5 ms·
If they cant interact with emergency vehicles well, which they cannot, then they shouldnt be on the road. This is only one of the growing number of obvious reas
by monkaiju 3y ago
If they cant interact with emergency vehicles well, which they cannot, then they shouldnt be on the road. This is only one of the growing number of obvious reasons why...
- aeternum 3y agoWould you also propose driving license suspensions for drivers that fail to move out of the way for emergency vehicles or illegally double-parked a vehicle and blocked passage of an emergency vehicle?
- apendleton 3y agoMaybe not on first offense, but after a demonstrated repeated pattern of interfering with emergency vehicles, sure, why not?
- twoWhlsGud 3y agoPerhaps because in the absence of the kind of alternative route to getting to work that autonomous cars offer, no one in (the US at least) is going to levy an economic death sentence for something that serious?
- InitialLastName 3y agoI'm so tired of this tail-wagging-the-dog excuse. It's so hard to operate in (parts of) our society without a car that we can't meaningfully hold drivers responsible for their bad behavior, or keep people who show a repeated disregard for their responsibility in operating dangerous machinery off the road?
- monkaiju 3y agoA) yes B) its a false dichotomy to apply the standards to humans, which perceive, learn, and think, as we do to a software product
- int3 3y agosoftware does all of the above
- monkaiju 3y ago<Incorrect Buzzer Sound>
- daveguy 3y agoWhy is it a false dichotomy to hold software products to the same standard humans are held to? That seems less like a dichotomy of any kind and more like a consistent policy.
- callalex 3y agoHumans can also be punished and sent to jail.
- aeternum 3y agoWe generally do not send people to jail for failure to yield to an emergency vehicle. We do ticket and fine them, which you can also do to automated vehicles.
- cryptoz 3y agoI’m not the commenter above but, something must be done about serial lawbreaking drivers. I see maybe 100 cars per day run stop signs, red lights, speeding excessively, and other dangerous driving actions with no consequences. There needs to be some enforcement and yes I would suggest suspension if it is found that the behavior is habitual for a driver.
- rando_dfad 3y agoHow many of these are police officers (in non-emergency situations)
- jabroni_salad 3y agoOne of the scenarios in the article was the responder trying to wave the car back while the car was very insistent that it really needed to run over these fire hoses right now. A motorist wouldn't just be suspended, they would go to jail and have their car impounded. Actually, maybe it should be tow operators and not first responders with surprise driver privileges. We'll have 100% compliance real quick if those are the guys watching out.
- ChatGTP 3y agoIf the law states they should do so then, yes ?
- neilv 3y agoYeah, this is a "lose your license" situation.
- xadhominemx 3y agoIt's not a "lose your license" situation for a human driver and is also not anywhere near intractable for the AVs.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y agoHere's the video from the article: https://vimeo.com/822783539 https://vimeo.com/822783539. If a human driver was doing these things, the only reason it's not a "lose your license" situation is because the driver would have been removed from the vehicle by the officers and the vehicle moved aside by the officers. It's likely the driver still faces punitive measures. This is only loosely permitted because there isn't an individual in the car to blame. The proposed solution is "We'll let you move the car." This is a reasonable "lose your business license" situation. It's pretty easy to sympathize with those who are "vandalizing robotaxis with blunt tools".