A majority of the US population feels that following the law is its own reward, regardless of what the law is. In my experience as a foreigner, this attitude is much more prevalent in the US than elsewhere (except maybe for northern Europe). But there is also a significant fraction that would support and even root for those who are intentionally breaking a law that is unnecessary or unjust. This is the sentiment that Uber is trying to appeal to.
In the case of the California DMV, the argument I would make in favor of Uber is that licensing for autonomous-vehicle testing by the DMV is unnecessary red tape. If an autonomous-vehicle company is being reckless and is endangering people, there are already plenty of laws on the books to stop and punish such a company.
> In the case of the California DMV, the argument I would make in favor of Uber is that licensing for autonomous-vehicle testing by the DMV is unnecessary red tape. If an autonomous-vehicle company is being reckless and is endangering people, there are already plenty of laws on the books to stop and punish such a company.
As I understand it the "red tape" is $150 per vehicle plus essentially giving DMV and the state a heads up via some paperwork (i.e. DMV isn't really rejecting anyone). Is it more than that?
That is all good when it's the first to do it like google was back in the day. These days everyone and their dog is doing a self driving car so they have to fall in line with the rules.
In the case of the California DMV, the argument I would make in favor of Uber is that licensing for autonomous-vehicle testing by the DMV is unnecessary red tape. If an autonomous-vehicle company is being reckless and is endangering people, there are already plenty of laws on the books to stop and punish such a company.