Live data from Hacker News

Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws

nbcnews.com

51–60 of 120 posts

Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws

#51
post #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 wh…

> Either manufacturers need to be required to provide important software freedoms to vehicle owners FOSS robot cars seem like a great way to bypass emissions controls, safety regulations, and plain common sense. It'd take what, half a day, for some teenager to modify the firmware to double the 0-60 and blow up the battery pack at the same time? I'd want the opposite: for self-driving firmware to be locked down and ha…

> It'd take what, half a day, for some teenager to modify the firmware to double the 0-60 and blow up the battery pack at the same time?

this is basically why the NHTSA told car manufacturers not to obey Massachusetts' Right to Repair laws.

https://www.wbur.org/news/2023/06/14/federal-highway-traffic...

Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws

#52
Maybe this is an unpopular opinion here, but "tickets" don't make any conceptual sense for driverless cars. The entire concept of tickets and fines are to act as a deterrent to individual drivers who might make unsafe choices -- that they'll actively choose whether to obey a speed limit or not.

Driverless cars don't seem to be programmed to break laws in the first place. They're incapable of making a choice to break laws to save time. They're simply programmed not to speed, not to run through red lights. And when they do, it's not out of some "choice" -- it's just a bug or deficiency in their code.

Driverless cars absolutely do need to be held to safety standards. But the way to do that isn't through issuing tickets. It's simply for a governmental regulatory agency to set statistical limits for the manufacturer's software for mistakes like running a red light, and if the whole fleet of cars goes above that limit you require the software manufacturer to fix it, risking fines if they don't fix it quickly, or losing the ability to operate at all.

Issuing tickets for driverless cars makes as much sense as issuing tickets if pharmaceutical companies put the wrong amount of a drug in a pill. Tickets are for individuals who make choices; safety regulations with fines and revoking licenses are for corporations and things like driverless cars.

Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws

#53
post #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 wh…

In this case the consumer should of course still be held responsible, and if they think it's wrong they can join in on the class action lawsuit against the manufacturer. Or, owners should enter into a pre-existing legal relationship with the manufacturer to get reimbursed for any manufacturer error that gets pushed out. Those who choose to operate driverless vehicles must have some skin in the game in order for this…

So basically the eventual outcome here is known (industry regulation) but we must take every step to do it the hardest way possible? Intentionally start with a free-for-all then have deaths, a social movement, lawsuits, court cases, politicians talking about it, campaigns, legislative debates, etc to arrive at what we all know is the end game to begin with?

I think there may be some optimization steps here.

Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws

#54

Maybe this is an unpopular opinion here, but "tickets" don't make any conceptual sense for driverless cars. The entire concept of tickets and fines are to act as a deterrent to individual drivers who might make unsafe choices -- that they'll actively choose whether to obey a speed limit or not. Driverless cars don't seem to be programmed to break laws in the first place. They're incapable of making a choice to break…

No it doesn't, but they should ticket the cars anyway. The ticket gets paid by Waymo or whoever runs the car. They don't want any more resentment from other drivers.

Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws

#55
post #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 wh…

As individuals we are never going to own self-driving cars. If buying the hardware is even an option to begin with, there's going to be a hefty fee to subscribe to the required 'cloud based' self-driving service. (And there's certainly no way individuals/small businesses will be able to buy such a car and run a self-driving taxi service profitably when a megacorporation could have all the income from all the cars)

I don't have strong opinions about self-driving cars in this context, but the pattern of this argument doesn't track: you can omit "self-driving" and the underlying premise is still the same (that companies have an incentive to lease rather than sell objects to capture service revenues).

But the reality is that people do own cars, and no car manufacturer that I know is also trying to become a taxi operator (except maybe in the indirect investment sense). Or in other words: sales in a market aren't affected by the abstract possibility of vertical integration, because any entity that attempts to vertically integrate will be undercut by other parties making sales at the same time.

Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws

#56

Maybe this is an unpopular opinion here, but "tickets" don't make any conceptual sense for driverless cars. The entire concept of tickets and fines are to act as a deterrent to individual drivers who might make unsafe choices -- that they'll actively choose whether to obey a speed limit or not. Driverless cars don't seem to be programmed to break laws in the first place. They're incapable of making a choice to break…

Avoidable costs are still an incentive to improve for the companies owning or running driverless cars. As it feels unlikely all things that will ever happen are captured within regulations, fines could still be useful. The bigger question is what to do with things exceeding fines, i.e., stuff that would lead to a custodial sentence for a driver.

Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws

#57
post #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 wh…

> Either manufacturers need to be required to provide important software freedoms to vehicle owners FOSS robot cars seem like a great way to bypass emissions controls, safety regulations, and plain common sense. It'd take what, half a day, for some teenager to modify the firmware to double the 0-60 and blow up the battery pack at the same time? I'd want the opposite: for self-driving firmware to be locked down and ha…

[dead]

Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws

#58

When I've taken Waymo rides, the weirdest part of the experience was that it actually obeyed speed limits and stopped at stop signs. The latter actually freaked out other drivers. I can't wait until the selfishness of humans is no longer a factor when it comes to road safety.

here you see two waymos turning right, and the one behind actually turns right from the left lane before the first car proceeds. neither were using indicators either. honestly you’d have to be an incredibly selfish human to pull this off.

https://youtu.be/kN0MLclnWa0?feature=shared

Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws

#59
post #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 wh…

> Either manufacturers need to be required to provide important software freedoms to vehicle owners FOSS robot cars seem like a great way to bypass emissions controls, safety regulations, and plain common sense. It'd take what, half a day, for some teenager to modify the firmware to double the 0-60 and blow up the battery pack at the same time? I'd want the opposite: for self-driving firmware to be locked down and ha…

>FOSS robot cars seem like a great way to bypass emissions controls, safety regulations, and plain common sense. It'd take what, half a day, for some teenager to modify the firmware to double the 0-60 and blow up the battery pack at the same time?

generally we don't pen laws in order to save a singular idiot teenager -- more-so the aforementioned teenager bought a product and then ruined it; the teenager already received the punishment for his actions by the destruction of their own property without the need for jurisprudence and complexity.

Also : Nearly every major car manufacturer in the world has been caught semi-recently violating emissions standards. Some have violated safety standards. Given that this hasn't been an impasse for the worlds largest companies, why presume that the FOSS equivalents would be worse? Our regulations have failed to constrain the largest companies who are apparently beholden to the most regulation and law the world has ever seen, but somehow FOSS individuals/collectives need to do better than these billion dollar behemoths? Nice.

I don't get why people suddenly think that when something is 'dangerous' then it's okay to throw in the towel on personal property ownership and take whatever lend-lease-borrow program is offered in exchange. Cars have always been dangerous, and aside from gross safety and emissions laws, we're allowed to modify them.

I don't understand why this changes radically when a vehicle becomes electric, were gas tanks and high pressure fuel injectors suddenly safer than I remember them being? "The stupid teen who burns his house down" certainly applied to things in the past, and we didn't go out of the way to lock down the fuel tank into an inaccessible black box in response, we just dealt with the inherent risk of dangerous equipment and somehow avoided full-blown chaos and calamity through educated precaution and training.

Here's what I want: I want the freedom to modify my own property, and when that modification becomes in violation of an agreed upon law I should be punished.

Forget all this pre-crime 'what-if' save the children bullshit. Punish offenders and let civilian non-offenders do as they please until such time that they violate a law or standard -- which would be more enforcement than the world is seemingly applying to every other car manufacturer in the world.

Re: Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As individuals we are never going to own self-driving cars. If buying the hardware is even an option to begin with, there's going to be a hefty fee to subscribe to the required 'cloud based' self-driving service. (And there's certainly no way individuals/small businesses will be able to buy such a car and run a self-driving taxi service profitably when a megacorporation could have all the income from all the cars)

What about comma? https://comma.ai/ Seems like our old friend geohot built exactly what you want. Positive HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36927971

If it became popular it'd be regulated out of existence
Post reply on HN