
Uber continues self-driving vehicle testing in SF in defiance of DMV - uptown
https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/16/uber-continues-self-driving-vehicle-testing-in-sf-in-defiance-of-dmv/
======
rajathagasthya
> Levandowski was asked why Uber couldn’t just go test its vehicles somewhere
> else since California regulators clearly aren’t welcoming. He said that
> Uber’s engineers deserve to see their work displayed in the city where they
> work.

So it's okay to violate regulations because your engineers want to see their
work in their city?

~~~
kbenson
As much as I'm not a fan of Uber, I have to agree with the _whole_ sentiment
expressed by Uber in the article, which is that they are doing the exact same
thing Tesla is, which is having a person behind the wheel and using the
software to assist, so if Tesla isn't breaking the law, how are they?

~~~
electic
Tesla cars do not work in residential streets because it is far more difficult
to navigate autonomously than the highway.[1]

This is what Uber is doing. Frankly, Uber is reckless and someone is going to
die just so that their 2nd tier engineers can feel goey inside. They are
running through red lights, cutting off cyclists with their half-baked
products.

[1] [http://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-restricts-autopilot-on-
res...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-restricts-autopilot-on-residential-
streets-1452446300)

~~~
the_economist
I use my self driving feature on my Uber in San Francisco all the time. It's
an extra safety assurance against hitting a pedestrian.

------
Animats
I thought well of Levandowski, whom I've met, until this.

This is typical of Uber's "blame the driver and avoid liability" approach. If
Uber signs up for DMV's testing program, Uber posts a $5M bond and accepts
liability. With Uber's plan, the driver has to pay, if they're not an
employee. Uber's manuvering here is probably so they can have contractors
drive their self-driving cars without Uber taking on liability. Uber already
tries to dump as much liability as possible on the driver.[1]

Tesla doesn't sell "autopilot" any more.[2] The original system was way under-
sensored and responsible for at least four major crashes. (I've posted links
to the videos before.) Newer Tesla cars come with better sensors, but without
the software to use them. Tesla hopes to return with full self-driving, but so
far, they're still testing and issuing press releases. Tesla's crashes are
still in litigation in several countries, and an NTSB investigation is in
progress.

[1]
[https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=37714](https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=37714)
[2] [http://www.businessinsider.com/musk-tesla-remove-some-
autopi...](http://www.businessinsider.com/musk-tesla-remove-some-autopilot-
features-new-cars-update-2016-10)

~~~
KKKKkkkk1
Do you really believe that engineers working in Uber's self-driving division
sign the same contract as the guy who's moonlighting with his Prius?

~~~
Animats
The people who drive Google's self-driving cars aren't engineers. Uber's
drivers are even less likely to be; they're driving actual customers.

------
kin
So Tesla is doing this thing where they're running in the background and
logging data of decisions that they would make vs. what actually happens.

I'm wondering if Uber did the same thing at all. Because at the moment, it
sure doesn't feel like it. Anecdotally I've heard many stories from friends in
the area encounter autonomous Ubers committing traffic violations like running
red lights.

~~~
tyingq
This story seems to be similar: [http://www.sfbike.org/news/a-warning-to-
people-who-bike-self...](http://www.sfbike.org/news/a-warning-to-people-who-
bike-self-driving-ubers-and-right-hook-turns/)

~~~
dawnerd
So this is interesting. I grew up in California but now live in Oregon.

The laws here are a bit different than they are in California:

• Do not drive in a bike lane. You may cross a bike lane when turning or when
entering or leaving an alley, driveway, or private road.

• Do not move into or travel in a bike lane in preparation for a turn.

Makes me wonder how these cars are going to handle individual state laws like
this.

~~~
greenyoda
_" Makes me wonder how these cars are going to handle individual state laws
like this."_

Actually, traffic laws can even be specific to a city.

\- In NY City: No right turn on red, unless otherwise posted.

\- In the rest of NY State: Right turn permitted on red, unless otherwise
posted.

------
MaysonL
If one of their autonomous vehicles kills somebody while running a red light,
it could well be the end of Uber. Kalanick should probably be fired at this
point.

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
In that case, could Kalanick also be charged with manslaughter?

~~~
jayjay71
Oddly enough, the answer might be yes. Tesla is under investigation by the
NHTSA for their fatal autopilot crash some months ago, in addition to a
homicide investigation by the Florida Highway Patrol.

I really doubt anything criminal will be brought against Tesla, but it at
least sets a precedent for an investigation. Considering Uber's complete
refusal to follow regulation, it seems you could argue they're being negligent
and if someone dies that might be interpreted as manslaughter (I am not a
lawyer). At the very least, I'm sure it will be a PR nightmare and a huge
court case that would put a chink in their armor.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-gets-extension-in-
nhtsa...](http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-gets-extension-in-nhtsa-
investigation-2016-8)

------
supercanuck
>Asked if Uber was trying to avoid disclosing accidents involving its self-
driving cars, as permit holders are required to do, Levandowski denied this

...and now we see why. I'm not sure why journalists attempt to pin "intent."
Enough with this "gotcha" bullshit.

Simply inform the public that one of the consequences of Uber's decision to
circumvent the law is that they don't have to report accidents which then
provides an advantage over its competitors.

simple.

~~~
mannykannot
It is very reasonable, and good journalism, to ask about motives.

If it were reported as you suggest, Levandowski would probably complain of
being the victim of innuendo. Providing the responses are accurately reported,
asking about motives helps to protect the innocent while possibly stripping
the guilty of cover, at least if they end up contradicting themselves.

------
niftich
Company that rose to prominence by ignoring regulation ignores regulation.

------
ztratar
Uber's tactics here are really nothing short of disgusting.

~~~
conanbatt
Its noticeable for me how visceral the reaction to disobeying government is
for lots of people. But i think its important to have actors that do it.

Argentina had an Uber-copy cat that played very nice with regulators: from day
one they were working with officials and lawyers and were totally legal. They
started to pick up demand and the gov. suddently passed a law specifically
banning a way to ask cabs that only affected that company. They were crushed
by the state one day to another, when they played as nice as they could have.

AFter that I realize that Uber's strategy is necessary. The guys that played
nice got their assess kicked.

~~~
Apocryphon
There's different degrees to disobeying government. There's disobeying
regulation that protects rent-seeking entrenched dinosaur industries. And
there's disobeying rules that protect pedestrians from being run over by red-
light speeding autonomous vehicles.

~~~
nerfhammer
I can choose whether uber is a suitable replacement for a regular cab for
myself. But I can't choose whether I would or would not like to share a
crosswalk with one of their self-driving cars.

~~~
conanbatt
I cant choose to ban cars completely off the streets, even though they pose a
real danger to me and an economic cost.

------
louprado
Previously Uber seemed indifferent to the law. Yesterday they broke the law
(by running a red light). And today they deliberately defy the law.

So for now I'll stop using Uber... at least for 30 days.

------
jpalomaki
Some reasons why Uber might want to fight this:

\- Agreeing that they are doing testing, would probably make it more difficult
to move to "production" \- when do these testing requirements end?

\- The California regulations are quite light, but other cities might come up
with more complicated requirements. Agreeing in California would set a
precedent and make it harder to avoid complying in other cities.

\- There's requirements for the test driver. These might be difficult for Uber
if they want to use semi autonomous cars in normal business. There is for
example requirements for specific training, driver has to be employee or
contractor of the company etc.

\- If they agreed to apply for testing permit, it might be that the permit is
declined or later suspended.

\- As others have stated, not having to disclose the accidents and other
statistics might allow them to avoid bad publicity and keep stuff hidden from
competitors.

\- Looks like one part of the requirements is to enroll into "Employer pull
notice program". I don't think that applies just for test vehicle drivers.
Would this have some implications for company like Uber?
[https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_...](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_content_en/dmv/vehindustry/epn/epngeninfo)

------
Xeoncross
I assume they are doing this so that they can try to change public and
government option in the hopes that part of CA will support Uber.

 _Cool! Look at that! See, the 're safe! I want to try!_

------
ArlenBales
Does anyone know why Uber didn't get a $150 permit?

They've been working on autonomous vehicles for awhile, obviously they knew
about the permit requirement months if not years ahead of time. Are they
trying to set some sort of precedent, or are there hidden fees or restrictions
people aren't talking about that Uber is trying to avoid?

~~~
maxerickson
The permit is for testing purposes only.

So I think if they are charging for the rides they aren't really just testing
the system.

There's also a bunch of requirements about formally reporting incidents and so
on.

------
salimmadjd
How much of this is about getting free press? As a result the self-driving
story is constantly hitting the press.

------
jordache
Really sick of this company.

------
univalent
I wonder if these vehicles are programmed to pull over when cops flash their
lights/sirens? Do they accept tickets? Can they be towed without the vehicle
rebelling (har!)?

Interested in how enforcement by the DMV would work beyond working with Uber
at the corporate level.

~~~
detaro
They have drivers on board which probably don't want to deal with the
consequences of not reacting to police.

Is the possibility that the car could be driving autonomous enough to pull
them over, and how to actually prove that was? (Presumably having self-driving
hardware fitted isn't illegal, just using it might be?)

~~~
xsmasher
According to the DMV, having self-driving hardware is enough to require a
permit (the permit that Uber doesn't have / claims they don't need).

If the police want to sidestep that argument, I'm sure the police could find
something like "failure be in control of the vehicle" to cite the drivers
with, if they see that they're not touching the wheel.

------
robbrown451
I want to know if the red light run caught on video was while the car was in
self driving mode. Of course there was a human in there, and Uber blames them,
but what role did the self driving play? Was it a case where the self driving
software messed up and the human didn't catch it in time?

If so this is a pretty big deal. Wouldn't you expect the very first people
they put in these things to be competent people that were doing their best?
This would indicate to me that it isn't realistic to expect the humans to jump
in that quickly.

There's a dude stepping out into the crosswalk, fer Chrissake.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _Wouldn 't you expect the very first people they put in these things to be
> competent people that were doing their best?_

I recently mentioned on another thread that I think the primary purpose of
that driver is not safety, but to absorb culpability in the event that the
tech fails.

I just don't think it's reasonable to expect any human to reliably perform the
task of correcting the vehicle. Imagine sitting at the wheel in a passive mode
for an hour as the car performs flawlessly. Then, in one intersection, it
suddenly malfunctions. Now, you are supposed to a) recognize that it's failing
and b) suddenly take corrective action--all in, perhaps, a split second?

When you're controlling the vehicle, you know your intent. When you are
"monitoring" you must assess the vehicle's intent. Even if you do so perfectly
there is, by definition, some delay. That delay could be costly.

~~~
robbrown451
Yeah, completely agree on how it is unrealistic to expect them to correct in
such a situation.

I would think, though, that they'd still be smart enough to put someone
competent in there. Because if there is an accident, it is still going to look
bad on them and the tech. (and of course this supports what you are saying,
that it simply isn't reasonable to expect them to do that)

~~~
Tempest1981
Agreed. There is still a chance the human will see something that the vision-
system misses -- like the red light far off to the side. The human may
instinctively hit the brakes to avoid hitting someone/something.

------
williamle8300
Uber is like the "brah" of all Silicon Valley startups. They just don't care
about anything because they're too sloshed from all the beer pong.

------
ameister14
It's interesting to me to read the comments here; so many references to
'running red lights' as if it was a common thing and not one reported instance
where Uber says the driver was controlling the vehicle and there was no
passenger. Was there some development there I missed and it turns out none of
the cars recognize traffic lights?

------
yarou
Who's going to stop them?

------
pinkrooftop
Legislation arbitrage

------
maverick_iceman
I just love the brazen in-your-face audacity of this company. :)

------
marcrosoft
In the long run regulation (read artificial market manipulation) hurts
everyone. Law/regulation (as well intentioned as it may be) always moves
slower than people's wants and needs.

~~~
dontreact
What about cases where the free market is known to poorly allocate resources?
I'm talking about negative externalities and public goods.

As a concrete example, take regulation regarding pollution that is known to be
harmful to humans and therefore have a large cost. The free market will not
generally take this cost into account.

~~~
marcrosoft
If the public majority want to favor the environment over cheap rides that's
fine. I just want the public to decide unanimously with their dollars. If
pollution becomes a large enough problem to sway the public at large to
reallocate their dollars I firmly believe they will react in each individual's
best interest.

------
nodesocket
I'm going to be going against the echo chamber here, but I traveled around
Europe and South America for five months recently (digital nomad)... The
common question was "...why do you think the US/Silicon Valley has the
technology and opportunities that it does...". My honest answer... Less
regulation and an attitude of do what it takes to be successful in the early
days. The hustle.

I think people underestimate how cut-throat technology and business is,
especially in the market Uber is in. Uber is doing what is takes to be
successful. Ultimately you have to ask yourself, who is going to have the best
and brightest minds, lawyers, and lobbyist.... Uber or the Government?

