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

231–240 of 371 posts

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

#231

Post by andrepd »

Avicebron wrote: post #121
aziaziazi wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Not really, the cross section of people who lose their license/insurance and those that could use something like an ebike reliably for their commute is practically zilch. The US is really big and a lot of people have rural 30+ minute commutes where it snows ~6 months out of the year.

> The US is really big and a lot of people have rural 30+ minute commutes

The size of the country in which a commute is contained is immaterial to the length of that commute. What you mean is not "the US is big" but "things are really far apart in the US". Which they are, but precisely because of car-centric (car-only, actually) design.

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

#232

Post by dwattttt »

tzs wrote: post #207
ctoth wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This thread talks about driverless cars; vehicular manslaughter requires negligence or intent, do you want to find narrowed statistics for driverless cars that are restricted to negligence or intent?

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

#233

Post by Levitz »

retired wrote: post #125
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…

Don't forget to add rail incidents to that metric. I live in Spain, this year we had 4 derailments for a total of 48 deaths and 195 injured. The USA has had 0 passengers killed or injured from train accidents this year. Portugal had 15 death after a tram derailment. In Amsterdam, the tram is more dangerous than the car. Also Germany is very high (for European standards) because of the Autobahn. They can save around 1…

>I live in Spain, this year we had 4 derailments for a total of 48 deaths and 195 injured.

Which, to be clear, is a considerable outlier. Highest since 2013 and about double the deaths and 4x the injured of a "normal" year.

Not to mention that trains are far safer than automobiles too.

>The USA has had 0 passengers killed or injured from train accidents this year.

Is this a fantastic, magical year or something? The normal number seems to be around 800 a year? https://www.kochandbrim.com/study-train-accident-deaths/

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

#234

Post by mekael »

dmitrygr wrote: post #221
mekael wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Societies can already reduce road deaths to nearly zero, it's cheap, it's easy, and it's fun. It's just redirecting all of the cash we spend on vehicles/cars/highways/roadways/signs/etc into public infrastructure that is all encompassing. A hundred billion dollars a year [0] on construction (reading the definition I'm not 100% sure what is included in this due to how definitions can be hazy) has goes a long way, not…

Just because you like trains does not mean that it is actually a solution to everyone’s problem. For example, until proper law-enforcement starts happening on public transit, nobody in my family is allowed to take it in USA (they are allowed to do so in Singapore or Japan)

We can take the LEO's that would have patrolled highways/city streets and have them patrol on public transport, same job just slightly different environment.

Can I ask why you feel that public transit is unsafe in the US?

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

#237

Post by Levitz »

Ekaros wrote: post #74
crazygringo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's go down that route. So a corporation pays 1000x of a normal ticket penalty, let's say it operates a humble fleet of 1000 cars.

Do we really want to require this service to be a million times better? This would surely kill more people than the alternative.

I think ticketing is just broken in this context. People don't want tickets, so they take care not to break rules. The same person may do such thing, if they are in a hurry, if they are tired, yadaa yadaa, their economics and, possibly their freedom, are at risk.

None of this applies to a corporation. An AV running a red light is not, ever, "I was tired and nobody is driving at this hour officer", it's systematic. Behavior can be recorded 1 to 1 and optimized, why would we want to depend on specific scenarios in which police seems something happening?

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

#238

Post by lojban »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #110
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.)

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.

I'm not sure how that would change things. It is still a representative example.

See also: http://archive.today/2026.03.23-031145/https://www.nytimes.c...

> And there is precedent for the light manslaughter sentencing of an older driver. In 2003, George Weller, 86, killed 10 pedestrians at the Santa Monica Farmers Market after confusing the gas and brake pedals. He received five years of probation. The judge in that case said that Mr. Weller’s age and declining health had contributed to the decision.

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

#239

Post by apublicfrog »

AppleAtCha wrote: post #235

I do not live in California and am not up to speed on this issue, but as a casual observer I am shocked that they were allowed on the road without being ticketed for violations like any other vehicle operator.

Completely agree. How is it possible they issued these permits (years ago it seems) without having this infrastructure in place?

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

#240

Post by loeg »

Aachen wrote: post #195
loeg wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your full-throated defense of Mary Lau is completely beside the point (and for what it's worth, it would be a fifth life, not a "second" -- she killed an entire family of four). GP claimed that human drivers who commit vehicular manslaughter get the book; they don't.

Sorry if my throat sounded full to you, just writing what I think fits the context. In this case, apparently an 80yo getting punished in various ways is what GP had as example of how criminals are getting off easy. I see this pattern constantly, where people can't be bothered to read an article with the background info (much less the court case summary itself) but join the march and sign the petitions to lock the per…

> Don't you feel this could happen to you tomorrow just as easily as to anyone else?

No; unlike Mary Lau, I don't choose to drive while incapacitated.

Post reply on HN