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

301–310 of 371 posts

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

#301

Post by dlcarrier »

BoorishBears wrote: post #144
tallowen wrote: post #127

Bike Lanes have turned out to be an interesting edge case. Waymos are currently dropping off and picking up passengers in a bike lane which is not legal (because it is dangerous) however many ride share drivers also do this. As somebody who is commonly a biker / pedestrian I am excited that AVs will likely make many things safer for that class of user. That being said, I do worry about how we encode these "social und…

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"

Yea, California civic code is pretty liberal with curbside parking parking, allowing it anywhere it isn't expressly prohibited, with signs declaring it so.

I live in Northern California, inland of San Francisco, and the city closest to me has a bunch of streets with bike lanes that are just painted onto the shoulder and otherwise are legally just a shoulder. Most of those streets also prohibit parking, but some don't, so parking is in the bike lane.

It gets really crazy in the denser parts of Southern California, where parking is sometimes not prohibited even when there isn't a shoulder, so parked cars full-on block a driving lane.

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

#303

Post by nkzednan »

loeg wrote: post #13
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…

> 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.

see https://sf.streetsblog.org/2026/03/06/motorist-careens-onto-... and see what the police said to the driver…

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

#304

Post by dlcarrier »

scottbez1 wrote: post #197
BoorishBears wrote: post #144

Earlier 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…

Taxi training isn't a regulation. The California Vehicle Code is, and specifically section 22500 (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...) states which areas parking and standing is prohibited, without needing to expressly post signs or paint curbs to indicate a no parking zone, and it does not prohibit parking or standing in bike lanes.

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

#306

Post by dlcarrier »

zdw wrote: post #2

Ideally the fees would be similar to the Norway model, where some tickets are tied to the income of the driver, in this case the pre-tax earnings of the company that created the driverless car.

Driverless taxi services are all blowing through venture capitol, so does having a negative income mean that they get a payment, instead of a fine?

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

#307

Post by lancebeet »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #296
lancebeet wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It seems obvious that it should cause lots of fatalities That's not obvious at all to me, what would the reasoning be?

Maybe I expressed myself poorly. Generally, higher speed is associated with higher fatality rates, all else being equal. So, one would assume a highway without speed limits would cause lots of fatalities. Most people would probably be surprised to learn that this is not the case.

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

#309

Post by jibal »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #285
jibal wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No one said that it's not possible for a pedestrian to be at fault in a collision; they said the opposite. Therefore it's a strawman.

> "A pedestrian can be at fault in a fatality but the driver would still be at fault anyway"

That's not what they actually said ... work on your reading comprehension, ability to reason, and intellectual honesty--faking up quotations is not legit. a) A pedestrian could be at fault in other scenarios, like running into the middle of the street in dark clothing at night. In California, if a pedestrian is in a crosswalk then the driver is legally at fault. b) Morally, both parties could be at fault.

I won't respond further.

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

#310

Post by JuniperMesos »

jeromegv wrote: post #263
JuniperMesos wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if you ask someone if they'd drive without insurance, or without driver's license they look at you like you've asked them to do the impossible. > Whereas in the US no-one bats an eye when that happens. Half the time the cops just issue a ticket, and don't even tow the car. A lot of the people driving without insurance or licenses in the US are illegal immigrants, which means enforcement of driving illegally is…

It’s almost like there’s consequences to making it as hard as possible for people to be legalized.

It's equally a consequence of not immediately arresting and deporting illegal immigrants the moment the government learns about their presence on US soil.
Post reply on HN