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
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
An article at Business Insider highlights a court filing by a former Uber employee which claims that Uber's employees have access to customer trip information, and are using it to spy on exes and celebrities.
The story provides a summary of a more complete report into this issue by Reveal News.
The story cites the experience of Ward Spangenberg, Uber's former forensic investigator who was fired from the company last February. Spangenberg is suing Uber, alleging wrongful termination, defamation, and age discrimination.
In a stunning October court declaration, Spangenberg alleges that Uber employees freely accessed trip information about celebrities and politicians and helped one another spy on ex-boyfriends and ex-girlfriends by tracking where and when they traveled. Spangenberg, who worked at Uber for 11 months, said the company's lack of security violated consumer-privacy and data-protection regulations.
Reveal spoke with five former Uber employees who also said employees could easily track customers — they estimated the number of employees with such access was in the thousands.
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 .
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 Saturday December 17 2016, @11:48PM
Have the passenger ride in the drivers seat, then you can claim the passenger is actually the driver. Require the passenger to have a drivers license, then you can deny service to undesirable bums who would otherwise want a ride because they cannot drive themselves. Classify the vehicle as a rental car instead of a taxi, then Uber wins.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday December 18 2016, @12:10AM
Ignoring the fact I'll often be uberring and not driving because I've had a drink, how would the cat get to where I am if it needed someone in the driver seat? Where would it go once I left the car?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2016, @12:12AM
Why are you asking me?
I'm just a stupid AC posting random shit to troll people.
Duh!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2016, @12:23AM
Or you could choose to read the comment in the context of the headline.
Have the passenger of the self driving car ride in the drivers seat of the self driving car, then you can claim the passenger of the self driving car is actually the driver of the self driving car. Require the passenger of the self driving car to have a drivers license, then you can deny service to undesirable bums who would otherwise want a ride in a self driving car because they cannot drive themselves. Classify the self driving vehicle as a rental car instead of a taxi, then Uber wins at self driving cars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2016, @01:52AM
Or you could read the comments in the context that I am batshit because I forgot to take my meds this week.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2016, @10:13AM
Or you could read the self-driving comments in the self-driving context that I am batshit because I forgot to take my self-driving meds this self-driving week.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2016, @12:22PM
Yo dawg, I heard yo like self-driving comments so we put a self-driving context in yo self-driving comment so yo can self-drive while yo self-drive.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2016, @12:36AM
An empty car can't travel alone so the AI driving the car will be made emotional and clingy and won't let you leave until it picks up its next passenger.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday December 18 2016, @03:02AM
A Futurama episode [wikipedia.org] comes to mind.
But self-driving cars, like space elevators, are an idea so batshit insane that people who think they're a good idea deserve Darwin Awards. Michael Hastings should have been a lesson to you all. Meaning people who get on a government's (or anybody else who knows the tech) shit-list will have their "self-driving" car hacked remotely and end up dying a horrific fiery death -- and never-mind the other bugs which already render these things unsafe.
Frankly I'm amazed that critical systems within cars aren't air-gapped from all the other bells 'n' whistles bullshit and without wireless access. And my final rant about them is that, like riding a Segway, is a tacky and disgusting testament to human sloth. You can't wait until you get home to text and gobble that triple bacon cheeseburger with large curly-fries and 64 oz. soda while kneading your dick?
Stop at a hotel then, you cheap fuck -- or smoke some meth and listen to Slayer.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mendax on Sunday December 18 2016, @12:26AM
What utter balls! Uber has no conscience. If they did, they would comply with the law. DMV is going to win in the end. The drive of the car or the pedestrian who is hit by one of Uber's driverless cars is also going to win in court (assuming he survives the encouter) because Uber will have been clearly violating the law. If Uber has an insurance company covering it instead of self-insuring, that company should think twice about that policy. Any accident will be very, very costly.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Sunday December 18 2016, @01:48AM
What utter balls! Uber has no conscience. If they did, they would comply with the law.
Because compliance with law is the highest good.
The drive of the car or the pedestrian who is hit by one of Uber's driverless cars
Unless, of course, the car isn't driverless. It's almost like Uber used brain cells on this.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday December 18 2016, @01:58AM
There's a difference between refusing to participate in war crimes and refusing to adhere to the rules of the road. Your whole argument assumes that all regulations are more or less the same.
I'm sure that once the driverless cars' AI improves that having somebody to handle things if something goes wrong won't be necessary, but we're not anywhere near that point. The AI can handle relatively simple things like highway driving, but isn't yet ready for handling city streets.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 18 2016, @06:20AM
There's a difference between refusing to participate in war crimes and refusing to adhere to the rules of the road.
Sure there is, Francis.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday December 18 2016, @06:25AM
This is the kind of post where having an emoticon to indicate that you're joking would be helpful.
Only somebody that's batshit insane can't tell the difference between a helpful regulation and one that's a crime against humanity.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday December 18 2016, @07:30AM
Only somebody that's batshit insane can't tell the difference between a helpful regulation and one that's a crime against humanity.
Please explain how that difference is relevant? Note that the earlier original poster made a blanket claim about complying with law being a thing that people with conscience do. I didn't even mention crimes against humanity. But since you mentioned it, that is a standard counterexample that following the law isn't necessarily good.
Second, what is helpful about the regulation that self-driving cars, which aren't really self-driving, need to have a permit in order to be tested? The key problem with permits is that they can be abused to prevent or obstruct an activity. By requiring a positive permit in order to do the activity, it allows government the power to block the activity. What happens if some future taxi consortium manages to bribe enough California officials to nuke self-driving car development in California by creating onerous standards? Or the big companies bribe regulators to make the standards for permits onerous so that only big companies can compete?
And who knows? Maybe the whole point of this exercise is that Uber is trolling for a ruling that will disable Tesla's partially automated driving systems in California. Setting back a competitor via regulatory obstruction isn't a game that only works against Uber.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday December 18 2016, @04:37PM
Optimism is the difference here, I thought that you had actually learned to reason. Apparently, I was wrong. You're still looking at the world like a teenager, not even a particularly sharp teenager.
If the regulation doesn't apply to them, the correct way of handling it is to go to the state and talk with them about that or take it to court. Uber already has a history of just ignoring regulations that they deem to be inconvenient. It's astonishing to me the extent to which regulators have bent over backwards for the illegal taxi services.
In this case, this technology is extremely dangerous when it doesn't work the way that it's supposed to. A car is a deadly weapon and there have been instances of a car mowing down a crowd of innocent bystanders, permits for these sorts of cars exist in large part to mitigate that risk. We haven't yet had a situation where a self-driving car did anything like that, but it doesn't stand to reason that it couldn't happen. These cars are highly regulated because there's a significant risk and the technology is still new.
Whether it's just handsfree or completely autonomous, there should be additional testing and permitting required. It astonishes me that Tesla has been allowed so much freedom with deploying patches to released cars that add functionality.
Self-driving cars are the domain of large companies when used on the road for good reason. It takes a lot of money to design the cars and it takes a lot of money to pay for the damages if something goes wrong. If you're a hobbyist, then you shouldn't be messing with these things on public roads where people can be killed.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 18 2016, @06:12PM
If the regulation doesn't apply to them, the correct way of handling it is to go to the state and talk with them about that or take it to court.
Or find legal loopholes around the situation as Uber routinely does.
Uber already has a history of just ignoring regulations that they deem to be inconvenient. It's astonishing to me the extent to which regulators have bent over backwards for the illegal taxi services.
Welcome to one of the benefits of living in a democracy. When a legal loophole benefits a lot of voters, then it has natural protection from regulators. This is also a more effective way to change regulation.
In this case, this technology is extremely dangerous when it doesn't work the way that it's supposed to. A car is a deadly weapon and there have been instances of a car mowing down a crowd of innocent bystanders, permits for these sorts of cars exist in large part to mitigate that risk. We haven't yet had a situation where a self-driving car did anything like that, but it doesn't stand to reason that it couldn't happen. These cars are highly regulated because there's a significant risk and the technology is still new.
So what? Even in the complete absence of explicit regulation, we have plenty of regulatory mechanisms such as civil courts to sort this out.
Whether it's just handsfree or completely autonomous, there should be additional testing and permitting required. It astonishes me that Tesla has been allowed so much freedom with deploying patches to released cars that add functionality.
Well, better allow that testing then. Else, you've just created a convenient way to block the technology altogether.
Self-driving cars are the domain of large companies when used on the road for good reason. It takes a lot of money to design the cars and it takes a lot of money to pay for the damages if something goes wrong. If you're a hobbyist, then you shouldn't be messing with these things on public roads where people can be killed.
That's what insurance or the posting of bonds is for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2016, @07:42AM
This is the kind of post where having an emoticon to indicate that you're joking would be helpful.
No, it isn't. Wouldn't help at all.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday December 18 2016, @01:55AM
So a company that started in large part to skirt the rules about hired drivers is again breaking the rules. Color me shocked.
It's almost as if past behavior does sometimes give a sense of things to come.
(Score: 2) by BK on Sunday December 18 2016, @01:26PM
But it will take time [youtube.com]. An awful lot can happen in that time.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Monday December 19 2016, @08:13AM
Obviously, the regulation only applies to companies with a conscience, so Uber by definition cannot comply with it in good conscience.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by iwoloschin on Sunday December 18 2016, @12:46AM
Why is Uber acting like a 5 year old throwing a temper tantrum after being, in the nicest way possible, that they have to ask nicely before playing with the other kid's toy? It doesn't sound at all like the DMV is overreaching here, and they're not being a bunch of jackasses about it either, they're simply saying ask permission to use a public resource before using it.
I really like Uber's app-based approach to car services, being able to summon a car with my phone? That's brilliant! But the whole "fuck the law, it doesn't apply to us" business? Really guys? Come on now, let's try to be adults?
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday December 18 2016, @01:36AM
It has worked for telecos for decades. Why not Uber?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2016, @01:55AM
Laws are for untermenschen.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday December 18 2016, @03:53PM
Uber's MO is to flaunt regulations. Their app has multiple options designed to get around city-specific taxi/ridehailing/carpooling regs.
And here's what happens when you exercise the nuclear option against Uber:
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/wear-deja-uber-legislators-look-override-local-ride-hailing-rules/KozpsqKEAp0ruhjfotOWWL/ [mystatesman.com]
http://www.twcnews.com/tx/austin/news/2016/12/6/texas-to-reexamine-regulating-uber--lyft-statewide.html [twcnews.com]
http://www.chron.com/news/transportation/article/City-changes-paid-ride-rules-preserving-Uber-s-10795862.php [chron.com]
Funny bonus story I found. [abc13.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2016, @12:53AM
in the US and abroad, along with thousands and even millions of jobs. In Uber's case, they don't care if they're breaking laws in the process. Laws are for little people.
But now Uber's CEO is on Trump's business advisory panel, and the Republicans in Congress never cared about jobs tjat came with compensation less than $300K, so they're golden.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday December 18 2016, @10:23AM
And that's good. Mankind should not be doing menial tasks that are easily automated - we've got better things to do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2016, @12:18PM
Uber isn't doing anything except moving jobs around and skimming off the top so that actual people get paid even less.
Yeah they talk about self-driving cars, but 99.999% of what Uber does is shift jobs from yellow taxis to even easier to exploit independent drivers. Its still the same amount of driving, its just now Uber is taking a 30% cut of the revenue. For an app.
(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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 18 2016, @05:39PM
We've got better things to do.
Such as...?
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday December 18 2016, @09:11PM
Teaching. Learning. Climbing mountains. Life is too short to do something that you don't have to do.
(Score: 2) by timbim on Sunday December 18 2016, @06:36AM
I increasingly distrust Uber. Look at the amount of research Google has put into their self driving cars and they're not even ready yet. Uber is just trying to be first and its gonna get someone killed.
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Sunday December 18 2016, @03:36PM
I increasingly distrust NASA. Look at the amount of research Musk has put into their trip to Mars and they're not even ready yet. NASA is just trying to be first and its gonna get someone killed.
(just having fun, kinda/sorta)