Waymo et al has had none of these issues. Time to revoke their licence to test?
I mean, it's Uber. I'm not sure exactly what people were expecting. Their entire schtick is being unethical and poorly-run.
If there’s more to your thought than “the ends justify the means,” I’m curious what it is.
This is like saying the Duterte is a very effective anti-drug crusader if you accept that murdering innocents and drug dealers is in his DNA.
It tells a lot about Uber that they weren't willing to fork over $150 for a permit.
People will always relish in their biases being confirmed... even after a rare one-off event with a sample size of 1 in a burgeoning industry.
I think Alphabet is to blame here too in a sense (or at least the industry as a whole). Why didn't they push for more strict testing rules? It's in their interest too.
> Waymo et al has had none of these issues.
... absence of negative media coverage doesn't prove anything.
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/19/uber-self...
a) what % of disengagements are 'to avoid accidents' vs navigating an entirely safe but complex situations. For ex: a parked UPS truck on a narrow 2 lane rd.
b) the degree of real-world complexity the tests the cars are engaging in (compared to other vendors). For ex: testing cars on simple suburban routes = fewer disengagements.
Not trying to defend Uber here, I'm just trying to understand the distinction between a high-level general statistic and it's real world implications.
There is no reason whatsoever to believe that Uber's horrific disengagement record, which is orders of magnitude worse than competitors often in the same cities like SF, is because they are tackling orders of magnitude harder situations per mile or are orders of magnitude more conservative, and every reason, even before this fatality (the only one so far despite many self-driving programs running concurrently over years), to believe they were just plain worse.
> Not trying to defend Uber here, I'm just trying to understand the distinction between a high-level general statistic and it's real world implications.
Again, it has to be dangerous for someone. It can't be more dangerous yet not dangerous to anyone in particular. That just doesn't make any sense. Uber runs on the same roads and the same traffic with the same basic approach as everyone else, there's no confounder which could produce a reversal.
Exactly. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/27/14698902/uber-self-drivin...
Nothing to revoke if they never had a license to begin with!
Local governments have stopped other self-driving companies before with cease-and-desist letters with threats of serious punitive fines. I highly doubt by not buying a $150 license Uber would suddenly have carte-blanche to do what they want, that's not how it works.
If the state gov was really interested in stopping them they easily could have regardless.