Florida Senator: No Permit Needed For Driverless Cars In Florida (politifact.com) 131
In response to the California Department of Motor Vehicles ordering Uber's autonomous vehicles off the roads in San Francisco due to a lack of a permit, Florida state Sen. Jeff Brandes said he welcomes the company with open arms. Brandes tweeted: "Hey @Uber, unlike California we in Florida welcome driverless cars -- no permit required. #OpenForBusiness #FlaPol." PolitiFact reports: Several car companies are developing fully autonomous or self-driving cars operated by computers and testing them in some states. But it could be several years before they are broadly publicly available due to the cost, questions about liability and the technology and as state government officials grapple with oversight. While California's law requires a permit, that's not the case in Florida. "Florida has the least restrictive active state laws for the operation of autonomous vehicles," said John Terwilleger, an attorney at Gunster, Yoakley -- Stewart in West Palm Beach. Terwilleger represents a company that is involved in developing and using autonomous vehicles in Florida. In 2012, the Florida Legislature passed a law co-sponsored by Brandes that allowed a person with a valid driver's license to operate an autonomous vehicle. Before companies could test autonomous cars, they had to submit proof that they had $5 million in insurance. But in 2016, the Florida Legislature passed new rules that eliminated some of the previous requirements, including the $5 million in insurance. The new law also got rid of the requirement that a human operator be present in the vehicle, as long as an operator can be alerted in case of technology failure and stop the vehicle. Since there is no permit for autonomous vehicles, the state has no information regarding how many Floridians own one, said Beth Frady, spokeswoman for the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Florida law treats an autonomous vehicle in the same manner as any other motor vehicle operating on our roads, said Chris Spencer, a spokesman for Brandes. "There are no requirements for additional permitting, licensing, or approval from any state or local government body to operate an autonomous vehicle on our roads," he said. That's still the case, even though Florida was the location of the first fatality involving a self-driving car. In May, Joshua Brown, was killed when his Tesla while on autopilot crashed into a tractor-trailer in Williston.
Ardurover (Score:2)
Can't be worse than FL human drivers (Score:5, Funny)
At first I was shaking my head at how reckless the idea of allowing completely uncertified automation systems on a 3-ton slab of metal hurtling down the road at highway speeds was. Then I remembered this is Florida we're talking about—it certainly can't be any worse than things already are...
Re: (Score:1)
Actually Uber's argument is that their technology is not really fully autonomous and it's more like Tesla calling their system auto pilot.
So if you have Teslas driving on california why can't you have Ubers'?
Either ban both or allow both.
California is already telling Uber they will speed up, expedite and bend over backwards to issue the permit.
Uber is fighting because they think its unfair not because it's too much trouble to send someone down to apply a permit within a day.
I'm without uber on this one. Fuck California!
A human turning on a glorified cruise control system (Tesla) is not the same thing as removing the need for a human altogether.
Enough of this "unfair" bullshit. There is a difference here.
Re: Can't be worse than FL human drivers (Score:5, Informative)
Actually Uber's argument is that their technology is not really fully autonomous and it's more like Tesla calling their system auto pilot.
So if you have Teslas driving on california why can't you have Ubers'?
Aside from the point that you seem to be conflating production vehicles with test rigs, how about the fact that Tesla went and got their $150/year permit in CA?
The following companies have their CA permits. Only Uber is being an uber douchebag about it.
Volkswagen Group of America
Mercedes Benz
Google
Delphi Automotive
Tesla Motors
Bosch
Nissan
GM Cruise LLC
BMW
Honda
Ford
Zoox Inc.
Drive.ai Inc.
Faraday & Future Inc.
Baidu USA LLC
Wheego Electric Cars Inc.
Valeo North America, Inc.
NextEV USA, Inc.
Telenav, Inc.
NVIDIA Corporation
Taken from the CA DMV site Application Requirements for Autonomous Vehicle Tester Program [ca.gov]
Re: (Score:1)
Despite the fact that a huge number of trolls here who like to call people "space-nutters" think this is never going to happen, there is a massive amount of money and research going into making it happen because this is going to revolutionize transport. The first trucking company to get automated trucking is likely going to save hundreds of millions of dollars on wages, insurance and torts. The first company that can upgrade that t
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Uber's argument is that their technology is not really fully autonomous and it's more like Tesla calling their system auto pilot.
So if you have Teslas driving on california why can't you have Ubers'?
Aside from the point that you seem to be conflating production vehicles with test rigs, how about the fact that Tesla went and got their $150/year permit in CA?
The following companies have their CA permits. Only Uber is being an uber douchebag about it.
Yes. While there are a very small number of companies listed that I've never heard of, I can understand why the rest of them would be interested in testing autonomous vehicles. This whole fight by Uber against California makes no sense. Uber's business model relies on them pushing costs for car ownership, insurance, maintenance and yearly fees to their drivers. I've not yet seen anybody suggest a good reason why owning autonomous vehicles makes any sense for Uber. I have to ask if this whole idea reall
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't. Their business model relies on easily connecting cargo (passengers, currently, but freight in the future) with transportation. As they say "they came up with a simple idea - tap a button, get a ride."
Using people with cars for transportation was a low-capital way to get started. But those drivers are paying all the vehicle costs you mention and still making a profi
Re: (Score:3)
"Uber's business model relies on them pushing costs for car ownership, insurance, maintenance and yearly fees to their drivers."
No it doesn't. Their business model relies on easily connecting cargo (passengers, currently, but freight in the future) with transportation. As they say "they came up with a simple idea - tap a button, get a ride."
Using people with cars for transportation was a low-capital way to get started. But those drivers are paying all the vehicle costs you mention and still making a profit for themselves. Uber now has enough capital to start building their own infrastructure of self driving cars and retain that profit (or lower prices to keep competition at bay).
Would you work for Uber? Could you maintain your standard of living that way?
^^^ Appeal to emotion.
Re: (Score:2)
So what? He's not making a logical argument, jackass.
And neither do you, ergo the comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you work for Uber? Could you maintain your standard of living that way?
Yes and Yes. I don't, but I would if I needed the money more than my time and if I didn't hate driving. I just wouldn't quit my day job. "Uber Driver" is a work supplement, not a replacement.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you work for Uber? Could you maintain your standard of living that way?
The majority of Uber drivers do it part time to earn extra money, and not as their main source of income.
Re: (Score:2)
This whole fight by Uber against California makes no sense
Uber gets free press. That's all this is about.
I've not yet seen anybody suggest a good reason why owning autonomous vehicles makes any sense for Uber.
They can get rid of human drivers. Human drivers that attack users, have accidents and are an all around liability.
If $(autonomous car liability + costs) $(human liability + costs) it makes business sense.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Aside from the point that you seem to be conflating production vehicles with test rigs, how about the fact that Tesla went and got their $150/year permit in CA?
That 150 dollar regulation is just another job killing liberal death tool. The America Ascendant think tank has conclusive data that because of that onerous regulation, 5 million people in California have been put out of work already.
Wake Up, America!!
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
So the fee on a driverless car is killing jobs?
What about the jobs that will be eliminated by these automobiles?
Re: (Score:2)
So the fee on a driverless car is killing jobs?
What about the jobs that will be eliminated by these automobiles?
Amazing how you got modded down, but the clueless punk you replied to has been modded up.
Re: (Score:2)
So the fee on a driverless car is killing jobs?
What about the jobs that will be eliminated by these automobiles?
Amazing how you got modded down, but the clueless punk you replied to has been modded up.
The whooshers are out in full force. To be certain, a 150 dollar permit won't hurt Uber. They simply don't want their driverless cars to be classified as autonomous yet.
Exactly. (Score:2)
It's the lack of principle of the thing.
Re: (Score:2)
NVIDIA Corporation
NVIDIA drivers? The joke writes itself...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell is the big deal on having your 3000lb high speed robot regulated by the state?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
If you live in a Midwestern or Southern state, you are on CA welfare. CA has an economy comparable to France and give more money back to Feds that it receives. Most Midwestern and Southern states leech money from the Feds.
Well it takes a lot of money to convert states into leftist utopia looney bins like CA.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd trust these driverless vehicles a hell of a lot more than the snow-birds that fsck up the roads when it's too cold in their home state. Keep the coffin dodgers out of FL please.
As someone from South Florida, I agree with the sentiment. Seasonal upticks in traffic make bad situations even worse.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, right? Half the cars in Florida are driverless now. My favorite is what I call the Florida Turn Signal. To make a lane change, a car starts edging over the line slowly. If no horns are blown, then they come the rest of then way. The Florida Turn Signal is "When I'm two feet into your lane, you know I'm coming over."
However, native Floridians do get a bad rap. The real problem is all the retired Yankees who move down there.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, right? Half the cars in Florida are driverless now. My favorite is what I call the Florida Turn Signal. To make a lane change, a car starts edging over the line slowly. If no horns are blown, then they come the rest of then way. The Florida Turn Signal is "When I'm two feet into your lane, you know I'm coming over."
However, native Floridians do get a bad rap. The real problem is all the retired Yankees who move down there.
This.
Re: (Score:2)
At first I was shaking my head at how reckless the idea of allowing completely uncertified automation systems on a 3-ton slab of metal hurtling down the road at highway speeds was. Then I remembered this is Florida we're talking about—it certainly can't be any worse than things already are...
Hey now! We're not THAT bad! We have a speed limit of 50MPH in all strip-mall sized parking lots, no more than 75 MPH in school zones, All occupants of handicapped parking spaces are definitely and irrefutably handicapped - either physically, mentally, or morally,
When experiencing road rage, fire at pickup trucks displaying rebel flags in the back window at your own risk. Likewise any vehicle displaying UF or FSU logos or paint jobs, prominent religious messages or "Hillary for Prison" bumper stickers.
It's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
let me know what you find out, sliding over to the passenger side may be a great option soon.
Florida drivers (Score:4, Interesting)
If you've ever driven in or around Miami, you'd be aware that having a human in the driver's seat is not necessarily saying the same thing as having a driver in the driver's seat. A computer-driven car just formalizes what is already a common state of affairs.
Re: (Score:2)
You beat me to it. I was about to say that given the number of senior citizens on the road down there, the cars are practically driverless already.
Re: (Score:2)
driverless can only improve the situation
Like AZ? (Score:2)
So FL is like AZ, which is where Uber already loaded up their cars and drove to?
This seems too little, too late, when the cars have already been unloaded from their trailers in AZ.... [google.com]
Florida permits? (Score:4, Funny)
Bush and Trump? (Score:2)
But even if we restrict ourselves to people who voted in at least 2000 or 2016 in Florida, I suspect that there are few Floridians who voted for both Bush and Trump.
re: Florida Senator: No Permit Needed For Driverle (Score:2, Insightful)
Amazing. Yet another example of a state totally and thoroughly owned by big business.
My one question is - will Trump drop Florida into the Gulf for allowing Big Business to run roughshod over the population, or promote it to the nation's capitol - for the same reason ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
... will Trump drop Florida into the Gulf for allowing Big Business to run roughshod over the population,... ?
By ignoring Climate Change Trump and his moronions will only need to let nature take its course – the Gulf will swallow Florida all by itself.
Re: (Score:2)
The moronions will still deny Climate Change and attribute it to a nefarious plot by Clinton to deny the golf course of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named its rightful proceeds to Presidential Graft.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because capitalism tends not to look at the long term.
Re: (Score:2)
... will Trump drop Florida into the Gulf for allowing Big Business to run roughshod over the population,... ?
By ignoring Climate Change Trump and his moronions will only need to let nature take its course – the Gulf will swallow Florida all by itself.
No one will leave though. Though the government will try and force them to leave their now sea ridden homes people will stay anyway. They will just build higher on stilts, trade out their cars for boats and eventually become New Venice, the 52nd state in 2071.
Re: Florida Senator: No Permit Needed For Driverle (Score:4, Interesting)
... will Trump drop Florida into the Gulf for allowing Big Business to run roughshod over the population,... ?
By ignoring Climate Change Trump and his moronions will only need to let nature take its course – the Gulf will swallow Florida all by itself.
People who live in the economic engines, Tampa, Orlando, South Florida, Naples, Jacksonville, those whose livelihood, property and trade will get affected by rising tides, we all get a big collective fuck you from our remote state capitol. Local governments in South Florida are all over the issue working right now on countermeasures, beach preservation barriers, pumps, etc. All by themselves, pretty much we are all by ourselves because the fuckers in Tallahassee are pretty much non-existent. They exist there just to appease rural Florida and snow birds (most of them away from the coasts.)
I've always been skeptical of South Florida politics, having a unique streak of banana republic corruption here and there. But on the other hand, I've been quite impressed by how city mayors have mobilized.
Because we don't give a shit what Rick Scott and his circle up in Tallahassee or the far fringe right morons think, we see the effects of climate change. We see this shit is real, the rising tides, ocean water creeping through our walkways and sewers, etc.
This is the type of thing for which state and federal governments ought to exist, to assist local governments in tackling these kind of things. But shit, no, that's not how we roll.
Whether we can deal with it by technical means, it remains to be seen. But no one can say we did not try. And none of these Repuke motherfuckers in Tallahassee have a fucking right to claim participation if we do get to deal with sea level rise successfully. Because unless they sent the invisible man to help us, our governor is with his bald head shoved right up his ass on his state capital, denying a reality we see down here every damned day.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL - THANK YOU ! ! ! I didn't think about that bit of righteous (in)action - and totally fitting for the legislators that aGREED to this.
Sad part would be that the rest of the country would have to take in these sniveling cretins (the legislators - NOT the population) as 'disadvantaged' and 'catastrophically dislocated' welfare burdens.
It's a shame that the legislative bodies would be provided luxury accommodations and relocation benefits, while the real victims (the populous) would be dumped into Katrin
Re: (Score:2)
Permits are just a money grab by the state, ultimately.
These states already require a permit, it's called a registration. They can pull this registration at any time for any reason. They can also track via the registration.
They also require insurance for liability reasons.
Re: (Score:1)
Amazing. Yet another example of a state totally and thoroughly owned by big business.
My one question is - will Trump drop Florida into the Gulf for allowing Big Business to run roughshod over the population, or promote it to the nation's capitol - for the same reason ?
Central Florida is pretty much Trump's dream for a "Great Again" America, realized. We were draining swamps before it was cool. Thanks to the tourism industry, we've got plenty of jobs. Sure, they're soul-destroying, low-wage and you can't afford rent on them, but they're jobs and that's what counts, right?
If you've been paying attention, Trump only cares if your job is outsourced, sent overseas, or taken by a foreigner. Lose your job due to automation or Ray Zalinsky buying up your small town factory?
No reason for it, Uber has $5million in their pock (Score:4, Insightful)
Uber could easily buy $5 million in insurance, of course, but there's little reason to do. If you destroy your house, you need insurance because you can't afford to replace the house amd everything in it out of your own pocket. If Uber causes a crash, they just pay the damages directly - no point in putting an insurance company in the middle.*
Generally, you should insure for costs you can't readily pay directly. For something you can afford, paying the insurance company's overhead and profit is stupid.** Uber has a billion dollars in their "shit happens" fund, so they can easily pay for any crash they cause. $5 million in insurance wouldn't change that at all.
Further, to save even more money, when you're unsure whether to buy insurance on something, such as a mobile phone, here's what you can do instead. Suppose the insurance costs $10. Put the $10 in an envelope marked "small insurance" or "shit happens". Do that every time you think about buying a protection plan - for tickets that offer cancellation insurance, whatever. After two years you might have $200 in your "small insurance" envelope. Right about then maybe your phone breaks. So you go get the money out of your envelope. You've bought insurance from yourself, and you don't pay the insurance company's profit (or the retailer's 50% commission on protection plans). Over time, your "shit happens" fund will grow and you'll find you no longer need to buy insurance on a $1,000 purchase, and aren't completely screwed when you're car breaks down.
* Which is what frustrates me about Obamacare. I can easily afford a $10 flu shot; I don't need insurance company overhead making it cost $25. I can pay $45 for a checkup, but insurance company paperwork makes it cost $65. I preferred ten years ago, when I could insure against major illness and injury for 75% less than I pay now.
** Even though Uber can easily self-insure for car accidents, an insurance company *might* provide some value by providing an objective, independent view of their safety protocols. The insurance company might say "to get insurance from us, you must make it safer by _______".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Finally someone who understands why ObamaCare fucked the US.
When I came to the US, I had the best health care and insurance options, better than Europe's which I was forced to pay into and cheaper too. There are obviously retards that spent their money on drugs and alcohol over insurance but even at minimum wage you were always able to afford insurance if you *chose* to do so. Sure you would have to not spend money on frivolities or perhaps you'd even have to *gasp* cancel your cable bill. And yes, there ar
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
I would love to have a discussion on this but I don't want to lose mods.
Circa 1994, I left college. $20 dollars a quarter for insurance. Didn't cover much, but the college I went to has a world renowned medical research facility and it gave me access to this. Left college. I had to get my own insurance. $80 dollars a month for high deductable major medical. I joined a self-employed co-op and got a little lower deductible for $47 a month. 6 months later, $56. 3 months later $63. regular increases of
Lots pf broken parts need a lot of fixing (Score:2)
> I'm open for suggestions. Single payer seems logical.
From my research, it appears that there are lot of problems, requiring a lot of fixes. Anybody who says "x will fix it" is either uninformed or lying, for any x. There are also a lot of compromises, though choices. Everybody I know in Canada makes trips to the US to buy medical care that they've already paid for in Canada - ut has a two-year wait. "Better" generally costs more, for most measures of "better", so there are tough choices to make.
Re: (Score:2)
As you said, you found doctors that give large discounts for cash, you could find good discount insurance across state lines if you rates went up significantly, I just threatened to move and they instantly went down. I never had $20 insurance, that's not realistic unless it was subsidized but my rates were relatively flat for ~5 years. We used to be protected from medical debt collection by state law, an expensive operation could be placed on a 0% credit forever if you didn't have insurance, ACA erased that
Re: (Score:1)
Finally someone who understands why ObamaCare fucked the US.
The ACA doesn't work because it doesn't make the rich pay their fair share. If you're going to accept that healthcare is a basic necessity in the USA (like K through 12 education, roads, military, etc.), then you make the rich carry a larger proportion of the burden.
Of course, the average Jane and Joe voter in this country buys into the "Politician X is a socialist and they'll take half your paycheck if you vote for him/her!" propaganda, so we're stuck with systems which don't work.
Re: (Score:2)
The ACA doesn't work because it was written by and for the general profit of insurance companies.
Either health care has to be fully subsidized by the government (which should be possible through existing taxes) or it has to be mandated with a free and open market for both insurance companies and medical providers to compete.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You live in broke-ass California, your care is heavily subsidized by both state and federal taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
California is far from broke. California has had a sizeable budget surplus for years once the Repubs lost control of the governorship and were no longer able to block everything in congress.
Most of the fraud was *not insurance, by state reg (Score:2, Interesting)
> Have you ever tried to use this major illness insurance you had then?
Yes, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas was a good company then, as it is now.
Medical INSURANCE is/was regulated by state law. "Health discount plans" not so much.
The really bad ones said "Health Care Discount Plan" or whatever at the top, at at the bottom said "this is not an insurance product". In most states the less-regulated plans couldn't use the word "insurance" in their marketing, other than a disclaimer stating that it's not
Re: (Score:1)
And can you afford a major illness?
Here's an article from 2005 [usatoday.com] about the cost of cancer treatment for a child. As was legal then, insurance companies could put a yearly and lifetime
$10 shot, $25 health care plan admin costs (Score:2)
> If you want a $10 flu shot, go to Walgreens, CVS, Kroger, shit even Wal-Mart's pharmacy will do one.
Which tells you the actual cost of the flu shot.
> A flu shot meant a $35 co-pay at the very least, even if the injection itself was "free" under the insurance policy.
"Free under the insurance (healthcare) policy" means "paperwork for the insurance company". The difference between the $10 shot and the $35 is paying for the insurance bureaucracy.
A good way to get the Uber and execs screwed (Score:3)
> whatever shell company will officially "own" the cars might not have 50 bucks. Putting legal distance between you and possible liabilities is the first rule of business
If a shell company didn't have reasonably sufficient capital, that would actually do the opposite - it *exposes* the executives to *personal* liability. To shield the executives (and major investors), you separate different lines of business different companies, each with appropriate funding for their operations, including potential liab
It's better than the human drivers here. (Score:2)
Dear god, anything that will get the old farts off the road that can not drive I am in support of. even if automated cars kill 4 people a day it will be less than what the old farts do.
Re: (Score:2)
disney is not at fault and you can sue our subcontraed 1099 driver who is only payed $5 an ride to cover your 500K doctor bill.
Re: (Score:1)
... who is liable? If they're truly assistance systems, there's somebody in the driver's seat so they have an operator. Presumably a license driver, as I assume Florida requires drivers to be licensed? But otherwise, do they just sue the software developer? Are they going to try and claim the owner is responsible even though they might have no control (or ability to control?) the car's actions?
Would be rather cynical if Florida requires more licensing/testing for meat-bag drivers than chip-based...
The person who got hit is responsible, if you make Uber responsible that would hurt job creators. Its the victims fault they got hit and the will of the free market.
Re: (Score:1)
Ask THX.
Re: (Score:2)
All this "driverless" talk is a misnomer, there's a human being sitting behind the wheel who is capable of assuming control and pulling the vehicle over. If the driver refuses, I suspect the cops would handle it the same way they do now. Chase the driver for awhile, shoot him if he's black, etc.
Corruption (Score:2)
Loophole? (Score:2)
This seems like a loophole big enough for people who've had their licenses revoked to drive a Scania R 450 through - Just stick a computer between yourself and the car's controls, and bam, no need to worry about that pesky "license" thing.
Hell, some people might do that just for kicks - I've always wondered why we can't just have a simple joystick to control our cars... Well, in
Figures that Florida would do this... (Score:3)
In Florida over half the drivers are senior citizens and their motto is "drive slow, sit low". The state flag of Florida should be a steering wheel with a hat and two sets of knuckles on it.
Not so fast - so to speek (Score:2)
Ug, now I hate "State's Rights" (Score:2)
Tickets? (Score:2)
Florida already has ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Politics at its worst (Score:3)
Really upsets me when people put politics and ideology over lives. Here are the really simple facts about self driving cars. 1. It's an amazing technology that could change the world and save a lot of lives. 2. That technology is not yet ready for release. It can't deal safely (yet) with a lot of common situations. 3. Until we get those problems fixed, anyone who puts a self driving car on the road without a human ready to intervene at a moment's notice is putting lives at risk.
None of those should be controversial. They're all simple facts. But hey, let's score some political points! Regulation bad! Having to register your car is evil! We're not like those stupid Californians!
And people are likely to die because of this. Because some politicians decided playing politics was more important than lives.
Re: (Score:2)