3 ms·

Surely there are already existing laws for first responders and if the robo-taxis aren't following them they can just be ? for violating them. I mean, this can

Surely there are already existing laws for first responders and if the robo-taxis aren't following them they can just be ? for violating them. I mean, this can't be the first time somebody has interfered with them ... > The incidents include ... blocking firehouse driveways Straight up impound the car and they'll start not doing this.

eftychis 3y ago
Impounding is what they would do for regular joe's car. So why not for these "full" self driving ones? Is someone simply telling them to be "lenient?" First responders already deal with a lot of bullshit. Especially in San Francisco and Lo Angeles right now. Adding more to the least is peachy...
warning26 3y ago
Agreed — this seems like a fundamentally solvable problem with enforcement of existing laws.
mint2 3y ago
Is it hard to put a do not stop zone in front of firehouses in their maps? I mean they’re operating a handful of cities, there’s not that many firehouses. like it could even be manually programmed into the map as a second order rule that kicks in after stopping that activates a remote driver and then is a harsh penalty in the training functions.
- AlotOfReading 3y ago
  The issue isn't just the immediate area in front of firehouses or mapping them (the data is publicly available). One issue is routing quality degradation when you close off smaller streets, particularly for the lower speed cruise vehicles that can't use higher speed thoroughfares. Permanently closing 50 low speed streets would probably have a significant impact on their already questionable routing. A second issue is that there have also been incidents near active emergency scenes, which are not publicly available data.
genocidicbunny 3y ago
> Straight up impound the car and they'll start not doing this. Seize, not impound. Your driverless car interferes with emergency services, it is to be given up and sold off to pay for the delays your driverless car caused. Impound implies they should be given a chance to pay to get it back -- I say no. One of the few applications of civil asset forfeiture I would be okay with.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  Assets seized during/from a crime isn't civil asset forfeiture.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Surely there are already existing laws for first responders and if the robo-taxis aren't following them they can just be ? for violating them. The concern is probably that the consequences designed as an incentive for human drivers to be attentive to the rules (and which are not, otherwise, a compensation for the harms of the rules not being followed) are not a solution if robotaxis are irreducibly unable to follow the rules.

eftychis 3y ago

Impounding is what they would do for regular joe's car. So why not for these "full" self driving ones? Is someone simply telling them to be "lenient?" First responders already deal with a lot of bullshit. Especially in San Francisco and Lo Angeles right now. Adding more to the least is peachy...

warning26 3y ago

Agreed — this seems like a fundamentally solvable problem with enforcement of existing laws.

mint2 3y ago

Is it hard to put a do not stop zone in front of firehouses in their maps? I mean they’re operating a handful of cities, there’s not that many firehouses. like it could even be manually programmed into the map as a second order rule that kicks in after stopping that activates a remote driver and then is a harsh penalty in the training functions.

AlotOfReading 3y ago
The issue isn't just the immediate area in front of firehouses or mapping them (the data is publicly available). One issue is routing quality degradation when you close off smaller streets, particularly for the lower speed cruise vehicles that can't use higher speed thoroughfares. Permanently closing 50 low speed streets would probably have a significant impact on their already questionable routing. A second issue is that there have also been incidents near active emergency scenes, which are not publicly available data.

genocidicbunny 3y ago

> Straight up impound the car and they'll start not doing this. Seize, not impound. Your driverless car interferes with emergency services, it is to be given up and sold off to pay for the delays your driverless car caused. Impound implies they should be given a chance to pay to get it back -- I say no. One of the few applications of civil asset forfeiture I would be okay with.

lesuorac 3y ago
Assets seized during/from a crime isn't civil asset forfeiture.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Surely there are already existing laws for first responders and if the robo-taxis aren't following them they can just be ? for violating them. The concern is probably that the consequences designed as an incentive for human drivers to be attentive to the rules (and which are not, otherwise, a compensation for the harms of the rules not being followed) are not a solution if robotaxis are irreducibly unable to follow the rules.