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 per X AV miles driven is an OK cost of doing business?
No, it's actually fairly common in crashes between motor vehicles and pedestrians (or cyclists) to place most or all of the blame on the pedestrian.
When the Uber self-driving car struck and killed the pedestrian, not only did the internet peanut gallery largely blame the pedestrian for the first 24 hours or so after the death, but the local police force did as well for a couple of days. I rather suspect that without the national spotlight of being the first pedestrian killed by a self-driving car, the local police force would have been happy to absolve Uber and the driver of any liability.
It should obviously be possible for a pedestrian to be at fault in a collision. If someone without the right of way steps in front of a moving car, there is often nothing the vehicle could physically do to prevent the collision at that point. That's what right of way is for -- you have rules that, if everybody follows them, nobody gets hit, and then if someone gets hit because someone wasn't following the rules, the fault is with the person not following the rules.
The dominant cause of pedestrian fatalities is not "pedestrian steps right in front of a moving car," but things like "driver didn't see pedestrian in middle of crosswalk" (usually because, e.g., looking instead for vehicle traffic to make a right turn on red). 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 already at fault because they were driving faster than conditions warranted.
> 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 already at fault because they were driving faster than conditions warranted.
That's not true: 30km/h is enough to kill, and that's a very sedate speed.
Whether we like it or not, pedestrians and cyclists have to also follow the rules.
If you want change the rules, well that's a different argument to the one you appearing to make which is that certain entities should not be bound by any rules.
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.
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 diagonally in front of you?
Because I’m all for pedestrian safety and prioritization. But SF has gone so “safe” that it’s back to unsafe. Runners will join an intersection from behind a tree in front of a car that had stopped and was starting to go without even looking up. People join a crossing looking down or away from the flow of traffic, it’s insane to me.
I find that kids cross streets much better than adults here. A kid will stop, look, check if they were seen and then proceed.
Let’s say person A drive their car through a green light (or any right of way) while person B pass at red with their truck and kills person A. Should we blame A to missed they eye contact with B?
This is a false equivalence. Im not talking about blaming a victim. I don’t know who the victim is when someone stopped, looked started driving and out of nowhere a runner with noise cancelling headphones ran in front of them anyway.
I’m talking about you want to be safe? Don’t just run into the street without looking. It’s the best optimization for the state of affairs in the streets. People are not perfect, pillars are very big now, blind spots are bigger, cellphones, whatever you want.
I like to assume there aren’t that many deranged murderers around for it to matter. The state of affairs all my life has been that drivers are as careful as they have to around crosswalks.
This seems like it needs a regional distinction. I regularly do this since cars do reliably stop/slow down (in Prague, and not right in front of cars).
> The dominant cause of pedestrian fatalities is not "pedestrian steps right in front of a moving car," but things like "driver didn't see pedestrian in middle of crosswalk" (usually because, e.g., looking instead for vehicle traffic to make a right turn on red).
And the driver is at fault in the cases where the driver is at fault. 18% of pedestrian fatalities are cases where the driver was drunk. Meanwhile 30% of pedestrian fatalities are cases where the pedestrian was drunk.
Your example is actually a pretty rare cause of pedestrian fatalities because even if someone doesn't see a pedestrian, cars turning right on red are almost always traveling at low speed.
> if a driver is fast enough to kill them, then the driver is almost certainly already at fault because they were driving faster than conditions warranted.
There is a double digit percent chance of a fatality if a vehicle hits a pedestrian at 25 MPH. The vast majority of roads allow speeds of 25 MPH or more. That doesn't mean you can stop if someone without the right of way who you had no reason to expect to step out directly in front of a car suddenly does.
The dominant cause of pedestrian deaths is the same as drivers: alcohol. But unlike drivers, pedestrian are allowed to walk around drunk. So we dont even talk about it. We pretend it doesnt happen. It does. It happens all the time. The drunk pedestrian being hit by a car is the norm.
>>2008, nearly 40 per cent of pedestrians killed on Canadian roads were impaired, with two-thirds of them having a blood alcohol concentration more than double the legal limit. In fact, of all the fatally injured pedestrians with alcohol in their systems, fewer than one in five was at or below the legal driving limit of 0.08 blood alcohol concentration (BAC), according to the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators* (CCMTA).
And just try discussing drunk biking and you will be run out of town by a spandex army shouting about thier "right" to use the roads while drunk or high.
Just the other day, a middle aged cyclist decided to hug my bumper as I went downhill at about 35 mph. I rolled down the window and shouted "back off please". He looked surprised, but backed off.
A bicycle's brakes are far less effective than a car's. I don't know how a man got to middle age not knowing this. A lot of cyclists ride like they have an invisible shield protecting them.
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 already at fault because they were driving faster than conditions warranted.
"A pedestrian can be at fault in a fatality but the driver would still be at fault anyway" is apparently not a straw man.
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.
> No one said that it's not possible for a pedestrian to be at fault in a collision; they said the opposite.
The intention of the comment you accused of replying to a straw man was meant to point out that a pedestrian could be at fault instead of the driver.
That reply is pretty clearly arguing that even if the pedestrian was at fault, the driver would still have to be at fault anyway. Summarizing an argument after quoting it isn't misquoting it.
> A pedestrian could be at fault in other scenarios, like running into the middle of the street in dark clothing at night.
There is nothing to distinguish this from the original argument where the driver could still be be accused of "driving faster than conditions warranted" because visibility is lower at night.
> In California, if a pedestrian is in a crosswalk then the driver is legally at fault
And strict liability rules like that often lead to ridiculous outcomes, e.g. if someone jumps out of the back of a truck into an intersection and you then hit them, technically they were a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Or there is a pedestrian standing next to a crosswalk but they're stationary and talking on their phone without seeming to want to enter the crosswalk, so you start to proceed and then they step in front of your car.
The exact kind of scenario I was thinking of is something like a driver barrelling down a road in a school zone at 35 mph and hitting a kid who ran out into the street to pick up a ball. Since you so love putting words into my mouth, I assume you clearly believe that the pedestrian is at fault here instead of the driver [1].
In the real world, pedestrians don't play frogger with highways all that frequently. When you talk about pedestrians suddenly jumping onto the road, that is usually because they are in an area where pedestrian and vehicular interaction is likely--school zones, residential areas, parking lots, etc. In those scenarios... yeah, speeding is the fault here, not the pedestrian. I thought this was an obvious consideration that I didn't need to spell it out so clearly. But it turns out that the tendency to try to shift the blame from the driver to pedestrians in every scenario is just too ingrained into people, I guess...
[1] This isn't exactly a strawman--someone here was trying to argue that the driver isn't at fault in this scenario just this past week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47877232
Is it? Laura Bush ran a stop sign and killed her friend. No charges. Caitlyn Jenner hit a car and pushed it into on coming traffic killed someone. No charges. I can keep going and going.
No, the reason that's a news story is because many people were upset about the accident, which killed an entire family of 4 while they took the kids to the zoo on their wedding anniversary. Even by the standards of auto wrecks it was heart wrenching. A lot of people felt the driver was negligent and deserved prison.
there are many[0] many[1] data points like this. even if individual ones seem like outliers, when there's this many outliers, it's like there's at least two distinct lines depicting consequences, one material and one not.
those who probably have exhausted all the various escape hatches built into the "vehicular manslaughter & mutilation forgiveness program" worldwide by the automobile industry, may get a year or so in prison — usually extreme repeat offenders, high profile deaths, homicide cases, or drivers who were already criminals just having the charge thrown in.
most people who "slipped up" are just fined and forgotten, at the cost of global pedestrian safety.
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.
Last year I was on the jury for someone who drove drunk, caused an accident, and fled the scene. They had multiple prior DUIs but still had their license.
[edit]
Some details from the story for those who don't want to click through:
An unlicensed driver drank, did some cocaine, drove on one of the more dangerous stretches of road in the area, crossed the centerline and killed someone. Probation.
> The reason that’s a news story is because the outcome is unusual.
Yes and no.
Here in the UK, I read/post a bit on https://road.cc about road cycling and the perils of traffic and poor road designs. There's a surprising amount of clearly illegal driving that is rarely punished severely and it's notable that due to juries being motornormative, the prosecution will often not attempt to push for "dangerous driving" and will instead go or "careless driving" as it's notoriously difficult to get a jury to give a guilty verdict for "dangerous". I suspect a lot of jurors are thinking "I sometimes don't pay attention when driving, so that could have been me".
There's also a lot of media bias (I'm looking at you, BBC) with reporting of RTCs (Road Traffic Collisions - they should not be referred to as "accidents" as that is loaded language), especially when one of the participants is a cyclist. A lot of stories are framed as "car and cyclist in collision", rather than "driver and cyclist in collision" or even "car driven into cyclist" (that last one may be contentious, though I propose that it is usually factual). The issue is the use of the "passive" framing so that it doesn't give the impressions that a driver is likely to be at fault (percentage wise, driver inattention is the most likely cause of RTCs). See https://www.rc-rg.com/home for more details on reporting guidelines.
Also, most RTCs don't even merit a news report as they are so commonplace.
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 family of the victims. She's taking responsibility and I can't imagine forced labor at that age is fun. What more can you ask for here? The family member isn't coming back if she gets what's not unlikely to be a life sentence
Edit:
> She told a witness at the scene that she was trying to park her car when she accidentally moved her foot to the gas pedal.
This seems to happen a lot. Don't know about statistics but this happened to someone I know at 50yo (thankfully only damaged their own car minorly), and you hear it on the news with some regularity. Maybe the gas needs to be in a fundamentally different spot from the brake? We can jail the people to whom it happens, sure, but I can understand a judge using their head instead of their heart. The real solution must come either from the automotive industry or legislation
> 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.
Huh? We're talking about someone who's not going to drive for 3 years at 80 years old. Who else are you foreseeing they'll "mow down" if you don't jail them for life
> For her to have recognised her own limitations
Surely I don't need to look up the statistics of people under 30 killing others by accident. We're humans, not infallible. The judge didn't think they took any undue risk here
But sure, enact your vengeance on the person that fate picked out. Comment sections are always full of it anyway so I'm sure the voting booth will be too and this is just going to spread
There needs to be something. I am not saying JumpCrisscross is right, but... I was a paramedic, and the sheer number of geriatric drivers who in zero way shape or form should be anywhere near the wheel of a vehicle is ... staggering. My go-to anecdote?
Called out for an eval with law enforcement, thankfully non injury (however, there -are- about half a dozen vehicles who are going to be filing insurance claims).
Grandma is on her way to the doctor, and is in husband's old Caddy. Problem, she couldn't figure out what to do at "the worst roundabout she'd ever seen" and kept circling it, causing other cars to swerve off the road into drainage ditches, over curbs etc.
Know why it was the worst roundabout she'd ever seen? Because it wasn't a roundabout. It was a T junction and there were those concrete lane separators. According to witnesses she'd been circling it for several minutes, occasionally putting the car into reverse to navigate it.
"Ma'am, where are you headed?" "My doctor, for an appointment". "Where's your doctor's office?" "[insert town name 40 miles away from us]" "And where do you live?" "[insert same town name]" She's nowhere near that town, there's no understood way she got from there to here other than mass confusion.
So LE call her adult kids, while we're assessing her, and figuring out a plan. They've also discovered in the meantime that her license was medically revoked five years prior by said doctor.
Kids: "Oh that? That doctor has no idea what he's talking about, she's perfectly competent, he just doesn't like her. She tells us she's fine to drive and we've been telling her we agree with her" and "What do you mean you're going to have her car towed? We can be there in two hours. Can't she just stay there with the paramedics til we get there?"
Cops: Your mom is about to be hit with at least six or seven insurance claims that are going to argue that the doctor, and the DOL, were right, and that your mom actually isn't medically suited to be driving.
I still guarantee she probably didn't face any legal consequences beyond insurance, though. Certainly we were never called as witnesses. And her family probably still thinks it was a fluke and that her doctor was just an asshole when he had her license revoked.
Banning someone from driving is basically a nonpunishment as driving on a suspended license is barely enforced. Most people with suspended licenses keep driving.
> 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.
Not usually with fatal consequences. These were preventable deaths. Not only that, the driver was being incredibly reckless, apparently driving 70 mph in a residential area.
> You shouldn't punish her for other people failing to take action
You're punishing her for being criminally reckless. You're creating an incentive structure that should reduce the frequency of future criminality.
In 3 years, at age 83, if she wanted to... she could try and take the driving test again and become licensed. This is just not going to happen :P In the end, the court can only prohibit her from driving while she is on probation.
Would it be great if this time she could be banned forever? Sure. But there's reasons why we don't just let judges make up arbitrary penalties and permanent restrictions on their own.
> Not usually with fatal consequences. These were preventable deaths. Not only that,
Humans don't misestimate their remaining ability with fatal consequences?
> the driver was being incredibly reckless, apparently driving 70 mph in a residential area.
Yes, by confusing gas and brake. She clearly has significantly reduced capacity.
> You're creating an incentive structure that should reduce the frequency of future criminality.
I do not think that the behavior of 80 year old people will be meaningfully changed by the degree of punishment applied here. This is a person that has lost a significant degree of capacity; unfortunately, humans losing capacity tend not to realize it or correctly estimate how much they have lost.
> she could try and take the driving test again and become licensed. This is just not going to happen
Why? More importantly, why is it on the table?
> the court can only prohibit her from driving while she is on probation
This seems incorrect. Lau was placed on probation for 2 years and had her license revoked for 3 [1].
> Would it be great if this time she could be banned forever? Sure. But there's reasons why we don't just let judges make up arbitrary penalties and permanent restrictions on their own
Straw man. Harsh and arbitrary are mostly orthogonal.
If you kill someone from behind the wheel, and you are at fault, the default punishment should be long-term license revocation and jail time. In almost no case do I see a reason for removing the requirement to spend time in prison altogether.
> Humans don't misestimate their remaining ability with fatal consequences?
Humans get taken off the roads and otherwise criminally incapacitated.
> do not think that the behavior of 80 year old people will be meaningfully changed by the degree of punishment applied here. This is a person that has lost a significant degree of capacity
I do. If the headline were she got years in jail, I'd bet at least a few families would weigh the cost of confronting a relative against the risk that they have to see them behind bars.
> Straw man. Harsh and arbitrary are mostly orthogonal.
It's "arbitrary" because it's something that the legislature has not specifically allowed for. We do not allow judges to make up things on the spot for good reason.
> I do. If the headline were she got years in jail, I'd bet at least a few families would weigh the cost of confronting a relative against the risk that they have to see them behind bars.
I think the chance that grandpa might see prison time for driving is not really something that is going to change things much for families compared to "grandpa might kill someone" or "grandpa might get himself killed."
> I'd bet at least a few families would weigh the cost of confronting a relative against the risk that they have to see them behind bars.
See my comment just above, where I reply to someone who replied to you. "Confronting a relative"? Shit, I'd be happy if a few less relatives actively enabled people, "That doctor doesn't know what he's talking about, you're fine, mom, besides, it's kind of a pain for us to drive 10 minutes over to your house to help with an errand and then 10 minutes home. Just drive, no-one's going to pull you over."
So your hypothetical is that someone reads the headline "elderly woman kills family of four with car due to incapacity, receives no jail time" and goes "oh, no jail? No biggie" but if they read a headline "... and receives life in prison" they're going to rush out and take away grandma's keys because now they care?
> And it doesn't work there, so why would it work for impaired driving?
It does actually. See how thieves resident in Florida travel to New York to work because of the different enforcement regimes for one of the clearest possible examples[1].
Even if deterrence didn’t work at all putting people in prison is good because of incapacitation. Committing crimes is stupidly right tailed[2]. Every career criminal in jail for a year is a year society doesn’t suffer their crimes.
Note that New York seems to have much lower property crime rates than Florida. It's usually difficult to compare this between jurisdictions but it seems pretty clear cut in this case.
It also seems like the percentage of goods lost to retail theft is slightly lower in New York than Florida.
c.f. you have a thirdhand cherry-picked quote from someone on a political site that implies differently.
> Not only that, the driver was being incredibly reckless, apparently driving 70 mph in a residential area.
I don't defend that woman at all and as someone who walked by that intersection on the day of the incident, 70 mph seems physically impossible there for a reasonable driver.
But it was not a totally residential area, it was a major transit hub of that part of town, where light rail and bus lines meet, a verrry short block away from lots of retail and restaurants.. That actually is an argument to go slower than in a purely residential area, because it's actually a congested area.
Definitely not given back. If I didn't misread it, she needs to take a new driver's test at 83, which she already declined applying for (though it'll be her right; we'd have to see if she stays by the decision or if the examiner deems her a safe driver)
> You're punishing her for being criminally reckless. You're creating an incentive structure that should reduce the frequency of future criminality.
Wtf? Try applying logic somewhere in the process. People don't enjoy killing others by accident, paying 64k, 200h community service, three years of trying to use American public transport before you can start the process of getting a license back, going through a whole court system, and, y'know, guilt that I'd imagine would cripple me for years
Edit: I'm very surprised, reading your other comments, they're overall legit sensible. Really struggling to comprehend how, here, you get from "someone did something by accident" to "you need life punishments or they'll have an incentive to mow the next person down". There's zero incentive for citizens to kill people in any society that I'm aware of, again even ignoring the internal problems it causes
> Definitely not given back. If I didn't misread it, she needs to take a new driver's test at 83, which she already declined applying for (though it'll be her right; we'd have to see if she stays by the decision or if the examiner deems her a safe driver)
Pretty likely that DMV Driver Safety has her record flagged and wants some additional evidence of medical capacity if she reapplies, too.
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.
Sorry if my throat sounded full to you, just writing what I think fits the context. In this case, apparently an 80yo getting punished in various ways is what GP had as example of how criminals are getting off easy. I see this pattern constantly, where people can't be bothered to read an article with the background info (much less the court case summary itself) but join the march and sign the petitions to lock the person up for life or whatever the outcry is
It feels unfair to me, like it could have been me or the commenter in a parallel universe, and I don't expect either of us are evil and intending to do bad, so I bring up what the article actually says were the circumstances (no intent or recklessness proven beyond doubt) and consequences (at least, besides the guilt factor). Don't you feel this could happen to you tomorrow just as easily as to anyone else? Should you get a worse punishment than all of what this woman got (see above) for getting into an accident with a fatal outcome? (Assuming you drive a vehicle, of course)
So, like, a six year prison sentence? Maybe more for multiple counts here? At least revocation of driving privileges forever (she's not getting any younger)? None of that happened.
As well as making acquaintances with other criminals at a time where you're losing your job, apartment, your social network if the sentence lasts long enough
But, yes, also those two. It's a very multifaceted sword, and thankfully not the only option, not for any of the three goals
> Deterrence doesn't affect crimes born from impulse
And yet I've seen way more people call an Uber instead of drive home drunk not because they thought they'd kill someone, but because they didn't want a DUI.
Sounds like the insight is that people have varying degrees of forethought. Crime isn't mono-causal and therefore solutions shouldn't be expected to be monolithic.
And taking away a license in order to achieve that in the case of traffic offences couldn't possibly be the cheaper option for deterrence or incapacitation
There's a test every 5 years after iirc 65yo where they check things like response time, if you have enough strength for handling the wheel completely unimpeded, and if you aren't suffering from dementia. At least that's what I've heard from my grandparents about the tests they had to do. If that doesn't cover the age risk, imo that test would be the thing to fix. Not sure how strict those are in the USA
Since the article doesn't speak of her well-being, I don't think we can judge here whether this woman should have taken herself out of society already (from what I hear, the USA isn't exactly public transport or walking friendly, assuming she can still walk distances in the first place, idk what old people are supposed to do there)
The other three factors you mentioned were not at play here according to the linked article. But I agree in general of course, and in those cases I don't disagree with extra punishment (and/or, the better preventor: increasing the odds of being caught)
Every 5 years is ridiculous. The difference between 80 and 85 can be stark. I have to get refresher training every two years to legally fly a small plane and that’s something where it takes some serious work to kill anyone who isn’t me or my passenger.
Is that a question? I'm not sure if you're expecting an answer about maybe she should have tried praying for the person to be brought back or what would legit help the situation at that point?
Odd point to raise in a thread about a family killed while waiting at a bus stop in broad daylight. Do you think reflective clothing would have changed the outcome of the event significantly?
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)
In the context of this thread, it's worth pointing out that "trying to deceive regulators" is quite normal behavior for individual human drivers involved in car incidents, and iirc the Cruise collision itself also involved a human driver performing a hit-and-run who didn't afaict ever get prosecuted or come forward to police.
They have to operate in California though, so I don't blame them.
This is a state that made me a criminal for putting the wrong air filter on my car (Clearly my bad for putting on the 49 State legal version that makes the tailpipe emissions cleaner).
It wasn't "because of an incident", it was because they were required to submit a report about that (or any other) incident, did so, and then the security footage proved that they straight up lied in the report about that particular incident.
If they just told the truth, they wouldn't lose their licence, but they couldn't even oblige by this piss-poor regulatory action in which they were required to do nothing but self-report any incident.
I believe you, but that really highlights how dangerous small regulatory overheads are. One - quite reasonable - frame on what you're saying is that there was no problem with Cruise except they failed to engage with the bureaucracy properly on some relatively minor points.
That sort of behaviour should be an aggravating factor if they're actually misbehaving. If they aren't, then it is poor policy to try and put them out of business over paperwork.
The refutation of your point is in the article itself. The standard, by law, punishment involves jail time or home confinement. The judge explained how those punishments were not appropriate because of the exceptional circumstances.
> And there is precedent for the light manslaughter sentencing of an older driver. In 2003, George Weller, 86, killed 10 pedestrians at the Santa Monica Farmers Market after confusing the gas and brake pedals. He received five years of probation. The judge in that case said that Mr. Weller’s age and declining health had contributed to the decision.
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.
Twin Cities, 2010-2014: 95 pedestrians killed in 3,069 crashes. 28 drivers were charged and convicted of a crime, most often a misdemeanor ranging from speeding to careless driving. ~70% of pedestrian-killing drivers faced no criminal charge[0].
Bay Area, 2007-2011 (CIR investigation): sixty percent of drivers that were at fault, or suspected of being at fault, faced no criminal charges. Over 40 percent of drivers charged did not lose their driver's licenses, even temporarily[1].
Philadelphia, 2017–2018: just 16 percent of the drivers were charged with a felony in fatal crashes[2].
Los Angeles, 2010–2019: 2,109 people were killed in traffic collisions on L.A. streets... and nearly half were pedestrians. Booked on vehicular manslaughter: 158 people. The vast majority of drivers who kill someone with their car are not arrested[3].
I can literally do this all day. The original statement was correct, the case representative.
Now we’re talking. So much misinformation in this thread. There’s a reason that the saying, “if you want to kill someone, do it with a car” exists. Fortunately, it seems like judges are finally starting to wake up to the idea that it’s unreasonable for drivers to claim ignorance about the increased risks (and thus intent) of making poor/illegal decisions when being the wheel.
This thread talks about driverless cars; vehicular manslaughter requires negligence or intent, do you want to find narrowed statistics for driverless cars that are restricted to negligence or intent?
Criminality is basically just a checkbox for this stuff. Most of the time people wouldn't be going to jail for these sorts of crimes, it'd just be big fines and penalties. There's almost always administrative/civil infractions of the same or similar name that has the same or greater punishment but are far more efficient for the state to prosecute because the accused has fewer rights.
It makes for good appeal to emotion headlines to say these people aren't getting charged with crimes, but that's only half the story. They're likely lawyering up and pleading to a civil infraction that has approx the same penalties.
And this is true not just for this issue but for many subject areas of administrative law. Taxes, SEC, environmental, etc, etc, all operate mostly like this.
It's easy for a writer to pander to certain demographics and get people whipped into a frenzy by writing an easy article about prosecuting rates using public data. Actually contacting these agencies and figuring out what they actually did is hard and in the modern media economy doesn't offer much upside for the work.
Someone (i forget who) wrote that if someone invented a technology equally beneficial and equally harmful it wouldnt even be considered today but 100 years ago they wouldnt even question it. It was labor as usual.
Personally i would like to see a more granual permission to drive based on performance, need and demography.
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.
Well, if the law treats them differently when it comes to punishment, then maybe it should treat them differently when it comes to being able to drive in the first place?
Yup. And we do have some degree of safeguards here-- admittedly, less in California than many other states. They are: physician required reporting of disqualifying conditions, ability for other people to report concerns about capability to drive, and the requirement to show up and undergo vision testing and not flag other concerns in the process.
There's a tradeoff between reducing the very low rate of unsafe driving by the elderly and the burden added to the very old. People over 65+ are still possibly safer, overall, than teenagers.
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 or government level
Turning that into a monetary cost would change the ethics slightly, but it wouldn't be a monumental shift
The issue here is that a lot of the concerns about AV's are orthogonal to the standard metrics of concern.
I'm a strong transit alternatives advocate, but even I recognize that a firetruck or ambulance being blocked by an AV has the potential to cause an outsized amount of death and destruction, because deaths aren't always linear and a fire that is able to get out of control can do catastrophic damage compared to a single out of control vehicle.
I'm genuinely stunned that AV's do not have the ability to be "commandeered" by Police/Fire/EMS in a pinch, and I'm honestly surprised that regular citizens can't just hit a red button that signal "this is seriously an emergency." These are fairly simple steps to mitigate the tail risk of AV's but the platforms aren't going to prioritize that if there are no incentives.
We already accept that it’s fine for human drivers to block emergency services and we generally refuse to build, say, bus and bike lines that can be used by emergency services.
So the uproar over AV’s blocking emergency vehicles seems incredibly manufactured or inconsistent, much like the hoopla over AI and water.
e.g. You can take anyone complaining about this and you’ll find they didn’t care about emergency vehicles or water until just now regarding one thing. I’d like to see some consistency.
The difference is blocking emergency vehicles in predictable, high traffic areas that can be intentionally avoided vs randomly blocking an entire road because you couldn’t handle a weird event.
People actually think hard about these problems. The entire point of my post is that it is trivial to mitigate.
I was in the middle of the SF blackout, and witnessed the Waymos stopped at lights and actually commended Waymo for handling the emergency so well. At the same time, I’ve seen many ambulances get blocked just seconds away from the hospital because of Waymos unable to navigate complex intersections like oak/fell and stanyan.
> I'm genuinely stunned that AV's do not have the ability to be "commandeered" by Police/Fire/EMS in a pinch, and I'm honestly surprised that regular citizens can't just hit a red button that signal "this is seriously an emergency."
The passenger of a Waymo can, but not anyone outside it. There's a very prominent "call for help" button on the screen when you get inside.
At least in SF, there’s both a phone number and a QR code on a sticker on the driver-side window, and per what’s linked from https://waymo.com/firstresponders/ it seems like that’s a dedicated phone line.
I wonder quite what the priority matrix looks like for support requests; I’d expect something like:
1. First responders
2. Human-initiated in-vehicle
3. Autonomous-initiated vehicle
But I of course don’t know.
Buttons are something that seem inherently obviously (both internal and external), but I’m also never sure quite how useful they’d be: a lot of the things that have gathered press have involved vehicles driving when it was unsafe to do so, and then any external button is of minimal use.
I also expect they have some level of concern about anything external having an abuse potential? (e.g., deliberately walk in front of an AV just to stop it in the road)
Something like “give first responders some mobile app which provides some level of direct control” feels like it should be doable (authentication there seems unlikely to be harder than the various “educational” authentication gates that Alphabet has in many products) — though of course that doesn’t scale with more AV operators, and thus maybe this just falls into the category of “this should be standardised” (by whatever SDO).
And some can clearly just leverage existing datasets — many jurisdictions have ways to publish things like “this road is closed from X to Y”, and you can imagine a slightly broader case of “close a radius of Z from point A” being something you might want, especially in the AV case (imagine a “police incident” closing an intersection, such as the one a Waymo drove through a few months ago — you probably want to close a bit beyond the interaction itself in all directions!).
And sure, to some extent things can be handled by AVs getting better at understanding their surroundings, but we’ll always have the question of whether they’re good enough, especially when they fail in non-human like ways.
I've never actually tried it, but I would expect customer service to be able to move the car out of the way or push it to someone who can remotely pilot it.
Again, the main issue is that these things can cause problems with nobody is in the car. It shouldn't even be a debate. Emergency services should have a key that unlocks them and allows them to be commandeered. Everyone inside is being filmed all the time, so anyone going for a joyride is being watched, the car could be shut down remotely, and the person could trivially charged with a number of felonies, and then that access key could be removed.
If Waymo can't play well with emergency services, then they've got long term sustainability problems.
Don't forget to add rail incidents to that metric. I live in Spain, this year we had 4 derailments for a total of 48 deaths and 195 injured. The USA has had 0 passengers killed or injured from train accidents this year. Portugal had 15 death after a tram derailment. In Amsterdam, the tram is more dangerous than the car.
Also Germany is very high (for European standards) because of the Autobahn. They can save around 140 lives a year by having a limit on the Autobahn but the car lobby in Germany is very strong. Those 140 lives are seen as an OK cost just to go vroom on the Autobahn.
> Not to mention that trains are far safer than automobiles too.
This claim is situationally true, but not universally so like many people seem to believe. For example, Brightline rail service in Florida has been operating since 2017 and averages (by my math) 29.8 deaths / 100M passenger-miles, while the road system in Florida averages 0.89 deaths / 100M passenger-miles. Those deaths are mostly not suicides, and imo we should treat pedestrian deaths from trains as substantially more morally weighty than passenger deaths, since it's a victim that didn't opt-in to the risk.
For what it's worth, the unusual spike in Spain train crashes this year seems to have pushed them barely over the fatality numbers of Spanish cars (0.91 deaths/100M pax-mi vs 0.73 for cars) but that's pretty clearly an outlier.
If you measure per vehicle-mile rather than per passenger-mile I'm pretty sure trains are always way more dangerous, although that's a less fair comparison.
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 just doesn't seem to be there.
But in general: freeways/motorways (whatever you want to call them) almost never account for the majority of fatalities anywhere — there’s a lot that makes them safer than the average rural road even given comparable speeds, and there’s fewer vulnerable road users around.
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.
If there is anything remotely potentially dangerous, unlimited speed ends and the road gets well defined and enforced speed limit. If the traffic on that segment of the road gets high, they put in speed limit sign too.
Moreover, there is a question of liability for the insurance purpose. If you go above 130, you are assumed to be caused of the accident. So, most Germans go roughly 130 in those segments anyway.
> Don't forget to add rail incidents to that metric. I live in Spain, this year we had 4 derailments for a total of 48 deaths and 195 injured.
Yeah and how many in the 15 years prior? 112. Of which 80 were in a single (TGV) crash.
How many people die each year in Spanish roads? Thousands.
> The USA has had 0 passengers killed or injured from train accidents this year.
Can't have rail accidents if you don't have rail *taps side of head*
> Portugal had 15 death after a tram derailment.
Oh my god, after a 140-year old tourist attraction malfunctioned! Hardly representative of any transit system whatsoever.
> In Amsterdam, the tram is more dangerous than the car.
This is just not true, by any metric.
And also, why are cars comparatively less dangerous in Amsterdam than in most other places? Because it is not designed for cars first, there are low speed limits enforced by traffic calming (like speed humps and narrow cobbled streets) everywhere.
Trams in Amsterdam should be replaced with busses. Busses stop much faster and don't weigh as much. Trams are literal death machines. It's really scary to ride bicycle in Amsterdam and hear the ding-ding-ding when you are about to be run over by a tram and you quickly have to move over.
Also you seem to be a bit confused, Amsterdam does not use narrow cobbled streets for traffic calming. Maybe you are thinking of France or Belgium.
No. The traffic rules for trams or tram stop positions should be adjusted and people in Amsterdam should be educated to behave around trams, i.e. in traffic in general if they want fewer deaths.
There are literally marks on every step of their path "tram is going through here, coming from there", so those that die anyway should be the ones at fault. It's horrible that they die, but banning trams is not a valid response to it. After the people have started behaving like that around trams, there isn't really a reason to assume they won't start being (even more) reckless around the less predictable and bulkier busses. You fixed braking time, but cyclists get clipped more often going out of their track as they do already. I mean, look at the description of an accident: allegedly she wore a hoodie with headphones and some stops after the intersections incentivize higher tram speeds.
Start fixing that before banning the safest and the most efficient form of transport (57x more than cars, with the amount of cars they have, number of close interactions with cyclists/pedestrians, and the imposed traffic rules for cars, isn't really a valid multiplier), scrapping all the tram lines and adjusting road tracks widths just to have buses brake harder on asphalt isn't really a fix of the problem, just a reaction to a symptom.
You sound like someone trying to justify guns. "People should be educated to behave round them". No. Trams in Amsterdam are very dangerous and replacing them with long busses makes everything better.
Tram is not the safest form of transport, that would be the bus. As stated trams are way more deadly than cars.
And no, trams are not marked. Not in Amsterdam. Trams share the exact same path as pedestrians and cyclists, they don't have their own lanes for most parts of the route.
What about people who are visually impaired? Have hearing troubles? Should those people just stay home?
Well, I hope you don't have a say in that matter, not because you disagree, but because you ignored all of the reasoning behind my points, just to repeat the same.
Your analogy about guns is irrelevant because all the negative aspects of advocating for guns are missing here, while education is always helpful. I am advocating for the safest and the most efficient option for everyone. And I said why is it so. You only mentioned braking time/distance without any evidence about buses being less lethal in the long run when substituting trams:
The same braking time can be achieved by decreasing the trams' speed (30 km/h to 20 km/h) around pedestrians and cyclists, which is more efficient than removing the tram network, making space for buses, buying and maintaining twice as many buses for the same throughput, and replacing the asphalt quite often. Keeping the trams will decrease the likelihood of pedestrians and bicyclists being clipped by bulky long buses (double the number of encounters compared to trams), while still making it easier for everyone to know where the tram may come from whenever they see the tracks (and it can't swerve, so a person knows exactly how to move in a close encounter), so that they can steer clear of its path and only cross it after they make sure there is no tram passing. Introducing the buses either reintroduces toxic exhaust gases, or buses' weight advantage gets massively decreased by carrying the batteries, while increasing the tires' and asphalt damage and shedding. Also, it doesn't mean that the trend of increasing recklessness won't continue around "safer" vehicles: I bet people were more wary of trams before, just like they are in other cities with trams.
Recklessness and abandonment of personal responsibility for own safety shouldn't be a reason for everyone else to bend over backwards. There is enough of a safety net for the wannabe Darwin award winners as-is, with trams in place. Decreasing speed, moving the stations ahead of intersections, and raising awareness that the trams are still dangerous is a reasonable change of policy. Even a pilot-project driving buses on a dangerous tram lane could be reasonable, to gather data. Blindly overhauling the whole network without a strong indicator that it's even a move in the right direction, just to maybe find a way to prolong the lives of those who themselves don't really care about their lives.
Btw, visually impaired and those of bad hearing generally know very well to use their other senses to stay safe in this as well as even worse conditions. And are better off with rails marking the trams' path (or even other markings, if introduced), than relying on the buses' braking distance.
And please avoid pretending to be dumb and saying that the trams are more deadly than the cars, without taking into account how separated the cars' roads are from pedestrians' and cyclists paths as well as their passenger throughput in Amsterdam and their speed limits. If Amsterdam had the same throughput of passengers in buses instead of trams, with buses equally mixing with pedestrians and cyclists, I bet the situation wouldn't be much different, with you equally fixated only on absolute numbers multiplier, asking for trams.
Btw, why don't you ask for cars to replace the trams? Buses, despite not being as mixed with pedestrians as trams are, racking in kilometers after midnight and between cities like cars do, still cause 15x more deaths per km than cars do.
Coming from a bio background, I’ve always been confused why auto fatality stats are normalized per miles driven. Epidemiological metrics like incidence or prevalence seem like they would work fine? Town A would be “safer” than town B if people’s commutes are 20% shorter, even if accidents occur w same frequency
Fair point - a combo might be the best approach.. I understand the idea of accidents correlating w/ miles driven, but it seems to be optimizing for driving safety rather than human life? Does that make sense?
Because it yields a simple corollary that to make travelling safer you can reduce the number of miles driven. Mostly by giving people viable alternatives to driving, be it long-distance rail or bike lanes to move around quicker and safer in the city.
Because fines are automatic. If you register a vehicle to your name and don't insure it within 28 days you get a €500 fine. The government can fine you up to three times a year for a total of €1500. And that is if you actually pay the fines. If you do not pay the fines and let the fees stack up, you are looking at around €4500 per year.
And if you are caught driving uninsured that is a €700 fine on top of all that. With many police cars now having ANPR systems it just isn't possible to drive around uninsured without receiving fines that cost way more than just getting insurance.
> there are a large group of people dependent on their driver's license
Are there "no licence cars" in Belgium and the US ? Basically a moped motor and a seat inside a box. 45kmh and no highway, but a bit more confortable and fast than a ebike for rural environment.
Those do exist in Belgium, but (joke starts here) that's because Belgium is enormous, far too large to get proper public transport going (joke ends). I am seeing more and more cargo e-bikes (e-cargo bikes?), which I find a positive change, though it does differ from place to place (Antwerp's fairly okay for bikes, same for Leuven, Brussels was pretty bad last time I was there).
Not really, the cross section of people who lose their license/insurance and those that could use something like an ebike reliably for their commute is practically zilch. The US is really big and a lot of people have rural 30+ minute commutes where it snows ~6 months out of the year.
> The US is really big and a lot of people have rural 30+ minute commutes
The size of the country in which a commute is contained is immaterial to the length of that commute. What you mean is not "the US is big" but "things are really far apart in the US". Which they are, but precisely because of car-centric (car-only, actually) design.
You are right that this happens frequently in the United States compared to Europe, but you are overstating the degree to which this culturally and legally acceptable. People who are doing this are not typically broadcasting it to others, and I can assure you that when they do, for the most part people will tend to "bat an eye" at the very least.
Note that motor vehicle insurance in most of Europe is more tightly regulated and generally more affordable than in the United States. Also, I suspect the car-dependent individuals in urban areas with robust public transportation in Belgium are generally vastly higher income than the typical uninsured compulsory driver in the United States. Happy to be corrected though
> you are overstating the degree to which this culturally and legally acceptable
In Florida it's a $150 fine [1]. If you do it again within 3 years, they charge you $250. If you do it again within that three-year period, they'll just charge you $500 each time. It's not even a crime [2].
> 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 caught up in the same cultural-war fight over immigration law enforcement that has dominated American news since Trump got re-elected. "And now people who obey the law need to take out extra insurance for under/uninsured motorists" is specifically an anti-illegal-immigrant talking point.
It's equally a consequence of not immediately arresting and deporting illegal immigrants the moment the government learns about their presence on US soil.
The easy way to accomplish that would be to go after the businesses that employ them. At this point, however, I think it's safe to assume it's not the real objective, and the economy would crash into a ditch if policy was anything but theater.
> 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.
...But what percentage of Swedes is that? vs the vast majority of working-class Americans.
Remember, outside of its few biggest and wealthiest cities, the US just does not have decent, reliable public transport, and most places don't have any.
And how many Americans live in places without any public transport?
As a European I spend some time in LA and Las Vegas and while not optimal I could get everywhere without a car. I could even do a day-trip to Bakersfield by bus.
Your anecdata to this one time you took a trip to California doesn’t help.
You can just look at % of urban residents that use transit, which is lower in US than any western country. Clearly transit isn’t built or available in a sufficient way to majority of people
> 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 or government level
That effort being what, exactly?
Road fatalities per mile driven don’t translate cleanly from country to country because the type of roads and even types of deaths (single vehicle, multi vehicle) are different.
We could set the speed limit at 25mph everywhere and force all vehicles to not exceed that limit and that would make the number go down, but the cost would be extreme for everyone.
So what, exactly, are the solutions you are proposing?
Doesn’t that 11 per billion statistic include commercial drivers as well? And doesn’t the United States have by far the largest percentage of commercial miles driven of any developed nation?
There’s a far cheaper solution available. Log books.
We subsidize driving by somewhat over a trillion dollars annually, mostly due to lax penalties for negligence which shift liability to drivers’ victims[1]. One way to tackle all of these problems would be requiring drivers to cover the full damages.
Another simple and effective measure would be changing fines from absolute values to a percentage of income. Right now, parking in a bike lane usually doesn’t kill anyone so drivers are only thinking there’s a small chance of a small fine, but if it was a chance of, say, 0.1% of annual income Waymo technology would magically be capable of not doing that. Add a right of private action and enforcement would be high enough to really speed things along, too, and that’d improve safety and travel times for all road users.
Yeah, making fines relative to income would change behaviors for sure. A $20 ticket when you make $20 an hour hits different when you're making $200 or $2,000/hr. If it was a percentage of pay, then the ticket would actually sting.
> If a human driver commits vehicular manslaughter, they get the book. What about AV?
They get their licenses pulled statewide [1]. Cruise's single negligent manslaughter event carried more consequence than dozens of human cases combined.
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 harm. You balance these things, benefit to society vs harm to society, and you come to an acceptable tradeoff.
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.
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.
> 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…
> We can’t let AV manufacturers use “there’s no driver” as a way to escape responsibility, externalizing the harms AC cause onto society.
There is essentially nothing to be gained from doing this because it will not in either case be manufacturer; it will be an insurance company.
If the liability is paid by the vehicle owner's insurance then things work as they do now. You buy a car, insure it, if there is a liability there is an insurance claim and then the victim has someone to pay them for their injuries. Meanwhile the manufacturers still have a financial incentive to make safer cars because buyers want neither accident prone vehicles as the one they use nor high insurance rates. The insurance rates in particular are in direct competition with the car payment for the customer's available income.
Whereas if you try to put the liability on the manufacturer, several stupider things happen.
First, they're just going to buy insurance anyway, but now the insurance cost has to be front-loaded into the purchase price, which increases costs because now you're paying car loan interest on money to cover insurance five and ten years from now, when you otherwise wouldn't have needed to pay the premiums until the time comes.
Second, what happens to cars from manufacturers who no longer exist? They can't continue paying for insurance if they're bankrupt, so you need it to be someone else. Worse, if a company produces a vehicle which is unsafe, that will tend to cause them to go bankrupt. But then people still have them, and would continue to operate them if they're allowed to point victims at the bankrupt manufacturer, whereas the incentive you want is for the premiums on those cars to go up for the vehicle owners so that they stop operating them.
> 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
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.
Your questions are pertinent but what’s the benefit "worth" you’re referring to? The two first proposals would risk a politician popularity and the last one would be lobbied to he’ll buy the logistic companies. IMHO inconvenience isn’t worth driving among drunk coursier at 200kmh.
If we consider fairness/retribution/justice then we won't get this future of less road deaths.
1. There will always be a probability of death from a vehicle. This can never go to 0%.
2. If the probability of a AV causing death is many magnitudes lower than human driving then that is the future we must choose.
If 1 and 2 holds and we hold AV manufactures accountable in the sense that Executives go to jail or are personal liable financially for deaths/injuries then AV will never get released or become mainstream even if this results in less total deaths. The sense of fairness/justice/retribution may make us feel better but result in more overall deaths. Logically this means that there must be a standard. Something like x deaths per y cars manufactured. If above the threshold you get big fines as a company. As technology gets better you can lower the threshold. Anything apart from causing deaths either purposefully or negligently would have be ignored.
Can we as a species accept this? That is another question.
These people want to play god with our lives but at the same time move fast and break things. Look at software quality anywhere, it's a mess and only about to get much worse.
We should not let them. Jail time for anyone involved in any of the decision making process, applied at scale with the number of vehicles and deaths.
Why should the standards be any different? They want to change the status quo with tech only so they can get paid and extort us with yet more subscriptions.
AVs will never substantially reduce road deaths. They will optimize to just being slightly better than human, but fail in new and more unexpected ways. There is not enough incentive for them to make it safer.
We can look to other forms of automation to get a sense of what to do. For example, planes largely fly themselves and a loss of life due to manufacturing errors from the manufacturer would deem them liable for those deaths. Seems like the solution here is large penalties and generally broad disincentives for incurring harm.
I also hope AV will reduce road deaths in the future but I don't think what will make the difference is regulatory. Rather the tech will advance from doesn't work to works in Waymos but is expensive to works in most cars and has become cheap.
Societies can already reduce road deaths to nearly zero, it's cheap, it's easy, and it's fun. It's just redirecting all of the cash we spend on vehicles/cars/highways/roadways/signs/etc into public infrastructure that is all encompassing.
A hundred billion dollars a year [0] on construction (reading the definition I'm not 100% sure what is included in this due to how definitions can be hazy) has goes a long way, not to mention the amount we spend on gasoline, car maintenance, etc etc.
The reason I say it's fun, is because I love being on a train. First time I was able to ride one, which due to living in the good old USA wasn't until I was 23, I yelled "I'm on a train" . The Germans traveling with me weren't as into it.
Just because you like trains does not mean that it is actually a solution to everyone’s problem. For example, until proper law-enforcement starts happening on public transit, nobody in my family is allowed to take it in USA (they are allowed to do so in Singapore or Japan)
We can take the LEO's that would have patrolled highways/city streets and have them patrol on public transport, same job just slightly different environment.
Can I ask why you feel that public transit is unsafe in the US?
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 Iowa, the state I used to live in, around 300 people died every year from driving. I don't know a single one of those people despite their death being a tragedy. Whereas the stories you linked were broadcast coast to coast.
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.
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.
I had to look up a name for this. "Utopian Fallacy."
You don't have to get rid of genuine progress just because your utopian vision has something better. The USA is on the path to autonomous vehicles. They are not on the path to public transportation excellence.
We've had public transportation for a couple of centuries and no where has it really led to a road death free utopia. I like public transport but no harm trying something new.
Yup. Even if "safer per mile", more cars and more miles driven will probably outweigh the benefits. And still be hazardous to cyclists and pedestrians, still make us design stupid cities (built for cars, not people), etc.
Like how electric cars were for saving the car companies, not the planet, autonomous will be the same.
Simple. Blame the owner of the vehicle. They relied on automation and it failed. They go to jail for negligent homicide (whatever flavor is appropriate). That will tank sales of any AV tech that cannot maintain standards.
People are killed by industrial equipment fairly regularly.
I'd say we actually have a perfectly functional legal framework for all of this, and the real issue is a lot of new people are about to find out it also applies to them as well.
Whether it was working well in the first place is the real question.
Holding executives responsible for actual violence is considered promoting violence on this site and is not allowed. Cue the handwringing and moralizing from the usual suspects.
Many things already reduce road deaths and they are infinitely easier to do that driverless cars, namely: viable alternatives to driving! Trains, streetcars, bike lanes, whatever.
I think jail time for executives should be table stakes. Another thing would be fines well in excess of $10 million. The fines should be defined as percentages of gross revenue, or maybe even (to target VC-funded operations that operate at a loss) percentages of gross expenses. The penalties should be such that a few crashes can put the company entirely out of business.
Seems good. I'm a big Waymo user (344 rides) and love it, but I think they violate both traffic laws and common-sense courtesies of traffic in ways not captured by safety / crash statistics. Tickets probably are a great signal for ways the model needs to be improved.
For example, every time a Waymo picks me up from my apartment, it blocks a full lane of traffic on an extremely busy street, rather than pulling into a much quieter side street that an Uber driver will always use. I suspect (but have no idea), a lot of these low-level annoyances might be invisible to someone only looking at aggregated crash statistics, ride times, etc.
In many ways, I suspect the AI future might be better in many of the ways we can measure, but worse in those which aren't legible to statistics.
Don't they have 360 video of everything? Maybe they're low priority issues for now but surely those issues cannot be "invisible" because they "aren't legible to statistics."
There's no external public visibility into it, so other than wilbeddow writing on HN, how would anyone else know about this issue? I have the opposite problem, where the Waymo takes the legal option on an unbusy street, making the route a lot longer, rather than making an illegal U-turn that a human driver would do, when there's zero traffic or pedestrians it could remotely possibly run into.
I've actually thought of a much more dystopian idea: that Waymos could be technically used as roving traffic cameras, and report on the human drivers around them. They absolutely have strong enough telemetry systems to be able to determine things like excessive speeding, dangerous lane changes, red light running, etc., and their imaging systems could probably pick up a license plate with little additional modification... it's obviously not great from the perspective of general optics and morale, but it would surprise me if no one had floated basically WayNarc as a business model...
I do not live in California and am not up to speed on this issue, but as a casual observer I am shocked that they were allowed on the road without being ticketed for violations like any other vehicle operator.
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 butter. If AV companies exceed the threshold, then they get fined at first and eventually lose their permit -- but these aren't tickets for individual violations, but rather a yearly fine for going above the yearly threshold.
If the violations are intentional but not easily fixable -- e.g. they're stopping where not allowed because there's no legal place to stop within 15 blocks -- then the laws/regulations are bad, and tickets are essentially an unfair tax. That's the case in my city where moving trucks are essentially illegal, because it's illegal to double-park them, but there's usually no legal parking available within any reasonable distance that movers could carry furniture. So you just know that the cost of moving includes a "tax" of a parking ticket, unfair as it is.
Finally, if the violations are unintentional but happen all the time, the AV company should lose its permit because its software sucks.
I don't see how ticketing AVs for individual violations makes any sense.
EDIT: for those who think I'm letting AV companies get off too easily, it's precisely the opposite. I'm saying that if AV companies are violating traffic rules all the time and can't fix it, they should be banned. Ticketing is not the answer, because ticketing isn't holding these vehicles to a high enough standard. It's letting the companies get off the hook by merely paying occasional tickets instead of improving their software.
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 autonomous vehicles, we already have a compliance system in place....cops. It's not designed for autonomous vehicles, and you are correct that it's not the way you would design it for the ground up for autonomous vehicles, but it's far better to accept the imperfections than to build some new, separate compliance and monitoring system on top of the existing one. The benefits aren't large enough to justify it.
In the far future when the vast majority of vehicles are autonomous? Sure, probably worth scrapping to a new system (by then, my guess is that issues are rare enough to just not have a system at all and just use the legal system in the rare cases of large issues).
Until then, ticketing in the case of traffic violations seems fine and good enough to me.
> 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 cost of the fix?
Its an extreme example I know but to just assume they would fix it also assumes they are caught and ticketed 100% of the time.
There are tons of examples of corporate America weighting the pros and cons of things like this.
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.
i'd argue Waymo is "1 Driver", and after they get a cumulative 4 points in 1 year, then Waymo would no longer be allowed to drive in the state of California
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 these violations are intentional or not? Tickets are strict liability (you get the ticket if you do it regardless of intent, reasons, etc.) because it is easy to administer.
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.
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 violations.
Obviously, we should also have the option to pull vehicles that are brazenly ignoring the law and just eating the cost of the tickets. Just like we do with drivers who do that. But that should be the second line of defense if regular monetary fines (tickets) fail
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 minor violations to ban someone from driving. But with shared software across a fleet, you can just require the company to fix its driving software directly when possible. Ticketing is actually counterproductive, because it allows these companies to avoid many of these fixes if the tickets are infrequent enough.
> 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.
> 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.
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
They should be ticketed and stopped from operating after certain threshold. And tickets should have some reasonable multiplier as they are much more capable paying say at absolute minimum 1000x. Only high enough tickets are efficient against corporations. As their shareholders sadly can not get those tickets.
Let's go down that route. So a corporation pays 1000x of a normal ticket penalty, let's say it operates a humble fleet of 1000 cars.
Do we really want to require this service to be a million times better? This would surely kill more people than the alternative.
I think ticketing is just broken in this context. People don't want tickets, so they take care not to break rules. The same person may do such thing, if they are in a hurry, if they are tired, yadaa yadaa, their economics and, possibly their freedom, are at risk.
None of this applies to a corporation. An AV running a red light is not, ever, "I was tired and nobody is driving at this hour officer", it's systematic. Behavior can be recorded 1 to 1 and optimized, why would we want to depend on specific scenarios in which police seems something happening?
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
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
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.
>If the violations are intentional and easily fixable, then just pass laws/regulations requiring AV's to follow the law or else cease operations entirely.
I have to stop reading the rest of the comment right there.
If the violations are intentional and easily fixable is an incredibly loaded presumption to start any type of conversation, dialogue, or debate. To the point, asking the question 'how do we qualify intention? How are we measuring difficulty of fix? Costs of payroll, computer, deployment, and potential regression testing? What about the very nature of the context that led up to it? Did an external 3rd party cutoff a robotaxi and require that the robotaxi veer into the oncoming traffic lane, bc sensors indicated it was the best decision to avoid a collision, prioritizing safety and human life over traffic law?
What happens when following traffic law statistically leads to a greater risk of loss of life over violating the law?
I must insist we move the dialogue upstream to reality as-is, and there is plenty to discuss there.
I will in good faith issue a starting point: how should we measure the robotaxi driver license wrt suspension? Do we issue a point system that is averaged across the fleet, e.g. violations/car before suspending all operations until licensure evaluation? Personally I think that is a fair starting point amd am completely open minded to alternative views.
Are they trying to drive safety or revenue? The second order effect people forget about is tickets are a source of revenue for cities and police depts. Surely driverless car companies will absorb a few tickets and fix the issue quickly.
So I do wonder what happens in the future when roads and cars are all automated and city funding from this channel dries up.
>ever stricter rules that cause tickets despite technology getting better.
That sort of stuff might work on a bunch of peasants since you can screw them individually for small enough amounts it doesn't meet the threshold for political pushback but it won't fly against a few megacorps who do self driving fleets.
I imagine the city funding issue could be solved with some sort of tax to operate within the city, where a couple cents from each mile driven would be paid to the city. Alternatively, a higher cost for registration at the state level.
What I worry more about is a future where private car ownership seems impractical when there is a large fleet of autonomous Ubers out there to handle the day-to-days, which start out cheap. Once society reaches a point of dependence, will there be enough competition to keep the price down, or will we see consumers of the services get squeezed as companies ratchet up prices to increase margins.
Fix the issue quickly, or optimize to the point where revenue gained from breaking the law exceeds the fine. Last I read they were holding steady on "passengers want us to pull into bikelanes to drop-off" in California.
Given the lack of enforcement it must not be true that it’s a source of revenue for the city. I see ticketable violations multiple times a day and zero enforcement
At the same time, there are not many cops making USD200K per annum in my municipality. And it's in flyover country, where everyone is clamoring for lower taxes. So I think it'd be a bit naive to think politicians wanting to score easy points with voters in cities, and even states, won't take the opportunity to extract a bit of revenue out of Big Tech.
Not saying it's right. Just saying that's how local politics work.
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 understandings" of laws.
- A waymo I rode in on a highway was happy to go slightly above the speed limit
- It seems at stop signs waymo prefers to be slightly aggressive to make it through rather than follow the letter of the law.
It seems silly that we have to teach robots to break certain laws sometimes but parking in bike lanes / yielding to pedestrians are laws that human drivers break all the time and I hope the mechanisms mentioned in the article prevent us from teaching robots to program anti-social but common behavior.
It's all pretty nuanced. I don't know where to draw a line.
For instance: Busy intersections with 4-way stop signs are an interesting example of how laws don't quite fit.
It's obviously important to get the order right since nobody wants to be in a car crash today. But the law (often -- we've got 50 states worth of driving laws and they aren't all the same) says something very specific and simplistic about the order: First-come, first-served; if order is unclear, yield to the right. Always wait for the intersection to be completely clear before proceeding.
That sounds nice and neat and it looks good on paper. It was surely at least a very easy system to describe and then write down.
But reality is very different: 4 way stops are an elaborate dance of drivers executing moves simultaneously and without conflict. For instance: Two opposite, straight-going cars can proceed concurrently works fine. All 4 directions can turn right, concurrently. Opposing left turns at the same time? Sure! While others are also turning right? Why not.
When there's room for a move and it creates no conflict, then that move works fine.
We all were taught how these intersections are supposed to work, but then reality ultimately shows us how they do work. And the dance works. It's efficient. Nobody gets ticketed for safely dancing that dance. (And broadly-speaking, a timid law-abiding driver who doesn't know the dance will be let through...eventually.)
The main problem with the dance is that it's difficult to adequately describe and write down and thus codify in law.
The nuance for four-way stops is pretty simple. First come, first serve queue. Except you are allowed to jump out of order if you jumping out of order doesn't slow the people ahead of you down.
What I've described is the reality that I, along with self-driving Waymos in California, exist within.
There isn't a generation alive that didn't grow up with this reality in these places.
---
Now, if you want me to agree that there are much better methods than stop signs to control traffic at intersections, then sure: I can agree with that. Absolutely.
But I'll agree only on one condition: That you cease immediately with all attempts to make perfect be the enemy of good.
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-acquisition issues. In previous discussions, I've heard of such things as "mini roundabouts" that can make that a non-issue, but AFAIK I've never actually seen one with my own eyes, much less driven through one. And while I love roundabouts and understand them well, I keep seeing people screw them up even in places where they've existed for over a decade, now.
I've heard from Norway that painting sharks teeth on the pavement is sufficient (which, I guess, is functionally like a US-centric Yield sign), but that seems like a complete non-starter since that's a completely new construct and continuing-education for licensed drivers is rather completely non-existent.
And Yield signs can work, but they're also unusual so people screw those up, too. I live directly next to a busy intersection that uses a yield sign in an unusual town in Ohio that has several intersections that are controlled by yield signs. Crashes are surprisingly rare, but the cacophony of car horns [even when things are actually flowing properly] is sometimes rather amazing to behold.
But this is a strange and unusual little city, and as far as I can tell, the last time anyone looked at the traffic situation here with a strong engineering mindset was circa 1953. It has clever intersection designs that I've never seen anywhere else (and some of them are good, but many are confusing).
And when an old friend was a driving instructor, he told me that he'd take students through the intersection next to my house to demonstrate that yield signs are things that actually exist, and teach them how to use them. But he didn't get to teach everyone (and has subsequently died).
I've studied thousands of intersections, both by driving for decades and reviewing how they work, and also by having spent way too many hundreds (thousands?) of hours fixing maps on Waze.
So that's a non-exhaustive list of some possible solutions, and some possible detriments, and some background on my perspective.
What do you have for options? Your perspective surely differs from my own.
(And remember, whatever it is: It needs to be able to let a giant US-centric fire truck pass through. Maybe the size of these things isn't really ideal either; maybe smaller trucks would be better. But giant is what we've got right now.)
I read an article a while back that they made Waymo more aggressive, in the ways you mention, because they were quite annoying to other drivers when following the letter of the law. There is something to be said for following the flow of traffic.
I would imagine they would be able to revert back to more strict rule following once autonomous vehicles reach some level of critical mass and human drivers are needing to adapt to the AV traffic, rather than AVs needing to adapt to human traffic.
As a cyclist and driver I figure you have to use some common sense. I probably break some regulations all the time like stopping where you are not supposed to briefly but being safe and not inconveniencing others is the main thing.
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 be picked up at a location
that is next to a separated bike lane.
Taxi drivers often intentionally misstate this regulation because it’s more annoying to follow the law and find a legal place to stop so they pretend they are allowed to use bike lanes for any reason.
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.
That's for a separated bike lane, and Waymo doesn't even seem capable of doing it: that'd typically involve driving over/between the plastic bollards separating the lane...
Waymo doesn't seem to be willing to drive on the wrong side of bollards and I've never seen a taxi do it either.
-
For non-separated bike lanes it's still a last resort, but it's allowed for all passengers not just the disabled.
> Bicycle Safety
> Passenger Loading: Non-Separated Bike Lanes
> May enter a non-separated bike lane with
caution to drop off all customers (disabled
and non-disabled)
Using bike lanes as an absolutely last
resort
[emphasis theirs, not mine]
Waymo doesn't seem to do it when there are other options close nearby either, given the gaps in allowed pick up/drop off locations they offer by bike lanes
-
It would seem you're intentionally misstating the situation to villainize the driverless vehicles that otherwise l generally respect riders more than anyone else on the road...
Actually weirdly enough, you had to read what I wrote to post this right?
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.
What's gonna really be funny is the first time a state legislates that an AV company has to keep a bug in their software to maintain a municipal income flow.
As a Waymo (and other driverless car) supporter, this seems like an obviously good thing, right? I’m a little surprised this wasn’t possible before given the amount of regulatory scrutiny (correctly) applied to these companies.
> As a Waymo (and other driverless car) supporter, this seems like an obviously good thing, right? I’m a little surprised this wasn’t possible before given the amount of regulatory scrutiny (correctly) applied to these companies
Not necessarily. I went into a bit more detail in my own comment but it might be useful to think that when regulations are written keeping in mind multibillion dollar automobile companies, what the effect of those regulations on a person maintaining their own vehicles might be.
Consider that your Waymo got ticketed, but you had flashed it with a "no customer telemetry" firmware. Once Waymo gets the ticket, they flag your car as having "unauthorized" software and now the ball's in your court that the reason why your Waymo got ticketed has nothing to do with the telemetry feature that tells Waymo what radio stations you were listening to.
Also, when regulations are written keeping in mind multibillion dollar automobile companies, the ticket isn't going to cost $500.
I'm of the opinion that if one owns an autonomous vehicle, regardless of software modification or not (which should be allowed), then one is fully responsible for it's actions. If one doesn't trust the software provided by the manufacturer, don't buy/use it. Once one chooses to buy it and operate it, then it's that person.
Possible exceptions would be in the case that, after purchase, the manufacturer pushes a software update that meaningfully changes the behavior in such a way that it causes issues. In that case, both A) the manufacturer should be responsible and B) the owner should have the option to get some kind of compensation.
The cars are programmed to intentionally, violate the rules. That’s the only way to drive effectively. Just two examples: gap finding and turning left on a busy intersection.
They should automate the fines by requiring the cars to send the video for processing through an enforcement program. Self-driving, self-ticketing. Maybe that would help force manufacturers to improve quality and not hide as much.
UPDATE (can't respond to the two subcomments below due to post throttling, so I'm updating this comment instead)
> the car is basically a taxi and the taxi service is to blame for any mistakes
@skybrian - Agreed! but if you read the article, the CA DMV is ticketing the manufacturer, not the operator.
None of my concerns hold if the operator was ticketed - infact, existing regulations are set up exactly that way, so no new regulation was even necessary. Something's not adding up.
> Right now, no one can independently own and operate an AV the way Waymo or Tesla does
@ourspacetabs - Sure but the regulation seems to be specifically addressed at the manufacturer, not the operator.
I would have no concern if the regulation was addressed to the operator. The article atleast doesn't imply that's the case.
---
> The state's Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has announced new regulations on autonomous vehicles (AVs), including a process for police to issue a "notice of AV noncompliance" directly to the car's manufacturer.
> Under the new rules, police can cite AV companies when their vehicles commit moving violations. The rules will also require the companies to respond to calls from police and other emergency officials within 30 seconds, and will issue penalties if their vehicles enter active emergency zones.
These are new frontiers in automotive regulation. Typically, if a car failed because of a manufacturer issue, the driver would be ticketed. For example: if Hyundai sold vehicles where the engine would explode around 50k miles and that caused an accident, the driver of the vehicle would be ticketed for it.
Now if we take the human out of it, it is Hyundai that would be ticketed for it. Insurance companies are certainly going to take notice and adjust their risk models accordingly.
I imagine there will be a lot of fingerpointing by the manufacturer towards customers.
In the worst case, this is the end of customers servicing their own autonomous vehicles.
If we imagine that most vehicles in the next 15 years will be autonomous, this would mean customers would have to handle regulation aimed at multibillion dollar companies, if they were to service their own autonomous vehicles, or give up on servicing their own autonomous vehicles entirely and just rent them instead.
Not sure I agree. The clear boundary here to me is who owns and is operating the vehicle. Waymo both owns and operates their vehicles, it’s a taxi service, you wouldn’t say a Waymo rider is operating a vehicle and therefore deserves the ticket. Right now, no one can independently own and operate an AV the way Waymo or Tesla does.
When that happens someday, then the ticket would go to the owner/operator of the vehicle - whoever bought the car. If you get a ticket due to something dumb your personally owned Waymo did, wouldn’t you pursue that case against Waymo separately, the same way you’d pursue Hyundai for selling you a car whose engine blew up after 50k miles?
It seems pretty reasonable to me that when you're not driving, the car is basically a taxi and the taxi service is to blame for any mistakes. The car manufacturer isn't just making cars anymore. It's providing a service.
Perhaps they could sell the car to a different taxi service, though?
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.
That can make sense (opinions differ) for individuals, but it's not like the company is advertising with "we get you there at 1.2x legal speed". They're not competing on that; they're not choosing to do this on purpose like an individual might choose to speed (for example because of economic incentives if their hourly price is high)
If they were, then it makes sense to fine them to some multiple of the benefit they got from this advertising tactic, but as it is, I don't see why it should be different from anyone else's ticket. The company isn't likely to enjoy a flood of this administrative work, besides the cost of the actual fines, so they'll work to minimise them anyway
They may not advertise “getting you there at 1.2x legal speed” but the sooner they drop you off, the sooner they can get another fare. Over a whole fleet it will add up to changing the size of the required fleet.
If getting a ticket one ride in a thousand is cheaper than deploying another 2000 cars to make up for the increased trip time I’d expect them to keep getting tickets.
I’m also not sure they don’t do it on purpose. Tesla self driving has an aggressive mode willing to speed and roll through stop signs. Those were deliberate, law breaking, choices.
Oh, I actually read an article about that this morning in bed but didn't imagine regulators would approve a mode that is programmed to ignore laws. Not sure how it works where you're from but in the Netherlands, where Tesla did the approval process to subsequently apply for an EU license for using the drive assistance mechanism, the regulator "hopes to not need more than a week to approve safety updates. Other updates can take longer". They test every change anew it sounds like, at least at first (there was some talk of relaxing reporting requirements if accident rates are as expected, that is, lower than human drivers when using the presently approved assist methods)
Seems foreign (heh) to me that a regulator would allow software to drive lethal machinery on public roads without checking that it at least stops at a stop sign. Fining them proportional to turnover makes a lot more sense suddenly. Or maybe a competent regulator, like, prevention rather than after the fact action
Just like human_brain.exe right? I miss signs, and notice others missing signs, in unfamiliar areas all the time. So why not the same punishment and thus the same incentive not to do that?
A sibling comment mentioned that they did willfully build a variant that breaks laws btw. If there is apparently no regulator that needs to approve what makes it onto the road, I can understand a lot better why people are calling for insurmountable fines such that they have no choice but to remove that. Why not call for adequate approval mechanisms though, looking at other countries' examples where this problem doesn't exist... I dunno
Isn't Norway only for drunk driving? Finland has it for massive speed excesses, but it is based on net taxable income taking out business expenses for taxi drivers, and Waymo is still negative.
If they become profitable you'd want to normalize by number of miles, unless you just want an incentive system to get more people on the road (extra drivers) and increase chance of humans suffering road injuries to boost employment in an internal service sector.
But even then coming out with a more efficient fleet than a competitor for higher margin would be penalized. You'd rather disincentivize skimping on safety for margin and not disincentivize better maintenance and fuel economy.
Assuming you divide it down to the earnings per car, that makes perfect sense. Of course right now they aren't making any profit at all, and by the time it is relevant it is likely that the cars will commit substantially no violations at all.
Laws should be loser for autonomous vehicles with good safety records.
No one is protected by preventing waymos from making rolling stops, and driving like a human Uber driver.
Dunno what it's like in Cali but in the UK nearly all tickets are generated by automatic cameras and arrive in the post to the registered keeper of the vehicle.
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.
maybe Tesla can put that weird robot that connects the charging connector to the car to use by building a robot that can give the police a hand to place the ticket into
Good luck. This is going to be faceless machine v. faceless machine. I can't think of anything more useless in terms of fixing actual needs of society. In fact, I expect it to lead to shady business. Example: Waymos are all paid up at this intersection so traffic is allowed to safely ignore the rules for this month. Tesla Cybercab is still fighting us, so we continue to ticket them.
This will be just another minor cost of doing business unless they are treated like human drivers in at least two other ways.
1) If theses companies get enough points on their license, their license is revoked. Not just for that vehicle, but for all of their vehicles. (The number of points would need to be adjusted for number of miles driven.)
2) Senior executives could be held criminally liable for vehicular manslaughter the way a normal drivers are. A death doesn't mean someone is going to prison, but their would be a police investigation. If an exec decided to ship a product with a known bug that lead to someone's death it should be treated with the same seriousness as a drunk driver killing someone.
If there aren't serious consequences for driverless cars committing crimes (I mean jail time for executives serious), what's to stop someone for starting a hitman business?
We'll just run someone over with our "driverless" car and pay a fine - capitalism, baby!
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 per X AV miles driven is an OK cost of doing business?
> 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.
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.
No, it's actually fairly common in crashes between motor vehicles and pedestrians (or cyclists) to place most or all of the blame on the pedestrian.
When the Uber self-driving car struck and killed the pedestrian, not only did the internet peanut gallery largely blame the pedestrian for the first 24 hours or so after the death, but the local police force did as well for a couple of days. I rather suspect that without the national spotlight of being the first pedestrian killed by a self-driving car, the local police force would have been happy to absolve Uber and the driver of any liability.
It should obviously be possible for a pedestrian to be at fault in a collision. If someone without the right of way steps in front of a moving car, there is often nothing the vehicle could physically do to prevent the collision at that point. That's what right of way is for -- you have rules that, if everybody follows them, nobody gets hit, and then if someone gets hit because someone wasn't following the rules, the fault is with the person not following the rules.
The dominant cause of pedestrian fatalities is not "pedestrian steps right in front of a moving car," but things like "driver didn't see pedestrian in middle of crosswalk" (usually because, e.g., looking instead for vehicle traffic to make a right turn on red). 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 already at fault because they were driving faster than conditions warranted.
> 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 already at fault because they were driving faster than conditions warranted.
That's not true: 30km/h is enough to kill, and that's a very sedate speed.
Whether we like it or not, pedestrians and cyclists have to also follow the rules.
If you want change the rules, well that's a different argument to the one you appearing to make which is that certain entities should not be bound by any rules.
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.
> it's possible for a pedestrian to be at fault
When I use a crosswalk, I wait until the cars stop before I cross. It's nuts to step into it assuming the cars will stop.
In Germany it's illegal not to stop if a pedestrian is close to the crosswalk.
I'll still wait for the car to stop before stepping in front of it. This is just common sense.
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 diagonally in front of you?
Because I’m all for pedestrian safety and prioritization. But SF has gone so “safe” that it’s back to unsafe. Runners will join an intersection from behind a tree in front of a car that had stopped and was starting to go without even looking up. People join a crossing looking down or away from the flow of traffic, it’s insane to me. I find that kids cross streets much better than adults here. A kid will stop, look, check if they were seen and then proceed.
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.
Let’s say person A drive their car through a green light (or any right of way) while person B pass at red with their truck and kills person A. Should we blame A to missed they eye contact with B?
This is a false equivalence. Im not talking about blaming a victim. I don’t know who the victim is when someone stopped, looked started driving and out of nowhere a runner with noise cancelling headphones ran in front of them anyway. I’m talking about you want to be safe? Don’t just run into the street without looking. It’s the best optimization for the state of affairs in the streets. People are not perfect, pillars are very big now, blind spots are bigger, cellphones, whatever you want.
I like to assume there aren’t that many deranged murderers around for it to matter. The state of affairs all my life has been that drivers are as careful as they have to around crosswalks.
And yet I would still stop and wait before walking out. The law will not save me against 1.5 tons of metal hitting me by accident.
This seems like it needs a regional distinction. I regularly do this since cars do reliably stop/slow down (in Prague, and not right in front of cars).
> The dominant cause of pedestrian fatalities is not "pedestrian steps right in front of a moving car," but things like "driver didn't see pedestrian in middle of crosswalk" (usually because, e.g., looking instead for vehicle traffic to make a right turn on red).
And the driver is at fault in the cases where the driver is at fault. 18% of pedestrian fatalities are cases where the driver was drunk. Meanwhile 30% of pedestrian fatalities are cases where the pedestrian was drunk.
Your example is actually a pretty rare cause of pedestrian fatalities because even if someone doesn't see a pedestrian, cars turning right on red are almost always traveling at low speed.
> if a driver is fast enough to kill them, then the driver is almost certainly already at fault because they were driving faster than conditions warranted.
There is a double digit percent chance of a fatality if a vehicle hits a pedestrian at 25 MPH. The vast majority of roads allow speeds of 25 MPH or more. That doesn't mean you can stop if someone without the right of way who you had no reason to expect to step out directly in front of a car suddenly does.
The dominant cause of pedestrian deaths is the same as drivers: alcohol. But unlike drivers, pedestrian are allowed to walk around drunk. So we dont even talk about it. We pretend it doesnt happen. It does. It happens all the time. The drunk pedestrian being hit by a car is the norm.
>>2008, nearly 40 per cent of pedestrians killed on Canadian roads were impaired, with two-thirds of them having a blood alcohol concentration more than double the legal limit. In fact, of all the fatally injured pedestrians with alcohol in their systems, fewer than one in five was at or below the legal driving limit of 0.08 blood alcohol concentration (BAC), according to the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators* (CCMTA).
https://canadasafetycouncil.org/impaired-walking/
And just try discussing drunk biking and you will be run out of town by a spandex army shouting about thier "right" to use the roads while drunk or high.
Just the other day, a middle aged cyclist decided to hug my bumper as I went downhill at about 35 mph. I rolled down the window and shouted "back off please". He looked surprised, but backed off.
A bicycle's brakes are far less effective than a car's. I don't know how a man got to middle age not knowing this. A lot of cyclists ride like they have an invisible shield protecting them.
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 already at fault because they were driving faster than conditions warranted.
"A pedestrian can be at fault in a fatality but the driver would still be at fault anyway" is apparently not a straw man.
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.
> No one said that it's not possible for a pedestrian to be at fault in a collision; they said the opposite.
The intention of the comment you accused of replying to a straw man was meant to point out that a pedestrian could be at fault instead of the driver.
That reply is pretty clearly arguing that even if the pedestrian was at fault, the driver would still have to be at fault anyway. Summarizing an argument after quoting it isn't misquoting it.
> A pedestrian could be at fault in other scenarios, like running into the middle of the street in dark clothing at night.
There is nothing to distinguish this from the original argument where the driver could still be be accused of "driving faster than conditions warranted" because visibility is lower at night.
> In California, if a pedestrian is in a crosswalk then the driver is legally at fault
And strict liability rules like that often lead to ridiculous outcomes, e.g. if someone jumps out of the back of a truck into an intersection and you then hit them, technically they were a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Or there is a pedestrian standing next to a crosswalk but they're stationary and talking on their phone without seeming to want to enter the crosswalk, so you start to proceed and then they step in front of your car.
The exact kind of scenario I was thinking of is something like a driver barrelling down a road in a school zone at 35 mph and hitting a kid who ran out into the street to pick up a ball. Since you so love putting words into my mouth, I assume you clearly believe that the pedestrian is at fault here instead of the driver [1].
In the real world, pedestrians don't play frogger with highways all that frequently. When you talk about pedestrians suddenly jumping onto the road, that is usually because they are in an area where pedestrian and vehicular interaction is likely--school zones, residential areas, parking lots, etc. In those scenarios... yeah, speeding is the fault here, not the pedestrian. I thought this was an obvious consideration that I didn't need to spell it out so clearly. But it turns out that the tendency to try to shift the blame from the driver to pedestrians in every scenario is just too ingrained into people, I guess...
[1] This isn't exactly a strawman--someone here was trying to argue that the driver isn't at fault in this scenario just this past week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47877232
Is it? Laura Bush ran a stop sign and killed her friend. No charges. Caitlyn Jenner hit a car and pushed it into on coming traffic killed someone. No charges. I can keep going and going.
These people you listed are wealthy and powerful, maybe blame the justice system catering to the rich instead of regulations for car crashes.
And these self driving companies aren't wealthy and powerful? Why treat them differently?
No, the reason that's a news story is because many people were upset about the accident, which killed an entire family of 4 while they took the kids to the zoo on their wedding anniversary. Even by the standards of auto wrecks it was heart wrenching. A lot of people felt the driver was negligent and deserved prison.
there are many[0] many[1] data points like this. even if individual ones seem like outliers, when there's this many outliers, it's like there's at least two distinct lines depicting consequences, one material and one not.
those who probably have exhausted all the various escape hatches built into the "vehicular manslaughter & mutilation forgiveness program" worldwide by the automobile industry, may get a year or so in prison — usually extreme repeat offenders, high profile deaths, homicide cases, or drivers who were already criminals just having the charge thrown in.
most people who "slipped up" are just fined and forgotten, at the cost of global pedestrian safety.
[0]: https://www.scmp.com/news/china-insider/article/1856923/do-s...
[1]: https://gothamist.com/news/95-of-nyc-drivers-avoid-criminal-...
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.
This was just in my local news 2 days ago; it doesn't seem that strange for California:
https://www.santamariasun.com/news-2/fatal-dui-case-closes-w...
Last year I was on the jury for someone who drove drunk, caused an accident, and fled the scene. They had multiple prior DUIs but still had their license.
[edit]
Some details from the story for those who don't want to click through:
An unlicensed driver drank, did some cocaine, drove on one of the more dangerous stretches of road in the area, crossed the centerline and killed someone. Probation.
> The reason that’s a news story is because the outcome is unusual.
Yes and no.
Here in the UK, I read/post a bit on https://road.cc about road cycling and the perils of traffic and poor road designs. There's a surprising amount of clearly illegal driving that is rarely punished severely and it's notable that due to juries being motornormative, the prosecution will often not attempt to push for "dangerous driving" and will instead go or "careless driving" as it's notoriously difficult to get a jury to give a guilty verdict for "dangerous". I suspect a lot of jurors are thinking "I sometimes don't pay attention when driving, so that could have been me".
There's also a lot of media bias (I'm looking at you, BBC) with reporting of RTCs (Road Traffic Collisions - they should not be referred to as "accidents" as that is loaded language), especially when one of the participants is a cyclist. A lot of stories are framed as "car and cyclist in collision", rather than "driver and cyclist in collision" or even "car driven into cyclist" (that last one may be contentious, though I propose that it is usually factual). The issue is the use of the "passive" framing so that it doesn't give the impressions that a driver is likely to be at fault (percentage wise, driver inattention is the most likely cause of RTCs). See https://www.rc-rg.com/home for more details on reporting guidelines.
Also, most RTCs don't even merit a news report as they are so commonplace.
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 family of the victims. She's taking responsibility and I can't imagine forced labor at that age is fun. What more can you ask for here? The family member isn't coming back if she gets what's not unlikely to be a life sentence
Edit:
> She told a witness at the scene that she was trying to park her car when she accidentally moved her foot to the gas pedal.
This seems to happen a lot. Don't know about statistics but this happened to someone I know at 50yo (thankfully only damaged their own car minorly), and you hear it on the news with some regularity. Maybe the gas needs to be in a fundamentally different spot from the brake? We can jail the people to whom it happens, sure, but I can understand a judge using their head instead of their heart. The real solution must come either from the automotive industry or legislation
> 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.
Huh? We're talking about someone who's not going to drive for 3 years at 80 years old. Who else are you foreseeing they'll "mow down" if you don't jail them for life
> For her to have recognised her own limitations
Surely I don't need to look up the statistics of people under 30 killing others by accident. We're humans, not infallible. The judge didn't think they took any undue risk here
But sure, enact your vengeance on the person that fate picked out. Comment sections are always full of it anyway so I'm sure the voting booth will be too and this is just going to spread
There needs to be something. I am not saying JumpCrisscross is right, but... I was a paramedic, and the sheer number of geriatric drivers who in zero way shape or form should be anywhere near the wheel of a vehicle is ... staggering. My go-to anecdote?
Called out for an eval with law enforcement, thankfully non injury (however, there -are- about half a dozen vehicles who are going to be filing insurance claims).
Grandma is on her way to the doctor, and is in husband's old Caddy. Problem, she couldn't figure out what to do at "the worst roundabout she'd ever seen" and kept circling it, causing other cars to swerve off the road into drainage ditches, over curbs etc.
Know why it was the worst roundabout she'd ever seen? Because it wasn't a roundabout. It was a T junction and there were those concrete lane separators. According to witnesses she'd been circling it for several minutes, occasionally putting the car into reverse to navigate it.
"Ma'am, where are you headed?" "My doctor, for an appointment". "Where's your doctor's office?" "[insert town name 40 miles away from us]" "And where do you live?" "[insert same town name]" She's nowhere near that town, there's no understood way she got from there to here other than mass confusion.
So LE call her adult kids, while we're assessing her, and figuring out a plan. They've also discovered in the meantime that her license was medically revoked five years prior by said doctor.
Kids: "Oh that? That doctor has no idea what he's talking about, she's perfectly competent, he just doesn't like her. She tells us she's fine to drive and we've been telling her we agree with her" and "What do you mean you're going to have her car towed? We can be there in two hours. Can't she just stay there with the paramedics til we get there?"
Cops: Your mom is about to be hit with at least six or seven insurance claims that are going to argue that the doctor, and the DOL, were right, and that your mom actually isn't medically suited to be driving.
I still guarantee she probably didn't face any legal consequences beyond insurance, though. Certainly we were never called as witnesses. And her family probably still thinks it was a fluke and that her doctor was just an asshole when he had her license revoked.
Banning someone from driving is basically a nonpunishment as driving on a suspended license is barely enforced. Most people with suspended licenses keep driving.
> 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.
> She's not going to drive again
She gets her license back. That's wild.
> This is something that humans suck at
Not usually with fatal consequences. These were preventable deaths. Not only that, the driver was being incredibly reckless, apparently driving 70 mph in a residential area.
> You shouldn't punish her for other people failing to take action
You're punishing her for being criminally reckless. You're creating an incentive structure that should reduce the frequency of future criminality.
> She gets her license back. That's wild.
In 3 years, at age 83, if she wanted to... she could try and take the driving test again and become licensed. This is just not going to happen :P In the end, the court can only prohibit her from driving while she is on probation.
Would it be great if this time she could be banned forever? Sure. But there's reasons why we don't just let judges make up arbitrary penalties and permanent restrictions on their own.
> Not usually with fatal consequences. These were preventable deaths. Not only that,
Humans don't misestimate their remaining ability with fatal consequences?
> the driver was being incredibly reckless, apparently driving 70 mph in a residential area.
Yes, by confusing gas and brake. She clearly has significantly reduced capacity.
> You're creating an incentive structure that should reduce the frequency of future criminality.
I do not think that the behavior of 80 year old people will be meaningfully changed by the degree of punishment applied here. This is a person that has lost a significant degree of capacity; unfortunately, humans losing capacity tend not to realize it or correctly estimate how much they have lost.
> she could try and take the driving test again and become licensed. This is just not going to happen
Why? More importantly, why is it on the table?
> the court can only prohibit her from driving while she is on probation
This seems incorrect. Lau was placed on probation for 2 years and had her license revoked for 3 [1].
> Would it be great if this time she could be banned forever? Sure. But there's reasons why we don't just let judges make up arbitrary penalties and permanent restrictions on their own
Straw man. Harsh and arbitrary are mostly orthogonal.
If you kill someone from behind the wheel, and you are at fault, the default punishment should be long-term license revocation and jail time. In almost no case do I see a reason for removing the requirement to spend time in prison altogether.
> Humans don't misestimate their remaining ability with fatal consequences?
Humans get taken off the roads and otherwise criminally incapacitated.
> do not think that the behavior of 80 year old people will be meaningfully changed by the degree of punishment applied here. This is a person that has lost a significant degree of capacity
I do. If the headline were she got years in jail, I'd bet at least a few families would weigh the cost of confronting a relative against the risk that they have to see them behind bars.
[1] https://sfstandard.com/2026/03/20/mary-lau-sentenced-probati...
> Straw man. Harsh and arbitrary are mostly orthogonal.
It's "arbitrary" because it's something that the legislature has not specifically allowed for. We do not allow judges to make up things on the spot for good reason.
> I do. If the headline were she got years in jail, I'd bet at least a few families would weigh the cost of confronting a relative against the risk that they have to see them behind bars.
I think the chance that grandpa might see prison time for driving is not really something that is going to change things much for families compared to "grandpa might kill someone" or "grandpa might get himself killed."
> I'd bet at least a few families would weigh the cost of confronting a relative against the risk that they have to see them behind bars.
See my comment just above, where I reply to someone who replied to you. "Confronting a relative"? Shit, I'd be happy if a few less relatives actively enabled people, "That doctor doesn't know what he's talking about, you're fine, mom, besides, it's kind of a pain for us to drive 10 minutes over to your house to help with an errand and then 10 minutes home. Just drive, no-one's going to pull you over."
So your hypothetical is that someone reads the headline "elderly woman kills family of four with car due to incapacity, receives no jail time" and goes "oh, no jail? No biggie" but if they read a headline "... and receives life in prison" they're going to rush out and take away grandma's keys because now they care?
Really?
The message that incapacity, even to the point of killing four people, will be excused is quite clear.
The deterrence argument is used to throw the book at people committing minor crimes like shoplifting. Let's apply it to quadruple homicide, eh?
Mary Long Fau should have died in prison.
> The deterrence argument is used to throw the book at people committing minor crimes like shoplifting
And it doesn't work there, so why would it work for impaired driving?
You seem to be operating under the idea that because she didn't go to jail, there were no consequences. This seems false.
> And it doesn't work there, so why would it work for impaired driving?
It does actually. See how thieves resident in Florida travel to New York to work because of the different enforcement regimes for one of the clearest possible examples[1].
Even if deterrence didn’t work at all putting people in prison is good because of incapacitation. Committing crimes is stupidly right tailed[2]. Every career criminal in jail for a year is a year society doesn’t suffer their crimes.
[1] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/02/02/cnns_john...
[2] https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-e...
Note that New York seems to have much lower property crime rates than Florida. It's usually difficult to compare this between jurisdictions but it seems pretty clear cut in this case.
It also seems like the percentage of goods lost to retail theft is slightly lower in New York than Florida.
c.f. you have a thirdhand cherry-picked quote from someone on a political site that implies differently.
> Not only that, the driver was being incredibly reckless, apparently driving 70 mph in a residential area.
I don't defend that woman at all and as someone who walked by that intersection on the day of the incident, 70 mph seems physically impossible there for a reasonable driver.
But it was not a totally residential area, it was a major transit hub of that part of town, where light rail and bus lines meet, a verrry short block away from lots of retail and restaurants.. That actually is an argument to go slower than in a purely residential area, because it's actually a congested area.
> She gets her license back. That's wild.
Definitely not given back. If I didn't misread it, she needs to take a new driver's test at 83, which she already declined applying for (though it'll be her right; we'd have to see if she stays by the decision or if the examiner deems her a safe driver)
> You're punishing her for being criminally reckless. You're creating an incentive structure that should reduce the frequency of future criminality.
Wtf? Try applying logic somewhere in the process. People don't enjoy killing others by accident, paying 64k, 200h community service, three years of trying to use American public transport before you can start the process of getting a license back, going through a whole court system, and, y'know, guilt that I'd imagine would cripple me for years
Edit: I'm very surprised, reading your other comments, they're overall legit sensible. Really struggling to comprehend how, here, you get from "someone did something by accident" to "you need life punishments or they'll have an incentive to mow the next person down". There's zero incentive for citizens to kill people in any society that I'm aware of, again even ignoring the internal problems it causes
> Definitely not given back. If I didn't misread it, she needs to take a new driver's test at 83, which she already declined applying for (though it'll be her right; we'd have to see if she stays by the decision or if the examiner deems her a safe driver)
Pretty likely that DMV Driver Safety has her record flagged and wants some additional evidence of medical capacity if she reapplies, too.
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.
Sorry if my throat sounded full to you, just writing what I think fits the context. In this case, apparently an 80yo getting punished in various ways is what GP had as example of how criminals are getting off easy. I see this pattern constantly, where people can't be bothered to read an article with the background info (much less the court case summary itself) but join the march and sign the petitions to lock the person up for life or whatever the outcry is
It feels unfair to me, like it could have been me or the commenter in a parallel universe, and I don't expect either of us are evil and intending to do bad, so I bring up what the article actually says were the circumstances (no intent or recklessness proven beyond doubt) and consequences (at least, besides the guilt factor). Don't you feel this could happen to you tomorrow just as easily as to anyone else? Should you get a worse punishment than all of what this woman got (see above) for getting into an accident with a fatal outcome? (Assuming you drive a vehicle, of course)
> Don't you feel this could happen to you tomorrow just as easily as to anyone else?
No; unlike Mary Lau, I don't choose to drive while incapacitated.
> they don't.
When there's significant extenuating circumstances or "the book" wouldn't serve the purposes of justice, they don't.
What would 'getting the book' look like in concrete terms?
If you're familiar with the phrase "throw the book at," it refers to a maximum severity punishment: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/throw%20the%20boo...
Citing a random source for CA vehicular manslaughter law, it looks like you can get up to six years: https://www.kannlawoffice.com/california-penal-code-section-...
So, like, a six year prison sentence? Maybe more for multiple counts here? At least revocation of driving privileges forever (she's not getting any younger)? None of that happened.
They intentionally moved assets to their family members to avoid liability, right?
Laws are also meant to deter bad behavior, people who aren't able to drive safely should know there will be consequences
People will change their behavior. The function of prison sentences is deterrence.
> function of prison sentences is deterrence
As well as incapacitation and retribution.
As well as making acquaintances with other criminals at a time where you're losing your job, apartment, your social network if the sentence lasts long enough
But, yes, also those two. It's a very multifaceted sword, and thankfully not the only option, not for any of the three goals
Impulsivity is definitionally the absence of forethought. Deterrence doesn't affect crimes born from impulse.
> Deterrence doesn't affect crimes born from impulse
And yet I've seen way more people call an Uber instead of drive home drunk not because they thought they'd kill someone, but because they didn't want a DUI.
Sounds like the insight is that people have varying degrees of forethought. Crime isn't mono-causal and therefore solutions shouldn't be expected to be monolithic.
> solutions shouldn't be expected to be monolithic
I don’t see anyone in this thread arguing for this. Just backing up the notion that vehicular manslaughter is almost tolerated by the justice system.
Perhaps an unintentional use of the definite article?
> The function of prison sentences is deterrence.
The definite article is typically used to indicate 'there is only one'[1].
1. https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/free-resources/gramm...
To put it another way: crimes of pure impulse, with zero forethought, are a subset of all crimes.
And incapacitation!
And taking away a license in order to achieve that in the case of traffic offences couldn't possibly be the cheaper option for deterrence or incapacitation
It's both cheaper and less effective. (And Mary Lau didn't even lose her license.)
And they're the only option, right?
> 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.
There's a test every 5 years after iirc 65yo where they check things like response time, if you have enough strength for handling the wheel completely unimpeded, and if you aren't suffering from dementia. At least that's what I've heard from my grandparents about the tests they had to do. If that doesn't cover the age risk, imo that test would be the thing to fix. Not sure how strict those are in the USA
Since the article doesn't speak of her well-being, I don't think we can judge here whether this woman should have taken herself out of society already (from what I hear, the USA isn't exactly public transport or walking friendly, assuming she can still walk distances in the first place, idk what old people are supposed to do there)
The other three factors you mentioned were not at play here according to the linked article. But I agree in general of course, and in those cases I don't disagree with extra punishment (and/or, the better preventor: increasing the odds of being caught)
Every 5 years is ridiculous. The difference between 80 and 85 can be stark. I have to get refresher training every two years to legally fly a small plane and that’s something where it takes some serious work to kill anyone who isn’t me or my passenger.
Those are, by definition, things that prevent you from rationally estimating capabilities and risk.
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.
Apologised for taking lives of married couple and two babies?
Is that a question? I'm not sure if you're expecting an answer about maybe she should have tried praying for the person to be brought back or what would legit help the situation at that point?
Is it too much to ask for today's pedestrian to wear at least one piece of reflective clothing?
Odd point to raise in a thread about a family killed while waiting at a bus stop in broad daylight. Do you think reflective clothing would have changed the outcome of the event significantly?
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)
Freakonomics did a pod about this, titled “how to get away with murder”.
see https://sf.streetsblog.org/2026/03/06/motorist-careens-onto-... and see what the police said to the driver…
Better than the current standard for AV, which is "what floor?"
Is it? https://www.vice.com/en/article/california-dmv-suspends-crui...
Cruise was entirely shut down because of an incident that didnt even result in a death. Thats way worse than what people tend to get
IIRC Cruise got into the most trouble not because of the accident itself, but because it tried to hide evidence from and deceive regulators.
In the context of this thread, it's worth pointing out that "trying to deceive regulators" is quite normal behavior for individual human drivers involved in car incidents, and iirc the Cruise collision itself also involved a human driver performing a hit-and-run who didn't afaict ever get prosecuted or come forward to police.
They have to operate in California though, so I don't blame them.
This is a state that made me a criminal for putting the wrong air filter on my car (Clearly my bad for putting on the 49 State legal version that makes the tailpipe emissions cleaner).
"it"; Kyle Vogt, their CEO at the time, is the person that decided to do it.
An incident, by the way, triggered by a human driver hitting a pedestrian and knocking them into Cruise's path.
That driver was never found. It's not clear what efforts, if any, were made to find them. After all the Cruise is covered in cameras.
It wasn't "because of an incident", it was because they were required to submit a report about that (or any other) incident, did so, and then the security footage proved that they straight up lied in the report about that particular incident.
If they just told the truth, they wouldn't lose their licence, but they couldn't even oblige by this piss-poor regulatory action in which they were required to do nothing but self-report any incident.
I believe you, but that really highlights how dangerous small regulatory overheads are. One - quite reasonable - frame on what you're saying is that there was no problem with Cruise except they failed to engage with the bureaucracy properly on some relatively minor points.
That sort of behaviour should be an aggravating factor if they're actually misbehaving. If they aren't, then it is poor policy to try and put them out of business over paperwork.
> 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.)
The refutation of your point is in the article itself. The standard, by law, punishment involves jail time or home confinement. The judge explained how those punishments were not appropriate because of the exceptional circumstances.
I'm not sure how that would change things. It is still a representative example.
See also: http://archive.today/2026.03.23-031145/https://www.nytimes.c...
> And there is precedent for the light manslaughter sentencing of an older driver. In 2003, George Weller, 86, killed 10 pedestrians at the Santa Monica Farmers Market after confusing the gas and brake pedals. He received five years of probation. The judge in that case said that Mr. Weller’s age and declining health had contributed to the decision.
You mean a representative example of an exception? Your example also points out how the judge justified their deviation from the standard.
That is not an evidenced claim though. It's an anecdote.
Evidence is, generally speaking, anecdotal.
> 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.
Here' I'll do the needful:
Twin Cities, 2010-2014: 95 pedestrians killed in 3,069 crashes. 28 drivers were charged and convicted of a crime, most often a misdemeanor ranging from speeding to careless driving. ~70% of pedestrian-killing drivers faced no criminal charge[0].
Bay Area, 2007-2011 (CIR investigation): sixty percent of drivers that were at fault, or suspected of being at fault, faced no criminal charges. Over 40 percent of drivers charged did not lose their driver's licenses, even temporarily[1].
Philadelphia, 2017–2018: just 16 percent of the drivers were charged with a felony in fatal crashes[2].
Los Angeles, 2010–2019: 2,109 people were killed in traffic collisions on L.A. streets... and nearly half were pedestrians. Booked on vehicular manslaughter: 158 people. The vast majority of drivers who kill someone with their car are not arrested[3].
I can literally do this all day. The original statement was correct, the case representative.
[0]: https://www.startribune.com/in-crashes-that-kill-pedestrians...
[1]: https://walksf.org/2013/05/02/investigative-report-exposes-h...
[2]: https://whyy.org/articles/philadelphia-drivers-rarely-prosec...
[3]: https://laist.com/news/transportation/takeaways-pedestrian-d...
As the saying goes: If you want to kill someone and get the lightest possible consequences, kill them with your car.
Now we’re talking. So much misinformation in this thread. There’s a reason that the saying, “if you want to kill someone, do it with a car” exists. Fortunately, it seems like judges are finally starting to wake up to the idea that it’s unreasonable for drivers to claim ignorance about the increased risks (and thus intent) of making poor/illegal decisions when being the wheel.
The original statement was about vehicular manslaughter. You are citing stats that cover a much broader range of things.
This thread talks about driverless cars; vehicular manslaughter requires negligence or intent, do you want to find narrowed statistics for driverless cars that are restricted to negligence or intent?
The branch of the thread those statistics were in is about human driven cars.
You're likely falling for a red herring.
Criminality is basically just a checkbox for this stuff. Most of the time people wouldn't be going to jail for these sorts of crimes, it'd just be big fines and penalties. There's almost always administrative/civil infractions of the same or similar name that has the same or greater punishment but are far more efficient for the state to prosecute because the accused has fewer rights.
It makes for good appeal to emotion headlines to say these people aren't getting charged with crimes, but that's only half the story. They're likely lawyering up and pleading to a civil infraction that has approx the same penalties.
And this is true not just for this issue but for many subject areas of administrative law. Taxes, SEC, environmental, etc, etc, all operate mostly like this.
It's easy for a writer to pander to certain demographics and get people whipped into a frenzy by writing an easy article about prosecuting rates using public data. Actually contacting these agencies and figuring out what they actually did is hard and in the modern media economy doesn't offer much upside for the work.
Someone (i forget who) wrote that if someone invented a technology equally beneficial and equally harmful it wouldnt even be considered today but 100 years ago they wouldnt even question it. It was labor as usual.
Personally i would like to see a more granual permission to drive based on performance, need and demography.
Ok, so give an actual example.
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.
Well, if the law treats them differently when it comes to punishment, then maybe it should treat them differently when it comes to being able to drive in the first place?
Yup. And we do have some degree of safeguards here-- admittedly, less in California than many other states. They are: physician required reporting of disqualifying conditions, ability for other people to report concerns about capability to drive, and the requirement to show up and undergo vision testing and not flag other concerns in the process.
There's a tradeoff between reducing the very low rate of unsafe driving by the elderly and the burden added to the very old. People over 65+ are still possibly safer, overall, than teenagers.
No “representative” would mean that was a typical outcome and that is not the case. That is what would be called an “exceptional” outcome.
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 or government level
Turning that into a monetary cost would change the ethics slightly, but it wouldn't be a monumental shift
The issue here is that a lot of the concerns about AV's are orthogonal to the standard metrics of concern.
I'm a strong transit alternatives advocate, but even I recognize that a firetruck or ambulance being blocked by an AV has the potential to cause an outsized amount of death and destruction, because deaths aren't always linear and a fire that is able to get out of control can do catastrophic damage compared to a single out of control vehicle.
I'm genuinely stunned that AV's do not have the ability to be "commandeered" by Police/Fire/EMS in a pinch, and I'm honestly surprised that regular citizens can't just hit a red button that signal "this is seriously an emergency." These are fairly simple steps to mitigate the tail risk of AV's but the platforms aren't going to prioritize that if there are no incentives.
We already accept that it’s fine for human drivers to block emergency services and we generally refuse to build, say, bus and bike lines that can be used by emergency services.
So the uproar over AV’s blocking emergency vehicles seems incredibly manufactured or inconsistent, much like the hoopla over AI and water.
e.g. You can take anyone complaining about this and you’ll find they didn’t care about emergency vehicles or water until just now regarding one thing. I’d like to see some consistency.
The difference is blocking emergency vehicles in predictable, high traffic areas that can be intentionally avoided vs randomly blocking an entire road because you couldn’t handle a weird event.
People actually think hard about these problems. The entire point of my post is that it is trivial to mitigate.
I was in the middle of the SF blackout, and witnessed the Waymos stopped at lights and actually commended Waymo for handling the emergency so well. At the same time, I’ve seen many ambulances get blocked just seconds away from the hospital because of Waymos unable to navigate complex intersections like oak/fell and stanyan.
> I'm genuinely stunned that AV's do not have the ability to be "commandeered" by Police/Fire/EMS in a pinch, and I'm honestly surprised that regular citizens can't just hit a red button that signal "this is seriously an emergency."
The passenger of a Waymo can, but not anyone outside it. There's a very prominent "call for help" button on the screen when you get inside.
A “call for help” button is customer service. The ability to say “this is the police, drop everything and attend to this car” button would be helpful.
At least in SF, there’s both a phone number and a QR code on a sticker on the driver-side window, and per what’s linked from https://waymo.com/firstresponders/ it seems like that’s a dedicated phone line.
I wonder quite what the priority matrix looks like for support requests; I’d expect something like:
1. First responders 2. Human-initiated in-vehicle 3. Autonomous-initiated vehicle
But I of course don’t know.
Buttons are something that seem inherently obviously (both internal and external), but I’m also never sure quite how useful they’d be: a lot of the things that have gathered press have involved vehicles driving when it was unsafe to do so, and then any external button is of minimal use.
I also expect they have some level of concern about anything external having an abuse potential? (e.g., deliberately walk in front of an AV just to stop it in the road)
Something like “give first responders some mobile app which provides some level of direct control” feels like it should be doable (authentication there seems unlikely to be harder than the various “educational” authentication gates that Alphabet has in many products) — though of course that doesn’t scale with more AV operators, and thus maybe this just falls into the category of “this should be standardised” (by whatever SDO).
And some can clearly just leverage existing datasets — many jurisdictions have ways to publish things like “this road is closed from X to Y”, and you can imagine a slightly broader case of “close a radius of Z from point A” being something you might want, especially in the AV case (imagine a “police incident” closing an intersection, such as the one a Waymo drove through a few months ago — you probably want to close a bit beyond the interaction itself in all directions!).
And sure, to some extent things can be handled by AVs getting better at understanding their surroundings, but we’ll always have the question of whether they’re good enough, especially when they fail in non-human like ways.
I've never actually tried it, but I would expect customer service to be able to move the car out of the way or push it to someone who can remotely pilot it.
Again, the main issue is that these things can cause problems with nobody is in the car. It shouldn't even be a debate. Emergency services should have a key that unlocks them and allows them to be commandeered. Everyone inside is being filmed all the time, so anyone going for a joyride is being watched, the car could be shut down remotely, and the person could trivially charged with a number of felonies, and then that access key could be removed.
If Waymo can't play well with emergency services, then they've got long term sustainability problems.
Don't forget to add rail incidents to that metric. I live in Spain, this year we had 4 derailments for a total of 48 deaths and 195 injured. The USA has had 0 passengers killed or injured from train accidents this year. Portugal had 15 death after a tram derailment. In Amsterdam, the tram is more dangerous than the car.
Also Germany is very high (for European standards) because of the Autobahn. They can save around 140 lives a year by having a limit on the Autobahn but the car lobby in Germany is very strong. Those 140 lives are seen as an OK cost just to go vroom on the Autobahn.
>I live in Spain, this year we had 4 derailments for a total of 48 deaths and 195 injured.
Which, to be clear, is a considerable outlier. Highest since 2013 and about double the deaths and 4x the injured of a "normal" year.
Not to mention that trains are far safer than automobiles too.
>The USA has had 0 passengers killed or injured from train accidents this year.
Is this a fantastic, magical year or something? The normal number seems to be around 800 a year? https://www.kochandbrim.com/study-train-accident-deaths/
> Not to mention that trains are far safer than automobiles too.
This claim is situationally true, but not universally so like many people seem to believe. For example, Brightline rail service in Florida has been operating since 2017 and averages (by my math) 29.8 deaths / 100M passenger-miles, while the road system in Florida averages 0.89 deaths / 100M passenger-miles. Those deaths are mostly not suicides, and imo we should treat pedestrian deaths from trains as substantially more morally weighty than passenger deaths, since it's a victim that didn't opt-in to the risk.
For what it's worth, the unusual spike in Spain train crashes this year seems to have pushed them barely over the fatality numbers of Spanish cars (0.91 deaths/100M pax-mi vs 0.73 for cars) but that's pretty clearly an outlier.
If you measure per vehicle-mile rather than per passenger-mile I'm pretty sure trains are always way more dangerous, although that's a less fair comparison.
Your number includes suicides, trespassing and more. Only 24 passenger deaths in a ten year period.
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 just doesn't seem to be there.
https://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/tempolimit-koennte-jaehr... claims a 75% higher fatality rate on unrestricted autobahn v. autobahn with speed limits.
But in general: freeways/motorways (whatever you want to call them) almost never account for the majority of fatalities anywhere — there’s a lot that makes them safer than the average rural road even given comparable speeds, and there’s fewer vulnerable road users around.
> 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.
If there is anything remotely potentially dangerous, unlimited speed ends and the road gets well defined and enforced speed limit. If the traffic on that segment of the road gets high, they put in speed limit sign too.
Moreover, there is a question of liability for the insurance purpose. If you go above 130, you are assumed to be caused of the accident. So, most Germans go roughly 130 in those segments anyway.
There is a reason for that “per billion miles range”.
What. in god's name are you saying?
> Don't forget to add rail incidents to that metric. I live in Spain, this year we had 4 derailments for a total of 48 deaths and 195 injured.
Yeah and how many in the 15 years prior? 112. Of which 80 were in a single (TGV) crash.
How many people die each year in Spanish roads? Thousands.
> The USA has had 0 passengers killed or injured from train accidents this year.
Can't have rail accidents if you don't have rail *taps side of head*
> Portugal had 15 death after a tram derailment.
Oh my god, after a 140-year old tourist attraction malfunctioned! Hardly representative of any transit system whatsoever.
> In Amsterdam, the tram is more dangerous than the car.
This is just not true, by any metric.
And also, why are cars comparatively less dangerous in Amsterdam than in most other places? Because it is not designed for cars first, there are low speed limits enforced by traffic calming (like speed humps and narrow cobbled streets) everywhere.
> Can't have rail accidents if you don't have rail taps side of head
The USA has the world's largest network with 220000 kilometers of rail
> This is just not true, by any metric.
In Amsterdam the tram is 57x more deathly than the car.
https://www.parool.nl/nieuws/al-twee-doden-dit-jaar-hoe-onve...
Trams in Amsterdam should be replaced with busses. Busses stop much faster and don't weigh as much. Trams are literal death machines. It's really scary to ride bicycle in Amsterdam and hear the ding-ding-ding when you are about to be run over by a tram and you quickly have to move over.
Also you seem to be a bit confused, Amsterdam does not use narrow cobbled streets for traffic calming. Maybe you are thinking of France or Belgium.
No. The traffic rules for trams or tram stop positions should be adjusted and people in Amsterdam should be educated to behave around trams, i.e. in traffic in general if they want fewer deaths.
There are literally marks on every step of their path "tram is going through here, coming from there", so those that die anyway should be the ones at fault. It's horrible that they die, but banning trams is not a valid response to it. After the people have started behaving like that around trams, there isn't really a reason to assume they won't start being (even more) reckless around the less predictable and bulkier busses. You fixed braking time, but cyclists get clipped more often going out of their track as they do already. I mean, look at the description of an accident: allegedly she wore a hoodie with headphones and some stops after the intersections incentivize higher tram speeds.
Start fixing that before banning the safest and the most efficient form of transport (57x more than cars, with the amount of cars they have, number of close interactions with cyclists/pedestrians, and the imposed traffic rules for cars, isn't really a valid multiplier), scrapping all the tram lines and adjusting road tracks widths just to have buses brake harder on asphalt isn't really a fix of the problem, just a reaction to a symptom.
You sound like someone trying to justify guns. "People should be educated to behave round them". No. Trams in Amsterdam are very dangerous and replacing them with long busses makes everything better.
Tram is not the safest form of transport, that would be the bus. As stated trams are way more deadly than cars.
And no, trams are not marked. Not in Amsterdam. Trams share the exact same path as pedestrians and cyclists, they don't have their own lanes for most parts of the route.
What about people who are visually impaired? Have hearing troubles? Should those people just stay home?
Well, I hope you don't have a say in that matter, not because you disagree, but because you ignored all of the reasoning behind my points, just to repeat the same.
Your analogy about guns is irrelevant because all the negative aspects of advocating for guns are missing here, while education is always helpful. I am advocating for the safest and the most efficient option for everyone. And I said why is it so. You only mentioned braking time/distance without any evidence about buses being less lethal in the long run when substituting trams:
The same braking time can be achieved by decreasing the trams' speed (30 km/h to 20 km/h) around pedestrians and cyclists, which is more efficient than removing the tram network, making space for buses, buying and maintaining twice as many buses for the same throughput, and replacing the asphalt quite often. Keeping the trams will decrease the likelihood of pedestrians and bicyclists being clipped by bulky long buses (double the number of encounters compared to trams), while still making it easier for everyone to know where the tram may come from whenever they see the tracks (and it can't swerve, so a person knows exactly how to move in a close encounter), so that they can steer clear of its path and only cross it after they make sure there is no tram passing. Introducing the buses either reintroduces toxic exhaust gases, or buses' weight advantage gets massively decreased by carrying the batteries, while increasing the tires' and asphalt damage and shedding. Also, it doesn't mean that the trend of increasing recklessness won't continue around "safer" vehicles: I bet people were more wary of trams before, just like they are in other cities with trams.
Recklessness and abandonment of personal responsibility for own safety shouldn't be a reason for everyone else to bend over backwards. There is enough of a safety net for the wannabe Darwin award winners as-is, with trams in place. Decreasing speed, moving the stations ahead of intersections, and raising awareness that the trams are still dangerous is a reasonable change of policy. Even a pilot-project driving buses on a dangerous tram lane could be reasonable, to gather data. Blindly overhauling the whole network without a strong indicator that it's even a move in the right direction, just to maybe find a way to prolong the lives of those who themselves don't really care about their lives.
Btw, visually impaired and those of bad hearing generally know very well to use their other senses to stay safe in this as well as even worse conditions. And are better off with rails marking the trams' path (or even other markings, if introduced), than relying on the buses' braking distance.
And please avoid pretending to be dumb and saying that the trams are more deadly than the cars, without taking into account how separated the cars' roads are from pedestrians' and cyclists paths as well as their passenger throughput in Amsterdam and their speed limits. If Amsterdam had the same throughput of passengers in buses instead of trams, with buses equally mixing with pedestrians and cyclists, I bet the situation wouldn't be much different, with you equally fixated only on absolute numbers multiplier, asking for trams.
Btw, why don't you ask for cars to replace the trams? Buses, despite not being as mixed with pedestrians as trams are, racking in kilometers after midnight and between cities like cars do, still cause 15x more deaths per km than cars do.
> Can't have rail accidents if you don't have rail taps side of head
Sure the US has low rail-usage per-capita, but it's still enough for 50% more passenger-kilometers per year than Spain.
Coming from a bio background, I’ve always been confused why auto fatality stats are normalized per miles driven. Epidemiological metrics like incidence or prevalence seem like they would work fine? Town A would be “safer” than town B if people’s commutes are 20% shorter, even if accidents occur w same frequency
Pretty sure I've seen exposure-adjusted incidence rates used in clinical trials.
Miles is simply a proxy for exposure.
Given risk here does vary by exposure time and trip length varies so much, it seems reasonable to use - at least in combination with crude rates.
Fair point - a combo might be the best approach.. I understand the idea of accidents correlating w/ miles driven, but it seems to be optimizing for driving safety rather than human life? Does that make sense?
What are some other better ways to normalize?
Other common approaches:
1. Per capita
2. Per registered vehicle
3. Per trip
All of these have upsides and downsides (as does “per vehicle km”), and all will paint different pictures with different distortions.
Honestly, just per 1M person per year. If this normal incidence went up while the exposure incidence rate went down over 20 years, I'd wanna know.
Per trip?
Because it yields a simple corollary that to make travelling safer you can reduce the number of miles driven. Mostly by giving people viable alternatives to driving, be it long-distance rail or bike lanes to move around quicker and safer in the city.
> 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.
> 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
To wit: Europe's 1.8% (and Belgium's 0.7%) uninsured-driver rates are a fraction of America's 15% [1][2].
[1] https://www.mibi.ie/ireland-may-have-highest-level-of-uninsu...
[2] https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-uninsure...
In countries like The Netherlands it is impossible to drive around uninsured. So that is probably why the number is so low.
> it is impossible to drive around uninsured
How?
Because fines are automatic. If you register a vehicle to your name and don't insure it within 28 days you get a €500 fine. The government can fine you up to three times a year for a total of €1500. And that is if you actually pay the fines. If you do not pay the fines and let the fees stack up, you are looking at around €4500 per year.
And if you are caught driving uninsured that is a €700 fine on top of all that. With many police cars now having ANPR systems it just isn't possible to drive around uninsured without receiving fines that cost way more than just getting insurance.
> If you register a vehicle to your name and don't insure it within 28 days you get a €500 fine
Oh, this is actually a really good idea. Wild we don't link those systems.
I still see dozens of unplated mopeds in The Netherlands so the system is not perfect but they are trying to fix it.
And quite possibly your vehicle will get impounded and sold at auction.
> there are a large group of people dependent on their driver's license
Are there "no licence cars" in Belgium and the US ? Basically a moped motor and a seat inside a box. 45kmh and no highway, but a bit more confortable and fast than a ebike for rural environment.
Those do exist in Belgium, but (joke starts here) that's because Belgium is enormous, far too large to get proper public transport going (joke ends). I am seeing more and more cargo e-bikes (e-cargo bikes?), which I find a positive change, though it does differ from place to place (Antwerp's fairly okay for bikes, same for Leuven, Brussels was pretty bad last time I was there).
Not really, the cross section of people who lose their license/insurance and those that could use something like an ebike reliably for their commute is practically zilch. The US is really big and a lot of people have rural 30+ minute commutes where it snows ~6 months out of the year.
Oh I was’t clear: I’m not talking about an ebike but a very small and underpowered car like this one https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35210572
There’re somewhat popular here for those that doesn’t have a licence and offer some of the advantage but are less dangerous to others.
> The US is really big and a lot of people have rural 30+ minute commutes
The size of the country in which a commute is contained is immaterial to the length of that commute. What you mean is not "the US is big" but "things are really far apart in the US". Which they are, but precisely because of car-centric (car-only, actually) design.
Things being far apart in the US predates cars. Rail made that possible.
Rails encouraged density around the train stations.
Rail is not responsible for the car sprawling type of communities which are mostly a 20th century phenomenon.
You are right that this happens frequently in the United States compared to Europe, but you are overstating the degree to which this culturally and legally acceptable. People who are doing this are not typically broadcasting it to others, and I can assure you that when they do, for the most part people will tend to "bat an eye" at the very least.
Note that motor vehicle insurance in most of Europe is more tightly regulated and generally more affordable than in the United States. Also, I suspect the car-dependent individuals in urban areas with robust public transportation in Belgium are generally vastly higher income than the typical uninsured compulsory driver in the United States. Happy to be corrected though
> you are overstating the degree to which this culturally and legally acceptable
In Florida it's a $150 fine [1]. If you do it again within 3 years, they charge you $250. If you do it again within that three-year period, they'll just charge you $500 each time. It's not even a crime [2].
[1] https://www.valuepenguin.com/auto-insurance/florida/penaltie...
[2] https://www.kevinkuliklaw.com/is-it-a-crime-to-drive-without...
> 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 caught up in the same cultural-war fight over immigration law enforcement that has dominated American news since Trump got re-elected. "And now people who obey the law need to take out extra insurance for under/uninsured motorists" is specifically an anti-illegal-immigrant talking point.
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.
The easy way to accomplish that would be to go after the businesses that employ them. At this point, however, I think it's safe to assume it's not the real objective, and the economy would crash into a ditch if policy was anything but theater.
> 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.
Clearly, a bit weird to assume that no license would automatically mean that the driver stops driving, that's not true at all.
...But what percentage of Swedes is that? vs the vast majority of working-class Americans.
Remember, outside of its few biggest and wealthiest cities, the US just does not have decent, reliable public transport, and most places don't have any.
And how many Americans live in places without any public transport?
As a European I spend some time in LA and Las Vegas and while not optimal I could get everywhere without a car. I could even do a day-trip to Bakersfield by bus.
Your anecdata to this one time you took a trip to California doesn’t help.
You can just look at % of urban residents that use transit, which is lower in US than any western country. Clearly transit isn’t built or available in a sufficient way to majority of people
Tons of options other than removing the ability to drive. More stringent enforcement, higher fines.
> 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 or government level
That effort being what, exactly?
Road fatalities per mile driven don’t translate cleanly from country to country because the type of roads and even types of deaths (single vehicle, multi vehicle) are different.
We could set the speed limit at 25mph everywhere and force all vehicles to not exceed that limit and that would make the number go down, but the cost would be extreme for everyone.
So what, exactly, are the solutions you are proposing?
> That effort being what, exactly?
Off the top of my head you could do any of these or a combination.
- much stricter training and testing to get a license
- vehicles where the safety of others is considered
- ban stupid dangerous cars (my wife doesn’t stand as tall as an F350, let alone a kid
- harsher penalties for drunk driving (see Germany)
- harsher penalties for all kinds of dangerous driving
None of these are hard to implement, the US just lacks the will.
> 11 deaths per billion miles driven
You should calculate how many are "single vehicle accidents" and how many are "multiple vehicle accidents." In the US the majority are single vehicle.
> seen as an OK cost.
You cannot build a system that stops every stupid person from doing something stupid without introducing absolute tyranny.
[dead]
Doesn’t that 11 per billion statistic include commercial drivers as well? And doesn’t the United States have by far the largest percentage of commercial miles driven of any developed nation?
There’s a far cheaper solution available. Log books.
> If a human driver commits vehicular manslaughter, they get the book.
If only! "10 Days In Jail For Drunken Driver Who Killed Cyclist Bobby Cann" https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170126/old-town/ryne-san-h...
I almost feel bad for noticing this, but:
> San Hamel was a partner in a business called AllYouCanDrink.com at the time.
…
> Cann, an experienced cyclist who once biked from New Hampshire to Chicago, was heading home from his job at Groupon the night he was killed.
It looks like allyoucandrink.com now redirects to Groupon, in a decent bit of irony.
We subsidize driving by somewhat over a trillion dollars annually, mostly due to lax penalties for negligence which shift liability to drivers’ victims[1]. One way to tackle all of these problems would be requiring drivers to cover the full damages.
Another simple and effective measure would be changing fines from absolute values to a percentage of income. Right now, parking in a bike lane usually doesn’t kill anyone so drivers are only thinking there’s a small chance of a small fine, but if it was a chance of, say, 0.1% of annual income Waymo technology would magically be capable of not doing that. Add a right of private action and enforcement would be high enough to really speed things along, too, and that’d improve safety and travel times for all road users.
1. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/01/18/why-car-i...
Yeah, making fines relative to income would change behaviors for sure. A $20 ticket when you make $20 an hour hits different when you're making $200 or $2,000/hr. If it was a percentage of pay, then the ticket would actually sting.
There are a lot of people that just don't pay the fines and ignore suspended licenses as money stops becoming a motivator on the other end as well.
> If a human driver commits vehicular manslaughter, they get the book. What about AV?
They get their licenses pulled statewide [1]. Cruise's single negligent manslaughter event carried more consequence than dozens of human cases combined.
[1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/dmv-statement-o...
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 harm. You balance these things, benefit to society vs harm to society, and you come to an acceptable tradeoff.
> The CEO gets charged with manslaughter?
Well then forget autonomous vehicles altogether and allow the human joyride to continue, because no CEO is stupid enough to risk that.
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.
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.
> 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…
> We can’t let AV manufacturers use “there’s no driver” as a way to escape responsibility, externalizing the harms AC cause onto society.
There is essentially nothing to be gained from doing this because it will not in either case be manufacturer; it will be an insurance company.
If the liability is paid by the vehicle owner's insurance then things work as they do now. You buy a car, insure it, if there is a liability there is an insurance claim and then the victim has someone to pay them for their injuries. Meanwhile the manufacturers still have a financial incentive to make safer cars because buyers want neither accident prone vehicles as the one they use nor high insurance rates. The insurance rates in particular are in direct competition with the car payment for the customer's available income.
Whereas if you try to put the liability on the manufacturer, several stupider things happen.
First, they're just going to buy insurance anyway, but now the insurance cost has to be front-loaded into the purchase price, which increases costs because now you're paying car loan interest on money to cover insurance five and ten years from now, when you otherwise wouldn't have needed to pay the premiums until the time comes.
Second, what happens to cars from manufacturers who no longer exist? They can't continue paying for insurance if they're bankrupt, so you need it to be someone else. Worse, if a company produces a vehicle which is unsafe, that will tend to cause them to go bankrupt. But then people still have them, and would continue to operate them if they're allowed to point victims at the bankrupt manufacturer, whereas the incentive you want is for the premiums on those cars to go up for the vehicle owners so that they stop operating them.
> If a human driver commits vehicular manslaughter, they get the book.
I wish this were true. Often they get off with a light punishment, or no punishment at all.
> 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.
Your questions are pertinent but what’s the benefit "worth" you’re referring to? The two first proposals would risk a politician popularity and the last one would be lobbied to he’ll buy the logistic companies. IMHO inconvenience isn’t worth driving among drunk coursier at 200kmh.
If we consider fairness/retribution/justice then we won't get this future of less road deaths.
1. There will always be a probability of death from a vehicle. This can never go to 0%.
2. If the probability of a AV causing death is many magnitudes lower than human driving then that is the future we must choose.
If 1 and 2 holds and we hold AV manufactures accountable in the sense that Executives go to jail or are personal liable financially for deaths/injuries then AV will never get released or become mainstream even if this results in less total deaths. The sense of fairness/justice/retribution may make us feel better but result in more overall deaths. Logically this means that there must be a standard. Something like x deaths per y cars manufactured. If above the threshold you get big fines as a company. As technology gets better you can lower the threshold. Anything apart from causing deaths either purposefully or negligently would have be ignored.
Can we as a species accept this? That is another question.
What happens if you build a bridge and it breaks?
These people want to play god with our lives but at the same time move fast and break things. Look at software quality anywhere, it's a mess and only about to get much worse.
We should not let them. Jail time for anyone involved in any of the decision making process, applied at scale with the number of vehicles and deaths.
Why should the standards be any different? They want to change the status quo with tech only so they can get paid and extort us with yet more subscriptions.
AVs will never substantially reduce road deaths. They will optimize to just being slightly better than human, but fail in new and more unexpected ways. There is not enough incentive for them to make it safer.
We can look to other forms of automation to get a sense of what to do. For example, planes largely fly themselves and a loss of life due to manufacturing errors from the manufacturer would deem them liable for those deaths. Seems like the solution here is large penalties and generally broad disincentives for incurring harm.
I also hope AV will reduce road deaths in the future but I don't think what will make the difference is regulatory. Rather the tech will advance from doesn't work to works in Waymos but is expensive to works in most cars and has become cheap.
Adjust the fines such that X is some acceptably large number.
The trickiest part will be figuring out how many dollars per mile driven is an acceptable cost of business..
I'd probably reserve the whole executives to jail thing to cases where you can prove negligence or something.
> What about AV? $10 million? Executives go to jail? What if $10 million fine per X AV miles driven is an OK cost of doing business?
If AVs will save lives, we need to be sure we aren't punitive to the point of making them disappear.
Societies can already reduce road deaths to nearly zero, it's cheap, it's easy, and it's fun. It's just redirecting all of the cash we spend on vehicles/cars/highways/roadways/signs/etc into public infrastructure that is all encompassing.
A hundred billion dollars a year [0] on construction (reading the definition I'm not 100% sure what is included in this due to how definitions can be hazy) has goes a long way, not to mention the amount we spend on gasoline, car maintenance, etc etc.
The reason I say it's fun, is because I love being on a train. First time I was able to ride one, which due to living in the good old USA wasn't until I was 23, I yelled "I'm on a train" . The Germans traveling with me weren't as into it.
[0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TLHWYCONS#
Just because you like trains does not mean that it is actually a solution to everyone’s problem. For example, until proper law-enforcement starts happening on public transit, nobody in my family is allowed to take it in USA (they are allowed to do so in Singapore or Japan)
We can take the LEO's that would have patrolled highways/city streets and have them patrol on public transport, same job just slightly different environment.
Can I ask why you feel that public transit is unsafe in the US?
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 chances of being stabbed inside my car are much lower
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 Iowa, the state I used to live in, around 300 people died every year from driving. I don't know a single one of those people despite their death being a tragedy. Whereas the stories you linked were broadcast coast to coast.
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.
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.
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.
Want to reduce road deaths? Invest in public transportation.
I had to look up a name for this. "Utopian Fallacy."
You don't have to get rid of genuine progress just because your utopian vision has something better. The USA is on the path to autonomous vehicles. They are not on the path to public transportation excellence.
We've had public transportation for a couple of centuries and no where has it really led to a road death free utopia. I like public transport but no harm trying something new.
Yup. Even if "safer per mile", more cars and more miles driven will probably outweigh the benefits. And still be hazardous to cyclists and pedestrians, still make us design stupid cities (built for cars, not people), etc.
Like how electric cars were for saving the car companies, not the planet, autonomous will be the same.
Full liability. It's a machine with predictable performance.
The law applied to humans needs to account for their fallibilities. Not so with a machine.
> cost of doing business?
I hate this part, I don't think it is good for society. I think UPS gets lots and lots of parking tickets, and pays them as COB.
Maybe they should have "fix it" tickets, like they get for a burned-out headlight. Except they need a bug to be opened and fixed.
Simple. Blame the owner of the vehicle. They relied on automation and it failed. They go to jail for negligent homicide (whatever flavor is appropriate). That will tank sales of any AV tech that cannot maintain standards.
People are killed by industrial equipment fairly regularly.
I'd say we actually have a perfectly functional legal framework for all of this, and the real issue is a lot of new people are about to find out it also applies to them as well.
Whether it was working well in the first place is the real question.
Holding executives responsible for actual violence is considered promoting violence on this site and is not allowed. Cue the handwringing and moralizing from the usual suspects.
Now try applying this logic to elevators.
Many things already reduce road deaths and they are infinitely easier to do that driverless cars, namely: viable alternatives to driving! Trains, streetcars, bike lanes, whatever.
The legal entity driving the AV should of course be responsible in the same way as human drivers are.
My understanding is that that is already the legal situation?
> The last hurdle is regulatory
How’d you arrive at this conclusion? Why would fleet providers accept regrettable losses? Wouldn’t the last hurdle be technical?
> The question is how to achieve fairness
What does that have to do with automotive safety?
I think jail time for executives should be table stakes. Another thing would be fines well in excess of $10 million. The fines should be defined as percentages of gross revenue, or maybe even (to target VC-funded operations that operate at a loss) percentages of gross expenses. The penalties should be such that a few crashes can put the company entirely out of business.
> hoping AV will reduce road deaths in the future.
It won't. The majority of fatalities are caused by drugs and alcohol.
> The last hurdle is regulatory.
Indeed. Compare the USAs DUI laws with any other first world country.
Seems good. I'm a big Waymo user (344 rides) and love it, but I think they violate both traffic laws and common-sense courtesies of traffic in ways not captured by safety / crash statistics. Tickets probably are a great signal for ways the model needs to be improved.
For example, every time a Waymo picks me up from my apartment, it blocks a full lane of traffic on an extremely busy street, rather than pulling into a much quieter side street that an Uber driver will always use. I suspect (but have no idea), a lot of these low-level annoyances might be invisible to someone only looking at aggregated crash statistics, ride times, etc.
In many ways, I suspect the AI future might be better in many of the ways we can measure, but worse in those which aren't legible to statistics.
Don't they have 360 video of everything? Maybe they're low priority issues for now but surely those issues cannot be "invisible" because they "aren't legible to statistics."
There's no external public visibility into it, so other than wilbeddow writing on HN, how would anyone else know about this issue? I have the opposite problem, where the Waymo takes the legal option on an unbusy street, making the route a lot longer, rather than making an illegal U-turn that a human driver would do, when there's zero traffic or pedestrians it could remotely possibly run into.
Which is also not captured in the statistics.
I've actually thought of a much more dystopian idea: that Waymos could be technically used as roving traffic cameras, and report on the human drivers around them. They absolutely have strong enough telemetry systems to be able to determine things like excessive speeding, dangerous lane changes, red light running, etc., and their imaging systems could probably pick up a license plate with little additional modification... it's obviously not great from the perspective of general optics and morale, but it would surprise me if no one had floated basically WayNarc as a business model...
I do not live in California and am not up to speed on this issue, but as a casual observer I am shocked that they were allowed on the road without being ticketed for violations like any other vehicle operator.
Any other vehicle operator is also rarely ticketed in California.
Completely agree. How is it possible they issued these permits (years ago it seems) without having this infrastructure in place?
Scooter companies are allowed to violate ada putting the scooters all over the sidewalk where there isn’t 3ft of space to pass them.
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 butter. If AV companies exceed the threshold, then they get fined at first and eventually lose their permit -- but these aren't tickets for individual violations, but rather a yearly fine for going above the yearly threshold.
If the violations are intentional but not easily fixable -- e.g. they're stopping where not allowed because there's no legal place to stop within 15 blocks -- then the laws/regulations are bad, and tickets are essentially an unfair tax. That's the case in my city where moving trucks are essentially illegal, because it's illegal to double-park them, but there's usually no legal parking available within any reasonable distance that movers could carry furniture. So you just know that the cost of moving includes a "tax" of a parking ticket, unfair as it is.
Finally, if the violations are unintentional but happen all the time, the AV company should lose its permit because its software sucks.
I don't see how ticketing AVs for individual violations makes any sense.
EDIT: for those who think I'm letting AV companies get off too easily, it's precisely the opposite. I'm saying that if AV companies are violating traffic rules all the time and can't fix it, they should be banned. Ticketing is not the answer, because ticketing isn't holding these vehicles to a high enough standard. It's letting the companies get off the hook by merely paying occasional tickets instead of improving their software.
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 autonomous vehicles, we already have a compliance system in place....cops. It's not designed for autonomous vehicles, and you are correct that it's not the way you would design it for the ground up for autonomous vehicles, but it's far better to accept the imperfections than to build some new, separate compliance and monitoring system on top of the existing one. The benefits aren't large enough to justify it.
In the far future when the vast majority of vehicles are autonomous? Sure, probably worth scrapping to a new system (by then, my guess is that issues are rare enough to just not have a system at all and just use the legal system in the rare cases of large issues).
Until then, ticketing in the case of traffic violations seems fine and good enough to me.
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
> 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 cost of the fix?
Its an extreme example I know but to just assume they would fix it also assumes they are caught and ticketed 100% of the time.
There are tons of examples of corporate America weighting the pros and cons of things like this.
> 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.
Yes that is in the law.
Fleet reductions, new limitations on operating areas/conditions, fines, permit suspension or revocation
i'd argue Waymo is "1 Driver", and after they get a cumulative 4 points in 1 year, then Waymo would no longer be allowed to drive in the state of California
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 these violations are intentional or not? Tickets are strict liability (you get the ticket if you do it regardless of intent, reasons, etc.) because it is easy to administer.
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.
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 violations.
Obviously, we should also have the option to pull vehicles that are brazenly ignoring the law and just eating the cost of the tickets. Just like we do with drivers who do that. But that should be the second line of defense if regular monetary fines (tickets) fail
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 minor violations to ban someone from driving. But with shared software across a fleet, you can just require the company to fix its driving software directly when possible. Ticketing is actually counterproductive, because it allows these companies to avoid many of these fixes if the tickets are infrequent enough.
> 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.
> 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.
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-read my root comment. I specifically outlined having thresholds for unintentional violations.
Ok, but why are AVs getting a break on the same tickets a human gets no "low frequency threshold" for them to be allowed.
If a AV runs a red light or a stop sign, it should be the same penalty, period.
If AV companies want to avoid the tickets, they can make their claimed superior drivers avoid violating the law.
No, you're missing the point.
If an AV is regularly running red lights or stop signs, it should be a much worse penalty. It shouldn't be permitted to operate at all.
It shouldn't just be given occasional tickets. Tickets are not the right enforcement mechanism.
They should be ticketed and stopped from operating after certain threshold. And tickets should have some reasonable multiplier as they are much more capable paying say at absolute minimum 1000x. Only high enough tickets are efficient against corporations. As their shareholders sadly can not get those tickets.
Let's go down that route. So a corporation pays 1000x of a normal ticket penalty, let's say it operates a humble fleet of 1000 cars.
Do we really want to require this service to be a million times better? This would surely kill more people than the alternative.
I think ticketing is just broken in this context. People don't want tickets, so they take care not to break rules. The same person may do such thing, if they are in a hurry, if they are tired, yadaa yadaa, their economics and, possibly their freedom, are at risk.
None of this applies to a corporation. An AV running a red light is not, ever, "I was tired and nobody is driving at this hour officer", it's systematic. Behavior can be recorded 1 to 1 and optimized, why would we want to depend on specific scenarios in which police seems something happening?
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?
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
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.
Yes, I thought AV by design should not voilate traffic laws.
Traffic has rules, you violate them you get a ticket
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.
>If the violations are intentional and easily fixable, then just pass laws/regulations requiring AV's to follow the law or else cease operations entirely.
I have to stop reading the rest of the comment right there.
If the violations are intentional and easily fixable is an incredibly loaded presumption to start any type of conversation, dialogue, or debate. To the point, asking the question 'how do we qualify intention? How are we measuring difficulty of fix? Costs of payroll, computer, deployment, and potential regression testing? What about the very nature of the context that led up to it? Did an external 3rd party cutoff a robotaxi and require that the robotaxi veer into the oncoming traffic lane, bc sensors indicated it was the best decision to avoid a collision, prioritizing safety and human life over traffic law?
What happens when following traffic law statistically leads to a greater risk of loss of life over violating the law?
I must insist we move the dialogue upstream to reality as-is, and there is plenty to discuss there.
I will in good faith issue a starting point: how should we measure the robotaxi driver license wrt suspension? Do we issue a point system that is averaged across the fleet, e.g. violations/car before suspending all operations until licensure evaluation? Personally I think that is a fair starting point amd am completely open minded to alternative views.
"begin" you mean they haven't been doing that already? That seems wrong
Are they trying to drive safety or revenue? The second order effect people forget about is tickets are a source of revenue for cities and police depts. Surely driverless car companies will absorb a few tickets and fix the issue quickly.
So I do wonder what happens in the future when roads and cars are all automated and city funding from this channel dries up.
Tolls, revenue taxes, ever stricter rules that cause tickets despite technology getting better.
>ever stricter rules that cause tickets despite technology getting better.
That sort of stuff might work on a bunch of peasants since you can screw them individually for small enough amounts it doesn't meet the threshold for political pushback but it won't fly against a few megacorps who do self driving fleets.
Police departments have already moved on from traffic enforcement to civil forfeiture. Like, a decade ago.
I imagine the city funding issue could be solved with some sort of tax to operate within the city, where a couple cents from each mile driven would be paid to the city. Alternatively, a higher cost for registration at the state level.
What I worry more about is a future where private car ownership seems impractical when there is a large fleet of autonomous Ubers out there to handle the day-to-days, which start out cheap. Once society reaches a point of dependence, will there be enough competition to keep the price down, or will we see consumers of the services get squeezed as companies ratchet up prices to increase margins.
Fix the issue quickly, or optimize to the point where revenue gained from breaking the law exceeds the fine. Last I read they were holding steady on "passengers want us to pull into bikelanes to drop-off" in California.
Given the lack of enforcement it must not be true that it’s a source of revenue for the city. I see ticketable violations multiple times a day and zero enforcement
Probably higher city/state taxes. A police officer making over $200k a year with a pension isn’t making most of their salary from traffic tickets.
At the same time, there are not many cops making USD200K per annum in my municipality. And it's in flyover country, where everyone is clamoring for lower taxes. So I think it'd be a bit naive to think politicians wanting to score easy points with voters in cities, and even states, won't take the opportunity to extract a bit of revenue out of Big Tech.
Not saying it's right. Just saying that's how local politics work.
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 understandings" of laws. - A waymo I rode in on a highway was happy to go slightly above the speed limit - It seems at stop signs waymo prefers to be slightly aggressive to make it through rather than follow the letter of the law.
It seems silly that we have to teach robots to break certain laws sometimes but parking in bike lanes / yielding to pedestrians are laws that human drivers break all the time and I hope the mechanisms mentioned in the article prevent us from teaching robots to program anti-social but common behavior.
https://futurism.com/future-society/waymo-bike-lanes-traffic
It's all pretty nuanced. I don't know where to draw a line.
For instance: Busy intersections with 4-way stop signs are an interesting example of how laws don't quite fit.
It's obviously important to get the order right since nobody wants to be in a car crash today. But the law (often -- we've got 50 states worth of driving laws and they aren't all the same) says something very specific and simplistic about the order: First-come, first-served; if order is unclear, yield to the right. Always wait for the intersection to be completely clear before proceeding.
That sounds nice and neat and it looks good on paper. It was surely at least a very easy system to describe and then write down.
But reality is very different: 4 way stops are an elaborate dance of drivers executing moves simultaneously and without conflict. For instance: Two opposite, straight-going cars can proceed concurrently works fine. All 4 directions can turn right, concurrently. Opposing left turns at the same time? Sure! While others are also turning right? Why not.
When there's room for a move and it creates no conflict, then that move works fine.
We all were taught how these intersections are supposed to work, but then reality ultimately shows us how they do work. And the dance works. It's efficient. Nobody gets ticketed for safely dancing that dance. (And broadly-speaking, a timid law-abiding driver who doesn't know the dance will be let through...eventually.)
The main problem with the dance is that it's difficult to adequately describe and write down and thus codify in law.
But maybe we should try, anyway.
The nuance for four-way stops is pretty simple. First come, first serve queue. Except you are allowed to jump out of order if you jumping out of order doesn't slow the people ahead of you down.
You’ve done a great job of explaining exactly how 4 way stops are terrible , and why they should be eliminated.
Only two countries make heavy use of them, so it seems less effort to get rid of them and the AI driverless world will be better without them
What I've described is the reality that I, along with self-driving Waymos in California, exist within.
There isn't a generation alive that didn't grow up with this reality in these places.
---
Now, if you want me to agree that there are much better methods than stop signs to control traffic at intersections, then sure: I can agree with that. Absolutely.
But I'll agree only on one condition: That you cease immediately with all attempts to make perfect be the enemy of good.
> There isn't a generation alive that didn't grow up with this reality in these places.
Less than 5% of the world’s population have to deal with them.
We don’t need to aim anywhere near perfect- good enough would be a vast improvement
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-acquisition issues. In previous discussions, I've heard of such things as "mini roundabouts" that can make that a non-issue, but AFAIK I've never actually seen one with my own eyes, much less driven through one. And while I love roundabouts and understand them well, I keep seeing people screw them up even in places where they've existed for over a decade, now.
I've heard from Norway that painting sharks teeth on the pavement is sufficient (which, I guess, is functionally like a US-centric Yield sign), but that seems like a complete non-starter since that's a completely new construct and continuing-education for licensed drivers is rather completely non-existent.
And Yield signs can work, but they're also unusual so people screw those up, too. I live directly next to a busy intersection that uses a yield sign in an unusual town in Ohio that has several intersections that are controlled by yield signs. Crashes are surprisingly rare, but the cacophony of car horns [even when things are actually flowing properly] is sometimes rather amazing to behold.
But this is a strange and unusual little city, and as far as I can tell, the last time anyone looked at the traffic situation here with a strong engineering mindset was circa 1953. It has clever intersection designs that I've never seen anywhere else (and some of them are good, but many are confusing).
And when an old friend was a driving instructor, he told me that he'd take students through the intersection next to my house to demonstrate that yield signs are things that actually exist, and teach them how to use them. But he didn't get to teach everyone (and has subsequently died).
I've studied thousands of intersections, both by driving for decades and reviewing how they work, and also by having spent way too many hundreds (thousands?) of hours fixing maps on Waze.
So that's a non-exhaustive list of some possible solutions, and some possible detriments, and some background on my perspective.
What do you have for options? Your perspective surely differs from my own.
(And remember, whatever it is: It needs to be able to let a giant US-centric fire truck pass through. Maybe the size of these things isn't really ideal either; maybe smaller trucks would be better. But giant is what we've got right now.)
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.
I read an article a while back that they made Waymo more aggressive, in the ways you mention, because they were quite annoying to other drivers when following the letter of the law. There is something to be said for following the flow of traffic.
I would imagine they would be able to revert back to more strict rule following once autonomous vehicles reach some level of critical mass and human drivers are needing to adapt to the AV traffic, rather than AVs needing to adapt to human traffic.
As a cyclist and driver I figure you have to use some common sense. I probably break some regulations all the time like stopping where you are not supposed to briefly but being safe and not inconveniencing others is the main thing.
I wonder what happens legally if a biker plows into the Waymo, Casey Neistat style.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ
I don't think you are legally allowed to deliberately crash into things even if they are annoying.
The law in that video - ticketing cyclists for not being in the bike lane - surprised me. There's nothing like that in the UK.
It will be an “accident”
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 be picked up at a location that is next to a separated bike lane.
Taxi drivers often intentionally misstate this regulation because it’s more annoying to follow the law and find a legal place to stop so they pretend they are allowed to use bike lanes for any reason.
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.
Woah you're being pretty misleading!
That's for a separated bike lane, and Waymo doesn't even seem capable of doing it: that'd typically involve driving over/between the plastic bollards separating the lane...
Waymo doesn't seem to be willing to drive on the wrong side of bollards and I've never seen a taxi do it either.
-
For non-separated bike lanes it's still a last resort, but it's allowed for all passengers not just the disabled.
> Bicycle Safety
> Passenger Loading: Non-Separated Bike Lanes
> May enter a non-separated bike lane with caution to drop off all customers (disabled and non-disabled) Using bike lanes as an absolutely last resort [emphasis theirs, not mine]
Waymo doesn't seem to do it when there are other options close nearby either, given the gaps in allowed pick up/drop off locations they offer by bike lanes
-
It would seem you're intentionally misstating the situation to villainize the driverless vehicles that otherwise l generally respect riders more than anyone else on the road...
Actually weirdly enough, you had to read what I wrote to post this right?
This is the same training doc you used? https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-docume...
Sperated bike lanes are illustrated and come after what I quoted :/
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.
They haven’t been all this time? Damn — what a time to be a robot
I guess it's like patenents (when it's the same thing but comouter) or piracy (but it's model training at a FAANG), where tech just gets a free pass.
What's gonna really be funny is the first time a state legislates that an AV company has to keep a bug in their software to maintain a municipal income flow.
_begins_? Like, before, they wouldn't get tickets?
Moving violations are issued to the driver, in person, so there hasn't really been a mechanism for issuing them to an operator.
Yes, and there's an example towards the end of the article.
As a Waymo (and other driverless car) supporter, this seems like an obviously good thing, right? I’m a little surprised this wasn’t possible before given the amount of regulatory scrutiny (correctly) applied to these companies.
Archive link in case of random paywalling like I got: https://archive.ph/xHMDO
> As a Waymo (and other driverless car) supporter, this seems like an obviously good thing, right? I’m a little surprised this wasn’t possible before given the amount of regulatory scrutiny (correctly) applied to these companies
Not necessarily. I went into a bit more detail in my own comment but it might be useful to think that when regulations are written keeping in mind multibillion dollar automobile companies, what the effect of those regulations on a person maintaining their own vehicles might be.
Consider that your Waymo got ticketed, but you had flashed it with a "no customer telemetry" firmware. Once Waymo gets the ticket, they flag your car as having "unauthorized" software and now the ball's in your court that the reason why your Waymo got ticketed has nothing to do with the telemetry feature that tells Waymo what radio stations you were listening to.
Also, when regulations are written keeping in mind multibillion dollar automobile companies, the ticket isn't going to cost $500.
I would hope any type of software modification would put more of the responsibility the owner.
I'm of the opinion that if one owns an autonomous vehicle, regardless of software modification or not (which should be allowed), then one is fully responsible for it's actions. If one doesn't trust the software provided by the manufacturer, don't buy/use it. Once one chooses to buy it and operate it, then it's that person.
Possible exceptions would be in the case that, after purchase, the manufacturer pushes a software update that meaningfully changes the behavior in such a way that it causes issues. In that case, both A) the manufacturer should be responsible and B) the owner should have the option to get some kind of compensation.
Yes.
The cars are programmed to intentionally, violate the rules. That’s the only way to drive effectively. Just two examples: gap finding and turning left on a busy intersection.
They should automate the fines by requiring the cars to send the video for processing through an enforcement program. Self-driving, self-ticketing. Maybe that would help force manufacturers to improve quality and not hide as much.
UPDATE (can't respond to the two subcomments below due to post throttling, so I'm updating this comment instead)
> the car is basically a taxi and the taxi service is to blame for any mistakes
@skybrian - Agreed! but if you read the article, the CA DMV is ticketing the manufacturer, not the operator.
None of my concerns hold if the operator was ticketed - infact, existing regulations are set up exactly that way, so no new regulation was even necessary. Something's not adding up.
> Right now, no one can independently own and operate an AV the way Waymo or Tesla does
@ourspacetabs - Sure but the regulation seems to be specifically addressed at the manufacturer, not the operator.
I would have no concern if the regulation was addressed to the operator. The article atleast doesn't imply that's the case.
---
> The state's Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has announced new regulations on autonomous vehicles (AVs), including a process for police to issue a "notice of AV noncompliance" directly to the car's manufacturer.
> Under the new rules, police can cite AV companies when their vehicles commit moving violations. The rules will also require the companies to respond to calls from police and other emergency officials within 30 seconds, and will issue penalties if their vehicles enter active emergency zones.
These are new frontiers in automotive regulation. Typically, if a car failed because of a manufacturer issue, the driver would be ticketed. For example: if Hyundai sold vehicles where the engine would explode around 50k miles and that caused an accident, the driver of the vehicle would be ticketed for it.
Now if we take the human out of it, it is Hyundai that would be ticketed for it. Insurance companies are certainly going to take notice and adjust their risk models accordingly.
I imagine there will be a lot of fingerpointing by the manufacturer towards customers.
In the worst case, this is the end of customers servicing their own autonomous vehicles.
If we imagine that most vehicles in the next 15 years will be autonomous, this would mean customers would have to handle regulation aimed at multibillion dollar companies, if they were to service their own autonomous vehicles, or give up on servicing their own autonomous vehicles entirely and just rent them instead.
Not sure I agree. The clear boundary here to me is who owns and is operating the vehicle. Waymo both owns and operates their vehicles, it’s a taxi service, you wouldn’t say a Waymo rider is operating a vehicle and therefore deserves the ticket. Right now, no one can independently own and operate an AV the way Waymo or Tesla does.
When that happens someday, then the ticket would go to the owner/operator of the vehicle - whoever bought the car. If you get a ticket due to something dumb your personally owned Waymo did, wouldn’t you pursue that case against Waymo separately, the same way you’d pursue Hyundai for selling you a car whose engine blew up after 50k miles?
It seems pretty reasonable to me that when you're not driving, the car is basically a taxi and the taxi service is to blame for any mistakes. The car manufacturer isn't just making cars anymore. It's providing a service.
Perhaps they could sell the car to a different taxi service, though?
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.
That can make sense (opinions differ) for individuals, but it's not like the company is advertising with "we get you there at 1.2x legal speed". They're not competing on that; they're not choosing to do this on purpose like an individual might choose to speed (for example because of economic incentives if their hourly price is high)
If they were, then it makes sense to fine them to some multiple of the benefit they got from this advertising tactic, but as it is, I don't see why it should be different from anyone else's ticket. The company isn't likely to enjoy a flood of this administrative work, besides the cost of the actual fines, so they'll work to minimise them anyway
They may not advertise “getting you there at 1.2x legal speed” but the sooner they drop you off, the sooner they can get another fare. Over a whole fleet it will add up to changing the size of the required fleet.
If getting a ticket one ride in a thousand is cheaper than deploying another 2000 cars to make up for the increased trip time I’d expect them to keep getting tickets.
I’m also not sure they don’t do it on purpose. Tesla self driving has an aggressive mode willing to speed and roll through stop signs. Those were deliberate, law breaking, choices.
Oh, I actually read an article about that this morning in bed but didn't imagine regulators would approve a mode that is programmed to ignore laws. Not sure how it works where you're from but in the Netherlands, where Tesla did the approval process to subsequently apply for an EU license for using the drive assistance mechanism, the regulator "hopes to not need more than a week to approve safety updates. Other updates can take longer". They test every change anew it sounds like, at least at first (there was some talk of relaxing reporting requirements if accident rates are as expected, that is, lower than human drivers when using the presently approved assist methods)
Seems foreign (heh) to me that a regulator would allow software to drive lethal machinery on public roads without checking that it at least stops at a stop sign. Fining them proportional to turnover makes a lot more sense suddenly. Or maybe a competent regulator, like, prevention rather than after the fact action
I think a rich person would then do the rational thing and hire a cheap driver who also owns and operates their car.
Noone sane would be willing to assume basically unlimited liability for someone else's software.
Maybe that's good thing - some work for humans after the robots take over, albeit as human legal shields ;)
> they're not choosing to do this on purpose
So the AV software is so unreliable that it can't adhere to speed limits?
Just like human_brain.exe right? I miss signs, and notice others missing signs, in unfamiliar areas all the time. So why not the same punishment and thus the same incentive not to do that?
A sibling comment mentioned that they did willfully build a variant that breaks laws btw. If there is apparently no regulator that needs to approve what makes it onto the road, I can understand a lot better why people are calling for insurmountable fines such that they have no choice but to remove that. Why not call for adequate approval mechanisms though, looking at other countries' examples where this problem doesn't exist... I dunno
Isn't Norway only for drunk driving? Finland has it for massive speed excesses, but it is based on net taxable income taking out business expenses for taxi drivers, and Waymo is still negative.
If they become profitable you'd want to normalize by number of miles, unless you just want an incentive system to get more people on the road (extra drivers) and increase chance of humans suffering road injuries to boost employment in an internal service sector.
But even then coming out with a more efficient fleet than a competitor for higher margin would be penalized. You'd rather disincentivize skimping on safety for margin and not disincentivize better maintenance and fuel economy.
Agreed. We need to look at reforming fines in general.
Fines should be scaled to income and the value of the vehicle and should exponentially increase for reoffense when in the same catagory of offense.
Assuming you divide it down to the earnings per car, that makes perfect sense. Of course right now they aren't making any profit at all, and by the time it is relevant it is likely that the cars will commit substantially no violations at all.
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?
I think this could be a good compromise. Could have a floor value but the ceiling can vary accordingly.
Laws should be loser for autonomous vehicles with good safety records. No one is protected by preventing waymos from making rolling stops, and driving like a human Uber driver.
How do the police pull over a driverless vehicle? Who hands over the license and registration? How do you get it to sign the ticket?
Dunno what it's like in Cali but in the UK nearly all tickets are generated by automatic cameras and arrive in the post to the registered keeper of the vehicle.
You send robocop.
If the cars can incur liability, manslaughter would be next
But I think the manufacturers should be hold responsible not the customers
That is great, they should also start ticketing human-driven cars that violate traffic laws too!
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.
maybe Tesla can put that weird robot that connects the charging connector to the car to use by building a robot that can give the police a hand to place the ticket into
Why were we not doing this already?
Good luck. This is going to be faceless machine v. faceless machine. I can't think of anything more useless in terms of fixing actual needs of society. In fact, I expect it to lead to shady business. Example: Waymos are all paid up at this intersection so traffic is allowed to safely ignore the rules for this month. Tesla Cybercab is still fighting us, so we continue to ticket them.
This will be just another minor cost of doing business unless they are treated like human drivers in at least two other ways.
1) If theses companies get enough points on their license, their license is revoked. Not just for that vehicle, but for all of their vehicles. (The number of points would need to be adjusted for number of miles driven.)
2) Senior executives could be held criminally liable for vehicular manslaughter the way a normal drivers are. A death doesn't mean someone is going to prison, but their would be a police investigation. If an exec decided to ship a product with a known bug that lead to someone's death it should be treated with the same seriousness as a drunk driver killing someone.
A more pragmatic metric would be comparing deaths/mile for drivered cars against deaths/mile of driverless cars.
Why have they not been doing this already?
It’s about time!
Why was this not already happening?
This is weird
We should start charging them payroll taxes too per hour
I'm honestly surprised they weren't before
seems like real-word RL for AV. why not?
I hope fees increase massively to incentivise change
If there aren't serious consequences for driverless cars committing crimes (I mean jail time for executives serious), what's to stop someone for starting a hitman business?
We'll just run someone over with our "driverless" car and pay a fine - capitalism, baby!
Just now? Why the hell haven’t they all along?
[dead]