4 ms·

Fines? For stopping traffic? Hahahahhahaha. You can steal ~899$ worth of shit and the cops don’t show up. Open air drug markets, people shitting in the streets

by vuln 4y ago

Fines? For stopping traffic? Hahahahhahaha. You can steal ~899$ worth of shit and the cops don’t show up. Open air drug markets, people shitting in the streets, thousands of homeless people. But yeah let’s pontificate about fines for someone disrupting traffic. You gonna fine the person that runs out of gas, causes an accident or just mechanically breaks down?

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>You gonna fine the person that runs out of gas, causes an accident or just mechanically breaks down? I'm much more interested in fining the crap out of the people who don't have an "excuse" for their bad traffic performance.
- vuln 4y ago
  Who is the judge of the “excuse”? What you’re talking about is a two tiered justice system. Just because xyz conglomerate causes an issues “zomg fine them1!1!1!1” but when it’s someone that runs out of gas or mechanically breaks down “well they’re poor so it can slide”. This doesn’t work. You’ll waste more money prosecuting and collecting the fines from xyz conglomerate. If the poor person gets the fine too then it puts them in an even worse position. How do we know the poor person didn’t run out of gas intentionally hoping some Good Samaritan offers a couple gallons or road side assistance helps with a couple gallons paid for by tax payers.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    You're making this more complex than it actually is: the scenario in question is a self-driving car that's already known to the local government and is explicitly being used for testing/research purposes. It's difficult to imagine an innocent or unlucky citizen who would be ensnared in a fine structure designed to disincentivize traffic problems caused by experimental self-driving cars.
lm28469 4y ago
I think you read to fast or are projecting. OP clearly refers to a fee on autonomous car companies using public infra as a testing ground. Causing traffic jam is but a tiny part of it

by vuln 4y ago

dsfyu404ed 4y ago

>You gonna fine the person that runs out of gas, causes an accident or just mechanically breaks down? I'm much more interested in fining the crap out of the people who don't have an "excuse" for their bad traffic performance.

vuln 4y ago
Who is the judge of the “excuse”? What you’re talking about is a two tiered justice system. Just because xyz conglomerate causes an issues “zomg fine them1!1!1!1” but when it’s someone that runs out of gas or mechanically breaks down “well they’re poor so it can slide”. This doesn’t work. You’ll waste more money prosecuting and collecting the fines from xyz conglomerate. If the poor person gets the fine too then it puts them in an even worse position. How do we know the poor person didn’t run out of gas intentionally hoping some Good Samaritan offers a couple gallons or road side assistance helps with a couple gallons paid for by tax payers.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  You're making this more complex than it actually is: the scenario in question is a self-driving car that's already known to the local government and is explicitly being used for testing/research purposes. It's difficult to imagine an innocent or unlucky citizen who would be ensnared in a fine structure designed to disincentivize traffic problems caused by experimental self-driving cars.

lm28469 4y ago

I think you read to fast or are projecting. OP clearly refers to a fee on autonomous car companies using public infra as a testing ground. Causing traffic jam is but a tiny part of it