(p. B3) For seven years, Uber’s stance on complying with regulations has been consistent: Ask forgiveness, not permission.
On Friday [December 16, 2016], the ride-hailing company stuck to that position. It said it had no intention of ending a new test of its self-driving vehicles in San Francisco, even though California regulators had said the service was illegal because Uber had not obtained the necessary permits. Uber said its self-driving cars were still on the road and picking up passengers.
The dispute is rooted in Uber’s refusal to seek a permit from the California Department of Motor Vehicles, which would allow it to test autonomous vehicles under certain conditions. Companies like Google, Tesla Motors and Mercedes-Benz have all gotten such permits.
Uber officials contend that under the letter of California law, the company does not need a permit because the motor vehicles department defines autonomous vehicles as those that drive “without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person.” Uber said its modified, self-driving Volvo XC90s require human oversight, and therefore do not fit California’s definition of an autonomous vehicle.
. . .
The episode serves the latest volley in Uber’s war with local and state regulators — not only in the United States, but in many of the more than 70 countries in which the company operates. Uber has previously grappled with the authorities in California over safety concerns. And Otto, the self-driving trucking start-up founded by Mr. Levandowski and acquired by Uber in August, has flouted state laws in Nevada in the past.
For the full story, see:
MIKE ISAAC. “Uber Defies California Officials Over Self-Driving Cars.” The New York Times (Sat., December 17, 2016): B3.
(Note: ellipsis, and bracketed date, added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date DEC. 16, 2016, and has the title “Uber Defies California Regulators With Self-Driving Car Service.”)