
Uber is moving its self-driving cars from San Francisco to Arizona - arikr
http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/22/14062926/uber-self-driving-car-move-arizona-san-francisco-dmv
======
fabian2k
Uber's almost pathological aversion to any form of regulation doesn't inspire
confidence. The requirements in this case seem very reasonable, detailed
accident disclosure is a reasonable thing to ask in my opinion.

My impression, based on this and other cases where Uber got in conflict with
local regulations is that they don't seem to care whether the regulations are
reasonable or not. They try to ignore them in every case.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _They try to ignore them in every case_

Other than for PR, I couldn't understand why Uber started testing in San
Francisco. It's a densely-populated and heavily-regulated city in a heavily-
regulated state.

~~~
tyre
Because that's where they are headquartered

~~~
jayjay71
Yeah, I'm thinking a lot of the engineers will be unhappy about constantly
traveling (or worse, moving) to Arizona.

Their self-driving engineers are now split among three locations: San
Francisco, Pittsburgh, and Arizona. I think that alone is going to cause
significant engineering friction. It's a lot harder to do remote work for
testing live robots (especially if they can kill people).

~~~
tyre
I'm guessing it'll be worse than a centralized team, but not too bad.

The Pittsburgh team is there because of Carnegie Mellon, so likely where the
hardware gets made. The software engineers in SF just need data from vehicles,
which doesn't require cars to be near them. The operations folks actually
going out and testing the cars can be anywhere, as long as they can stream
data back to the SW and HW folks.

~~~
Hydraulix989
The software engineers in SF are mostly doing data science-y type work or
working on UberEATS.

The self-driving car ML software is also being worked on in Pittsburgh, along
with the hardware.

~~~
jayjay71
Most of the Otto engineers are still in San Francisco, and many of them are
working on self-driving cars (in addition to trucks).

~~~
Hydraulix989
Oh yeah, I forgot about those guys. I do wonder what the dynamic is like
between those two groups now...

------
ChuckMcM
Ok, you have to love the visual pun in this image : [https://cdn0.vox-
cdn.com/thumbor/tEI5W_27WhDMteZhxakApTm3Gzk...](https://cdn0.vox-
cdn.com/thumbor/tEI5W_27WhDMteZhxakApTm3Gzk=/0x0:5327x3551/920x613/filters:focal\(2238x1350:3090x2202\)/cdn2.vox-
cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/52429987/Self_Driving_4.0.jpeg) its a self
driving truck carrying self driving cars :-)

It got me thinking about moving large fleets of self driving cars by small
numbers of individuals _without_ using a truck. And that left me with the
vision of people on motorcycles herding cars along the freeway toward their
winter grazing grounds in Arizona. :-)

~~~
chinathrow
It is also a branded truck...

PR 101.

[https://ot.to](https://ot.to)

------
xt00
Companies in the US essentially can kill somebody "accidentally" and nobody
from the company will go to jail in the majority of cases. There has to be
some sort of obvious scheme or negligence on the part of the company
leadership to result in somebody going to prison for anything more than a
trivial amount of time.

So people can complain about regulations, but they are essentially the primary
method we have to prevent companies from killing or hurting people
accidentally. Yes there are plenty of regulations that are actually not
related to human safety that are put there by other companies for the purpose
of trying to close the door behind them after they get into a strong position,
but for things like cars that are essentially interacting with intersections,
crosswalks, bikelanes, rail crossings, stopped cars, etc, having some burden
on the company who wants to put machines into these situations run by
algorithms being held accountable by way of forcing transparency, that seems
pretty damned reasonable to me and many other people. So Uber is being pretty
lame in this situation.

~~~
mbel
> Companies in the US essentially can kill somebody "accidentally" and nobody
> from the company will go to jail in the majority of cases

It certainly doesn't make things better, but really US doesn't seem to be
unique in this case. It's like that in most if not all places on this planet
(I will be delighted to be proven wrong).

------
aetherson
So, Uber:

Bloomberg says that their Q3 net revenue is 1.7B, with a loss of 800M. That
makes their overall profit margin approximately -50%.

To say that this is not a good sign is a significant understatement. Yearly
figures would be about $5.5B in revenue, loss of about $3B, so expenditures of
$8.5B.

Let's say that $2B in expenditures are essentially waste or research projects
with no very immediate prospect of return. That leaves it with a loss of -$1B
on revenues of $5.5B.

Any further expenditure cutting is going to result in loss of revenue as well
-- it's super hard to see how it could conceivably get to +$1B in net profit.
It's also super hard to see how it can really substantially increase its
revenues without yet further cutting its margins. There are no large markets
left for it to enter, so how does it entice more ridership except by cutting
fares?

But even if it did manage to get to $1B or $2B in profit, that's _not enough_.
It's allegedly a $75B company!

Uber stipulates that it shouldn't have to register its cars as self-driving,
because _they aren 't advanced enough_ to meet the definition. It compares
itself to Tesla: automated lane-keeping + adaptive cruise control. If we take
Uber at its word, that is _not_ a good sign for it to dig itself out of its
terrible revenue situation via being first to market with automated vehicles.

My guess: Uber's investors have realized that when the music stops, there are
about half as many chairs as people. They're trying to get it to pull together
some kind of IPO so they can dump at least some of their losses on public
investors, and Uber is trying to desperately spin along the pixie dust stories
until it can get itself into some shape to IPO. That means avoiding
California's reporting requirements for driverless cars because only by
claiming that they have a viable automated car program do they have some kind
of story about how they might eventually make a profit.

The sad thing is that there is almost certainly a very good, modestly-sized
company in Uber that plugs along making $100M a year in profit on $1B in
revenue as a taxi company. But they can't go back down to that company
anymore.

~~~
fullshark
I think Uber's investors still are happy with how things are going. If self-
driving car tech stalls or they start to lose market share they will get
pissed. That's basically the strategy IMO, own the ride hailing market when
self-driving tech matures. Seems doable to me but with a ton of risk factors
involved.

~~~
aetherson
Hope self-driving tech doesn't take long to mature! Even with the amount of
money they've raised, they can't stick around for five years losing $3B per
year.

~~~
stale2002
Uber is worth 75 Billion dollars and investors lining up for any chance they
can get to invest. Its runway is NOT 3 years. It is 30 years.

~~~
aetherson
It doesn't have $75B, that's its market cap. Crunchbase claims it's raised
$8.5B.

We'll see if investors continue to be as enthusiastic about investing. My bet
is "no," though obviously I could be wrong.

------
kabes
Good the DMV didn't give in. There will always be a lesser economy bragging
with lesser regulations. If you step into that race, things will turn out ugly
fast. Except if those regulations are outrageous, which they really weren't in
this case.

------
fullshark
> “Arizona welcomes Uber self-driving cars with open arms and wide open
> roads,” said Governor Ducey in a statement. “While California puts the
> brakes on innovation and change with more bureaucracy and more regulation,
> Arizona is paving the way for new technology and new businesses.”

So Uber got some sort of tax break / sweetheart deal for this? I wonder if
that was their end-game.

~~~
niftich
Ah, so that was Uber's leverage [1]. Make California and its laws look bad,
and get a PR statement from a competing state likely offering incentives (or
receiving knock-on benefits from relocation).

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13234265#13234809](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13234265#13234809)

------
eric_h
Is the $150 permit fee a typo? Given that it's likely that in the event of an
accident, Uber would already create a detailed incident review internally -
why on earth wouldn't they spend $150 and agree to submitting accident
reports?

They most certainly caved to NYC's demands that regular Ubers be registered
with a registered cab dispatcher, and I'm quite certain they can afford $150
with their current war chest.

~~~
tyre
They don't care about the fee; they don't want to report accidents.

Reporting accidents is terrible PR for a self-driving car company. If they can
hide away all their mistakes, that tells a better story for when they launch.

The biggest obstacle for self-driving cars at launch will be customers afraid
of giving over complete control. If there is a paper trail of all the times
they screwed up, even if those bugs were fixed, then they have to account for
that in everyone's mind. Similar to experienced politicians that can have
prior votes held against them.

~~~
eric_h
How can you hide accidents that occur on public, urban roads? Perhaps
accidents with very minor damage, but wouldn't any significant accident
already be reported, as the police would be involved?

~~~
tyre
Yes, but they would just be considered regular car accidents, not accidents
registered on the company's "official log of self-driving car accidents".

~~~
eric_h
I see. So the difference is really just a more easily accessible list of
accidents. I'm sure records of "regular accidents" would include descriptions
of the car involved, and a determined person could FOIA the information about
all accidents an Uber self driving car was involved in regardless, right?

~~~
sundaeofshock
FOIA? All the accident reports for autonomous vehicles are publicly accessible
via the web. Not only that, but the companies are required to document each
time the driver takes over. Again, all accessible via the web. The reporting
requirements would have doomed Uber.

------
jaypaulynice
I can't say I agree with him when it comes to the regulations, but Travis
Kalanick gave an excellent TED talk about why there was no Uber before Uber
when there was a chance:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/travis_kalanick_uber_s_plan_to_get_...](http://www.ted.com/talks/travis_kalanick_uber_s_plan_to_get_more_people_into_fewer_cars)

------
Tempest1981
Good idea -- start out in a less challenging urban environment.

------
hanman9
Totally unrelated to this; sorry for the hijack. Recently, I requested Uber
for me and my friend from SF airport to San Jose; the rate was around $52 for
two. Taken aback by high price, I opened Lyft and it quoted me $36 for two. My
friend who uses Uber quite frequently switched to Lyft almost exclusively
because of this pricing difference.

Even though I commend Uber's disruption in the Taxi space, it's actually scary
once Uber attains absolute monopoly.

~~~
Hydraulix989
I ALWAYS compare both apps. Like most ride-sharing app users, I'm highly price
sensitive and not loyal to any particular brand.

------
rblatz
I saw a self driving Uber SUV in Scottsdale yesterday on my way in to work.
Had two people in it. For the minute or so I was next to it I saw it
drastically slow down for a crosswalk[0] that crosses in the middle of a
street. Normally no one slows down there unless the pedestrian sign is lit up.

[0]
[https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4871087,-111.9428112,3a,75y,...](https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4871087,-111.9428112,3a,75y,4.78h,69.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slibIGTs-
ft0j9SFBCpPRiw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

------
wrs
If ever there was a time where I want some government regulation backing up my
right not to be killed by a buggy computer, it's when I'm sharing space with a
car that's driving itself. I don't see why Uber would want to fend for itself
in a litigation free-for-all when its prototype car kills somebody, either.
Everyone would be better off operating in a known regulatory framework.

------
codecamper
It could be a while before taxi drivers stop stepping in front of self driving
uber cars with drill in hand (slash tires, run).

~~~
r00fus
Wouldn't a camera mount and copious video (combined with a wealthy corporate
HQ) essentially derail these attempts.

Nothing beats appearing the victim of assault for public sympathy.

------
pw
I wonder how they'll get to Arizona.

------
stale2002
HAHAHA! This is perfect!

If California doesn't want those self driver car jobs, and tech investment
thats ok!

There are many other places out there that will happily accept the money,
jobs, innovation, and safety advancements that these technologies will create.

~~~
ciconia
Funny how Americans have such a pavlovian knee jerk reaction to regulation. As
a European I think a lot of your problems actually derive from not having
enough regulation: inequality, violence, lack of universal healthcare, lack of
solidarity. Too bad so many Americans are willing to sacrifice all that for
so-called "freedom".

~~~
stale2002
Americans citizens and companies have a diversity of choices.

If they like high regulation places, they can move to a liberal city. If the
citizens or companies like low regulation places, they can move to a place
more focused on these so-called freedoms.

This was demonstrated very clearly in this situation.

