Hacker News Reader

Comment by mmel | Hacker News Reader

Why is Uber so belligerent when it comes to complying with laws of the land? I can't think of any other corporation that so blatantly acts in the manner of, "we don't like that law, we're going to ignore it or flaunt it". I know other large corporations will use lobbyists to get laws changed to suit their wants, but Uber just acts as if the law doesn't apply to them in the first case.

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.

View on HN

A majority of the US population feels that following the law is its own reward, regardless of what the law is. In my experience as a foreigner, this attitude is much more prevalent in the US than elsewhere (except maybe for northern Europe). But there is also a significant fraction that would support and even root for those who are intentionally breaking a law that is unnecessary or unjust. This is the sentiment that Uber is trying to appeal to.

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.

That is all good when it's the first to do it like google was back in the day. These days everyone and their dog is doing a self driving car so they have to fall in line with the rules.

> 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

Uber have taken the startup "victory or death" model to its logical conclusion. Their whole business model only makes sense if they can drive out competition and entrench a network-effect based monopoly. As part of that, they need to make sure that they're not troubled by competition authorities.

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... )

They've got several years now of being able to operate in illegal fashions all over the globe, and found that governments were willing to just accept it. Why would this time around be any different? They've been almost conditioned to expect it.

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?

If I as a business do something illegal but it is very useful to consumers, governments seem to accept it over worker rights for a long time. Similarly, it seems taxes are optional (corp/vat) if you employ lots of people.

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 not about being good to consumers. It's about lobbyists, money and power.

Is there any way to prove either way it's definitely corrupt or does it just seem that way? I'm likely to agree, but you know someone would have piped up and argued the opposite if I had have said corruption yada yada... To be fair, globalisation has been brilliant for me, the lobbyists, Apple and hundreds of millions pulled out of poverty worldwide. And it's destroyed the climate, the environment and hope for even more people, some even throwing themselves off the side of foxcon plants.

It's very difficult to say how corrupt a system actually is but there must be some research into it.

Uber has been shut down in many countries already.[1] Their success in the US comes from the fact that regulation in the US is local, and many municipalities don't want to go up against Uber. In countries with national regulation, Uber isn't faring too well.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber_protests_and_legal_action...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

> Or some such nonsense.

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

> 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.

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::

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.

Because it has mostly been working out to their advantage.

Uber is one of the most illustrative examples of 'it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission'.

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...

In this case, considering the issues that the cars have had already, and the tremendous pressure uber is under not to have their business technologically stolen from under them, I think someone realized their cars weren't in a position to acquire or maintain DMV approval and was gambling on being able to stall long enough to get their driving technology to that point.

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.

>Why is Uber so belligerent when it comes to complying with laws of the land?

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?

Because there's something to gain by not following all laws?

Sometimes it's a simple cost-benefit analysis - if benefit exceeds cost, you should do it.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Yes, Uber has contempt for law, but also a lot more contempt for other categories:

- 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

I am from Canberra, Australia. We did not "roll over" as you suggest, but had discussions with Uber and the taxi industry from the time Uber first wanted to start working here.

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.

> I can't think of any other corporation that so blatantly acts in the manner of, "we don't like that law, we're going to ignore it or flaunt it".

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.

blatant |ˈbleɪt(ə)nt| adjective

(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"

Uber disagrees with the DMV's interpretation of the language of the relevant regulation

I don't know, but it's a reason I prefer other car services over Uber. If they're that way with gov't, then I assume they would be difficult if as a customer, one were at odds with the company.

And they don't even bribe our politicians? Outrageous.

Well, I think experiences like those described in your second paragraph would certainly encourage the behavior described in the first...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com