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
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... )
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?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber_protests_and_legal_action...
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 very difficult to say how corrupt a system actually is but there must be some research into it.
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.
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.
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.
Upon what do you base this assertion? Because they sure as heck don't seem to be. Way more arrogant, perhaps.
Yep, what a load of nonsense. Restricting access of untested AI on public roads. What could happen?
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.
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...
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.
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?
Sometimes it's a simple cost-benefit analysis - if benefit exceeds cost, you should do it.
- 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
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.
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.
(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"
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.