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

81–90 of 371 posts

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

#81

Post by mlyle »

loeg wrote: post #71
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The standard for human drivers is through the floor. The linked article doesn't describe the standard. It describes a single, exceptional example.

It's a representative example. (When you're disputing my evidenced claim, it behooves you to bring your own facts, rather than just asserting.)

I think it's not too surprising that the law treats people with diminished capacity differently. It's not a bug, it's a feature, even though it may feel upsetting. There's no winning solution in a case like that.

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

#82

Post by dekhn »

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…

How do you get from "trying to park car" to 70 miles an hour? That does not seem consistent with the geometry of the accident.

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

#83

Post by embedding-shape »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #65
wongarsu wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, 11 deaths per billion miles driven (or about 47k per year) is currently seen as an OK cost. More than twice as much per mile as places like Sweden and Switzerland, and still substantially more than places like Canada, Australia or Germany (all three in the 6-8 deaths per billion miles range). So it's not like there isn't room to improve. The effort to do so just isn't seen as worth the cost at the societal…

> it's not like there isn't room to improve Losing one's license means destitution for many Americans. That places practical limits on enforcement compared with less car-oriented countries.

> Losing one's license means destitution for many Americans.

That'd be the same for a Swede who lives in the middle of nowhere too. Although I'm sure both groups, if they'd loose their license, would continue driving anyways.

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

#84

Post by OptionOfT »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #65
wongarsu wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, 11 deaths per billion miles driven (or about 47k per year) is currently seen as an OK cost. More than twice as much per mile as places like Sweden and Switzerland, and still substantially more than places like Canada, Australia or Germany (all three in the 6-8 deaths per billion miles range). So it's not like there isn't room to improve. The effort to do so just isn't seen as worth the cost at the societal…

> it's not like there isn't room to improve Losing one's license means destitution for many Americans. That places practical limits on enforcement compared with less car-oriented countries.

I'm from Belgium, and even with public transportation, there are a large group of people dependent on their driver's license.

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.

And now people who obey the law need to take out extra insurance for under/uninsured motorists.

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

#85

Post by dyauspitr »

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…

Then it’s an okay cost of doing business. $10 million is a lot of money and consequences for these companies are not purely legal they are also social consequences.

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

#86

Post by mlyle »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #56
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…

> 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,…

> This is the wild part. No! You don't drive again!

She's not going to drive again.

> For her to have recognised her own limitations before they took lives.

This is something that humans suck at.

> 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.

You shouldn't punish her for other people failing to take action.

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

#87

Post by mlyle »

loeg wrote: post #58
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…

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.

> they don't.

When there's significant extenuating circumstances or "the book" wouldn't serve the purposes of justice, they don't.

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

#88

Post by pessimizer »

loeg wrote: post #71
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The standard for human drivers is through the floor. The linked article doesn't describe the standard. It describes a single, exceptional example.

It's a representative example. (When you're disputing my evidenced claim, it behooves you to bring your own facts, rather than just asserting.)

> It's a representative example.

This is the assertion. You can recognize it because the obvious reply is that it is not at all a representative example, but one that you just handpicked. You're question-begging.

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

#89

Post by SilverElfin »

I don’t disagree with needing some sort of consequence for bad driverless actions. But I distrust the motivation. Maybe California is just looking for more revenue sources after rampantly mismanaging their state and letting corruption and fraud continue.

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

#90

Post by HDThoreaun »

tempest_ wrote: post #51
MostlyStable wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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

Post reply on HN