6 ms·

Is AZ a significant outlier in this regard? Is AZ different enough from say, California, that Uber was incentivized to test in AZ as a way to mitigate liability

by Phlarp 8y ago

Is AZ a significant outlier in this regard? Is AZ different enough from say, California, that Uber was incentivized to test in AZ as a way to mitigate liability exposure in the event of fatal crash? I was always curious why they were testing there as opposed to somewhere closer to HQ.

JeremyBanks 8y ago
Uber was testing in multiple locations, but they originally moved it to Arizona due to less regulation than they were encountering in California: https://venturebeat.com/2016/12/22/ubers-self-driving-cars-flee-to-arizona-after-california-shutdown/ https://venturebeat.com/2016/12/22/ubers-self-driving-cars-f...
rsj_hn 8y ago
I don't know the history too well, but remember Uber refusing to get some licenses in California and opting for AZ which doesn't require the same level of licensing. Others should correct me, but that was the buzz at the time. I always thought AZ had these laws because historically a lot of retired people are there who have slower reaction times and aren't going to be doing any stunt driving swerves, and it's generally not a pedestrian or bike friendly place. They prioritize cars. When I saw the protestors a while back pouring onto freeways in the east bay, I remember thinking no way would anyone try that in AZ -- the cars would just run right over them.
- DougBTX 8y ago
  > stunt driving swerves You've put a lot of emphasis on how dangerous and crazy it would be to have not run over the pedestrian, but in other jurisdictions learning how to do an emergency stop is required for all drivers before being allowed on the road independently. There are many reasons a car might need to stop unexpectedly (including the possibility of cars in front behaving erratically) so stopping along with maintaining safe separation between cars are basic driving skills expected in many countries. From your description AZ might be an outlier though.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    > but in other jurisdictions learning how to do an emergency stop is required for all drivers before being allowed on the road independently. People learn to parallel park too. Those that don't do it regularly tend to be pretty terrible at it. The fact that people had to check a particular box at the time they got their licenses says little about what they can be expected to be able to do years after that.
masklinn 8y ago
AZ has very liberal regulation on self-driving vehicles (and cars in general), but IIRC the main factor is they have almost no oversight while California has some auditing and reporting requirements, including disengagement rates, and the CA DMV releases annual reports.
CrazyEyes 8y ago
I'm not sure about AZ laws, but it's starting to seem a lot like even Texas, where I live, has laws that favor the pedestrian more than Arizona does. I may be misinformed, but that is pretty damning if true, considering Texas' population distribution and the necessity of driving. As a permanent pedestrian, though, my day-to-day concern is more on whether or not people actually follow the local driving laws (they don't, a significant amount of the time) rather than the laws themselves.
- rsj_hn 8y ago
  I think you're right. As someone who doesn't own a car at all, I don't think the issue for accident avoidance is preventative effect of these types of laws, because even in states with pro-pedestrian laws, it's still very rare for drivers to be charged. What actually makes a difference is proper design of crosswalks, speed limits -- things like that.

by Phlarp 8y ago

JeremyBanks 8y ago

Uber was testing in multiple locations, but they originally moved it to Arizona due to less regulation than they were encountering in California: https://venturebeat.com/2016/12/22/ubers-self-driving-cars-flee-to-arizona-after-california-shutdown/ https://venturebeat.com/2016/12/22/ubers-self-driving-cars-f...

rsj_hn 8y ago

I don't know the history too well, but remember Uber refusing to get some licenses in California and opting for AZ which doesn't require the same level of licensing. Others should correct me, but that was the buzz at the time. I always thought AZ had these laws because historically a lot of retired people are there who have slower reaction times and aren't going to be doing any stunt driving swerves, and it's generally not a pedestrian or bike friendly place. They prioritize cars. When I saw the protestors a while back pouring onto freeways in the east bay, I remember thinking no way would anyone try that in AZ -- the cars would just run right over them.

DougBTX 8y ago
> stunt driving swerves You've put a lot of emphasis on how dangerous and crazy it would be to have not run over the pedestrian, but in other jurisdictions learning how to do an emergency stop is required for all drivers before being allowed on the road independently. There are many reasons a car might need to stop unexpectedly (including the possibility of cars in front behaving erratically) so stopping along with maintaining safe separation between cars are basic driving skills expected in many countries. From your description AZ might be an outlier though.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  > but in other jurisdictions learning how to do an emergency stop is required for all drivers before being allowed on the road independently. People learn to parallel park too. Those that don't do it regularly tend to be pretty terrible at it. The fact that people had to check a particular box at the time they got their licenses says little about what they can be expected to be able to do years after that.

masklinn 8y ago

AZ has very liberal regulation on self-driving vehicles (and cars in general), but IIRC the main factor is they have almost no oversight while California has some auditing and reporting requirements, including disengagement rates, and the CA DMV releases annual reports.

CrazyEyes 8y ago

I'm not sure about AZ laws, but it's starting to seem a lot like even Texas, where I live, has laws that favor the pedestrian more than Arizona does. I may be misinformed, but that is pretty damning if true, considering Texas' population distribution and the necessity of driving. As a permanent pedestrian, though, my day-to-day concern is more on whether or not people actually follow the local driving laws (they don't, a significant amount of the time) rather than the laws themselves.

rsj_hn 8y ago
I think you're right. As someone who doesn't own a car at all, I don't think the issue for accident avoidance is preventative effect of these types of laws, because even in states with pro-pedestrian laws, it's still very rare for drivers to be charged. What actually makes a difference is proper design of crosswalks, speed limits -- things like that.