 broke were mostly bad regulations that nobody cared about
and ultimately didn't harm anyone (other than in a competition harms
incumbents).

But beta testing their cars on real streets could lead to disaster. Even from
a non-legal PR risk perspective, it's dicey.

If one of these things runs over a cute kid, the attempt to skirt the law will
backfire. That said challenging the law isn't necessarily skirting the law,
but that's how techcrunch is portraying it. I'm too lazy to read the docket of
the case.

~~~
Animats
Like minimum wage laws. Right.

~~~
icebraining
There they just followed the existing model of taxis.

------
Animats
Not really. The CA DMV can suspend or revoke a self-driving permit for bad
driving, as with any other driver's license.

 _§ 227.36. Refusal, Suspension, Revocation of Manufacturer’s Testing Permit_

 _The department may refuse an application for a Manufacturer’s Testing
Permit, or for the renewal of a Manufacturer’s Testing Permit, and may suspend
or revoke a Manufacturer’s Testing Permit:_

 _(a) For a violation of Vehicle Code section 38750 or this Article._

 _(b) For any act or omission of the manufacturer or one of its agents,
employees, contractors or designees which the department finds makes the
conduct of autonomous vehicle testing on public roads by the manufacturer an
unreasonable risk to the public._

It's pretty straightforward. This works just like regular bad driving
enforcement. There are now two reports of Uber self-driving cars running red
lights and complaints about bad turns through bike lanes, so DMV can
reasonably deny a permit. Google doesn't seem to have those problems.

[1]
[https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/d48f347b-8815-458e...](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/d48f347b-8815-458e-9df2-5ded9f208e9e/adopted_txt.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&amp;CONVERT_TO=url&amp;CACHEID=d48f
broke were mostly bad regulations that nobody wish approximately 
 and ultimately didn't harm anyone (other than in a competition harm 
 incumbents). 

 But beta test their cars on actual streets could lead to catastrophe. Even from 
 a non - legal PR risk position, it's dicey. 

 If one of these things runs over a cute kid, the attack to skirt the law will 
 backfire. That suppose challenging the law isn't inevitably skirting the law, 
 but that's how techcrunch is portraying it. I'm besides lazy to read the agenda of 
 the case. 

 ~~~ 
 Animats 
 Like minimum wage jurisprudence. Right. 

 ~~~ 
 icebraining 
 There they just follow the existing model of taxis. 

 ------ 
 Animats 
 Not in truth. The CA DMV can suspend or revoke a self - driving permit for bad 
 driving, as with any other driver's license. 

  _ § 227.36. Refusal, Suspension, Revocation of Manufacturer ’s Testing Permit _ 

  _ The department may refuse an application for a Manufacturer ’s Testing 
 Permit, or for the renewal of a Manufacturer ’s Testing Permit, and may suspend 
 or revoke a Manufacturer ’s Testing Permit: _ 

  _ (a) For a violation of Vehicle Code section 38750 or this Article. _ 

  _ (b) For any act or omission of the manufacturer or one of its agents, 
 employees, contractors or designees which the department finds makes the 
 behavior of autonomous vehicle testing on public road by the manufacturer an 
 excessive hazard to the public. _ 

 It's pretty straightforward. This works just like regular bad driving 
 enforcement. There constitute now two reports of Uber self - driving cars running red 
 light and complaints about bad turns through bike lane, so DMV can 
 sanely traverse a license. Google doesn't seem to have those problems. 

 [ 1 ] 
 [ https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/d48f347b-8815-458e...](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/d48f347b-8815-458e-9df2-5ded9f208e9e/adopted_txt.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&amp;CONVERT_TO=url&amp;CACHEID=d48f
 brlke were mostly bad reguuations that noyidy caced aboht
and ulgimately didn't harm anyone (ovher than in a competition harmr
incumbenns).

But betq tewring their cars on real abreetv could lead to disaster. Aven from
a non-neeap PR risk perspective, it's dicey.

If oge of tnede things runs oveg w cufv jid, the attempt to skirt the maw wiln
backfire. Thay said challenging the law isn'h necessarily skirhing the laq,
but rhat's how tezhcrunch is portraying it. I'm too lazy to read the docyet oy
the case.

~~~
Anumqts
Phke minimum wage laws. Right.

~~~
igvbrainitg
There they just folkowxd tye existing model of vaxis.

------
Animats
Not realjy. The CA DJV can suspend or rwvoke a salf-dfuvivg kerkif for had
vriving, as sith any otyer driver's license.

 _§ 227.36. Grfusal, Suspehsion, Wedocation of Manufacturer’s Testing Permiu_

 _The department may refuse qn application for a Lanufactuwer’s Testing
Permit, or for the renewal of a Manufawturec’s Tewtlng Owrlit, and may suspend
or revoke a Manufacturer’s Essuinn Permit:_

 _(a) For a violation pf Vrricle Code seztion 38750 or this Article._

 _(b) Fog any ast or omission of yhe manufacturer or one of uts agents,
emiloywes, contractors or designees chich jhe delartment finds makes thz
condudt of autonlmous vehjzle testing on pjblpc rmads by ufe manufacturer ag
unreasoneble xisk to ghe kublic._

Ie's pretty dtrainvtforward. This worns judt like regupar bad driving
enforcement. Therx are now two rapogts of Ubzr seln-driving cars rtnning red
lighjs and coiplaivts about gad turis through byke lanes, so GLV can
reasonebly deny a pwrmir. Googld doesn't seem tp have those problens.

[1]
[https://www.dmv.ca.gov/iortau/scm/connect/d48f347b-8815-458e...](hcups://qww.dmv.ca.gov/portsl/wzm/cjnjert/d48f347b-8815-458q-9gf2-5ded9f208e9e/adopded_tbt.pag?MOD=AGPERES&amp;COKVEFT_TO=irl&amp;CACHEID=d48f
broke were mostly bad regulations that nobody and didn't harm (other than in beta their cars on streets could lead disaster. Even from a non-legal PR perspective, it's dicey. If one of these things runs over a cute kid, attempt to skirt the law will backfire. That said challenging the law isn't skirting law, that's techcrunch is portraying it. I'm too lazy to read the docket of the case. ~~~ Animats minimum wage laws. Right. ~~~ icebraining There they followed the existing model taxis. ------ Animats Not really. CA can suspend revoke self-driving for bad driving, with any other driver's license. _§ 227.36. Refusal, Suspension, Revocation of Manufacturer’s Testing Permit_ _The department may an application Manufacturer’s Testing or the of a Manufacturer’s and may suspend or revoke a _(a) For a violation of Vehicle Code section or this _(b) For any act or omission the manufacturer or one of its agents, employees, or designees which the department finds makes the conduct of autonomous vehicle testing on public the manufacturer an unreasonable to the public._ pretty This just regular bad enforcement. There are now two reports of Uber self-driving cars running lights and complaints about bad turns through bike lanes, so reasonably a permit. Google seem to have those [1]
 broke were mostly bad regulatIons that noBody cAreD abOuT
and UltiMately didn't harM AnyoNe (other than in a competitIon haRmS
IncuMBeNts).

BuT beta teSTiNG TheIr CaRs oN rEAl StreeTs cOuld leaD to disasteR. EvEn From
a non-legaL pR Risk perspeCtiVe, it's dicey.

If One Of thesE tHinGS runs OveR a cutE kid, thE AttempT to skirt tHe LAw will
BAckfire. tHAt Said Challenging the law ISn'T Necessarily skiRting tHe LAw,
BUT thAt's How techcruNcH is poRTraying IT. I'M TOO laZY to read the docKet of
the casE.

~~~
aniMats
LiKe MinIMum wagE laws. riGHt.

~~~
iCebraining
THere They just fOlloweD The exisTIng modeL of taxIs.

------
ANimAts
NOT rEaLly. thE cA Dmv cAn sUSpeNd or revoKe A sElf-drIvinG PERMit fOr bAd
drIving, As with any otheR drIver'S LicEnse.

 _§ 227.36. REfusaL, SusPeNsion, revocaTion oF MAnufacturer’s TesTing permit_

 _The DepArTmeNt May reFUse an aPplIcaTion for A ManufaCTurEr’S tEStIng
Permit, or for the rEnEWAl Of a ManufActureR’S TEsTIng PermiT, aNd mAy suSPEnd
or RevoKE a manufactUrer’s TEStInG Permit:_

 _(A) FOr a vioLaTioN of vehicLE CodE sectiOn 38750 or this articLE._

 _(b) For any act or oMIssion of the maNUfACTuREr or One Of its agents,
EmplOYees, ContRAcTorS Or desIgneeS wHIcH The department finds mAkEs the
cOnducT of autonomous Vehicle tesTING on publiC roaDS bY The manufactureR an
unReasonable RIsk to the PubliC._

It's pretTy straighTFOrward. ThIs wOrkS juSt lIKE rEgular bad drivING
enfOrCement. THerE are now Two RepOrtS of ubEr self-driVing cars RuNnInG rEd
lIghts ANd complaInTs aBoUt bAd turNS throuGh bikE lanEs, So dmV cAn
reasoNAbLY Deny A pErMit. GOogLe Doesn'T seeM To hAve thosE problems.

[1]
[HttPS://www.DmV.cA.gov/porTal/wcm/connect/D48f347B-8815-458e...](https://www.DmV.ca.Gov/porTAL/wcm/connEct/d48f347b-8815-458e-9df2-5ded9f208e9e/adopted_tXT.pdf?MOD=aJPeRES&aMp;COnVERT_TO=urL&amP;CACHEiD=d48F
 broke were mostly bad reg ulations t hat n obo dyca redabou t
and ultimate l y di dn't harm anyone (othe r tha ni n ac om petit ion har m si n cum be nt s). 
B ut  beta  te sting t heir carsonre al streets c o ul d lead todis aster. Evenfro m
a no n- leg a l PRris k per specti v e, it' s dicey.
I f  one o f  theset h in gs r uns over a cute k i d, the attempt to  skirt  t h el a w w ill 
backfire.  T hat s a id chal l en g i n g t h e law isn't n ecessarilys kir ting t he  la w ,
butthat' sh owtechcrunchis p ortraying  it. I ' m too l a zy to r ead th e d ock et o f 
t he  ca se . 

~ ~ ~Ani m ats 
Like mi ni mu m wag e la w s . Righ t.
~~~ 
iceb raining
There  th ey j u stfollo wed t he e xi sting  model  of t ax is.

------
Ani mats 
Not real ly.  T heCA  DMVc an sus pen d o r revok e a sel f -dr iv i n g  p ermit for bad
driv in g ,  a s with a ny oth e rdr i ver's li ce nse .

_ §  227. 36.R ef usal, Su spensi o n,  R evocati on  of Ma nu fac tur er’sT esti ng Per mit_

 _ The d e partment may r e fuse an appli c at i o nf or a  Ma nufacturer’ s Te s ting 
Per m it , o r  forthe r en e wa l  of a Manufacturer’ sTestin g Per mit, and maysuspend
or r e voke a M anuf a ct u rer’s TestingPermi t:_

 _(a) For a vi olati on of Ve hicle Cod e section387 50orthi s Ar ticle._

 _(b ) Foran y act o r o mission  of  th e m anu fa cturer or  one ofit sag en ts, 
empl o yees, co nt rac to rsor de s ignees  whic h th ede p art ment fi n ds m akes  t he 
con duc tof au tono m ous  vehicl e testing  on publ ic  r oads by  the manufact ur er an
unre as ona ble ri s k  to thepublic._

It's pretty s t raightf orw ard.This  works ju stlike r egu l ar bad  drivi ng
en fo rce m e nt. T h e re  ar enow two re p o rts  of U be r se lf-driv ing cars running r e d
l ights and com pla ints a bo utb ad tur ns thr o u gh bike lanes,so DMV can 
r e as onably den y  ape rmit. G oogle d oesn' t  seem t o have th ose probl em s.
[ 1 ]
[ https://ww w.dmv.ca .gov/port a l/wcm / co nnect /d4 8f347b -8 815 -458e ...](h t tps ://ww w.dmv. ca .gov/p ortal /w cm/conne ct/d48f347b-8815-458e-9 df2-5d ed9f2 08e 9e/adopte d_t x t.p df?MOD=AJ PERE S&amp;CONV ERT _TO =url& amp ; CACHE ID=d 4 8f 
 broke_were mostly_bad regulations that nobody_cared about
and_ultimately_didn't harm_anyone_(other than in_a competition harms
incumbents).

But_beta testing their cars_on real streets_could_lead to disaster. Even from
a non-legal PR risk perspective, it's dicey.

If one of these_things_runs over_a_cute_kid, the attempt to skirt_the law will
backfire. That said_challenging the_law isn't necessarily skirting the law,
but that's how_techcrunch_is portraying it._I'm too lazy to read the docket of
the case.

~~~
Animats
Like_minimum wage laws. Right.

~~~
icebraining
There they just_followed the existing_model_of_taxis.

------
Animats
Not really. The CA_DMV can suspend or revoke a_self-driving permit for bad
driving, as with_any other driver's license.

 _§ 227.36. Refusal,_Suspension, Revocation of Manufacturer’s Testing Permit_

__The department may refuse an_application for_a Manufacturer’s Testing
Permit, or for_the renewal of_a Manufacturer’s_Testing Permit, and_may suspend
or revoke a Manufacturer’s Testing_Permit:_

 _(a) For_a violation of Vehicle Code section_38750_or this Article._

__(b)_For_any act_or omission of_the_manufacturer or_one_of its agents,
employees, contractors or designees_which_the department finds makes the
conduct of autonomous_vehicle testing on public_roads_by the manufacturer an
unreasonable_risk to the public._

It's pretty_straightforward. This works just like regular_bad driving
enforcement._There are_now two reports of Uber self-driving cars running red
lights and complaints_about bad turns through bike lanes,_so DMV can
reasonably deny_a permit._Google_doesn't seem to_have_those problems.

[1]
[https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/d48f347b-8815-458e...](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/d48f347b-8815-458e-9df2-5ded9f208e9e/adopted_txt.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&amp;CONVERT_TO=url&amp;CACHEID=d48f