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

341–350 of 371 posts

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

#341

Post by ohnei »

lelanthran wrote: post #339
ohnei wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What sounds sedate to you is not encoded in any rules and certainly wasn't considered sedate when the laws were written in most jurisdictions.

You contradict yourself, the laws you refer to are the rules you say don't exist.

The laws are the rules I refer to that I say do not mention you or your idea of reasonable speed at all. Going through town at 30 km/h was considered reckless. Killing someone in a cross walk it doesn't matter if they are an adult capable of liability.

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

#342

Post by thinkling »

fma wrote: post #118
melenaboija wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if $10 million fine per X AV miles driven is an OK cost of doing business? It’s the same cost/benefit we accept under current rules. Why have cars that can go 3x the speed limit? Why not require breathalyzers in cars before starting them? Why not fine logistics companies if one of their drivers breaks the law? And so on… Because it’s worth it

>Why not require breathalyzers in cars before starting them? FYI Cars will soon detect if you are impaired.

What tech will be used for this?

I hope it’s better than other sensor tech in cars that think they need to warn you that you’re about to hit something at the front when the car is in reverse, that can't distinguish a bike rack statically attached to the car from the environment, and so on.

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

#343

Post by mindslight »

iknowstuff wrote: post #209
Aurornis wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you don't have a lot of money for your legal defense, then make sure to have a bicycle in your trunk which you can place next to the victim afterwards.

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

#344

Post by mindslight »

Aachen wrote: post #22
loeg wrote: post #13

Earlier 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.

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…

In a sense you're right, but the problem is that post-facto consequences are all we are left with when there is no political will to pre-regulate. If one started talking about requiring retesting to keep your license starting at age 60 or even 70, the pitchforks would come out. But that is the type of thing it would have taken to avoid "ruining" the first four lives here.

(and the same pattern plays out on a much larger scale in the world of big business)

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

#345

Post by HDThoreaun »

tempest_ wrote: post #272
HDThoreaun wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What happens after autonomous vehicle get enough violations? They put R&D resources toward not getting as many tickets and eventually fix their software to not get tickets? Self driving cars might profit $100/day. Getting tickets completely eats that and ticketing mega corps will be very popular politically so you better believe it will happen

> They put R&D resources toward not getting as many tickets and eventually fix their software to not get tickets? Why would you assume they would do that? What if the autonomous vehicle only blows a red and kills someone every once and a while and the lawyers to tie the family up in court are cheaper than the software dev and ai training to fix it? Are you willing to wait until the number of dead people exceeds the c…

> Why would you assume they would do that?

Because they exist to make money?

> kills someone every once and a while

Every time an AV is liable for a death the company will face a high 8 digit legal settlement. Wont even go to trial. Again, the AV companies will avoid this because their goal is to make money and paying 8 digit legal settlements does not make them money. You are right that if this only happens once a year and they have a million cars it wont be a high priority, but if thats the case AVs are much safer than the current driving environment. If AVs caused death at anything close to current rates the companies would lose tons of money.

> assumes they are caught and ticketed 100% of the time.

No it doesnt. It assumes they are caught often enough for it to be worth it for them to fix. When politicians start telling traffic enforcement to focus on AVs Im betting that will happen. AVs will be known as incredibly conservative drivers because the companies really dont want tickets and there will be memes about how waymo drives like grandma.

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

#346

Post by dmitrygr »

naberhausj wrote: post #300
dmitrygr wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is the same attitude as people who are afraid of commercial flying despite it being the single safest form of transport. I get it. But it's irrational. 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 Iow…

I can control the safety of my car by buying a bigger car, driving certain ways, etc. You are comparing risks you have no control over with risks that you do.

But I am in no way stopping you. Feel free to take USA public transit, and (i truly do not know how) look your family in the eyes and encourage them to do the same. I truly hope that I do not read about your or your family in the news in this light (nobody deserves that), but your chances will be higher than mine.

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

#347

Post by Semaphor »

culopatin wrote: post #338
Semaphor wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Germany it's illegal not to stop if a pedestrian is close to the crosswalk.

But are pedestrians considerate and make a contract with the driver eye to eye to signal “hey, I see you, i see you see me, thanks for stopping, I will be crossing”. Or they are looking at their phones standing on the wheelchair ramp or chatting with someone, kinda going in, maybe, maybe not, and when it looks like they’ll be crossing the street parallel to yours and you start going they change their minds and cross…

Somehow that works very well in Germany without it resulting in some kind of chaos.

There’s no need to make eye contact. Crosswalks (or Zebras) are the ultimate "pedestrian has all the rights" element.

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

#348

Post by naberhausj »

dmitrygr wrote: post #346
naberhausj wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the same attitude as people who are afraid of commercial flying despite it being the single safest form of transport. I get it. But it's irrational. 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 Iow…

I can control the safety of my car by buying a bigger car, driving certain ways, etc. You are comparing risks you have no control over with risks that you do. But I am in no way stopping you. Feel free to take USA public transit, and (i truly do not know how) look your family in the eyes and encourage them to do the same. I truly hope that I do not read about your or your family in the news in this light (nobody dese…

I don't think the statistics would bear out there being any way to make driving safer per passenger mile than public transport.

I get what you're saying. The empirical evidence just doesn't agree AFAIK.

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

#349

Post by jeffrallen »

squibonpig wrote: post #43
crazygringo wrote: post #19

Ticketing is a weird thing to do with driverless cars. If the violations are intentional and easily fixable, then just pass laws/regulations requiring AV's to follow rules or else cease operations entirely. If the violations are unintentional but happen only rarely in weird edge-case situations, then just set low frequency thresholds for them to be allowed, the same way we allow tiny amounts of rodent hairs in peanut…

They want to make money from the tickets

That's fine, the stupid companies are privatizing profit by abusing the public commons... Let them pay.

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

#350

Post by ssl-3 »

testing22321 wrote: post #335
ssl-3 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool beans. We seem to be sufficiently agreeable. Suppose we set forth on straightening out the laws (because the existing laws are bullshit compared to reality, and they're not even made of paper these days so they're easy to adjust), while concurrently working on a better solution than a 4-way stop. What do we aim for? I love roundabouts, but as-implemented they're very often big-enough to create property-acquisiti…

I get your point, and you’re basically saying the US has too much inertia to improve anything. Pretty sad really

We used to call it "momentum", but yeah: Inertia fits well-enough.
Post reply on HN