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

41–50 of 371 posts

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

#41

Post by crazygringo »

tintor wrote: post #34
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…

Ticketing AVs for individual violations like human drivers is the only fair way. How would your proposal work for personal driverless cars, with/without custom modifications? ie. if my personal car commits violation on its way to pick me up

I'm talking about AV fleets.

If you purchase an AV car then similarly it's up to the state to regulate the manufacturer. How could you possibly be personally responsible for the fact that it ran a red light?

And nobody should ever be allowed to personally modify an AV's software. Such a vehicle should never be allowed on the road.

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

#42

Post by OtherShrezzing »

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…

Seems to me like ticketing is a really simple proxy for everything you’ve just described.

Why pass a thousand new laws when the existing laws have an enforcement mechanism?

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

#43

Post by squibonpig »

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

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

#44

Post by mwt »

stavros wrote: post #17
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…

The CEO gets charged with manslaughter? I work in healthtech and the responsible individual is certainly personally liable for any harm that results from reckless behavior, it should be the same here. Same as if someone were driving, if a person just jumps in front of your car while you're driving under the limit/sober/etc, you aren't at fault, so the AV should also not be at fault if it couldn't reasonably avoid the…

Could you provide examples of healthcare executives held personally liable for harm resulting from reckless decision-making? I have never heard of such a thing happening in healthcare so framing CEO responsibility as a solution to the problem sounds like a stretch to me.

Some examples: Elizabeth Holmes got canned for lying to investors, not harming patients. Purdue Pharma plead guilty to misleading regulators and giving doctors kickbacks, not causing some hundreds of thousands of opioid deaths, but no Sackler family members were personally tried.

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

#45

Post by tintor »

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…

Apologised for taking lives of married couple and two babies?

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

#46

Post by xnx »

Aachen wrote: post #29
xnx wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What does a jail sentence deter? Other irresponsible drivers.

How would I know I'm going to kill someone on the road today and stop doing that thing?

Don't drive intoxicated, tired, distracted, or physically impaired by age or other means.

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

#47

Post by JumpCrisscross »

crazygringo wrote: post #36
wongarsu wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I think ticketing is the right thing to do. You set a law. Any instance of breaking that law costs money, so the AV company has an incentive to reduce the number of violations. The won't be able to bring the number of violations down to 0 just like we can't bring the number of cockroaches in chocolate down to 0, but that nonzero amount is just a regulatory cost they can decrease by getting closer to the goal of 0…

The point is, with software you don't need tickets. Either the software is written to try to follow the law or it isn't. If it's trying, then we establish thresholds. If the company is actively trying to break the law, it should be shut down. Tickets are a silly, roundabout way to go about it. They make sense for human drivers because they're all running different independent "brain software" and it's unrealistic for…

> Either the software is written to try to follow the law or it isn't

Then the real world intervenes. Nobody plans to block an intersection. But a lack of planning and shits given will put one into that position even without intention.

> it allows these companies to avoid many of these fixes if the tickets are infrequent enough

Sounds fine? Like, as long as AVs and human drivers share the roads, modulating enforcement with infraction frequency seems fine.

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

#48

Post by YokoZar »

booleandilemma wrote: post #30
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…

I think part of ticketing is the state makes money off of it. If they just shut these companies down no one benefits.

Ticketing in California generally results in revenue going directly to the enforcing locality, not the state. It's an important difference, and why you tend to get things like speed traps for passing motorists

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

#49

Post by crazygringo »

cyanmagenta wrote: post #35
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…

You make some good points, but here are some counterpoints: There is an existing infrastructure for ticketing by license plate, payment processing, collection, etc. You’re describing changes to the law, which require a bunch of procedural hurdles. It’s much easier for the DMV to just promulgate new rules that tap into existing infrastructure, as they did here. Also, how is the government supposed to assess whether th…

Of course I'm describing changes to the law. AV's inherently require tons of changes to the law. They already have. Permits for AV companies operate under new law. That is not an obstacle.

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

#50

Post by crazygringo »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #47
crazygringo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is, with software you don't need tickets. Either the software is written to try to follow the law or it isn't. If it's trying, then we establish thresholds. If the company is actively trying to break the law, it should be shut down. Tickets are a silly, roundabout way to go about it. They make sense for human drivers because they're all running different independent "brain software" and it's unrealistic for…

> Either the software is written to try to follow the law or it isn't Then the real world intervenes. Nobody plans to block an intersection. But a lack of planning and shits given will put one into that position even without intention. > it allows these companies to avoid many of these fixes if the tickets are infrequent enough Sounds fine? Like, as long as AVs and human drivers share the roads, modulating enforcemen…

> Sounds fine?

A major benefit of AV's is that they're supposed to be better than human drivers, not breaking traffic laws just as often.

Post reply on HN