
Uber stops self-driving pilot in SF after DMV revokes its cars' registrations - mrjaeger
http://www.recode.net/2016/12/21/14049064/uber-self-driving-pilot-san-francisco-dmv-revoke
======
mmel
Why is Uber so belligerent when it comes to complying with laws of the land? I
can't think of any other corporation that so blatantly acts in the manner of,
"we don't like that law, we're going to ignore it or flaunt it". I know other
large corporations will use lobbyists to get laws changed to suit their wants,
but Uber just acts as if the law doesn't apply to them in the first case.

In Australia, they single-handedly managed to get themselves their operation
legalized, while running as an illegal taxi service in the interim. Only minor
fines were applied in a couple of cases prior to the governments rolling over
for them, and I think even these applied to the Uber drivers, not to Uber
themselves.

~~~
Fricken
Obviously Uber has some sort of trick up their sleeve, they're not doing this
just to be cowboys, they're way smarter than that.

In a conference call to journalists the other day, Anthony Levandowski said
"It’s hard to understand why the DMV would seek to require self-driving Ubers
to get permits when it accepts that Tesla’s autopilot technology does not need
them."

Now that Uber has an excuse to take the California DMV to court, they may be
able to make the case that according to the wording of DMV regulations, all
individual Teslas using autopilot are in fact testing vehicles, and if they do
not require a permit, then neither does Uber. Then Uber will be able to test
free from the scrutiny of the DMV, or else all users of autopilot need to get
testing permits as well.

Or some such nonsense.

~~~
jayjay71
I do not know Uber's plan, but assuming they're too smart to do something dumb
is pretty silly. Everybody makes mistakes, especially companies that may have
become arrogant after years of getting their way with little effort.

And besides that, Tesla does have a permit, so that argument quickly becomes
very messy and I don't see how it could rule in favor of Uber. If every driver
needs the permit (as opposed to every corporation) , that applies to Uber as
well. They'd effectively be making the legislation more onerous against
themselves.

~~~
Fricken
Uber has gotten it's way with a great deal of effort, and a world class legal
team who are veterans by now at pushing around regulators. My theory may be
incorrect, but I assure you, they've calculated their outs.

Tesla the company has a permit, individual Tesla users do not. If Uber had to
get a $150 testing permit, well big deal. If every Tesla driver had to get a
permit, that would be a meltdown for Tesla and Tesla owners.

~~~
abduhl
I don't think this is true. The average Tesla costs what, $75000? $150 is 0.2%
of the purchase price. People buying Teslas aren't people who are bothered by
a $150 bar tab, let alone a $150 permit. In addition, many of them have
emotional buy-in at this point (aka they have drank the Elon Kool-Aid) and
driving a Tesla is as much a part of their identity as anything else. They
won't be bothered by paying for a permit or having to go to the DMV to get
one.

~~~
guan
I believe Tesla charges at least $3,000 extra for self-driving Autopilot
package. If it comes to it, they might be willing to just reimburse California
residents the $150.

------
danso
> _In California an autonomous vehicle is defined as having the capability of
> driving “without the active physical control or monitoring” of a person. The
> state allows for the driving and testing of autonomous vehicles on public
> roadways, but requires the operator to obtain a $150 permit to drive in the
> state._

16 test vehicles. $150 for each permit. Is the refusal to register some kind
of moral stance?

~~~
veidr
Another HN thread[1] revealed that the permit not only costs $150, but also
mandates that Uber report accidents. (And other stuff?)

[1]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13198277](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13198277)

~~~
danso
I believe self-reporting of accidents was a regulation that Google had to
operate under. Funny enough, I just checked where they used to have their
monthly accident reports but now it's just a Waymo landing page:

[https://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/reports/](https://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/reports/)

Internet archive snapshot:

[https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20161011014050/https://www....](https://web-
beta.archive.org/web/20161011014050/https://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/reports)

Sample report (PDF) [https://web-
beta.archive.org/web/20161213211933/http://stati...](https://web-
beta.archive.org/web/20161213211933/http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en//selfdrivingcar/files/reports/report-0516.pdf)

~~~
schiffern
The official accident reports are still available, as they always have been,
on the California DMV's website.[1]

I remember only a few months ago folks were holding up Google as the model for
SDC transparency.[2] How times change!

[1]
[https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/auton...](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/autonomousveh_ol316+)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12082893](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12082893)

------
chrismealy
Uber's self-driving cars are garbage and they're creating this little drama to
fool dumb investors into thinking it's just local government holding them
back.

~~~
mslate
Are they wrong?

~~~
btian
Yes. Government regulation didn't cause Uber's car to beat red light.

~~~
Navarr
It was my understanding that a human driver did that.

~~~
John23832
No, the human driver could have _corrected_ the car by stopping at the light.
But the autonomous car _choose_ to run through the light. That's on Uber's
development team.

------
captaincrowbar
The likely reason Uber wouldn't play ball is that they wanted to be able to
carry paying passengers in their test vehicles, which probably wouldn't be
allowed under the test regulations, or even if it was, would leave them open
to much more liability if there was an accident.

~~~
akira2501
That's probably part of it, but the DMV seems to consider it a "manufacturers
testing permit," which means that Volvo would have to be substantially
involved in the process on Uber's behalf as they do not already have a permit
of their own. [0]

The draft rules also require quite a bit of insurance and items like
"autonomous test driver training programs" to be in place for a legal
operation. [1]

[0]:
[https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testi...](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testing)

[1]:
[https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/211897ae-c58a-4f28...](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/211897ae-c58a-4f28-a2b7-03cbe213e51d/avexpressterms_93016.pdf?MOD=AJPERES)

------
cdolan92
Appears to me that Uber just really did not want to allow a government to
dictate _what_ exactly their vehicle & technology actually is. I wonder if
their logic is that by applying, they've set a precedent that their vehicle is
fully autonomous, and also that local governments can now try to regulate them
under this area.

They already fought the existing taxicab legislation, I think they're trying
to outrun/ignore autonomous car legislation for as long as possible.

------
usaphp
Do Tesla drivers have to get that permit as well, a lot of them drive their
cars on highways “without the active physical control or monitoring” too?

~~~
iopq
They're supposed to have active physical control and monitoring. That's the
difference, Tesla is not a fully self-driving car.

~~~
invisible
Aren't there uber drivers still that are suppose to monitor the situation? How
is that different except the government is upset?

~~~
BryantD
Tesla is very carefully keeping within the definition of a level 2 autonomous
vehicle. For example, Teslas won't shift lanes automatically -- the driver has
to tell it to shift lanes. Similarly, Tesla drivers are supposed to keep their
hands on the wheel at all times.

The Ubers are level 3 -- the car is responsible for monitoring and making
decisions. Significant difference.

~~~
invisible
I definitely should have drawn that conclusion as well - I guess I'm just
thinking about the logical progression of vehicles. Eventually Tesla will
reach level 3 as well. Does it really make sense for each of those be
registered differently with additional associated fees and monitoring? I don't
know but it definitely errs on the side of exerting control.

------
100ideas
It seems like Uber wanted this to happen. But why?

~~~
jsjohnst
My thoughts exactly. I just can't fathom an angle where this works out to
their advantage. From what I've seen, this permit is literally a formality, so
did they just not want to test in California?

~~~
yladiz
They probably want to be able to blame someone else (the DMV) for the reasons
they're not actively testing in CA. I wouldn't be surprised to see a
proposition next year that wants to allow companies to test their autonomous
vehicles without permits, with Uber pushing millions of dollars into
advertising into it.

~~~
labster
Millions for a ballot battle sounds way cheaper than paying $250 per car while
in a testing phase? Were they planning to use more than 8000 autopiloted cars
like this in the near future?

It'd be cheaper to lobby the legislature anyway, I bet they could get their
bill out of the Waze and Means Committee.

~~~
yladiz
That argument doesn't really work considering Uber (along with Lyft) spent a
combined $8MM in Austin fighting fingerprinting legislation when it would have
been significantly cheaper to just fingerprint their drivers.

~~~
labster
So basically Uber and Lyft are just bad at business. Right. I'll adjust my
investments accordingly.

~~~
jsjohnst
Uber will lose over 3 billion dollars this year. It lost 2 billion last year.
Personally, that should influence your investments more than them avoiding a
$150 permit or an attempt to avoid invading their drivers rights more than
they already do.

------
iloveluce
At $150 a permit, Uber likely did this to get a ton of free publicity. Judging
from the number of articles I've read, it seems to have worked to their
advantage.

~~~
jayjay71
It all seemed like really bad publicity though. Everything I saw described
Uber as reckless and having subpar technology.

~~~
jskopek
It might make sense if they assumed that they'd be successful. If the press
spends all their time talking about how Uber is flaunting the rules by putting
out a self driving car into their fleet and all the while this thing performs
perfectly, it's fantastic press.

They probably just assumed that their cars weren't going to run red lights and
terrorize bicyclists.

