Arizona, and all states really, should make this data and much more mandatory for testing. Not only that, but there needs to be a "minimum capability" you need to be able to prove before you're allowed to test on public roads.
No wonder Uber stopped driving in California, they didn't want people to see in what disastrous state their technology is. It's honestly ridiculous how reckless they are, all in the name of "winning" and being first.
But then they won't be able to win the regulatory arbitrage game. Why do you think Uber left California to test in Arizona? If the regulations were equivalent, do you think they would have done that?
This is correct (AFAIK). Uber did operate AVs in San Francisco around 2016, but they did so while openly refusing to apply for permits [0], which would have then required them to disclose. They pulled their AVs at the end of 2016 and moved them to Arizona. Only recently, did Uber apply properly to have cars in SF, and apparently it's only been so far to give rides to Uber employees [1].
Also of note from [1]: apparently California is just weeks away from allowing AVs with no human operators. I'm guessing Uber wouldn't have been ready to try that out in any reasonable scale (if the state of the program is as bad as the internal docs say), though the cynical person in me thinks that, if the AZ fatality hadn't happened, they might have had a non-human-assisted AV in SF just to get some slice of the publicity.
Wow, they have a complete disregard for safety and just care about their stupid valuation. This isn’t even a case of “hacking” for innovation. The company seems to be rotten to th core with everyone just salivating to profit from the IPO.
No wonder Uber stopped driving in California, they didn't want people to see in what disastrous state their technology is. It's honestly ridiculous how reckless they are, all in the name of "winning" and being first.