6 ms·

I remain confused on how these cars are allowed on the road. Did they pass a driver's license check? Who's responsible? Who gets the ticket? In this instance, y

by bmitc 5y ago

I remain confused on how these cars are allowed on the road. Did they pass a driver's license check? Who's responsible? Who gets the ticket? In this instance, you can see that the car performed a dangerous maneuver by running from the cops, with its lights still off, and crossing an intersection, which is then spun by the company as finding a "safer" spot to pull over at. Even though, it found a spot essentially identical to where it was. It also took off pretty fast.

howunpleasant 5y ago
> Did they pass a driver's license check? No > Who's responsible? Cruise and their insurance
- sandworm101 5y ago
  Insurance doesnt pay for crimes. You cannot buy "speeding insurance" to pay your traffic tickets anymore than you can hire someone else to go to jail for you.
  - dghughes 5y ago
    >"...anymore than you can hire someone else to go to jail for you." * * unless you're rich
  - kevingadd 5y ago
    The company probably has various kinds of liability insurance that would cover things like lawyer's fees
eru 5y ago
There's laws and regulations for this kind of stuff, and you need to get a permit. Details depend on location / jurisdiction. Some Googling brought up eg https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/autonomous-vehicles/ https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/auto...
makeitdouble 5y ago
In case no one is specifically identified for the infraction, doesn't it come back to the car owner ? Not in the US, but that's how it would work here for illegal parking or if the driver fled from the cops and the car is never found for instance. Even if the owner doesn't own a driving license, that's just where the buck stops. The owner if of course free to try to shove it somewhere else, but that's on them to make it work.
- brigade 5y ago
  Parking citations attach to the car (as does civil collision liability generally), but moving violations can only be levied against the driver. Which is how some red light camera fines are avoided, if the driver isn’t clearly identifiable by the camera.
  - gambiting 5y ago
    Here in UK it's always the owner of the car who is responsible, unless they can say who was driving the car at the time. If they can't then the fine defaults to them - the assumption being that they are responsible for knowing who is using their vehicle. In other countries with similar laws(Poland) it has been argued in front of court that it cannot be the owner's responsibility to know who is driving their car at any given point especially if there are multiple people who do that usually - it should be the police's job to establish who they are fining.
    - rvnx 5y ago
      It's quite logic and an easy rule to take responsible the driver no matter whether they have a driver assist feature on or not. Then the driver could sue the manufacturer for any defect or if the manufacturer misled the user into thinking the system was safe and didn't need human attention. This way, if a system is unreliable, users will start blaming the system and stop using the feature or buying this car. Also, it allows manufacturers to roll-out features faster and learn faster from the real world. If the manufacturer is directly responsible when driver assist features are engaged, but not the driver, then the manufacturer will get scared to roll anything, and progress will be much slower, and there will be more victims because the drivers think "I don't care, I'm not responsible, it's even better if the auto mode is on, even if less safe, cause I won't be responsible"
logifail 5y ago
> Did they pass a driver's license check? Thought experiment: imagine a particular self-driving algo were to do something that would warrant a human driver getting their driving licence suspended, would that mean all the cars with that same algo would be simultanously suspended, or just that one car?
- alisonkisk 5y ago
- qayxc 5y ago
  That is a very intriguing scenario indeed. Due to the non-deterministic nature of many self-driving systems, I'd reckon a broader investigation would have to follow. Should that investigation reveal a reproducible behaviour, a recall or general suspension of vehicles running that particular software version would seem like a reasonable response. Otherwise suspending just that one car could be an option. It's uncharted territory both in terms of the legal system and w.r.t accountability so I guess no one has an answer to that yet.
  - pxmpxm 5y ago
    How is it non-deterministic? If you run the same trained model on the same input data, you should arrive at the exactly identical output.
    - qayxc 5y ago
      > How is it non-deterministic? It's non-deterministic in a practical sense; you cannot reproduce the exact circumstances that caused a certain behaviour. Maybe a bug flew by one of the cameras at a certain moment, or a pedestrian with certain type of clothing passed by. You get the idea.
      - eru 5y ago
        Depends. In principle you can log exactly what data the camera sends to the decision making unit. And you could replay that data. The camera itself might not be deterministic enough to reproduce the same data with the same beetle, but replaying the log should work. (Keep the log in a 'black box' on the car, and perhaps only keep the last x hours of data, if necessary.) I think Waymo already does something like these kinds of replays.
sjmulder 5y ago
What worries me a little bit is how this can shift blame further on other (more vulnerable) road users once such vehicles become more common, solidifying even stronger the notion that roads are for motor vehicles and for motor vehicles alone.
- eru 5y ago
  I'd say actually less so. As a pedestrian I'd be much more confident stepping in front of a self-driving car, than stepping in front of a human-driven car. So much so, that I've read about people's fears that self-driving cars will be subject to bullying by pedestrians (and other drivers).
  - bmitc 5y ago
    > As a pedestrian I'd be much more confident stepping in front of a self-driving car, than stepping in front of a human-driven car. Why?
    - eru 5y ago
      Because self-driving cars don't get distracted or tired, and they don't get angry either.
ShakataGaNai 5y ago
> Did they pass a driver's license check? Yes. That would be the AV permit that the cars operate under. Also as they are programmed to obey all road laws, it's exceedingly unlikely they will cause any moving infractions. > Who's responsible? Who gets the ticket? Cruise. Their name is on the AV permit, it's their insurance. > spot essentially identical to where it was. Before it was in a lane of traffic next to a parklet, after it was pulled over partially into what looks to be a parking spot. The SFPD officer also was no longer next to the vehicle. > how these cars are allowed on the road At the end of the day the argument is that these cars are safer than the average driver. Having spent a lot of time in SF, I've seen a lot of these cruise vehicles moving about. I remember watching them in the early days in the Dogpatch, when an errant cone would end up with them being stuck until manual action was taken. Slowly they got better and smarter. Yes, it's a hard transitional time. Mistakes may happen, but the same is true for humans. And not all AV technology is the same. Cruise has limited itself a great deal so it doesn't try to take on the entire world at the same time. Just the streets of SF, which are hard enough. How many Cruise traffic accidents have you read about? How many people injured or killed?
- dogman144 5y ago
  Isn't OP about a moving infraction it caused, despite its programming? Arguing the probabilities of an outcome is an engineering-centric approach to selling these cars to the public, and it doesn't land well IMO/in this thread from others. It makes a false equivalence b/t how we value human agency's role in outcomes, and something other-than-human. Most people seem to prefer the risk outcomes of something I decided, vs. a faceless control system.
- bmitc 5y ago
  Where do I apply for a permit to reassign culpability for my driving to a corporation? > At the end of the day the argument is that these cars are safer than the average driver. The last data I saw said otherwise, and that data was primarily collected in ideal conditions. That has been a few years, but these companies are not forthcoming with their data.
  - 5y ago

by bmitc 5y ago

howunpleasant 5y ago

> Did they pass a driver's license check? No > Who's responsible? Cruise and their insurance

sandworm101 5y ago
Insurance doesnt pay for crimes. You cannot buy "speeding insurance" to pay your traffic tickets anymore than you can hire someone else to go to jail for you.
- dghughes 5y ago
  >"...anymore than you can hire someone else to go to jail for you." * * unless you're rich
- kevingadd 5y ago
  The company probably has various kinds of liability insurance that would cover things like lawyer's fees

eru 5y ago

There's laws and regulations for this kind of stuff, and you need to get a permit. Details depend on location / jurisdiction. Some Googling brought up eg https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/autonomous-vehicles/ https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/auto...

makeitdouble 5y ago

In case no one is specifically identified for the infraction, doesn't it come back to the car owner ? Not in the US, but that's how it would work here for illegal parking or if the driver fled from the cops and the car is never found for instance. Even if the owner doesn't own a driving license, that's just where the buck stops. The owner if of course free to try to shove it somewhere else, but that's on them to make it work.

brigade 5y ago
Parking citations attach to the car (as does civil collision liability generally), but moving violations can only be levied against the driver. Which is how some red light camera fines are avoided, if the driver isn’t clearly identifiable by the camera.
- gambiting 5y ago
  Here in UK it's always the owner of the car who is responsible, unless they can say who was driving the car at the time. If they can't then the fine defaults to them - the assumption being that they are responsible for knowing who is using their vehicle. In other countries with similar laws(Poland) it has been argued in front of court that it cannot be the owner's responsibility to know who is driving their car at any given point especially if there are multiple people who do that usually - it should be the police's job to establish who they are fining.
  - rvnx 5y ago
    It's quite logic and an easy rule to take responsible the driver no matter whether they have a driver assist feature on or not. Then the driver could sue the manufacturer for any defect or if the manufacturer misled the user into thinking the system was safe and didn't need human attention. This way, if a system is unreliable, users will start blaming the system and stop using the feature or buying this car. Also, it allows manufacturers to roll-out features faster and learn faster from the real world. If the manufacturer is directly responsible when driver assist features are engaged, but not the driver, then the manufacturer will get scared to roll anything, and progress will be much slower, and there will be more victims because the drivers think "I don't care, I'm not responsible, it's even better if the auto mode is on, even if less safe, cause I won't be responsible"

logifail 5y ago

> Did they pass a driver's license check? Thought experiment: imagine a particular self-driving algo were to do something that would warrant a human driver getting their driving licence suspended, would that mean all the cars with that same algo would be simultanously suspended, or just that one car?

alisonkisk 5y ago
qayxc 5y ago
That is a very intriguing scenario indeed. Due to the non-deterministic nature of many self-driving systems, I'd reckon a broader investigation would have to follow. Should that investigation reveal a reproducible behaviour, a recall or general suspension of vehicles running that particular software version would seem like a reasonable response. Otherwise suspending just that one car could be an option. It's uncharted territory both in terms of the legal system and w.r.t accountability so I guess no one has an answer to that yet.
- pxmpxm 5y ago
  How is it non-deterministic? If you run the same trained model on the same input data, you should arrive at the exactly identical output.
  - qayxc 5y ago
    > How is it non-deterministic? It's non-deterministic in a practical sense; you cannot reproduce the exact circumstances that caused a certain behaviour. Maybe a bug flew by one of the cameras at a certain moment, or a pedestrian with certain type of clothing passed by. You get the idea.
    - eru 5y ago
      Depends. In principle you can log exactly what data the camera sends to the decision making unit. And you could replay that data. The camera itself might not be deterministic enough to reproduce the same data with the same beetle, but replaying the log should work. (Keep the log in a 'black box' on the car, and perhaps only keep the last x hours of data, if necessary.) I think Waymo already does something like these kinds of replays.

sjmulder 5y ago

What worries me a little bit is how this can shift blame further on other (more vulnerable) road users once such vehicles become more common, solidifying even stronger the notion that roads are for motor vehicles and for motor vehicles alone.

eru 5y ago
I'd say actually less so. As a pedestrian I'd be much more confident stepping in front of a self-driving car, than stepping in front of a human-driven car. So much so, that I've read about people's fears that self-driving cars will be subject to bullying by pedestrians (and other drivers).
- bmitc 5y ago
  > As a pedestrian I'd be much more confident stepping in front of a self-driving car, than stepping in front of a human-driven car. Why?
  - eru 5y ago
    Because self-driving cars don't get distracted or tired, and they don't get angry either.

ShakataGaNai 5y ago

> Did they pass a driver's license check? Yes. That would be the AV permit that the cars operate under. Also as they are programmed to obey all road laws, it's exceedingly unlikely they will cause any moving infractions. > Who's responsible? Who gets the ticket? Cruise. Their name is on the AV permit, it's their insurance. > spot essentially identical to where it was. Before it was in a lane of traffic next to a parklet, after it was pulled over partially into what looks to be a parking spot. The SFPD officer also was no longer next to the vehicle. > how these cars are allowed on the road At the end of the day the argument is that these cars are safer than the average driver. Having spent a lot of time in SF, I've seen a lot of these cruise vehicles moving about. I remember watching them in the early days in the Dogpatch, when an errant cone would end up with them being stuck until manual action was taken. Slowly they got better and smarter. Yes, it's a hard transitional time. Mistakes may happen, but the same is true for humans. And not all AV technology is the same. Cruise has limited itself a great deal so it doesn't try to take on the entire world at the same time. Just the streets of SF, which are hard enough. How many Cruise traffic accidents have you read about? How many people injured or killed?

dogman144 5y ago
Isn't OP about a moving infraction it caused, despite its programming? Arguing the probabilities of an outcome is an engineering-centric approach to selling these cars to the public, and it doesn't land well IMO/in this thread from others. It makes a false equivalence b/t how we value human agency's role in outcomes, and something other-than-human. Most people seem to prefer the risk outcomes of something I decided, vs. a faceless control system.
bmitc 5y ago
Where do I apply for a permit to reassign culpability for my driving to a corporation? > At the end of the day the argument is that these cars are safer than the average driver. The last data I saw said otherwise, and that data was primarily collected in ideal conditions. That has been a few years, but these companies are not forthcoming with their data.
- 5y ago