Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 371 posts

Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws

#71

Post by loeg »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #63
loeg wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a human driver commits vehicular manslaughter, they get the book. Hah. Do they, though? https://sfstandard.com/2026/03/20/mary-lau-sentenced-probati... The standard for human drivers is through the floor.

> The standard for human drivers is through the floor. The linked article doesn't describe the standard. It describes a single, exceptional example.

It's a representative example. (When you're disputing my evidenced claim, it behooves you to bring your own facts, rather than just asserting.)

Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws

#72

Post by kelseyfrog »

hiddencost wrote: post #57
Aachen wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who does it benefit if an accident ruins a second life? What does a jail sentence deter? ("[no] gross negligence [...] wasn’t engaging in a race or sideshow, was not texting, and was not under influence") This person was 80 years old with no criminal record, needs to pay $67400 in restitution, do 200 hours of community service, isn't allowed to drive for 3 years but "never intends to drive again". Apologised to the f…

People will change their behavior. The function of prison sentences is deterrence.

Impulsivity is definitionally the absence of forethought. Deterrence doesn't affect crimes born from impulse.

Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws

#73

Post by loeg »

Groxx wrote: post #67
loeg wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a human driver commits vehicular manslaughter, they get the book. Hah. Do they, though? https://sfstandard.com/2026/03/20/mary-lau-sentenced-probati... The standard for human drivers is through the floor.

Better than the current standard for AV, which is "what floor?"

Is it? https://www.vice.com/en/article/california-dmv-suspends-crui...

Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws

#74

Post by Ekaros »

crazygringo wrote: post #38
delfinom wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but why are AVs getting a break on the same tickets a human gets no "low frequency threshold" for them to be allowed. If a AV runs a red light or a stop sign, it should be the same penalty, period. If AV companies want to avoid the tickets, they can make their claimed superior drivers avoid violating the law.

No, you're missing the point. If an AV is regularly running red lights or stop signs, it should be a much worse penalty. It shouldn't be permitted to operate at all. It shouldn't just be given occasional tickets. Tickets are not the right enforcement mechanism.

They should be ticketed and stopped from operating after certain threshold. And tickets should have some reasonable multiplier as they are much more capable paying say at absolute minimum 1000x. Only high enough tickets are efficient against corporations. As their shareholders sadly can not get those tickets.

Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws

#75

Post by JumpCrisscross »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #72
hiddencost wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People will change their behavior. The function of prison sentences is deterrence.

Impulsivity is definitionally the absence of forethought. Deterrence doesn't affect crimes born from impulse.

> Deterrence doesn't affect crimes born from impulse

And yet I've seen way more people call an Uber instead of drive home drunk not because they thought they'd kill someone, but because they didn't want a DUI.

Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws

#76

Post by HDThoreaun »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #65
wongarsu wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, 11 deaths per billion miles driven (or about 47k per year) is currently seen as an OK cost. More than twice as much per mile as places like Sweden and Switzerland, and still substantially more than places like Canada, Australia or Germany (all three in the 6-8 deaths per billion miles range). So it's not like there isn't room to improve. The effort to do so just isn't seen as worth the cost at the societal…

> it's not like there isn't room to improve Losing one's license means destitution for many Americans. That places practical limits on enforcement compared with less car-oriented countries.

Tons of options other than removing the ability to drive. More stringent enforcement, higher fines.

Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws

#77

Post by loeg »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #75
kelseyfrog wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Impulsivity is definitionally the absence of forethought. Deterrence doesn't affect crimes born from impulse.

> Deterrence doesn't affect crimes born from impulse And yet I've seen way more people call an Uber instead of drive home drunk not because they thought they'd kill someone, but because they didn't want a DUI.

To put it another way: crimes of pure impulse, with zero forethought, are a subset of all crimes.

Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws

#78

Post by luotuoshangdui »

crazygringo wrote: post #19

Ticketing is a weird thing to do with driverless cars. If the violations are intentional and easily fixable, then just pass laws/regulations requiring AV's to follow rules or else cease operations entirely. If the violations are unintentional but happen only rarely in weird edge-case situations, then just set low frequency thresholds for them to be allowed, the same way we allow tiny amounts of rodent hairs in peanut…

Yes, I thought AV by design should not voilate traffic laws.

Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws

#79

Post by HDThoreaun »

Groxx wrote: post #67
loeg wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a human driver commits vehicular manslaughter, they get the book. Hah. Do they, though? https://sfstandard.com/2026/03/20/mary-lau-sentenced-probati... The standard for human drivers is through the floor.

Better than the current standard for AV, which is "what floor?"

Cruise was entirely shut down because of an incident that didnt even result in a death. Thats way worse than what people tend to get

Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws

#80

Post by borski »

xnx wrote: post #15
callc wrote: post #7

I am, in general, hoping AV will reduce road deaths in the future. The last hurdle is regulatory. We can’t let AV manufacturers use “there’s no driver” as a way to escape responsibility, externalizing the harms AC cause onto society. The question is how to achieve fairness. If a human driver commits vehicular manslaughter, they get the book. What about AV? $10 million? Executives go to jail? What if $10 million fine…

> If a human driver commits vehicular manslaughter, they get the book. If only! "10 Days In Jail For Drunken Driver Who Killed Cyclist Bobby Cann" https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170126/old-town/ryne-san-h...

I almost feel bad for noticing this, but:

> San Hamel was a partner in a business called AllYouCanDrink.com at the time.

…

> Cann, an experienced cyclist who once biked from New Hampshire to Chicago, was heading home from his job at Groupon the night he was killed.

It looks like allyoucandrink.com now redirects to Groupon, in a decent bit of irony.

Post reply on HN