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

101–110 of 371 posts

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

#101

Post by scoofy »

wongarsu wrote: post #20
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…

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 single out of control vehicle.

I'm genuinely stunned that AV's do not have the ability to be "commandeered" by Police/Fire/EMS in a pinch, and I'm honestly surprised that regular citizens can't just hit a red button that signal "this is seriously an emergency." These are fairly simple steps to mitigate the tail risk of AV's but the platforms aren't going to prioritize that if there are no incentives.

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

#102

Post by ctoth »

pessimizer wrote: post #88
loeg wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> It's a representative example. This is the assertion. You can recognize it because the obvious reply is that it is not at all a representative example, but one that you just handpicked. You're question-begging.

Here' I'll do the needful:

Twin Cities, 2010-2014: 95 pedestrians killed in 3,069 crashes. 28 drivers were charged and convicted of a crime, most often a misdemeanor ranging from speeding to careless driving. ~70% of pedestrian-killing drivers faced no criminal charge[0].

Bay Area, 2007-2011 (CIR investigation): sixty percent of drivers that were at fault, or suspected of being at fault, faced no criminal charges. Over 40 percent of drivers charged did not lose their driver's licenses, even temporarily[1].

Philadelphia, 2017–2018: just 16 percent of the drivers were charged with a felony in fatal crashes[2].

Los Angeles, 2010–2019: 2,109 people were killed in traffic collisions on L.A. streets... and nearly half were pedestrians. Booked on vehicular manslaughter: 158 people. The vast majority of drivers who kill someone with their car are not arrested[3].

I can literally do this all day. The original statement was correct, the case representative.

[0]: https://www.startribune.com/in-crashes-that-kill-pedestrians...

[1]: https://walksf.org/2013/05/02/investigative-report-exposes-h...

[2]: https://whyy.org/articles/philadelphia-drivers-rarely-prosec...

[3]: https://laist.com/news/transportation/takeaways-pedestrian-d...

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

#104

Post by WhyIsItAlwaysHN »

cowlby wrote: post #100

Are they trying to drive safety or revenue? The second order effect people forget about is tickets are a source of revenue for cities and police depts. Surely driverless car companies will absorb a few tickets and fix the issue quickly. So I do wonder what happens in the future when roads and cars are all automated and city funding from this channel dries up.

Tolls, revenue taxes, ever stricter rules that cause tickets despite technology getting better.

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

#105

Post by JumpCrisscross »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #99
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Sounds like the insight is that people have varying degrees of forethought. Crime isn't mono-causal and therefore solutions shouldn't be expected to be monolithic.

> solutions shouldn't be expected to be monolithic

I don’t see anyone in this thread arguing for this. Just backing up the notion that vehicular manslaughter is almost tolerated by the justice system.

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

#106

Post by melenaboija »

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

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

#107

Post by kajman »

cowlby wrote: post #100

Are they trying to drive safety or revenue? The second order effect people forget about is tickets are a source of revenue for cities and police depts. Surely driverless car companies will absorb a few tickets and fix the issue quickly. So I do wonder what happens in the future when roads and cars are all automated and city funding from this channel dries up.

Fix the issue quickly, or optimize to the point where revenue gained from breaking the law exceeds the fine. Last I read they were holding steady on "passengers want us to pull into bikelanes to drop-off" in California.

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

#108

Post by pokstad »

cowlby wrote: post #100

Are they trying to drive safety or revenue? The second order effect people forget about is tickets are a source of revenue for cities and police depts. Surely driverless car companies will absorb a few tickets and fix the issue quickly. So I do wonder what happens in the future when roads and cars are all automated and city funding from this channel dries up.

Probably higher city/state taxes. A police officer making over $200k a year with a pension isn’t making most of their salary from traffic tickets.

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

#109

Post by joeframbach »

cowlby wrote: post #100

Are they trying to drive safety or revenue? The second order effect people forget about is tickets are a source of revenue for cities and police depts. Surely driverless car companies will absorb a few tickets and fix the issue quickly. So I do wonder what happens in the future when roads and cars are all automated and city funding from this channel dries up.

Police departments have already moved on from traffic enforcement to civil forfeiture. Like, a decade ago.

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

#110

Post by Hnrobert42 »

loeg wrote: post #71
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

The refutation of your point is in the article itself. The standard, by law, punishment involves jail time or home confinement. The judge explained how those punishments were not appropriate because of the exceptional circumstances.
Post reply on HN