The DMV doesn't appear to be asking them to slow down. The DMV appears to be asking them get a $150 permit, and to be transparent about errors their software makes.
> When does HN normally love regulations so much?
CA's regulations seem incredibly friendly towards autonomous vehicles; it could have been a legal grey area, but from everything I've read (and seen with Google's testing in Mountain View), the DMV's policies seem acceptable.
Software that is going to be responsible for people's lives should be transparent, and I've yet to see it demonstrated how the DMV's requirements even approach onerous. Like the article mentions, other companies such as Google seem to have no issue complying. (And, from what I've seen of Google reporting of Waymo's incidents, most of their incident reports seem to suggest that their vehicles are doing a job that surpasses my expectations of where they would be. What little we know of Uber's does not.)
They have a history of lying and disdain for law. For months Uber told Boston police that they did do vehicle inspections, and when finally called out on it, the CEO admitted to the police chief that he lied. Recently they lied about running red lights...And they should be allowed to experiment on the roadway?
The only driverless car on the road now in the hands of users is the Tesla, and it's gotten into its share of accidents.
Now, we're talking about a driverless car written by a company that tries to skirt laws.
You think it's going to be so safe?