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

281–290 of 371 posts

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

#281

Post by jibal »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #277
jcranmer wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's actually fairly common in crashes between motor vehicles and pedestrians (or cyclists) to place most or all of the blame on the pedestrian. When the Uber self-driving car struck and killed the pedestrian, not only did the internet peanut gallery largely blame the pedestrian for the first 24 hours or so after the death, but the local police force did as well for a couple of days. I rather suspect that without…

It should obviously be possible for a pedestrian to be at fault in a collision. If someone without the right of way steps in front of a moving car, there is often nothing the vehicle could physically do to prevent the collision at that point. That's what right of way is for -- you have rules that, if everybody follows them, nobody gets hit, and then if someone gets hit because someone wasn't following the rules, the…

Why attack a strawman?

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

#282

Post by bushbaba »

tempest_ wrote: post #51
MostlyStable wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all of your situations except for cases where no good legal option exists, ticketing is just the easier way to apply your suggested idea. It gives a direct incentive to the company to lower the rate as far as is possible. It doesn't allow some minimal amount without a fee, but that doesn't seem like that big of a deal. The biggest reason for the difference between Autonomous vehicles and peanut butter is that with…

At some point though those tickets need to actually hurt and no be just a cost of doing business. After enough violations humans get their license taken away. What happens after autonomous vehicle get enough violations?

i'd argue Waymo is "1 Driver", and after they get a cumulative 4 points in 1 year, then Waymo would no longer be allowed to drive in the state of California

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

#283

Post by AnthonyMouse »

jcranmer wrote: post #278
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should obviously be possible for a pedestrian to be at fault in a collision. If someone without the right of way steps in front of a moving car, there is often nothing the vehicle could physically do to prevent the collision at that point. That's what right of way is for -- you have rules that, if everybody follows them, nobody gets hit, and then if someone gets hit because someone wasn't following the rules, the…

The dominant cause of pedestrian fatalities is not "pedestrian steps right in front of a moving car," but things like "driver didn't see pedestrian in middle of crosswalk" (usually because, e.g., looking instead for vehicle traffic to make a right turn on red). Sure, it's possible for a pedestrian to be at fault, but even if they step out from behind an occluded object, if a driver is fast enough to kill them, then t…

> The dominant cause of pedestrian fatalities is not "pedestrian steps right in front of a moving car," but things like "driver didn't see pedestrian in middle of crosswalk" (usually because, e.g., looking instead for vehicle traffic to make a right turn on red).

And the driver is at fault in the cases where the driver is at fault. 18% of pedestrian fatalities are cases where the driver was drunk. Meanwhile 30% of pedestrian fatalities are cases where the pedestrian was drunk.

Your example is actually a pretty rare cause of pedestrian fatalities because even if someone doesn't see a pedestrian, cars turning right on red are almost always traveling at low speed.

> if a driver is fast enough to kill them, then the driver is almost certainly already at fault because they were driving faster than conditions warranted.

There is a double digit percent chance of a fatality if a vehicle hits a pedestrian at 25 MPH. The vast majority of roads allow speeds of 25 MPH or more. That doesn't mean you can stop if someone without the right of way who you had no reason to expect to step out directly in front of a car suddenly does.

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

#284

Post by barry-cotter »

wredcoll wrote: post #249
sagarm wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The message that incapacity, even to the point of killing four people, will be excused is quite clear. The deterrence argument is used to throw the book at people committing minor crimes like shoplifting. Let's apply it to quadruple homicide, eh? Mary Long Fau should have died in prison.

> The deterrence argument is used to throw the book at people committing minor crimes like shoplifting And it doesn't work there, so why would it work for impaired driving? You seem to be operating under the idea that because she didn't go to jail, there were no consequences. This seems false.

> And it doesn't work there, so why would it work for impaired driving?

It does actually. See how thieves resident in Florida travel to New York to work because of the different enforcement regimes for one of the clearest possible examples[1].

Even if deterrence didn’t work at all putting people in prison is good because of incapacitation. Committing crimes is stupidly right tailed[2]. Every career criminal in jail for a year is a year society doesn’t suffer their crimes.

[1] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/02/02/cnns_john...

[2] https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-e...

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

#285

Post by AnthonyMouse »

jibal wrote: post #281
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should obviously be possible for a pedestrian to be at fault in a collision. If someone without the right of way steps in front of a moving car, there is often nothing the vehicle could physically do to prevent the collision at that point. That's what right of way is for -- you have rules that, if everybody follows them, nobody gets hit, and then if someone gets hit because someone wasn't following the rules, the…

Why attack a strawman?

The case in question appears to have been one in which the pedestrian was crossing a four-lane road outside of a crosswalk at night. That seems like as reasonable a case as any to attribute some fault to the pedestrian.

Meanwhile:

> Sure, it's possible for a pedestrian to be at fault, but even if they step out from behind an occluded object, if a driver is fast enough to kill them, then the driver is almost certainly already at fault because they were driving faster than conditions warranted.

"A pedestrian can be at fault in a fatality but the driver would still be at fault anyway" is apparently not a straw man.

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

#286

Post by tzs »

dwattttt wrote: post #232
tzs wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The branch of the thread those statistics were in is about human driven cars.

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

#287

Post by testing22321 »

ssl-3 wrote: post #246
testing22321 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ve done a great job of explaining exactly how 4 way stops are terrible , and why they should be eliminated. Only two countries make heavy use of them, so it seems less effort to get rid of them and the AI driverless world will be better without them

What I've described is the reality that I, along with self-driving Waymos in California, exist within. There isn't a generation alive that didn't grow up with this reality in these places. --- Now, if you want me to agree that there are much better methods than stop signs to control traffic at intersections, then sure: I can agree with that. Absolutely. But I'll agree only on one condition: That you cease immediately…

> There isn't a generation alive that didn't grow up with this reality in these places.

Less than 5% of the world’s population have to deal with them.

We don’t need to aim anywhere near perfect- good enough would be a vast improvement

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

#288

Post by sandworm101 »

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…

Simple. Blame the owner of the vehicle. They relied on automation and it failed. They go to jail for negligent homicide (whatever flavor is appropriate). That will tank sales of any AV tech that cannot maintain standards.

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

#289

Post by sandworm101 »

jcranmer wrote: post #278
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should obviously be possible for a pedestrian to be at fault in a collision. If someone without the right of way steps in front of a moving car, there is often nothing the vehicle could physically do to prevent the collision at that point. That's what right of way is for -- you have rules that, if everybody follows them, nobody gets hit, and then if someone gets hit because someone wasn't following the rules, the…

The dominant cause of pedestrian fatalities is not "pedestrian steps right in front of a moving car," but things like "driver didn't see pedestrian in middle of crosswalk" (usually because, e.g., looking instead for vehicle traffic to make a right turn on red). Sure, it's possible for a pedestrian to be at fault, but even if they step out from behind an occluded object, if a driver is fast enough to kill them, then t…

The dominant cause of pedestrian deaths is the same as drivers: alcohol. But unlike drivers, pedestrian are allowed to walk around drunk. So we dont even talk about it. We pretend it doesnt happen. It does. It happens all the time. The drunk pedestrian being hit by a car is the norm.

>>2008, nearly 40 per cent of pedestrians killed on Canadian roads were impaired, with two-thirds of them having a blood alcohol concentration more than double the legal limit. In fact, of all the fatally injured pedestrians with alcohol in their systems, fewer than one in five was at or below the legal driving limit of 0.08 blood alcohol concentration (BAC), according to the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators* (CCMTA).

https://canadasafetycouncil.org/impaired-walking/

And just try discussing drunk biking and you will be run out of town by a spandex army shouting about thier "right" to use the roads while drunk or high.

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

#290

Post by socalgal2 »

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.

Any other vehicle operator is also rarely ticketed in California.
Post reply on HN