I really hope California isn't overreacting, possibly due to industry pressure from taxis etc. The state should be doing all it can to support, grow, and encourage this innovation.
Without looking into the specific legislation, on the surface it looks like a reasonable interpretation.
All of the references from Uber state they are doing "self-driving".. which isn't IMHO Autonomous, as it is only Level 3. https://newsroom.uber.com/pittsburgh-self-driving-uber/
I'd expect Uber to obtain a license when they are ready to move towards driverless autonomous development, such as Level 4/5.
As for the permit, there is no guarantee that Uber will get one if they apply for it; the state can refuse such an application. If they keep showing callous disregard for public safety, they may not even be around to get refused by the State of California.
Providing the vehicle required human monitoring the actions of the car, it isn't classed as an autonomous vehicle.. or do you disagree with my interpretation of the below?
(1) “Autonomous technology” means technology that has the capability to drive a vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring by a human operator.
(2) (A) “Autonomous vehicle” means any vehicle equipped with autonomous technology that has been integrated into that vehicle.
Providing the vehicle design still requires a human to be monitoring the car, it by my interpretation not an autonomous vehicle. Obviously, this will change in the future.. and then they will require a permit.
The draft autonomous vehicle deployment regulations are tougher.[1] They include a data recorder requirement, testing, and demonstrations.
DMV seems to be trying hard here to do a good job. Somebody has to restrain the "move fast and break things" crowd before they leave blood on the pavement.
[1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/211897ae-c58a-4f28...
I don't think anyone disagrees. California's been very proactive in promoting and allowing self-driving car trials.
But you can't allow just any driverless car on the road without ensuring that it's safe — that's why there's a permit process for it. This isn't just another app — people's lives are at stake here.
In San Francisco, no less! I'm a huge fan of self-driving cars. I think they should already be legal in the dead of night in Cupertino and Wyoming. But a high-density urban space is not where you experiment with cars.
If the self-driving capability missed the red light, then it is the drivers responsibility to have intervened and stop the car.
If I did this in a Tesla with autopilot enabled, would all Tesla's be banned in California? I should be punished as the driver in command of the vehicle.
If I did this in an old banged out SUV, would the car be banned? No, i'd received a citation for the offence of running a red.
Which is exactly how this incident should have been handled.
Obviously California does a good job at this. The innovative machine that is Silicon Valley has been impossible to replicate anywhere else on Earth, nothing else even comes close.