_begins_? Like, before, they wouldn't get tickets?
[deleted]
California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws
201–210 of 371 posts
Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws
#202_begins_? Like, before, they wouldn't get tickets?
Yes, and there's an example towards the end of the article.
Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws
#203I 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…
The legal entity driving the AV should of course be responsible in the same way as human drivers are.
My understanding is that that is already the legal situation?
Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws
#204Earlier 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.
And they're the only option, right?
Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
In SF it's legal for taxies to do pickups/drop-offs in bike lanes I haven't seen any evidence Waymo does it anywhere illegal "just because rideshares do"
This is false. It is only legal in the rare event that a passenger requires curb-side access for accessibility/ADA reasons; any other use is still illegal. To quote SFMTA taxi training: Only drop off in a separated bike lane if you have disabled or elderly customers who require direct access to the curb You may only pick up in a separated bike lane if the dispatcher tells you that the customer is disabled and must…
Woah you're being pretty misleading!
That's for a separated bike lane, and Waymo doesn't even seem capable of doing it: that'd typically involve driving over/between the plastic bollards separating the lane...
Waymo doesn't seem to be willing to drive on the wrong side of bollards and I've never seen a taxi do it either.
-
For non-separated bike lanes it's still a last resort, but it's allowed for all passengers not just the disabled.
> Bicycle Safety
> Passenger Loading: Non-Separated Bike Lanes
> May enter a non-separated bike lane with caution to drop off all customers (disabled and non-disabled) Using bike lanes as an absolutely last resort [emphasis theirs, not mine]
Waymo doesn't seem to do it when there are other options close nearby either, given the gaps in allowed pick up/drop off locations they offer by bike lanes
-
It would seem you're intentionally misstating the situation to villainize the driverless vehicles that otherwise l generally respect riders more than anyone else on the road...
Actually weirdly enough, you had to read what I wrote to post this right?
This is the same training doc you used? https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-docume...
Sperated bike lanes are illustrated and come after what I quoted :/
Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws
#206Seems good. I'm a big Waymo user (344 rides) and love it, but I think they violate both traffic laws and common-sense courtesies of traffic in ways not captured by safety / crash statistics. Tickets probably are a great signal for ways the model needs to be improved. For example, every time a Waymo picks me up from my apartment, it blocks a full lane of traffic on an extremely busy street, rather than pulling into a…
Don't they have 360 video of everything? Maybe they're low priority issues for now but surely those issues cannot be "invisible" because they "aren't legible to statistics."
Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Ov…
The original statement was about vehicular manslaughter. You are citing stats that cover a much broader range of things.
Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
People will change their behavior. The function of prison sentences is deterrence.
> function of prison sentences is deterrence As well as incapacitation and retribution.
As well as making acquaintances with other criminals at a time where you're losing your job, apartment, your social network if the sentence lasts long enough
But, yes, also those two. It's a very multifaceted sword, and thankfully not the only option, not for any of the three goals
Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws
#209Earlier 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 reason that’s a news story is because the outcome is unusual. When things are normal and happening all the time, they’re not reported as abnormal outcomes. The world is a big place. Being able to think of a counter-example does not negate a general point.
You are wrong. The easiest way to murder someone in America and get a slap on the wrist is to run them over in your car.
Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
People will change their behavior. The function of prison sentences is deterrence.
And incapacitation!
And taking away a license in order to achieve that in the case of traffic offences couldn't possibly be the cheaper option for deterrence or incapacitation