
Uber is stubbornly refusing to apply for a $150 permit for its self-driving cars - ryan_j_naughton
http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/16/13990318/uber-refusing-permit-self-driving-car-california-dmv
======
fludlight
It's not about paying $150, but about agreeing to additional regulation, which
businesses generally don't want. Uber might actually prevail, since tech is
the most vibrant sector in the Northern California economy and all the local
politicians want a local company, not one in Michigan, to bring this tech to
fruition.

Edit: I don't understand the downvotes. I'm not saying that regulation is bad,
just that businesses are generally anti-regulation. I'm also not saying that
the California DMV should or should not regulate self-driving cars, just that
the government might give them a pass.

~~~
veidr
Laws are not something that corporations or citizens have to agree with. They
apply regardless.

This is the equivalent of Uber deciding not to pay its federal taxes. Sure, it
could concoct a theory that the corporate income tax "doesn't apply to Uber",
and in theory there's a possibility that the IRS might somehow agree. In
practice, however, there is none.

The major difference here is simply that the penalties for failing to pay
taxes are well-defined and severe, while the penalties for failing to obtain a
state permit for autonomous vehicle testing are not. Uber is betting on the
eventual penalties for their (flagrant and straightforward) violation of these
laws will end up being something they prefer over making the relevant
disclosures required by the permit.

~~~
jasode
_> Laws are not something that corporations or citizens have to agree with.
They apply regardless._

That simplistic reductionism is not true. There are concepts of civil
disobedience.[1] History has shown that many laws (e.g. copyright laws, sodomy
laws, Jim Crow laws) are more like an ongoing dialogue/battle between the
citizens and government for universal compliance. Other laws such as homocide
seem more stable for straightforward compliance without controversy.

The DMV didn't write the autonomous vehicle laws -- they are _interpreting_ it
-- to their benefit. Likewise, Uber didn't write the law either, they are also
_interpreting_ it -- to their benefit.

Those 2 interpretations differ. I have no idea who is "more correct" in their
interpretation. The DMV may have the last word and win. We don't know yet.

 _> This is the equivalent of Uber deciding not to pay its federal taxes._

No, the analogy is somebody _disagreeing_ with a government agency's
_interpretation_ of the law. An example would be a taxpayer who disagreed with
IRS and won the case.[2]

It's similar to one entity claiming that early VCR users taping shows were
"breaking the law."[3] If VCR consumers and Sony disagree and say it's "fair
use", responding to that with _" copyright laws apply to everybody
regardless"_ doesn't actually analyze the differing _interpretations_.
Eventually, the consumers and Sony got the Supreme Court to agree with their
interpretation by a very close 5-4 majority ruling.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience)

[2] [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/arts/design/tax-court-
rul...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/arts/design/tax-court-ruling-is-
seen-as-a-victory-for-artists.html)

[3] Betamax "fair use" Supreme Court ruling:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc).

------
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

Should have just opened the article with this.

~~~
dullgiulio
He is not exactly without bias. Should we just take his word for it?

------
grogenaut
This got me thinking, how does a police officer tell a self driving vehicle to
pull over? Or do they have to pull out the road strips? Does the car just keep
going when it's been disabled? Do they have to do a bump turn?

How do they react and get out of the way of an emergency vehicle?

~~~
fred256
AFAIK all the self-driving cars currently on the road still have a human at
the wheel to take over in cases like these.

~~~
KKKKkkkk1
Waymo's demo video showed a blind man traveling alone in their vehicle.

~~~
agildehaus
Their video from 2012 also showed the same man (Steve Mahan) and it also
showed the car going through a Taco Bell drive thru on its own.

It's going to be some time before both of them are reality.

------
zodiac
I'm not sure why so many people here are ignoring Levandowski's stated reason
for not applying for the permit / downvoting people who agree with him,
without explaining why they think Levandowski's argument is incorrect. This
isn't a case of them willfully disobeying a regulation, it's them disagreeing
with the regulating agency about the interpretation of the regulation.

And this disagreement isn't a necessarily a bad thing; I think the regulation
is unclear, and in such cases the only way to "clarify" it is to wait for the
regulating body to sue you and have both sides present their arguments in
court. (You can't just ask them to clarify it, as they have no obligation to
respond).

------
detaro
front page:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13198079](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13198079)

------
tomc1985
His analogies don't make any sense. Tesla's 'autopilot' is much more narrow in
scope than self-driving taxis.

------
hlandau
I think I agree with Uber on this one.

Self-driving functionality, at least for the time being, is a tool used by a
human operator to achieve their objectives with regard to the vehicle. This is
distinct from a vehicle with no driver, for which regulation is obviously
necessary. It's no different from a pilot using autopilot. If someone wanted
to make an unmanned passenger plane, there'd need to be huge regulatory
changes (not saying it's necessarily a good idea), but pilots use autopilot
all the time without great regulatory upheaval, because it's just a tool the
pilot is using to fly the plane as they wish.

So long as a human operator is in control of, and responsible for, the
vehicle, it shouldn't matter in particular what method they use to operate it.

~~~
tadfisher
Interesting choice of example, considering the relative level of regulation
between the aviation and automotive industries.

The use of "autopilot" in aviation is not without controversy, and there are a
number of schools of thought on the spectrum between "it saves lives" and "it
dumbs down pilots and kills people". FWIW, the FAA at least requires a
functioning autopilot (or "automatic altitude control system") when flying in
RVSM airspace, or the altitude where most commercial jets fly, so regulation
is on the side of automation here.

------
Hondor
The definition is:

"any vehicle equipped with technology that has the capability of operating or
driving the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a
natural person..." [1]

Seems like Uber is right as long as their cars can't function without drivers,
which is probably true.

[1]
[https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/d48f347b-8815-458e...](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/d48f347b-8815-458e-9df2-5ded9f208e9e/adopted_txt.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&amp;CONVERT_TO=url&amp;CACHEID=d48f347b-8815-458e-9df2-5ded9f208e9e)

~~~
fabianhjr
> without the active physical control

As in not turning the steering wheel or pushing the gas or break pedals?
Because that sounds like what Uber's Self Driving car does. (Even on the
promotional videos, the "drivers"/testers are not turning the steering wheel.

~~~
Msurrow
You're only quoting part of the statement.

> without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person...

Its the physical control OR monitoring of a human. Ubers cars may not require
[human] active physical control, but it does require monitoring of a human and
so this doesn't apply to Ubers cars.

~~~
fabianhjr
Well, every single self-driving car bein tested requires the monitoring of a
person. Google Self-Driving car for example. (And even Tesla has the permit)

------
chillingeffect
I wonder if AI-enabled taxis will use machine image-editing techniques to
synthesize false evidence against each other in the future? :)

------
KKKKkkkk1
Regardless of whether Uber is right or wrong, what benefit does the public
derive from this $150 permitting process?

~~~
swyman
It covers the costs of ensuring the applicant meets the agreed-upon regulatory
requirements. Next question.

~~~
marcrosoft
Agreed upon by whom? I certainly didn't agree on this.

~~~
atonse
No but you probably voted for someone who helped put those rules in place. (Or
maybe you didn't, but the point is that we "hire" others by voting, to sweat
the details)

~~~
marcrosoft
That system sucks :(

~~~
learc83
You want to put every single traffic regulation to a vote?

~~~
marcrosoft
I wouldn't want someone else making these choices for me so yes, yes I would.

~~~
rev_bird
To be frank, you'd probably be terrible at it. All of us would, if only
because lots of rules and regulations deal with more nuance than anyone could
be reasonably expected to understand, if they had to vote on _everything_.
That's why we have government committees staffed with people to research this
stuff. I wish I could be that involved in things, but there are real,
complicated considerations at play, not just, "Hm, given the choice between
these two paragraphs, I can pick one and everything will work out."

------
programmarchy
DMV is stubbornly insisting on higher taxation of life-saving innovation.

~~~
Mtinie
$150?

~~~
programmarchy
Just pointing out the spin.

To be honest, I don't really like Uber the company all that much. But I do
appreciate their irreverent attitude towards meddling bureaucrats.

On principle, would you give a bully your lunch money? It's only $5...

~~~
thewhitetulip
I really don't think they are doing it for the money, it is probably being
done aso that they do don't have to disclose accidents, they don't even
disclose self driving car % as per the article + they call out that Tesla
doesn't require it, that's apples to oranges and the article also states that
Tesla does have the permit.

------
devereaux
And I'm very glad Uber is doing that!

The DMVs need valid "reasons" to extract money. With human drivers, they can
argue a database record must be maintained for traffic violations, a new
license reissued every N years, etc. This is "plausible deniability", because
there is no reason why it would cost tens of dollars per row in a database.

With self driving cars, plausible deniability goes away. There is no reason
whatsoever. If the algorithm does not follow traffic laws, it won't be allowed
on the road.

Another nice thing to notice: the DMV is double dipping. I mean, one fee for
the self-driving car, another fee for the human behind the wheel, what a
profitable operation! But why exactly? What kind of good services is it
offering? None at all.

Self driving cars could mean the end of DMVs, and I would see that as a very
good thing.

~~~
Mtinie
I pay more for a minimally-sized instance for a non-trafficked web app on
DigitalOcean every year. Uber has no legitimate reason to not pay the fee,
regardless of the validity. This is just a company attempting to "screw the
Man", even though they are basically the peak representation of SV Man.

~~~
devereaux
It's not about the $ amount.

I respect and admire their attempt to "screw the man."

~~~
trome
So you hate civilized society and think companies should be able to do
whatever they want?

