SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the doesn't-anybody-drive-themself-anymore dept.
Uber, the master of routing around regulations and exploiting legal loopholes, has found a rather big hole undermining a letter recently sent by the California Department of Motor Vehicles demanding that the company obtain a permit to test "self-driving cars" in San Francisco. Uber is arguing that the cars it plans to use in San Francisco are not truly autonomous and thus don't require a permit to operate:
Uber's position is that the semi-autonomous car system it is testing here is really no different from current advanced driver assistance systems available now for owners of Teslas and other cars that help with parking and collision avoidance. In that light, Uber doesn't believe it needs a permit because what it's working on doesn't meet the DMV requirements for a truly autonomous vehicle, which would be one that drives without the active, physical control or monitoring of a human being.
The permitting process "doesn't apply to us" because "you don't need to get belts and suspenders or whatever else if you're wearing a dress," Anthony Levandowski, who runs Uber's autonomous car programs, said in a press call Friday afternoon. "We cannot in good conscience" comply with a regulation that the company doesn't believe applies to it, he said.
The DMV cease-and-desist letter said that under the California Vehicle Code, an autonomous vehicle must have a permit to ensure that "those testing the vehicle have provided an adequate level of financial responsibility, have adequately trained qualified test drivers on the safe operation of the autonomous technology; and will notify the DMV when the vehicles have been involved in a collision." If Uber does not confirm immediately that it will stop its launch and seek a testing permit, DMV will initiate legal action, DMV attorney Brian Soublet wrote in a letter addressed to Levandowski.
The Uber "self-driving cars" will have not one, but two people at the front capable of taking control of the car.
Previously: Uber to Begin Picking Up Passengers With Autonomous Cars Next Month
Former Uber Employee Claims Widespread Privacy Problems
Uber's Self-Driving Cars to be Tested in San Francisco
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday December 18 2016, @09:24PM
OP asserted that Uber and Amazon were removing "thousands and even millions of jobs". If that's right it's a good thing. It's inevitable that's what will happen eventually, when it happens is anyone's guess.
Uber may be a shockingly good deal for someone who wrote up, yet strangely other companies don't seem to have the same success. Uber succeeds in the UK, in London especially, because of how shockingly bad the taxi trade is. Expensive is one thing, but operating under the table (try to pay with a card, or get a receipt? Hah!), refusing fares because of the stereotypical "they don't go south of the river", the racist yabberings, and having to stand on a wet street corner trying to get one. Same in New York - yellow cabs there are awful, although at least they're cheap.
If someone came up with something that worked as well as Uber, but only took 10% of the fare, the drivers could get paid 10% more, and the price could be 10% lower, this would swing much of Uber's $10b revenue, leading to a health $500m profit. Per year. However nobody has managed that, so I suspect that's it's more than just an app.
I suspect that the existence of Uber in a market may well increase the number of taxi rides taken thanks to the price and ease of use, and probably reduces the number of cars driven (I'll uber back from the station rather than have someone drive out to get me thanks to the ease and certainty) and makes it easier to go out in town (boosting the entertainment economy), as it removes barriers to transport. That's a good thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2016, @09:55PM
Uber succeeds in the UK, in London especially, because of how shockingly bad the taxi trade is.
Or, alternate viewpoint, Uber "succeeds" because they blow billions of investor dollars each year [bloomberg.com] subsidizing the fees drivers receive just long enough to push yellow cabs into bankruptcy.
Seriously you need to do some research before you go all randian about disruption and shit.