Uber stops self-driving pilot in SF after DMV revokes its cars' registrations | Hacker News Reader

Uber stops self-driving pilot in SF after DMV revokes its cars' registrations

recode.net

134 pointsmrjaeger80 comments

Why is Uber so belligerent when it comes to complying with laws of the land? I can't think of any other corporation that so blatantly acts in the manner of, "we don't like that law, we're going to ignore it or flaunt it". I know other large corporations will use lobbyists to get laws changed to suit their wants, but Uber just acts as if the law doesn't apply to them in the first case.

In Australia, they single-handedly managed to get themselves their operation legalized, while running as an illegal taxi service in the interim. Only minor fines were applied in a couple of cases prior to the governments rolling over for them, and I think even these applied to the Uber drivers, not to Uber themselves.

Because it has mostly been working out to their advantage.

Uber is one of the most illustrative examples of 'it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission'.

They hope to outlast the laws against them until those laws are changed or entirely new ones are enacted [1], pay any fines -- not that there have been very many -- and all the while continue to offer rides below cost to starve their competition until they all disappear.

In this particular case, it seems they're not willing to let the DMV put them into this particular category (for whatever reason), so they'd rather fight or wait it out until different rules are created in their favor.

Although, I'm not sure what leverage they have over the State of California with this particular issue.

[1] http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M077/K1...

In this case, considering the issues that the cars have had already, and the tremendous pressure uber is under not to have their business technologically stolen from under them, I think someone realized their cars weren't in a position to acquire or maintain DMV approval and was gambling on being able to stall long enough to get their driving technology to that point.

The more I think about it, the more absolutely despicable that would be, if it were the case.

But, even in the best case, it's incredibly stupid, and dangerous to uber; do they want to be the first company to have a self driving car fatality? Whatever their reasons, they must be very desperate.

And they don't even bribe our politicians? Outrageous.

They've got several years now of being able to operate in illegal fashions all over the globe, and found that governments were willing to just accept it. Why would this time around be any different? They've been almost conditioned to expect it.

For what it's worth, they do have a very active and effective lobbying arm, which they've used to swing laws in their favour (and deliberately against competitors) in various markets.

I wonder if, between the successful disruption of the market, the tech sector and then society all falling over themselves lauding them, and the governments willingly towing the line, maybe they've become a little arrogant?

If I as a business do something illegal but it is very useful to consumers, governments seem to accept it over worker rights for a long time. Similarly, it seems taxes are optional (corp/vat) if you employ lots of people.

I'm not sure about Uber as a company, but I am very sure that changing laws (AirBnB/Uber/Deliveroo/others) has been good for me and this should be the first thought in a startup rather than let's not bother because it seems to be illegal or I have to register as a bank (it's always a bank with the ideas I come up with...) to be allowed to do X. It's probably easier to break the law and ask forgiveness than mire yourself in regulation before you have customers...

I'd love to hear YCs take on this but as ever you only get their advice if you are in the club. Also they probably can't advocate doing illegal things (publicly anyway).

It's not about being good to consumers. It's about lobbyists, money and power.

Is there any way to prove either way it's definitely corrupt or does it just seem that way? I'm likely to agree, but you know someone would have piped up and argued the opposite if I had have said corruption yada yada... To be fair, globalisation has been brilliant for me, the lobbyists, Apple and hundreds of millions pulled out of poverty worldwide. And it's destroyed the climate, the environment and hope for even more people, some even throwing themselves off the side of foxcon plants.

It's very difficult to say how corrupt a system actually is but there must be some research into it.

Uber has been shut down in many countries already.[1] Their success in the US comes from the fact that regulation in the US is local, and many municipalities don't want to go up against Uber. In countries with national regulation, Uber isn't faring too well.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber_protests_and_legal_action...

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.

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.

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?

Also, they did run a red light the first night in California. https://youtu.be/_CdJ4oae8f4

I am from Canberra, Australia. We did not "roll over" as you suggest, but had discussions with Uber and the taxi industry from the time Uber first wanted to start working here.

As a result we now have drastically reduced fees for taxi registration, and legislation which allows Uber to work legally. From memory I think we also removed caps on taxi numbers.

If adjusting legislation to accommodate a new budiness is "rolling over" then I fear for the future of innovation that will be needed in the automated future.

Uber disagrees with the DMV's interpretation of the language of the relevant regulation

Because there's something to gain by not following all laws?

Sometimes it's a simple cost-benefit analysis - if benefit exceeds cost, you should do it.

This is why we can't have nice things.

>Why is Uber so belligerent when it comes to complying with laws of the land?

probably because it's working so well for them. The more noise they make about ignoring a law, the more people stand up on their behalf and ask for that law to be changed. and it usually works. Why would they stop when it's proven to be an effective way to change the laws they don't like?

Obviously Uber has some sort of trick up their sleeve, they're not doing this just to be cowboys, they're way smarter than that.

In a conference call to journalists the other day, Anthony Levandowski said "It’s hard to understand why the DMV would seek to require self-driving Ubers to get permits when it accepts that Tesla’s autopilot technology does not need them."

Now that Uber has an excuse to take the California DMV to court, they may be able to make the case that according to the wording of DMV regulations, all individual Teslas using autopilot are in fact testing vehicles, and if they do not require a permit, then neither does Uber. Then Uber will be able to test free from the scrutiny of the DMV, or else all users of autopilot need to get testing permits as well.

Or some such nonsense.

I do not know Uber's plan, but assuming they're too smart to do something dumb is pretty silly. Everybody makes mistakes, especially companies that may have become arrogant after years of getting their way with little effort.

And besides that, Tesla does have a permit, so that argument quickly becomes very messy and I don't see how it could rule in favor of Uber. If every driver needs the permit (as opposed to every corporation) , that applies to Uber as well. They'd effectively be making the legislation more onerous against themselves.

Uber has gotten it's way with a great deal of effort, and a world class legal team who are veterans by now at pushing around regulators. My theory may be incorrect, but I assure you, they've calculated their outs.

Tesla the company has a permit, individual Tesla users do not. If Uber had to get a $150 testing permit, well big deal. If every Tesla driver had to get a permit, that would be a meltdown for Tesla and Tesla owners.

I don't think this is true. The average Tesla costs what, $75000? $150 is 0.2% of the purchase price. People buying Teslas aren't people who are bothered by a $150 bar tab, let alone a $150 permit. In addition, many of them have emotional buy-in at this point (aka they have drank the Elon Kool-Aid) and driving a Tesla is as much a part of their identity as anything else. They won't be bothered by paying for a permit or having to go to the DMV to get one.

I believe Tesla charges at least $3,000 extra for self-driving Autopilot package. If it comes to it, they might be willing to just reimburse California residents the $150.

I don't know how it works in the USA but I would expect people to register their cars and show a driving license while doing so.

I think the argument they are trying to make is that every Tesla owner should get a permit.

> Or some such nonsense.

Yep, what a load of nonsense. Restricting access of untested AI on public roads. What could happen?

> they're way smarter than that.

Upon what do you base this assertion? Because they sure as heck don't seem to be. Way more arrogant, perhaps.

They're also terrible at pulling off astroturfing. To the point where I look at their attempts and wonder if an individual would have a case of being misled. For a company that I assume has a world class legal team, things often look sloppy and I wonder how much of it is done in the name of "being the disruption brand." ::washes mouth out::

Obviously Uber has some sort of trick up their sleeve, they're not doing this just to be cowboys, they're way smarter than that.

I'm sure there were folks saying the same thing about pets.com when anyone pointed out the stupidity of shipping forty pound bags of dog food while trying to be price competitive, and spending ungodly amounts on Super Bowl ads. There is always, of course, option B: they're just as dumb as they appear.

Regardless, smart they might be, but it doesn't keep them from appearing as petulant children who refuse to understand why they have to clean their room.

Yes, Uber has contempt for law, but also a lot more contempt for other categories:

- Uber's own drivers are malcontent with it

- Uber's money are being burned like there's no tomorrow

- regular taxi drivers have lost the equivalent of money Uber spent

> I can't think of any other corporation that so blatantly acts in the manner of, "we don't like that law, we're going to ignore it or flaunt it".

Then you aren't thinking hard enough.

A couple recent ones Volkswagen diesels and Zenefits. Uber stands out as they seem to use it as PR tool, while most other companies tend to use PR to downplay and cover up their law breaking.

blatant |ˈbleɪt(ə)nt| adjective

(of bad behaviour) done openly and unashamedly: blatant lies.

Volkswagen weren't blatant about it. They kept it a secret. If they were blatant about it the way Uber is, they would be publishing their true NOx numbers and saying "yeah we know these numbers aren't allowed by emissions standards but we're selling it anyway"

Well, I think experiences like those described in your second paragraph would certainly encourage the behavior described in the first...

Uber have taken the startup "victory or death" model to its logical conclusion. Their whole business model only makes sense if they can drive out competition and entrench a network-effect based monopoly. As part of that, they need to make sure that they're not troubled by competition authorities.

So they've engaged in a maximally confrontational strategy. Either they win, establishing the precedent (socially if not legally) that the law doesn't apply to them and in the process becoming essential; or they lose, but in a way that ensures that competitors are similarly barred from the market.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/12/can-uber-ever-deliver...

As part of this, Uber's preference function looks something like:

Uber autonomous taxis > total ban on autonomous taxis > Tesla autonomous taxis.

(Above link is via https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/12/21/2181626/ubers-potenti... )

I don't know, but it's a reason I prefer other car services over Uber. If they're that way with gov't, then I assume they would be difficult if as a customer, one were at odds with the company.

> In California an autonomous vehicle is defined as having the capability of driving “without the active physical control or monitoring” of a person. The state allows for the driving and testing of autonomous vehicles on public roadways, but requires the operator to obtain a $150 permit to drive in the state.

16 test vehicles. $150 for each permit. Is the refusal to register some kind of moral stance?

Another HN thread[1] revealed that the permit not only costs $150, but also mandates that Uber report accidents. (And other stuff?)

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13198277

I believe self-reporting of accidents was a regulation that Google had to operate under. Funny enough, I just checked where they used to have their monthly accident reports but now it's just a Waymo landing page:

https://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/reports/

Internet archive snapshot:

https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20161011014050/https://www....

Sample report (PDF) https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20161213211933/http://stati...

The official accident reports are still available, as they always have been, on the California DMV's website.[1]

I remember only a few months ago folks were holding up Google as the model for SDC transparency.[2] How times change!

[1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/auton...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12082893

Waymo is subject to the same reporting requirements as everyone else.

Google's reports will likely be transferred to waymo.com site soon enough, and new ones will appear in due time.

They don't want to publicly disclose accidents and the bad press that it warrants.

A naive reading of that law excludes from the definition of autonomous vehicle any car that

1. is monitored, and

2. is under the physical control of a [natural] person.

A driver is in front of the steering wheel at all times, ready to take over.

What am I missing? I haven't deconstructed the statute, it could be plenty.

Uber's self-driving cars are garbage and they're creating this little drama to fool dumb investors into thinking it's just local government holding them back.

Are they wrong?

Yes, since they are refusing to get the necessary permits, which they could easily do.

Yes. Government regulation didn't cause Uber's car to beat red light.

It was my understanding that a human driver did that.

No, the human driver could have corrected the car by stopping at the light. But the autonomous car choose to run through the light. That's on Uber's development team.

That's incorrect. Car was in autonomous mode when it ran the red light.

The likely reason Uber wouldn't play ball is that they wanted to be able to carry paying passengers in their test vehicles, which probably wouldn't be allowed under the test regulations, or even if it was, would leave them open to much more liability if there was an accident.

That's probably part of it, but the DMV seems to consider it a "manufacturers testing permit," which means that Volvo would have to be substantially involved in the process on Uber's behalf as they do not already have a permit of their own. [0]

The draft rules also require quite a bit of insurance and items like "autonomous test driver training programs" to be in place for a legal operation. [1]

[0]: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testi...

[1]: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/211897ae-c58a-4f28...

Appears to me that Uber just really did not want to allow a government to dictate what exactly their vehicle & technology actually is. I wonder if their logic is that by applying, they've set a precedent that their vehicle is fully autonomous, and also that local governments can now try to regulate them under this area.

They already fought the existing taxicab legislation, I think they're trying to outrun/ignore autonomous car legislation for as long as possible.

Do Tesla drivers have to get that permit as well, a lot of them drive their cars on highways “without the active physical control or monitoring” too?

They're supposed to have active physical control and monitoring. That's the difference, Tesla is not a fully self-driving car.

Isn't that the same argument uber is doing?

Aren't there uber drivers still that are suppose to monitor the situation? How is that different except the government is upset?

Tesla is very carefully keeping within the definition of a level 2 autonomous vehicle. For example, Teslas won't shift lanes automatically -- the driver has to tell it to shift lanes. Similarly, Tesla drivers are supposed to keep their hands on the wheel at all times.

The Ubers are level 3 -- the car is responsible for monitoring and making decisions. Significant difference.

I definitely should have drawn that conclusion as well - I guess I'm just thinking about the logical progression of vehicles. Eventually Tesla will reach level 3 as well. Does it really make sense for each of those be registered differently with additional associated fees and monitoring? I don't know but it definitely errs on the side of exerting control.

It seems like Uber wanted this to happen. But why?

My thoughts exactly. I just can't fathom an angle where this works out to their advantage. From what I've seen, this permit is literally a formality, so did they just not want to test in California?

Free publicity maybe? In any case though, the whole thing is a bit weird...

Free publicity is a possibility, but I don't necessarily see it as an advantage, especially with the tone of the articles. The adage that all publicity is good publicity is simply not always true.

They probably want to be able to blame someone else (the DMV) for the reasons they're not actively testing in CA. I wouldn't be surprised to see a proposition next year that wants to allow companies to test their autonomous vehicles without permits, with Uber pushing millions of dollars into advertising into it.

Millions for a ballot battle sounds way cheaper than paying $250 per car while in a testing phase? Were they planning to use more than 8000 autopiloted cars like this in the near future?

It'd be cheaper to lobby the legislature anyway, I bet they could get their bill out of the Waze and Means Committee.

That argument doesn't really work considering Uber (along with Lyft) spent a combined $8MM in Austin fighting fingerprinting legislation when it would have been significantly cheaper to just fingerprint their drivers.

So basically Uber and Lyft are just bad at business. Right. I'll adjust my investments accordingly.

Uber will lose over 3 billion dollars this year. It lost 2 billion last year. Personally, that should influence your investments more than them avoiding a $150 permit or an attempt to avoid invading their drivers rights more than they already do.

> I just can't fathom an angle where this works out to their advantage

Trump appoints Travis Kalanick Grand Moff of Western US

Kidding! It will be Peter Thiel of course. Also always amusing when I see articles like this artificially flagged down the frontpage.

They've also just (after first announcing their intent to defy the permit requirement in their CA pilot) revealed that their cars do not handle turns across bike lanes safely or (under California law, at least) legally, so, in addition to using it as a PR mechanism to create pressure for favorable regulation, they may in part be trying to use controversy over the proper regulatory regime for self-driving vehicles to provide a distraction for the media so that there is less focus on safety issues particular to their system. That especially makes sense if they knew they were going to be releasing the safety information before they announced the plan to defy regulations (getting enough attention on that first, so that when they did pull the project it would have some chance as being seen to be about the regulatory issue of permitting, and not the safety defect.)

Possibly

1. They didn't want to reveal the accidents the technology was involved in as dictated by the permit

2. They wanted to have Tesla be held to the same standard and have to apply for permits for all their autopilot vehicles

I think they underestimated the rapidity and effectiveness of the DMV's response, and were perhaps anticipating a lawsuit they could draw out and spin to their advantage, knowing that corporate malfeasance is rarely meted appropriate punishment.

i'm not sure what uber's intention was, but there's a silver lining:

1) The barrier to entry in this space is somewhat low and now it's higher. Within 4 months, a small talented group can build a decent self-driving system from scratch. The DMV's action might have a (slight) chilling affect on small self-driving car operations, and gives (a small) advantage to big operations like Uber.

2) If uber thought their launch was a failure (maybe the supervisors had to intervene too often), scuttling the launch in this way buys them some time to incorporate the lessons they learned from their brief foray.

"Within 4 months, a small talented group can build a decent self-driving system from scratch."

What makes you think that? It's a lot more work than that. For starters, self-driving cars still aren't a commercial reality despite decades of research and many many millions of dollars in funding. I've never heard of a team build anything other than a super limited prototype in that time frame - nothing anyone would reasonably call a self-driving car.

Like every other time Uber publicly throws a fit about a rule, it's an effort to get the rule changed in their favor.

At $150 a permit, Uber likely did this to get a ton of free publicity. Judging from the number of articles I've read, it seems to have worked to their advantage.

It all seemed like really bad publicity though. Everything I saw described Uber as reckless and having subpar technology.

It might make sense if they assumed that they'd be successful. If the press spends all their time talking about how Uber is flaunting the rules by putting out a self driving car into their fleet and all the while this thing performs perfectly, it's fantastic press.

They probably just assumed that their cars weren't going to run red lights and terrorize bicyclists.

As best as I can tell, they don't even need $150 per car, they just need a $150 permit for the company as a whole. Their test drivers do need to be enrolled in the Employer Pull Program, but it looks like that's just $5 (this program lets companies track the driving record of their enrolled employees).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com