Uber Says It Will Apply For Self-Driving Permit In California (mercurynews.com) 47
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Mercury News: Uber will apply for a state permit to test its self-driving cars on public roads [in California], the company said Thursday, more than a month after the California Department of Motor Vehicles shut down Uber's autonomous vehicle pilot program. The DMV already has reinstated the registrations for two of Uber's self-driving Volvos, which are back on the road in San Francisco, an Uber spokeswoman said. The cars will not go into self-driving mode until the permit is issued, she said. "These cars are legally registered and are being driven manually," an Uber spokeswoman said. "We are taking steps to complete our application to apply for a DMV testing permit. As we said in December, Uber remains 100 percent committed to California." DMV spokeswoman Jessica Gonzalez confirmed that regulators have been working with Uber on the application process. "Uber hasn't formally submitted their autonomous vehicle tester program application," Gonzalez wrote in an email, "but just as we would with any other manufacturer, the DMV is providing assistance with the steps necessary to apply for and receive a test permit."
Impressive. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Then set fire to her, and threw her flaming body onto a bus full of orphans.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you hate flaming orphans?
Re: (Score:1)
If we walk out that door, we are not coming back.. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A major problem exists. If a person drives recklessly and has an accident they go to jail. So who goes to jail when a robot car drives recklessly for what ever reasons, just an inherent bug, a short circuit, a hack and the car drives recklessly, who goes to jail. What no one you say, nope, corporate law, the investors get fined, the executives who took insane risk get a bonus and the family morns at a funeral as the fight the 'robots' lawyers, who work to create a false narrative to blame the fault on crimi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You use a robot publicly, not matter what the reason is for failure, you pay the penalty for the actions of the robot as though you yourself did they crime. Corporate executive approves robots on the street, corporate executive goes to jail, zero excuses (the executives job to ensure security of the system).
That's not how it works when a plane autopilot misbehaves. Why would it be the way it works when a car's self-driving system does the same? Sure, if you can prove criminal negligence. If everyone follows standards, that becomes difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
airlines payout big time when something bad happens will uber do the same?
Re: (Score:2)
airlines payout big time when something bad happens will uber do the same?
I imagine that they will, one way or another.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bleeding Money (Score:2)
We are talking about this same company that is burning through money aren't we?
Re: (Score:1)
We are talking about this same company that is burning through money aren't we?
Not only bleeding money, has a big lawsuit to defend from google.
I think it's safe to say Uber is done.
Not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
After Uber's CEO was caught berating one of his own cab drivers because the driver dared to say he wasn't being paid enough and couldn't earn enough because of the money Uber siphons from his work, the easiest way to do away with whining humans is to replace them with robots.
Or in this case, cabs which don't talk back except to ask where the person wants to be dropped off at since the cab wasn't going the same direction as the person.
Re: (Score:1)
Have to agree. I'm not defending Uber's CEO, it was foolish for a man in his position to get into an argument like that, but the driver was being a dick.
Re: (Score:2)
> because of the money Uber siphons from his work
From everything I see, that is not what happens, and not what I got from the driver either. Uber's spend is on investors backs, they are pretty much subsidizing the drivers as well to get market share from their investors. The driver is mad that he signed with the Uber lease for his car while passenger rates were higher, then Uber cut those rates such that he could no longer afford his lease, in order to get more Uber market share. Uber is spending more
Re: (Score:2)
> because of the money Uber siphons from his work
From everything I see, that is not what happens, and not what I got from the driver either. Uber's spend is on investors backs, they are pretty much subsidizing the drivers as well to get market share from their investors. The driver is mad that he signed with the Uber lease for his car while passenger rates were higher, then Uber cut those rates such that he could no longer afford his lease, in order to get more Uber market share. Uber is spending more on advertisements, and subsidy programs like the Uber lease than they get from drivers. Without investor money, even without the Autonomous driving development Uber's model (at current rates) is not sustainable.
I'm trying to sympathize with the driver, but I can't. He made a business decision to lease (to fucking lease) a car to driver for Uber? Where does that make sense? And let's supposed that it did. Businesses go up and down, and flop all the time when 1) market forces changes and 2) they faced a cash flow issue when #1 happens.
Kalanick could have handled better, and his company needs to acknowledge there is a human cost on Uber's partners when you let your company race to the bottom. Good CEOs and manager
Re: Not surprising (Score:2)
Your correct and the driver wasn't asking for your sympathy. That doesn't change that Uber screwed drivers over who took a big risk with Uber then had them change the rules such that they lost the income they counted on. Then the CEO starts a conversation trying to get the driver to agree these changes were good for drivers, when it clearly harmed them.
It is not dumb to take calculated risks to increase income, and when those risks don't pan out, we don't condemn them as stupid. I also don't feel sorry f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
After Uber's CEO was caught berating one of his own cab drivers because the driver dared to say he wasn't being paid enough and couldn't earn enough....
I once worked at a company where most people complained about being poorly compensated. When I eventually left for a better job, I got into a friendly argument with several former colleagues. They accused me of "leaving for the money". I told them that if they were unhappy with the pay, they should just find another job. And that applying for jobs is easy once you get your resume in order, and even if you don't accept the offer, it gives you an idea what you're worth to other companies or in other industrie
Absolutely Necessary (Score:3)
I suppose this is the only way they can keep their drivers from raping and harassing their fares. Then again, with the way the company culture apparently is, maybe the self driving cars will be equipped with some sort of automated raping subsystems. Gotta keep that rape culture going somehow, amirite?
Test Score (Score:1)