for them, which is cool and all, but he didn't perform his due diligence. I find it interesting how the governor just "trusted" that the company was obeying all federal laws and guidelines and didn't check to see if: (a) they were indeed complying (b) there were any outside of the car itself (c) if any exist about self-driving cars, how those guidelines ensure public safety. This is the exact kind of thing that ends up driving knee-jerk legislation to go the opposite direction. Does anyone know what federal laws and guidelines (from NTSB or other dept) exist that govern self-driving cars?

letlambda 9y ago
Just guidelines at this point. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-dot-releases-new-automated-driving-systems-guidance https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-dot-releases-new-aut...
- buvanshak 9y ago
  > NHTSA strongly encourages States not to codify this Voluntary Guidance (that is, incorporate it into State statutes) as a legal requirement for any phases of development, testing, or deployment of ADSs. Allowing NHTSA alone to regulate the safety design and performance aspects of ADS technology will help avoid conflicting Federal and State laws and regulations that could impede deployment. Can someone clarify that this please? To me it appears that this body is saying that, "States, Please don't make laws requiring minimal standards for SDVs for things, including deployment on public roads, because that would impede deployment. Allow us to handle all that" But they didn't do it, right? SDV's were on roads even before the "safety design and performance aspects of ADS technology" was regulated, right?
  - JibJabLab 9y ago
    >not to codify this Voluntary Guidance ... as a legal requirement for any phases of development, testing, or deployment I don't think it's meant to impede anything. It's just saying "don't use this as a go-ahead to base your state's SDV laws and guidances since this document will change".

maximumtoss 9y ago

I got trashed at a party with a leader of Uber's self driving program. He told me it was normal to lie about who was in control when incidents happen. He said everybody does it. He said nobody's numbers were as good as they said and deception is standard practice. After an extended conversation with him I have no doubt this crash is due to negligence

notyourwork 9y ago
That’s a bold claim.
- joejerryronnie 9y ago
  But not necessarily wrong
Applejinx 9y ago
Sounds like rationalization. Even if it's TRUE it's still rationalization and a way to talk oneself into irresponsibility: lowering the bar.
- maximumtoss 9y ago
  Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment, but this was months ago. No rationalizing needed.
doctorsher 9y ago
Being trashed doesn't exactly provide confidence in what was spoken and the memory of it for later.

buvanshak 9y ago

I asked this [1] in ask HN sometime back https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16696681 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16696681 No comments and it is removed from the ask page as far as I can see.... Why are people so indifferent and why are they just standing by and not asking relevant questions and not demanding for proper test/procedures in place before continuing the test of SDVs?

nashashmi 9y ago
Accidents like this will spur the AV community of companies to form a body (AVI?) to protect AVs from bad press by enacting a set of rules for all AVs to abide by. Eventually, gov't policy will take AVI rules and recommendations and formalize them into their own books. But until then, the whole thing is deeply experimental. And regulation is premature. Otherwise, you may be crushing potentially great ideas unknowingly.
- buvanshak 9y ago
  >But until then, the whole thing is deeply experimental. And regulation is premature If it is deeply experimental, then it should be conducted in experimental settings, and not on public roads. If regulation is premature, then public tests are also premature. I am surprised I have to explain this. To be on public road the vehicle should pass a minimum benchmark that shows that it can consistently handle at least all the common scenarios.. There is no urgent need for self driving vehicles. It is not like they are going to solve some of the pressing issues that humanity is facing right now. It is just a curiosity, and can may be boost the profits of some corporations. That is about it. I don't think it is worth or just to risk lives of unsuspecting public towards that end..
  - rory096 9y ago
    >There is no urgent need for self driving vehicles. It is not like they are going to solve some of the pressing issues that humanity is facing right now. It is just a curiosity, and can may be boost the profits of some corporations. That is about it. If you don't consider the second leading unnatural cause of death in the United States (only recently surpassed by suicide) killing 40,000 people a year an "issue", then sure.

meesterdude 9y ago

If you watch the video, it's clear uber/the safety driver were at fault. Which made the rapid announcement that "nothing could have been done" by the police so surprising when the evidence was so clear. But now with this coming out, it all makes sense. I like that uber called the governor a "thought leader" as doublespeak for someone in their pocket, or who at least gave them their ear. But doing this in secret is the real icing on the cake. great leadership there. Should we expect anything different from republicans/russians at this point?

taxicabjesus 9y ago

I had a passenger (circa 2015) who was gung-ho about driving for Uber. He'd driven for the taxi company for a few shifts, but couldn't make money. He'd ordered a taxi to take his family to the airport because they had luggage. He couldn't risk getting a miniature uber that wouldn't be big enough. He'd bought the cheapest black BMW he could find so that he could get Uber Black fares too, and was going through the state's procedures to become a vehicle-for-hire. He whined about how much commercial insurance was going to cost him... Governor Ducey threw us taxi drivers under the bus as soon as he took office in January 2015. (edit2: the NFL's Superbowl was in Glendale, AZ that month.) Arizona has very minimal regulations for taxis and vehicles for hire -- basically a vehicle inspections, background checks for drivers and commercial insurance. Anyone who wants to become a taxi company is welcome, no medallion required. Taxi companies are trusted to take care of the regulations for themselves. Essentially Ducey said he was going to stop enforcement of the state's existing minimal laws pertaining to private transportation until the legislators came up with replacements. Ducey's predecessor, Jan Brewer, vetoed a bill that gave personal vehicles transporting passengers for "ride sharing" an exemption from having commercial insurance - at the time Uber's insurance was "trust us, you're covered". The company I drove for spent a ton of money on their lobbyists to get that bill vetoed, and for a bill that was somewhat-fair for everyone. > Arizona was not always a friendly state for Uber. In April 2014, then-governor Jan Brewer vetoed legislation that would have exempted taxi-hailing companies from insurance regulations imposed on traditional taxis. (I believe this is a typo - the veto'd bill exempted personal vehicles used for "ride share" from the insurance regulations for taxis). The taxi company I drove for is doing fine. They've adapted, and now lease unbranded vehicles that drivers can use with any of the app-based services. Their contracts pay better than the apps' non-surge fares. One of my driver-friends said the scene on the ground is okay - fare volume is down, but quality is up (calls are from people people who really want a ride). (minor edits)

sunstone 9y ago

Move fast and break things may not be suitable for all development projects after all.

nashashmi 9y ago

I just saw the dashcam of the bicyclist getting hit. It seems like had waymo's lidar been installed, the cyclist would have been detected.