Skip to main content

Uber, Self-Driving And The Law Of Unintended Consequences

Uber announced that it begun passenger trials with self-driving Volvos in San Francisco. Within hours California's DMV had demanded that Uber desist, something which Uber vocally declined to do.

Which raises some interesting questions.

Firstly, to what extent do the San Francisco authorities have control over what happens on the streets of San Francisco? Presumably, having declined to halt its trials, Uber's self-driving vehicles have been collecting passengers for the best part of a week now without any form of sanction. Does the DMV have any teeth?

Secondly, what defines a self-driving vehicle? Uber claims its technology is of the same level as that being used by Tesla and requires that a human be sat in the driver's seat at all times. Which may indeed be the case, but having the vehicle filmed ignoring a red signal wasn't helpful to the companies case.

Nor will the knowledge that the only sticking point is the application for an appropriate self-driving license, which Uber claims is not required because of the engineer in the driving seat. The suggestion being that the Uber isn't self-driving at all. Or is self-driving, whichever argument suits Uber at the time.

Which has some very clear legal implications for the engineers sat in the driving seat. If they are in charge of the vehicle if it is involved in an incident - whether they are actively driving or not - they will carry the can for the criminal and civil liabilities that arise, not Uber.

Given the potential for civil suits relating to accidents or incidents caused by a self-driving car this might turn out to be the real reason why Uber wants to avoid applying for a permit for the self-driving trial.

It claims that a human was in control when the red light was run last week, a claim it has positioned itself to make for any further incidents too.


Popular posts from this blog

F1: Robert Kubica Impresses In Renault Test Run

The car may be old but its the performance of the driver that's the story here. Robert Kubica returned to F1, after a fashion, earlier this week with an extensive test run in a 2012 Lotus Renault F1 car at Valencia.
The age of the car and the circuit were likely determined by F1's current rules which ban testing, but the reason for Kubica being in the car is far more interesting. Considered by many to be a potential World Champion and certainly one of the fastest drivers of his generation, Kubica's F1 career seemed to be over after a 2011 crash whilst driving in the Rally of Andora. His Skoda Fabia was penetrated by a guardrail in the high speed accident partially severing his right arm.
Up until last year Kubica has been competing in rallying, with the expectation that the limited movement in his repaired arm would prohibit a return to single seater racing.
So this week's test is both interesting and confusing. Interesting because Kubica completed 115 laps of the ret…

F1: Robert Kubica's Williams Test Asks More Questions Than It Answers

Comparing driver's times at a tyre evaluation test like last week's Abu Dhabi event is difficult at the best of times, but when trying to assess the performance of a driver who has been out of the sport for six years, that difficulty level is raised even higher.
On the face of it Robert Kubica's test for Williams was a success. Fastest of the three Williams drivers present the headlines look promising. However, taking into consideration the different tyres used to set those times muddies the water considerably.
Kubica ran a three lap qualifying simulation on the new 'hyper-soft' tyre - which should have given him a two-second advantage. Correcting for tyres it would appear that Kubica was significantly slower than Sergei Sorotkin - who was on the harder 'soft' tyre - and marginally quicker than Lance Stroll, the team's only contracted driver.

Stroll's family fortune currently funds Williams, so there' no chance that he will be anywhere but in a…

Panos Panay's Defence Of Microsoft Surface Hardware Sounds Eerily Familiar

This weekend I went out with my ten year old daughter to select a laptop for her school year beginning in January. The schools requirements are quite specific, requiring a Windows 10 device, with a preference for a touchscreen and a stylus. She chose a Surface Pro, after trying a large number of different options. Having seen the way I use my own Surface Pro - and tried it herself there was only ever going to be two options - and the other was a Surface Laptop.
I tell you this so that you understand I am a buyer of Microsoft's products through choice, not compulsion. I'm on my third Surface device now. 
So when Panos Panay dismissed reports of the death of the Surface hardware line, I was very interested to see exactly how strong these denials were. Especially how they reflect what has gone before. To whit: Windows 10 Mobile.
Panay claimed that Microsoft is in hardware for the long haul. Almost exactly mirroring the words of Terry Myerson, when he claimed Windows Mobile was g…