News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence by sharemywin on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @03:13PM (#13223503)
Although to me there's a big difference between "innovating" on bureaucracy and ignoring "public safety"
Re:Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence by creaghpatr on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @03:22PM (#13223574)
Plus, not all penalties are necessarily financial.

Given that Uber is perceived as a symbol of 'Silicon Valley greed' to some politicians/constituents, a few high profile accidents would present a witch hunt opportunity for someone.

Not sure how much practical damage politicians could do but at a $50B-ish valuation there's little room for fatal error. Even a 1-2 year delay in getting self-drivers on the road would cost Uber billions.

Re:Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence by rhino369 on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @03:22PM (#13223573)
Yea the laws uber broke were mostly bad regulations that nobody cared about and ultimately didn't harm anyone (other than in a competition harms incumbents).

But beta testing their cars on real streets could lead to disaster. Even from a non-legal PR risk perspective, it's dicey.

If one of these things runs over a cute kid, the attempt to skirt the law will backfire. That said challenging the law isn't necessarily skirting the law, but that's how techcrunch is portraying it. I'm too lazy to read the docket of the case.

Re:Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence by Animats on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @03:56PM (#13223860)
Like minimum wage laws. Right.
Re:Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence by icebraining on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @04:48PM (#13224404)
There they just followed the existing model of taxis.
Re:Uber sets self-driving battle at permission, not existence by TeMPOraL on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @05:14PM (#13224676)
Or proper insurance.