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

51–60 of 371 posts

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

#51

Post by tempest_ »

MostlyStable wrote: post #33
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…

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?

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

#52

Post by stavros »

mwt wrote: post #44
stavros wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 giv…

I work in the UK, where regulations are different, and there have been a few cases. Maybe not as many as there should be, but in theory this is something that exists in law.

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

#53

Post by bdangubic »

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…

> 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.

This is in like China, yes? Certainly not in the US of A, hence Luigi and all that…

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

#54

Post by xphos »

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…

I feel like this trivializises all software development. It happens but 99% of development is done to follow the spec or law in this case. The failures or bugs are usually not intentional. You basically saying if 1 car in the fleet breaks the law shut them down? If thats a strawman im sorry but even in software algorithm have unintentional bugs and make mistakes. The same is true for human drivers but we dont revoke their licenses when they break the law we have a proportional penalty for break. If driverless cars are speeding its a slap on the wrist. If they are driving the wrong way down the freeway the penalty would be revoking licenses

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

#55

Post by JumpCrisscross »

crazygringo wrote: post #50
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

If they're infrequently breaking minor traffic laws they may still be doing so (a) less frequently than humans or (b) with less consequence than when humans do it.

I say this as someone who tends to drive the speed limit: our traffic laws were not written for perfect parsing.

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

#56

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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…

> 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, her family–or literally anyone who cared about her, and didn't want to see her spend her last years in jail–having taken initiative.

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

#57

Post by hiddencost »

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…

People will change their behavior. The function of prison sentences is deterrence.

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

#58

Post by loeg »

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…

Your full-throated defense of Mary Lau is completely beside the point (and for what it's worth, it would be a fifth life, not a "second" -- she killed an entire family of four). GP claimed that human drivers who commit vehicular manslaughter get the book; they don't.

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

#60

Post by JumpCrisscross »

hiddencost wrote: post #57
Aachen wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

People will change their behavior. The function of prison sentences is deterrence.

> function of prison sentences is deterrence

As well as incapacitation and retribution.

Post reply on HN