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

Re:Uber stops self-driving pilot in SF after DMV revokes its... by Fricken on Thursday December 22, 2016 @01:01AM (#13235219)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber stops self-driving pilot in SF after DMV revokes its... by jayjay71 on Thursday December 22, 2016 @01:07AM (#13235251)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber stops self-driving pilot in SF after DMV revokes its... by Fricken on Thursday December 22, 2016 @01:21AM (#13235305)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber stops self-driving pilot in SF after DMV revokes its... by abduhl on Thursday December 22, 2016 @02:33AM (#13235586)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber stops self-driving pilot in SF after DMV revokes its... by guan on Thursday December 22, 2016 @06:23AM (#13236551)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber stops self-driving pilot in SF after DMV revokes its... by user5994461 on Thursday December 22, 2016 @06:54PM (#13241593)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber stops self-driving pilot in SF after DMV revokes its... by dzhiurgis on Thursday December 22, 2016 @03:40AM (#13235865)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber stops self-driving pilot in SF after DMV revokes its... by anexprogrammer on Thursday December 22, 2016 @01:33AM (#13235348)

> 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber stops self-driving pilot in SF after DMV revokes its... by smellycat on Thursday December 22, 2016 @02:31PM (#13239656)

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::

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber stops self-driving pilot in SF after DMV revokes its... by visarga on Thursday December 22, 2016 @01:18AM (#13235287)

> Or some such nonsense.

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber stops self-driving pilot in SF after DMV revokes its... by mikestew on Thursday December 22, 2016 @05:02PM (#13240764)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]