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.
California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws
291–300 of 371 posts
Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This is a state that made me a criminal for putting the wrong air filter on my car (Clearly my bad for putting on the 49 State legal version that makes the tailpipe emissions cleaner).
Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws
#293Earlier 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…
When I use a crosswalk, I wait until the cars stop before I cross. It's nuts to step into it assuming the cars will stop.
Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 conce…
A bicycle's brakes are far less effective than a car's. I don't know how a man got to middle age not knowing this. A lot of cyclists ride like they have an invisible shield protecting them.
Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws
#295Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Hm, it's only something like 10% of German traffic fatalities that occur on the autobahn. And according to wikipedia, Germany doesn't rank high in terms of traffic fatalities, even by European standards. France has a similar number of highway deaths. I'm personally not a fan of the autobahn and especially not the unrestricted speed. It seems obvious that it should cause lots of fatalities, but the evidence for it jus…
That's not obvious at all to me, what would the reasoning be?
Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who does it benefit if an accident ruins a second life? The next person they'd mow down. (Also, retribution. It's a real human need and attempts at philosophising it away degrade trust in our justice system.) > isn't allowed to drive for 3 years This is the wild part. No! You don't drive again! > What more can you ask for here? For her to have recognised her own limitations before they took lives. Failing at that,…
Huh? We're talking about someone who's not going to drive for 3 years at 80 years old. Who else are you foreseeing they'll "mow down" if you don't jail them for life > For her to have recognised her own limitations Surely I don't need to look up the statistics of people under 30 killing others by accident. We're humans, not infallible. The judge didn't think they took any undue risk here But sure, enact your vengeanc…
Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws
#298I 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…
These people want to play god with our lives but at the same time move fast and break things. Look at software quality anywhere, it's a mess and only about to get much worse.
We should not let them. Jail time for anyone involved in any of the decision making process, applied at scale with the number of vehicles and deaths.
Why should the standards be any different? They want to change the status quo with tech only so they can get paid and extort us with yet more subscriptions.
AVs will never substantially reduce road deaths. They will optimize to just being slightly better than human, but fail in new and more unexpected ways. There is not enough incentive for them to make it safer.
Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
What. in god's name are you saying? > 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. Yeah and how many in the 15 years prior? 112. Of which 80 were in a single (TGV) crash. How many people die each year in Spanish roads? Thousands. > The USA has had 0 passengers killed or injured from train accidents this year. Can't have ra…
> Can't have rail accidents if you don't have rail taps side of head The USA has the world's largest network with 220000 kilometers of rail > This is just not true, by any metric. In Amsterdam the tram is 57x more deathly than the car. https://www.parool.nl/nieuws/al-twee-doden-dit-jaar-hoe-onve... Trams in Amsterdam should be replaced with busses. Busses stop much faster and don't weigh as much. Trams are literal de…
There are literally marks on every step of their path "tram is going through here, coming from there", so those that die anyway should be the ones at fault. It's horrible that they die, but banning trams is not a valid response to it. After the people have started behaving like that around trams, there isn't really a reason to assume they won't start being (even more) reckless around the less predictable and bulkier busses. You fixed braking time, but cyclists get clipped more often going out of their track as they do already. I mean, look at the description of an accident: allegedly she wore a hoodie with headphones and some stops after the intersections incentivize higher tram speeds.
Start fixing that before banning the safest and the most efficient form of transport (57x more than cars, with the amount of cars they have, number of close interactions with cyclists/pedestrians, and the imposed traffic rules for cars, isn't really a valid multiplier), scrapping all the tram lines and adjusting road tracks widths just to have buses brake harder on asphalt isn't really a fix of the problem, just a reaction to a symptom.
Re: California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Because each of these perps were not on their first, second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth violent offense and were freely out to kill: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Debrina_Kawam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Iryna_Zarutska https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/nypd-men-pushed-subway-... Many more such cases occur and aren’t widely reported. I’ve personally witnessed a stabbing on a bus My chan…
You might not get stabbed, but driving is incredibly dangerous. Even just in terms of violence: road rage is tolerated to a large extent in America. The difference is that the news doesn't report even a small fraction of the traffic deaths in this country. In Iowa, the state I used to live in, around 300 people died every year from driving. I don't know a single one of those people despite their death being a tragedy. Whereas the stories you linked were broadcast coast to coast.