Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws
1–10 of 120 posts
Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws
#2> According to the Texas Transportation Code, the owner of a driverless car is “considered the operator” and can be cited for breaking traffic laws “regardless of whether the person is physically present in the vehicle.”
This is all well and good when the owner is Waymo or Cruise and actually has direct control over the code that caused the vehicle to fail, but for consumer cars it brings up important questions of what "ownership" even means these days.
Let's say I own a self-driving car that's able to reliably park itself. I pay close attention the first few months to make sure that it's safe and reliable, and once it's proved itself I start trusting it. I've been as careful as can reasonably be expected, but one day the manufacturer pushes a mandatory, automatic over-the-air update that contains a critical bug, and my car suddenly starts misbehaving and I get ticketed.
This isn't an unlikely scenario—how many of us have "owned" a product that has suddenly changed its behavior in undesirable ways after we purchased it? It doesn't seem reasonable to me to hold an individual consumer liable for bugs in a machine that they are unable to fully control.
Either manufacturers need to be required to provide important software freedoms to vehicle owners, or the manufacturers themselves need to be liable for infractions.
Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws
#3> According to the Texas Transportation Code, the owner of a driverless car is “considered the operator” and can be cited for breaking traffic laws “regardless of whether the person is physically present in the vehicle.” This is all well and good when the owner is Waymo or Cruise and actually has direct control over the code that caused the vehicle to fail, but for consumer cars it brings up important questions of wh…
This is why the judicial system exists.
Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws
#4> According to the Texas Transportation Code, the owner of a driverless car is “considered the operator” and can be cited for breaking traffic laws “regardless of whether the person is physically present in the vehicle.” This is all well and good when the owner is Waymo or Cruise and actually has direct control over the code that caused the vehicle to fail, but for consumer cars it brings up important questions of wh…
> It doesn't seem reasonable to me to hold an individual consumer liable for bugs in a machine that they are unable to fully control.
They chose to buy it. Manufacturers should also be potentially liable for some classes of problem, but consumers are the ones pressing the "run the self-driving car" button. The court system exists to apportion liability properly past that.
Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws
#5> According to the Texas Transportation Code, the owner of a driverless car is “considered the operator” and can be cited for breaking traffic laws “regardless of whether the person is physically present in the vehicle.” This is all well and good when the owner is Waymo or Cruise and actually has direct control over the code that caused the vehicle to fail, but for consumer cars it brings up important questions of wh…
This is why the judicial system exists.
Usually invoked after some harm has been caused.
Perhaps there is something we can do before the, nearly obvious, harm occurs.
Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws
#6> According to the Texas Transportation Code, the owner of a driverless car is “considered the operator” and can be cited for breaking traffic laws “regardless of whether the person is physically present in the vehicle.” This is all well and good when the owner is Waymo or Cruise and actually has direct control over the code that caused the vehicle to fail, but for consumer cars it brings up important questions of wh…
This is why the judicial system exists.
Which as we all know is a super level playing field.
Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws
#7Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws
#8> According to the Texas Transportation Code, the owner of a driverless car is “considered the operator” and can be cited for breaking traffic laws “regardless of whether the person is physically present in the vehicle.” This is all well and good when the owner is Waymo or Cruise and actually has direct control over the code that caused the vehicle to fail, but for consumer cars it brings up important questions of wh…
> It doesn't seem reasonable to me to hold an individual consumer liable for bugs in a machine that they are unable to fully control. They chose to buy it. Manufacturers should also be potentially liable for some classes of problem, but consumers are the ones pressing the "run the self-driving car" button. The court system exists to apportion liability properly past that.
If I buy a defective toaster and it burns down my house, am I liable for choosing to buy it?
Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws
#9> According to the Texas Transportation Code, the owner of a driverless car is “considered the operator” and can be cited for breaking traffic laws “regardless of whether the person is physically present in the vehicle.” This is all well and good when the owner is Waymo or Cruise and actually has direct control over the code that caused the vehicle to fail, but for consumer cars it brings up important questions of wh…
> It doesn't seem reasonable to me to hold an individual consumer liable for bugs in a machine that they are unable to fully control. They chose to buy it. Manufacturers should also be potentially liable for some classes of problem, but consumers are the ones pressing the "run the self-driving car" button. The court system exists to apportion liability properly past that.
By that argument nothing is my responsibility because I didnt choose to be born.
Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws
#10> According to the Texas Transportation Code, the owner of a driverless car is “considered the operator” and can be cited for breaking traffic laws “regardless of whether the person is physically present in the vehicle.” This is all well and good when the owner is Waymo or Cruise and actually has direct control over the code that caused the vehicle to fail, but for consumer cars it brings up important questions of wh…
>how many of us have "owned" a product that has suddenly changed its behavior in undesirable ways after we purchased it?
I'd be interested in some examples, as I can't think of any offhand, despite your claim that this "isn't unlikely".
Also, when it comes to vehicles misbehaving in traffic, I'd say "harmful" is a more apt term than "undesirable".