4 ms·

Good question & to be honest I'm not 100% sure, though I bet there are many laws vague enough to capture it. If it causes extreme traffic jams, perhaps there's

Good question & to be honest I'm not 100% sure, though I bet there are many laws vague enough to capture it. If it causes extreme traffic jams, perhaps there's some kind of public nuisance law that will cover it? Is interference with public infrastructure a crime? Do you actually think this type of behavior will simply be tolerated?

blibble 3y ago
as a vehicle operator: if someone put a cone on my bonnet, then I just sat there blocking the the highway I'd expect to be the one fined quite why this is different because an unfit for purpose driverless vehicle is involved, I don't know the company operating the vehicle should be the one fined for blocking the highway
- jfoster 3y ago
  They don't put the cone on the bonnet for no reason. They do it because they know what the likely outcome will be. In a similar way, if you booby trap a vehicle such that it might surprise a human driver in some way whilst they are driving, causing them to potentially have an accident, the crime you are committing is not simply that you're surprising someone by tampering with their property, but you might be doing it with a specific intent to cause an accident.
  - blibble 3y ago
    > the crime you are committing is not simply that you're surprising someone by tampering with their property, but you might be doing it with a specific intent to cause an accident. this is nice rhetoric and all but doesn't apply at all in this situation nothing has been tampered with: the cone can be removed and having done so the vehicle will be indistinguishable from before it was placed (no property damage) the "attack" keeps the vehicle in its safest possible state (that in which it can't move) so there is no intent to cause an accident and you still have yet to point out which law is being broken (I suspect because there isn't one), so it is a crime? however the company may be able to go after you in a civil court for lost revenue/reputation
    - jfoster 3y ago
      You'd be doing it so the vehicle won't move, and if the vehicle doesn't move it will cause traffic. If your argument is even slightly correct (that there would be any problem prosecuting such behavior) then it at least won't be in the future. Obviously trying to trick a car into causing traffic chaos is not going to be an accepted behavior.

blibble 3y ago

as a vehicle operator: if someone put a cone on my bonnet, then I just sat there blocking the the highway I'd expect to be the one fined quite why this is different because an unfit for purpose driverless vehicle is involved, I don't know the company operating the vehicle should be the one fined for blocking the highway

jfoster 3y ago
They don't put the cone on the bonnet for no reason. They do it because they know what the likely outcome will be. In a similar way, if you booby trap a vehicle such that it might surprise a human driver in some way whilst they are driving, causing them to potentially have an accident, the crime you are committing is not simply that you're surprising someone by tampering with their property, but you might be doing it with a specific intent to cause an accident.
- blibble 3y ago
  > the crime you are committing is not simply that you're surprising someone by tampering with their property, but you might be doing it with a specific intent to cause an accident. this is nice rhetoric and all but doesn't apply at all in this situation nothing has been tampered with: the cone can be removed and having done so the vehicle will be indistinguishable from before it was placed (no property damage) the "attack" keeps the vehicle in its safest possible state (that in which it can't move) so there is no intent to cause an accident and you still have yet to point out which law is being broken (I suspect because there isn't one), so it is a crime? however the company may be able to go after you in a civil court for lost revenue/reputation
  - jfoster 3y ago
    You'd be doing it so the vehicle won't move, and if the vehicle doesn't move it will cause traffic. If your argument is even slightly correct (that there would be any problem prosecuting such behavior) then it at least won't be in the future. Obviously trying to trick a car into causing traffic chaos is not going to be an accepted behavior.