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

111–120 of 371 posts

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

#111

Post by mlyle »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #92
mlyle wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the wild part. No! You don't drive again! She's not going to drive again. > For her to have recognised her own limitations before they took lives. This is something that humans suck at. > Failing at that, her family–or literally anyone who cared about her, and didn't want to see her spend her last years in jail–having taken initiative. You shouldn't punish her for other people failing to take action.

> She's not going to drive again She gets her license back. That's wild. > This is something that humans suck at Not usually with fatal consequences. These were preventable deaths. Not only that, the driver was being incredibly reckless, apparently driving 70 mph in a residential area. > You shouldn't punish her for other people failing to take action You're punishing her for being criminally reckless. You're creatin…

> She gets her license back. That's wild.

In 3 years, at age 83, if she wanted to... she could try and take the driving test again and become licensed. This is just not going to happen :P In the end, the court can only prohibit her from driving while she is on probation.

Would it be great if this time she could be banned forever? Sure. But there's reasons why we don't just let judges make up arbitrary penalties and permanent restrictions on their own.

> Not usually with fatal consequences. These were preventable deaths. Not only that,

Humans don't misestimate their remaining ability with fatal consequences?

> the driver was being incredibly reckless, apparently driving 70 mph in a residential area.

Yes, by confusing gas and brake. She clearly has significantly reduced capacity.

> You're creating an incentive structure that should reduce the frequency of future criminality.

I do not think that the behavior of 80 year old people will be meaningfully changed by the degree of punishment applied here. This is a person that has lost a significant degree of capacity; unfortunately, humans losing capacity tend not to realize it or correctly estimate how much they have lost.

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

#112

Post by aziaziazi »

OptionOfT wrote: post #84
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm from Belgium, and even with public transportation, there are a large group of people dependent on their driver's license. But if you ask someone if they'd drive without insurance, or without driver's license they look at you like you've asked them to do the impossible. Whereas in the US no-one bats an eye when that happens. Half the time the cops just issue a ticket, and don't even tow the car. And now people who…

> there are a large group of people dependent on their driver's license

Are there "no licence cars" in Belgium and the US ? Basically a moped motor and a seat inside a box. 45kmh and no highway, but a bit more confortable and fast than a ebike for rural environment.

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

#114

Post by vector_spaces »

OptionOfT wrote: post #84
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm from Belgium, and even with public transportation, there are a large group of people dependent on their driver's license. But if you ask someone if they'd drive without insurance, or without driver's license they look at you like you've asked them to do the impossible. Whereas in the US no-one bats an eye when that happens. Half the time the cops just issue a ticket, and don't even tow the car. And now people who…

You are right that this happens frequently in the United States compared to Europe, but you are overstating the degree to which this culturally and legally acceptable. People who are doing this are not typically broadcasting it to others, and I can assure you that when they do, for the most part people will tend to "bat an eye" at the very least.

Note that motor vehicle insurance in most of Europe is more tightly regulated and generally more affordable than in the United States. Also, I suspect the car-dependent individuals in urban areas with robust public transportation in Belgium are generally vastly higher income than the typical uninsured compulsory driver in the United States. Happy to be corrected though

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

#115

Post by chaos_emergent »

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…

We can look to other forms of automation to get a sense of what to do. For example, planes largely fly themselves and a loss of life due to manufacturing errors from the manufacturer would deem them liable for those deaths. Seems like the solution here is large penalties and generally broad disincentives for incurring harm.

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

#116

Post by scarmig »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #79
Groxx wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

IIRC Cruise got into the most trouble not because of the accident itself, but because it tried to hide evidence from and deceive regulators.

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

#117

Post by scbrg »

orthecreedence wrote: post #69
tintor wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologised for taking lives of married couple and two babies?

Is it too much to ask for today's pedestrian to wear at least one piece of reflective clothing?

Odd point to raise in a thread about a family killed while waiting at a bus stop in broad daylight. Do you think reflective clothing would have changed the outcome of the event significantly?

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

#118

Post by fma »

melenaboija wrote: post #106
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…

> What if $10 million fine per X AV miles driven is an OK cost of doing business? It’s the same cost/benefit we accept under current rules. Why have cars that can go 3x the speed limit? Why not require breathalyzers in cars before starting them? Why not fine logistics companies if one of their drivers breaks the law? And so on… Because it’s worth it

>Why not require breathalyzers in cars before starting them?

FYI Cars will soon detect if you are impaired.

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

#119

Post by matsemann »

cyanydeez wrote: post #97
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…

Want to reduce road deaths? Invest in public transportation.

Yup. Even if "safer per mile", more cars and more miles driven will probably outweigh the benefits. And still be hazardous to cyclists and pedestrians, still make us design stupid cities (built for cars, not people), etc.

Like how electric cars were for saving the car companies, not the planet, autonomous will be the same.

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

#120

Post by hombre_fatal »

scoofy wrote: post #101
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…

The issue here is that a lot of the concerns about AV's are orthogonal to the standard metrics of concern. I'm a strong transit alternatives advocate, but even I recognize that a firetruck or ambulance being blocked by an AV has the potential to cause an outsized amount of death and destruction, because deaths aren't always linear and a fire that is able to get out of control can do catastrophic damage compared to a…

We already accept that it’s fine for human drivers to block emergency services and we generally refuse to build, say, bus and bike lines that can be used by emergency services.

So the uproar over AV’s blocking emergency vehicles seems incredibly manufactured or inconsistent, much like the hoopla over AI and water.

e.g. You can take anyone complaining about this and you’ll find they didn’t care about emergency vehicles or water until just now regarding one thing. I’d like to see some consistency.

Post reply on HN