from the driverless-cars-are-more-useful-than-carless-drivers dept.
According to c|net, Uber is preparing to launch self-driving cars in San Francisco, as it has done in Pittsburgh:
Uber's self-driving cars, accompanied by a human driver, have been traveling on the streets of San Francisco for the last three to four months. The company has said the cars are being used solely to collect data for maps. Mapping streets is part of readying autonomous vehicles for the open road, so they can identify routes and learn to detect obstacles.
Uber isn't saying when it's going to roll out its self-driving cars to passengers in San Francisco. The company declined to comment for this story. But CNET has learned that Uber will officially launch the program on Wednesday; we also learned that Uber worked in partnership with Volvo to develop the self-driving cars.
As of September, Uber didn't have a permit to run autonomous cars in California. It's unclear if the Department of Motor Vehicles has since given the company a permit. The DMV didn't return requests for comment.
So far, Uber's self-driving cars are available in only one US city -- Pittsburgh. After 18 months of testing, the company launched a small fleet of autonomous vehicles in September in the city. Now when riders hail an Uber there, they have a chance of being picked up in a self-driving car that's accompanied by a "safety driver." Uber said it plans to have 100 self-driving cars in Pittsburgh by the end of the year.
Also at The Verge .
Related Stories
Uber will pick up ride-hailing passengers with autonomous cars in a test beginning in Pittsburgh next month. Pittsburgh is the home of Carnegie Mellon University:
Starting later this month, Uber will allow customers in downtown Pittsburgh to summon self-driving cars from their phones, crossing an important milestone that no automotive or technology company has yet achieved. Google, widely regarded as the leader in the field, has been testing its fleet for several years, and Tesla Motors offers Autopilot, essentially a souped-up cruise control that drives the car on the highway. Earlier this week, Ford announced plans for an autonomous ride-sharing service. But none of these companies has yet brought a self-driving car-sharing service to market.
Uber's Pittsburgh fleet, which will be supervised by humans in the driver's seat for the time being, consists of specially modified Volvo XC90 sport-utility vehicles outfitted with dozens of sensors that use cameras, lasers, radar, and GPS receivers. Volvo Cars has so far delivered a handful of vehicles out of a total of 100 due by the end of the year. The two companies signed a pact earlier this year to spend $300 million to develop a fully autonomous car that will be ready for the road by 2021.
Uber also acquired self-driving truck startup Otto.
It is not clear whether Uber users will be able to opt out of getting the surprise autonomous Volvo SUVs sent to them (due to privacy or safety concerns), but rides in the autonomous cars will be free during the Pittsburgh test.
Also at NYT, WSJ, TechCrunch, and The Verge.
Previously: Uber Testing Driverless Car in Pittsburgh
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
Uber plans to purchase 24,000 Volvo XC90 SUVs between 2019 and 2021. The number is set to change:
Uber has entered into an agreement with carmaker Volvo to purchase 24,000 of its XC90 SUVs between 2019 and 2021 to form a fleet of autonomous vehicles, according to Bloomberg News. The XC90 is the base of Uber's latest-generation self-driving test car, which features sensors and autonomous driving computing capability installed by Uber after purchase on the XC90 vehicle.
The deal is said to be worth around $1.4 billion, per the Financial Times, with the XC90 starting at $46,900 in the U.S. in terms of base model consumer pricing. Uber is already testing the XC90 in Arizona, San Francisco and Pittsburgh in trials with safety drivers on board to help refine and improve their software. Uber also paired up with Volvo to jointly develop autonomous driving and a vehicle ready for self-driving implementation, with investment from both sides committed last year.
Also at NYT.
Previously: Uber Testing Driverless Car in Pittsburgh
Uber to Begin Picking Up Passengers With Autonomous Cars Next Month
Uber's Self-Driving Cars to be Tested in San Francisco
http://www.sfexaminer.com/uber-halts-self-driving-car-pilot-sf/
Uber's self-driving car saga in San Francisco has come to an end, for now. The announcement that the ride-hail giant is halting its pilot of self-driving vehicles came minutes after the DMV announced late Wednesday afternoon that it revoked the vehicle registration of 16 self-driving Uber vehicles, and said they were "improperly issued."
"Concurrently, the department invited Uber to seek a permit so their vehicles can operate legally in California," DMV wrote in a statement. In an announcement released minutes later, an Uber spokesperson wrote, "We have stopped our self-driving pilot in California as the DMV has revoked the registrations for our self-driving cars. We're now looking at where we can redeploy these cars but remain 100 percent committed to California and will be redoubling our efforts to develop workable statewide rules."
[...] At least three of the self-driving vehicles have been caught on video and in photos appearing to run red lights, though Uber has said that those instances have all been due to "human error."
Update:
It looks like Uber is abandoning California completely for its self driving car program for now and moving it to Arizona.
Only a day after the California DMV put a kibosh on Uber's scofflaw self-driving cars in San Francisco, Uber is pulling its program out of the state all together.
Uber's self-driving cars are headed to Arizona, and are going, going, gone.
Previously:
Uber's Self-Driving Cars to be Tested in San Francisco
Uber Won't Comply With the California DMV's Demand to Obtain a Permit for "Self-Driving Cars"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 15 2016, @09:36PM
Google bus driving down the street being pelted by rocks by "protesters", who are then run over by the self-driving cars running firmware loaded by programmers tired of having their bus pelted.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday December 15 2016, @09:41PM
Ah yes, nothing like casual murder to help reduce the resentment towards sudden gentrification that rendered you homeless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 15 2016, @11:23PM
So why are you an evil racist if you oppose poor people moving from the inner cities into the suburbs and thereby pulling your property value down (which was happening in the 60s and 70s), but you are a defender of social justice if you oppose middle class people from moving into your neighborhood which would pull your property value up? Aren't the middle class yuppies integrating the inner cities just like the blacks were integrating the suburbs?
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday December 15 2016, @11:32PM
This is why you constantly think "SJWs" are unfairly calling you racist. Because you make it up.
Did Bay Area housing prices more than double in a decade? Yes.
Will that make anyone who considered that their home angry? Yes(unless they're an owner).
Are the targets of their blame really, truly, ethically culpable? Probably not, but murdering people is exactly the response I'd expect from someone who was.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @12:29AM
Did suburban housing prices drop around cities like Detroit, Washington DC, etc. when inner city people moved outwards? Yes.
Will that make anyone who considered that their home angry? Yes.
Are the targets of their blame really, truly, ethically culpable? Probably not.
In your example, your conclusion is you give them a pass and, hey, even shake their hands for being heroes. In my example, you blame them for being awful racists and a blight on society.
Again, it is the SJW diode - it only works one-way. Heads I win, tails you lose. That's why so many people don't have respect for those kind of people, because they are fundamentally hypocrites, and blind to it to a remarkable level.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 15 2016, @10:49PM
Google bus driving down the street being pelted by rocks by old neckbearded free software programmers, who are then run over by the self-driving cars running firmware loaded by young social open source coders tired of having their bus pelted.
(Score: 2) by SrLnclt on Thursday December 15 2016, @09:46PM
Nothing in the summary about California telling Uber to remove their self driving cars from the road - on the same day as the launch in San Francisco - after some cars were seen running red lights [theguardian.com]?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday December 15 2016, @09:53PM
I think I submitted this before that story came out.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Thursday December 15 2016, @09:54PM
If your Uber is running red lights, it's because the customers demand the quality of service they used to get from real cabs!
Seriously though: how long before the passengers' frustration of being driven below the speed limit, and without breaking the rules of the road, regardless of how much they said they were in a hurry, backfires on Uber's automatic cars?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday December 15 2016, @10:05PM
Fuck that frustration. I would never get in a self-driving car because I know that I'm only shooting myself in the foot economically at my local level.
All that money just flows up to Uber executives and shareholders that DO NOT reinvest that money into the local economies. At least with a driver I know that he will be buying food locally, that helps support a cashier's job. He will be buying liquor at a bar, or weed at a dispensary, he will be paying rent, taxes, etc. He will probably be charitable and support some local charities and non-profits working for the rights and plight of the homeless and downtrodden. He might, being able to support himself with a wage, be a good productive member of our local society instead of a new addition the alleyways looking for food in the dumpsters.
Paying for a self-driving Uber car is like burning money and watching it never again return to your local financial ecosystem.
No, thanks. I'll walk or bike instead.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday December 16 2016, @12:48AM
Use Lyft. Their drivers are happier and can receive tips, and actually show up within minutes and at 1/2 - 3/4 the rate of the Somali and Eritrean cabbies who show up 2 hours late (if at all) and would rather be shooting dice in some parking lot. Many driver drive for both Uber and Lyft and when asked they'll tell you straight-up that Uber treats their drivers like shit (and, for some reason, Uber passengers also do too) and that Lyft drivers get their priority.
Source: drunk who needs frequent rides.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday December 16 2016, @02:19AM
Lyft, the choice of discriminating ethnocentrists everywhere!
The offhand racism in your review not withstanding, none of these companies offers the ability to hire a ride via their website. Only with a smartphone application that also tracks my whereabouts and mines data. That conflicts with my burner phone methodology to Bayesian poison all information about my activities.
I don't have the money to be running around with a portable system to emulate a full smartphone and control that data. Genymotion and some other apps would allow me to hack the GPS and say I am wherever I want. Which I like a lot, I can create a fake trail of data, but that's only useful to fool websites and why give them a location at all? The carriers always know where the phone is.
There's no way to use those services without an unacceptable disclosure of information.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16 2016, @12:49AM
No, thanks. I'll walk or bike instead, unless it's too hard [youtube.com].
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday December 16 2016, @10:52PM
You're right. There a lot of people who will choose convenience before the inconvenience of standing up for their principles and standing their ground. Protesting with your wallet, and protesting in general does require some form of sacrifice.
I'm not one of them. I sacrifice for my principles because they are more important then me continuing to breathe, pump blood, eat food, etc.
Some of us will die for our principles quite happily.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Thursday December 15 2016, @09:53PM