Driverless cars swerve traffic tickets in California even if they break the law Driverless cars are not subject to traffic citations in California even if they break the state's laws as they stand. Unlike human motorists, autonomous cars cannot be punished for violating traffic laws while cruising around California. Police in San Francisco were told that "no citation for a moving violation can be issued …
In the US at least, Corporations are legally considered people ever since the idiotic Citizens United case, so why can't the corporation be cited as the owner of the car? They're the ones employing the programmers who are effectively the driver, since they're coding the logic the car uses.
It's the company board that are assuring regulatory agencies that the software is safe for the use case. The board takes home the big bucks because they're exposed to the risk of getting that wrong. Or at least that's how it should be. Programmers are just providing the code and trying to make it work - putting assurance on the resulting product requires more than just what they can provide alone (QA, unit testing, real world compliance testing yadda yadda yadda).
In reality the board are the ones who take home the big bucks because they have the power to make decisions on who gets the big bucks. They're also the ones who get to decide which programmer/tester/middle manager gets scapegoated when something goes wrong. Or at least that's what happens if the regulatory agencies only specify that punishment lands at the company level, rather than anything more specific.
"The driver is the company board."
There, fixed that for you.
In the absence of an actual driver, the company should assume responsibility as it's their creation that is physically in control of the vehicle. How that gets handled internally (board, CEO, programmer, minimum wage bog scrubber...) is irrelevant.
The text of the Arizona statute mentioned in TFA suggests that the state has decided whom to blame, based on some attestation required to make it legal to operate a particular AV on public roads: "the person who submits the written statement for the fully autonomous vehicle". It's not clear to me from the article what this "written statement" entails, and I can't be bothered to look up the Arizona law, but that 1) seems fairly clear — someone's signature is on the line — and 2) is an interesting assignment of liability.
I'd expect whoever lets his or her signature go on those documents is going to want some pretty strong indemnification from the company. And it had better not lapse if that person leaves the company.
"California, uncharacteristically, lags behind and hasn't updated their laws yet."
A Governor of California signed a law that allowed autonomous vehicles to roam at will before any framework was able to be put into place regarding liability, traffic tickets, etc. A typical Democrat move from somebody with no background or understanding of technology. The narrative sounded great and the CGI from the vendors would have been top notch, I'm sure.
I suspect it's more a local culture thing rather than what colour the current ruling party is. Considering Trump and the Reps current reputation for abolishing and abusing regulations in favour of industry, I'm more surprised that Texas has actually got those laws in place already. Laws which "hamper business" and "stifle innovation" is exactly the position most Reps blame on the Dems so I would suggest that you bringing politics into it and blaming "Dems" is just plain wrong. Now if you'd just said "politicians" instead, I'd probably have agreed with you :-)
You're correct that corporations are people, but for reasons that pre-date Citizens United (2010); all that case did was assert that _because_ corporations are people, _then_ they have the same free speech rights as human, specifically with regard to election funding (I agree that it was idiotic, as non-US-citizens are also people, but can't fund US election campaigns).
The case that concludes that corporate personhood was a thing was an earlier case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. At the time, Southern Pacific was controlled by a group of four businessmen: Charles Crocker (of Crocker Bank and Wells Fargo notoriety), Leland Stanford (founded a university), Mark Hopkins (after whom the San Francisco hotel is named), and Collis Huntington (uncle of the guy whose name is on the Huntington Collection in San Marino, CA). Collectively these four were known as the "Big Four"... of the Robber Barons.
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company was decided in 1886 (118 U.S. 394, 396).
">as non-US-citizens are also people
The supreme court and 80M voters might not take that as axiomatic"
Not quite that simple - to quote from Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
" No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"all that case did was assert that _because_ corporations are people, _then_ they have the same free speech rights as human, specifically with regard to election funding (I agree that it was idiotic, as non-US-citizens are also people, but can't fund US election campaigns)."
By stretching the logic just a little further, that sounds like corporations are not just "people" but "citizens" too. Sadly they don't seem to be held to the same account as either "people" or "citizens". Once they get defined as citizens, they'll also be allowed to vote. Which then opens the can or worms as to how much a large corporations vote is worth compared to the average Joe. That could lead a real dystopia (well, more so than the US is already living through). ;-)
The case that concludes that corporate personhood was a thing was an earlier case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company
Santa Clara extended the Equal Protection Clause to corporations,1 but as I noted above, the concept of corporate personhood is centuries older than it. It goes back at least to 1270 and the reconceptualization of the university as a taxable organization, but the roots are much older, reaching back to Roman law and the Greek concept of the persona.
It's an old idea.
1It actually did so in a headnote, not part of the official decision, so it wasn't even precedential. But lower courts and subsequent cases treated it as if it were.
ever since the idiotic Citizens United case
Sigh. Corporate personhood in European and European-derived legislation and jurisprudence dates back to medieval times, and while it has expanded greatly in the US over the past century or so, Citizens United very much did not originate corporate personhood. Nothing is gained by pretending otherwise. In particular, that error misplaces emphasis on a single, already-decided case rather than on a wide range of case law and ongoing legislation and jurisprudence.
Fight today's battles, not yesterday's.
The corporations == people thing is interesting. If a person acts negligently and it results in the death of another person, that person can be prosecuted and imprisoned. If a corporation acts negligently and that results in the death of a person, well they might have to pay a small fine.
Also, the saying "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one"
How can I be breaking the law? This bicycle and the octopus on the back seat are at a depot in orbit around Ganymede. My programmed destination is the sub-basement of The Ice Palace on
Highway 95 in Ushuaia, Belgium. We are awaiting our full complement of lemon-soaked napkins. Oink.
You'd need an operational definition of "know" to answer that question.
An AV certainly can maintain information about its legal status and the legal status of its current operation, to the extent that it has accurate information on what it's doing, what's in its immediate environment, and what laws apply.
1. Don’t issue any autonomous driving licences/permissions *before* (Duh! Too late!)
(a) legislating for 1000x fines for the manufacturer if the car is at fault and
(b) requiring that the car securely logs data relating to the involvement of autonomous modes and human input and makes it directly available to cops/judges/etc without it going via the manufacturer.
2. Driver gets to blame the car but this has to be supported by the logs. Fine manufacturer or driver.
3. …
4. Profit!
Would be a good way to crush the emerging industry.
We should have done the same with airlines in the 1950s - fining the aircraft manufacturers $bn for each death
That way we would have high speed public transport, except we wouldn't have trains or subways cos we would have fined them all $M/death in C19
Bicycle manufacturers should be responsible for any accident where the bike's engineering doesn't perfectly protect the rider
Horses of course are a massive pollution hazard that would give the EPA and NIH the vapours
> Put a light on the back or top of the car that is lit anytime it's in autonomous mode
Mercedes are starting to do that:
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.automotivedive.com/news/mercedes-benz-drive-pilot-torquise-colored-lights-autonomous-driving/703245/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwj46ePv58GDAxUXl4kEHSalBkcQFnoECAAQAg&usg=AOvVaw0NRViaa4FJvNXq4jTa03rP
"(b) requiring that the car securely logs data relating to the involvement of autonomous modes and human input and makes it directly available to cops/judges/etc without it going via the manufacturer."
The first part of that is already done. The manufactures/operators want every last little byte and bit of data they can. But as we saw with the Cruise accident, they don't want to hand it over unless forced to, and even then, they try to only follow the precise letter of the subpoena, no more and no less. Companies might be "people", but they are sociopaths with no morals.
When the letter drops on your doormat and you as the registered owner have to identify either yourself or someone else as the driver, include the manufacturer as a third option and they get fined instead. That'll be an incentive to improve mapping data.
Just before posting I did a quick check and it seems that the registered owner is always fined no matter who the driver is in California and probably the whole of the US. Madness.
IIRC (it has been a while since I've seen one of these letters from the plod), the registered keeper is sent a letter with words to the effect of "this offence was committed on x date at y time, if you were not the driver at the time, please provide us with details of who was, otherwise you are liable".
I had one of these a few years back because an insurance scammer was trying to get my details from the plod when I didn't give them my name and address when they claimed (wrongly) that I had driven into them in a car park. I (correctly) told the aggressive scammer at the time, that they had my registration number, which is all an insurance claim requires. I suspect they were trying to engage me in a "settle out of court for repairs" scam where they send official-looking letters to your address, or phone you badgering you for money.
In the end, I was contacted by plod because the scammers were claiming that I had failed to stop at an accident, or provide details, although they had my registration, and apparently didn't want to make a claim against my insurance. The whole matter was settled when I provided the police with pictures of my undamaged car, and reiterated that they had my reg, which is what they need to make a claim, via their insurer (all insurance companies share details with each other about which vehicle is insured with whom). From what I can gather, the scammers were chancing their arm with the plod in order to try to get my full name, address, and phone number, which they agreed I did not have to provide.
In any case, the first communication I got was a letter from Thames Valley Police with a notification of intention to prosecute (!) and a poor photocopy of a form which I had to fill in to say either I was the driver at the time, or to provide details of who was.
Technically, you have to give them your name, registration, and, only if you are not the registered keeper of the car, your address. I am the registered keeper of the car, so didn't have to (and refused to) provide my address to the scammer. I'm glad I didn't, because their aggressive demeanour almost certainly meant that I would get bombarded by fake legal letters demanding money.
Also, you know, if no collision has occurred (in this case, it was a very near miss, because the scammer was using a vehicle deliberately parked right to the edge of a small parking space), you don't have to provide anything at all.
There were a number of things that were "hinky" about this scam; firstly the person who approached me after parking claimed to be "a friend" of the driver of the other car; secondly, my wife heard him, and his companion, laughing as we walked away, and thirdly, the way they came chasing after me and tried to block our exit, when we went to leave some minutes later (we'd stopped at motorway services to use the toilets), but the actual owner of the car next to us was nowhere to be seen. Finally, my wife (who was sat on the passenger side of the car, where the collision allegedly occurred) actually works for the police, and is aware of such scams.
I provided him with all the required details, ensured that he had taken a picture of my registration plate, and then when the letter came from the police (six months later!) I double checked the authenticity (as I said, it was a shitty photocopy which itself looked dodgy), and then phoned my insurance company to ask if any claim had been made against my policy, which it hadn't. Again, dodgy, because if someone drives into you and damages your car, the first thing you'd do is claim against their insurance.
There were so many warning signs, that there was no way I was giving this guy my address, let alone my phone number, and the copper I spoke to when the whole things was sorted out agreed with this assessment.
《UK law makes it perfectly clear 》
Pretty much the same in AU at least in one state.
Here there isn't the concept of a vehicle's keeper distinct from the vehicle's owner.
If you are the owner you are responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle and presumably culpable for any unsafe operation. Automatic speeding tickets etc and consequent demerit points go to the registered owner who can deflect the demerit points by nominating the actual driver.
As far I can see your flipping the automatic driving switch doesn't remove your responsibility for the vehicle's safe operation.
A taxi like service is analogous to a rental car - as the hirer you are still responsible even if its the rental company seeking to recover the traffic fines.
Omnibus type services where the "omni" is the crucial distinction would place the responsibility squarely and reasonably on the service operator.
A minibus type hire for a hens' party(say) discards the "omni" distinction so I imagine the passengers jointly (severally?) bearing a collective responsibility but I leave that to the judiciary.
More curiously I would ponder the responsiblity of intoxicated person(s) in an automated vehicle in each of these and other cases.
Outside the "home of the free" I suspect the legal aspects of the operation of these vehicles aren't that imponderable.
That's probably for speeding cameras or red-light cameras, cases where the driver is not pulled over by an officer. How would a camera know who was driving? But if the vehicle is pulled over by an officer, the officer can fine the driver, not the owner, as they're checking the driver's license.
German speed cameras take the photo from the front of the car with the driver visible. For some legal reason a photo of eg the back of the car would be insufficient.
So if you’re speeding, it is recommended that you bury your face in your passenger’s lap while doing so.
"the registered owner is always fined no matter who the driver is"
Same in France. It led to an interesting discussion with a traffic cop (routine stop, nothing bad) because I bought the car as I'm employed (my mother was retired at the time) but she was the driver as I don't have a licence. Which means if she's caught speeding, for example, then I'll have to pay a fine but she won't get points on her licence unless I specifically register an objection and drop her in it. Not that this was ever an issue, she was a much more sedate driver than the locals (who would often interpret the 80 sign as "under 100 is okay").
"Madness."
I'm guessing it is for simplicity assuming the owner is the driver unless they can demonstrate otherwise?
This post has been deleted by its author
"Technology evolves rapidly and, at times, faster than legislation or regulations can adapt to the changes,"
What sort of excuse is that? AFAIK the operators have to have special permission to put them on the roads. This is something that should have been sorted out before that permission was granted. Maybe it is if trouble is taken to read the small print of the permit.
"What sort of excuse is that?"
The right one. The one that should be taught in school. The one that should be tattooed on every authoritarian wannabe Kim Jong Stalin. Actually it could do with a little modification-
"Life evolves rapidly and, at times, faster than legislation or regulations can adapt to the changes,".
As much as we like to think we are clever enough to make rules for everything and be in control of everything we aint and we cant. The stricter we are with the rules the further we lag behind as the world moves on without us.
You're not actually wrong about legislation always lagging behind, but the point still stands that liability for breaches of the law (or for accidents) caused by autonomous vehicles should have been addressed before unleashing the damn things on the road. We already do this for human drivers - they take a driving test to check that they're competent and then they're held fully accountable legally for what they do afterwards. Manufacturers have done lots of autonomous vehicle testing but appear to have forgotten the second bit completely. This can't be attributed to forgetfulness, it's deliberate avoidance of accountability by manufacturers combined with complicity from governments. And it's the consumer being left carrying the can.
Can you imagine the regulatory hurdles you'd have to face if you wanted to give your dog control of a motor vehicle on the road? Do you think they'd give you a pass on that if the dog then did something illegal? Just because it's a computer instead doesn't make it magically safer or infer special immunity from prosecution.
Not only that, but autonomous vehicles and generally computer controlled vehicles have been roaming around factories and warehouse for quite some time now. If there's a work place accident, the company/owners/operators are on the hook for the compensation and fines. It could be argued that the "work place" is the public road network for self-driving cars :-)
Yes, I know this is the USA we are talking about and workplace health and safety is just some sort of commie conspiracy to increase business costs and make them less competitive (and yes, YMMV depending which State you are in) :-)
"Which party pays the fine if a self-driving car breaks the highway code" is probably the next question everyone would think of after thinking of "Which party pays damages if a self-driving car is involved in an accident" first. Neither seem to be questions which require galaxy brains to think of and neither appear to be authoritarian or interfere with the glorious free market since we already ask these questions over the past 100-odd years of automotive history.
In this case I'm quite happy for the rest of the world to move on without asking those questions if it wants to. Their beta testing should be quite instructive for everyone else.
@Dan 55
"is probably the next question everyone would think of after thinking of"
And there is the problem, who is there to think about it? If the rules are so tight that a self driving car isnt covered by them (that isnt blame) but the world moves on to have self driving cars, who is there to think about it and apply it to law? And there are thousands of laws with the world moving in billions upon billions of ways in mere moments that it really is extremely possible for rules to fall behind reality. I am just pointing out it is easy enough to happen
Isn't this a problem for the risk appetite of the policy makers? - and the public as a result?
Cars - in Europe - need to be NCAP tested before launch. So we know that a new car has a certain level of safety before it hits the market. So, no Cybertruck for us. Americans launch first then test - so they can buy a Cybertruck and enjoy how the lack of crumple zones means that the fleshy occupants of the interior are damaged more by an impact than in most vehicles of the last 20 years.
With drugs testing its the opposite way around - specifically since Thalidomide and effects of that. (It wasn't approved in USA, so no victims there).
All new vehicles should be fully tested before launch into the consumer market - including passing a driving test in autonomous mode if that mode is going to be used in that country.
If the reality is nobody's responsible for self-driving cars breaking the highway code or causing accidents which kill people, or the person responsible is sat behind the steering wheel but wasn't actually driving, then the law needs to be updated. Pretty obvious I would have thought.
@Dan 55
"If the reality is nobody's responsible for self-driving cars breaking the highway code or causing accidents which kill people, or the person responsible is sat behind the steering wheel but wasn't actually driving, then the law needs to be updated. Pretty obvious I would have thought."
I dont disagree and to me it would make sense to me too that the person behind the wheel would be to blame. The simple fact as much as I get downvoted for it is that laws are slower than reality. It doesnt matter how easy or obvious a solution may seem, the law has to catch up.
it would make sense to me too that the person behind the wheel would be to blame.
The person behind the wheel cannot morally be responsible if the Tesla they are in is self-driving and decides to crash or break the speed limit. If the law says the driver is responsible then it needs to be updated. Likewise if the law protects Tesla the corporation when its cars crash or break the speed limit then it also needs to be updated.
California just chose to update the law to protect car manufacturers from the consequences of their bad software which was the wrong decision.
I'm not sure I agree with your comments re Tesla, assuming you're talking about Tesla as it is currently, since Tesla require that the driver is always technicall in control and should have their hands on the wheel when in motion, even having a warning system of sorts if you take your hands off the wheel. Drivers who choose to ignore that and/or defeat the warning systems are fully responsible for their actions. (lets assume a "perfect" world and not get into the arguments about misleading advertising and the perceptions that Tesla have helped reinforce in their customers.)
I think the discussion of laws catching up to technology is talking about fully autonomous self-driving, not the poor excuse that Tesla is currently using.
@Dan 55
"The person behind the wheel cannot morally be responsible if the Tesla they are in is self-driving and decides to crash or break the speed limit. If the law says the driver is responsible then it needs to be updated. Likewise if the law protects Tesla the corporation when its cars crash or break the speed limit then it also needs to be updated."
Does the person not override the car by taking action (fairly sure the answer is still yes). So unless a fault of the car (e.g. accelerator being stuck for non-autonomous) for not letting the user take over then the driver is the one in the drivers seat. If the car starts speeding they are the one with the brake pedal and the responsibility to use it. If the car makes a dangerous manoeuvre it is the person behind the wheel with the responsibility to take over. Just because cars can travel over 70mph does not mean ford gets the ticket, the driver does for speeding.
IIRC,. UK law, at least, refers to the driver or operator of the vehicle. I don't think it specifies that said driver or operator is human. Caveat: IANAL. As the UK legal system is based on case law, we'll probably have to wait and see what happens when the first serious accident or offence happens but I suspect judges may well declare who the responsible operator is, or at least I hope so.
Where I live, owner is liable if operator cannot be identified. And that has nothing to do with driverless cars, it's to catch people and companies who were protecting the true driver. What is the explanation for California not having something similar?
... and in the event that the registered keeper (UK) or owner (US) declares the driver to be "the self driving software" then that should be the party that is liable (fines, making the company boss liable for jail time etc)
This will do two things :-
1) make more sense of current rules and regulations without them sinking in a mire of political poop and
2) make self-driver software companies log what they are doing to demonstrate the infallibility of their systems.
All that would then be required is to implement a general limit as to how many independent incidents are required before that software has to be recalled/withdrawn and be recertified for road use.
In Germany, you do that once and then you are ordered to carry a logbook where every journey is recorded with the name of the driver. Not filling it out is an offence itself. And not having filled out the name of a driver who does another offence is serious trouble.
IIRC, that was (is?) true for carriage/coach drivers back in the horse drawn era, ie out of sight of the passengers.
More recently, there was a case of someone urinating being fined for "littering" LOL, you couldn't make it up.
Ah, here it is :-)
..at least in San Francisco. Other cities much less so.
Lets see if SF cyclists can take a joke.
My guess is this article was written by A) someone who has never had a California drivers license; B) never had a California traffic stop; C) has absolutely no idea how the CVC's work in California.
These
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTOCSelected.xhtml?tocCode=VEH&tocTitle=+Vehicle+Code+-+VEH
So when the moving violation / CVC infraction does not involve an actual traffic stop the ticket is attached to the VIN of the vehicle with the current license plate recorder in the ticket citation. A notice of the citation to be mailed to the current address of the registered owner of the vehicle. Dont pay the ticket then the ticket amount plus penalties become due when the annual registration has to be renewed. So in the annual renewal notice for your car tab will be a large surprise which will have to be paid before the tab will be issued. No annual tab sticker on your license plate, a whole new set of tickets.
And thats how it actually works in California. No matter who is or is n't driving the vehicle. The fines gets attached to the vehicle and the vehicle owner. This includes parking tickets etc.. And this is why you always keep proof of payment of all parking tickets etc. Because cities like SF are notoriously incompetent when it comes to this stuff. Large penalties added to DMV renewal for ticket paid long ago. Luckily, despite its reputation, the DMV is far more competent that the SFMTA. In fact in many decades always had a good experience with the DMV. Now the SFMTA, thats a very different matter.
To the down voter, were you cycling in SF in the 1980's? I was. And for several decades after. Although cycling up in Marin was always more pleasant. Highly recommended. The original home of mountain biking. Some great trails around Mt Tam.
As for the rest thats exactly how it has worked in California since I got my first CA drivers license. Back in mid 1980's. My first car was a Volvo wagon. So I could throw my bike in the back.
Some of us old timer cyclists do have a sense of humor you know
In the UK, it’s the driver and the insurance company that pay fines and damages. In case of a parked car, the “driver” is the one who parked it there. In case of a fully automatic car, the “driver” is the person who sent it on its way.
If I drive to pick up my kids from school, I’m responsible for the driving. If I send my fully automatic car to pick up the kids from school, I should be just as responsible. If a manufacturer tries to sell cars that get tickets all the time, people won’t buy them. Too many tickets, and you lose your driving license, and using your self driving car would be driving without a license. If your car has too many accidents, your insurance premiums go up. Just let capitalism solve the problem.
Who is the driver of the autonomous vehicle?
The fare who caught the cab?
In that case, nobody will ever ride an autonomous taxi, and the technology dies instantly.
Some poor sod who the company told to sit behind the console and told them to do something no human will ever be capable of doing, and take over in a tenth of a second to avoid a collision?
After the first minimum wage person takes the fall, they will all quit. And the technology dies instantly.
The only way this technology can survive in the real world is if the manufacturer of the system is the driver, and is liable for everything other than maintenance.
"Some poor sod who the company told to sit behind the console and told them to do something no human will ever be capable of doing, and take over in a tenth of a second to avoid a collision?"
It is an impossible task. It's made even more impossible by the "driver" not making sure they have options on a continuous basis.
One of my jobs is architectural photography. When I know that the client wants virtual staging of a vacant interior, I make photos that will make that process straightforward. I'm "shooting for the edit". When I'm driving, I'm setting speeds and distances based on numerous factors so I can avoid getting in an accident and where I have known maneuvers to keep myself out of trouble should something happen. There's little chance I'd do very well if I was handed a situation cold where I needed to make an instant decision to prevent getting in an accident. Either FSD is bullet-proof or it's useless. Even the silly 'lane-keeping' stuff is to me just more things to go wrong with the car. I don't have issues keeping my car in its lane. If I did have a problem with that, it's time to get food, sleep or clear my head by taking a short break.
I don't know, did you read my post. The bit where I mentioned automatic driverless vehicles owned by a corporation. You know, ones without a driver. Good luck sending that summons in the post to NULL or to a corporation. Enlighten me, how does one imprison a corporation?
Oh, ok, they just have to worry about the damages then, so the only calculation they need to do is:
while (profit - (cost_of_running_over_a_pedestrian * frequency_of_running_over_a_pedestrian) > 0) profit();
Capitalism! Yay!
"Capitalism! Yay!"
It's a perversion of capitalism. You could rewrite your snippet to replace "capitalism" with "communism", "religion" or anything you like if you put the definition on the rack and give the wheel a couple of turns. What your code does point out is there there needs to be personal liability imposed on C-Level execs if they have taken the position that running over any peds is acceptable.
There was a concert venue built near to where I lived when I was young. It was near a lot of residential housing so there were sound level ordinances and fines for concerts that were too loud. The idiots that wrote the laws put a cap on the fines so when bands such as Motorhead came to town, they built that maximum fine into the ticket prices and turned it up to 11. If there was any insulation between the corporate execs and some dastardly deed they'd otherwise just write off as a cost of doing business, you'd still have capitalism, but with some better negative feedback.
It's only a perversion of capitalism in the sense that this is what capitalism tends towards with no regulation. If the cost of doing business is lower than the money that can be made from doing it, and there is nothing to stop it happening, somebody will do it.
The problem is lack of regulation; if corporations are people, then they should face consequences for bad behaviour like people; the problem is that they are not bound by the same moral codes, or consequences, as natural people, so regulation is required to impose human ethics upon them. Bear in mind, as well, that many actual people in high positions in the business world are pretty obvious sociopaths, if not psychopaths, and the need for strict regulation, to favour people over corporations becomes more apparent. Sadly, the current direction of movement is in the opposite direction, which is why we have things like job insecurity, real-terms pay degradation, and ever increasing massive profits for corporate shareholders.
Now, of course, human nature means that any political system is open to exploitation, but this only highlights the point more: regulation is needed.
No, I am saying that the liability is generally limited in a way that it isn't for people.
If a person kills someone, there is clear liability, and the end result is usually imprisonment.
If someone dies as the result of corporate actions, it can be a whole lot muddier, and the result is often a large fine, with no individual held responsible. Corporations can, therefore, take the cost of human lives as a cost of doing business, as long as the company executives are good enough at covering their tracks so as to make it impossible to determine who is responsible.
Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.-Edward Norton, Fight Club
If I send my fully automatic car to pick up the kids from school, I should be just as responsible.
If I am fortunate enough to be able to employ a chauffeur go pick up my kids I don't see why I should be responsible for the crimes they choose to indulge in while doing that.
Regardless of whether my chauffeur is a sack of meat or a box of electronics.
. If a manufacturer tries to sell cars that get tickets all the time, people won’t buy them. ......Just let capitalism solve the problem.
That kind of unfettered capitalism is whats wrong with the world (as your first reply noted - cheapest solution regardless of ethics), whilst still being the best system we can come up with .
it needs more fettering , not less . We already have some :
Why do you think we have ISO standards for products?
and "fit for purpose" laws
Some time ago the US went through some rounds of decommissioning military bases. These bases had/have a variety of "neighborhoods" that are no different than that of any medium size town. They'd make very good locations to hold autonomous trials where companies can submit the vehicles to be tested by an independent lab such as Underwriter's Laboratory or a similar firm. The test tracks could mimic typical driving and the course altered at random so companies can't build a vehicle specifically for those courses.
In the 2023 3Q earnings call, Elon came right out and said that FSD wasn't being developed in countries outside the US due to the requirement to have prior permission to test on public roads, unlike in the US. I expect those permissions would only come after vehicles passed some closed course testing/demonstrations.
It makes me want to rent a tractor and push an earthen berm around my property as a defense against rouge autonomous vehicles.
I dont know how it is in your neck of the woods (assuming you are in the US) but in places like the Bay Area all the decommissioned bases (except for the great Alameda NAS fiasco) were redeveloped decades ago. So the runway were I used to watch C17's do touch and goes at Hamilton AFB is now covered in condos. And so on.
As for why these very dangerous vehicles are on the streets thats simple. The VC's bough off the state regulators. If you dont know what 2/20 is then you dont know how that game works. California has a huge Progressive Era state regulatory apparatus which means Regulatory Capture by deep pockets Big Business is very easy to do so consumers / ordinary people have less effective legal protection than even South Dakota. The PUC and CARB being the poster children for this institutional corruption.
"I dont know how it is in your neck of the woods (assuming you are in the US) but in places like the Bay Area all the decommissioned bases (except for the great Alameda NAS fiasco) were redeveloped decades ago."
Many have be bulldozed flat and redeveloped, but there are still some that haven't. One, maybe two sites are all that is really needed for qualification so something could be found without too much trouble. Since military bases are small cities, they'd be easy to convert to a test track. A company could even use one as a filming location too.
"San Francisco is at the forefront of self-driving car technologies and the city was the first in the US to approve commercial rides for Cruise's robo-taxi service back in June. "
This tripe posted once again on the register ! This is one site where I would hope the writers would check a few of their "facts" instead of mindlessly parroting them. It was the *state* that forced these automated demolition derbys on SF. The city has been adamantly opposed to allowing them due to all the safety issues.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
