3 ms·

… assuming the GiantCorp running the robotaxis cares about complying with the law, and doesn’t just pay a fine that means nothing to them.

xbar 1y ago
Waymo seems more interested in delivering a true solution than I have seen elsewhere.
daseiner1 1y ago
> a fine that means nothing to them Yes, this is often the case. In this instance, though, endangering children is just about the worst PR possible. That's strong leverage.
- tanseydavid 1y ago
  This^^^ -- the impact of positive vs negative PR is unusually huge with this type of tech.
bluGill 1y ago
The first fines should be meaningless to the company. If the issue isn't fixed the fines should get higher and higher. If the company fixes one issue but there is a second discovered quickly we should assume they don't care about safety and the second issue should have a higher fine than the first even though it is unrelated. Companies (and people) have an obligation to do the right thing.
- AlotOfReading 1y ago
  What do you mean by "second issue"? A second instance of the same underlying problem, or a different underlying problem? The way you phrase it as unrelated suggests the latter to me. It's pretty wild to jump straight to "they don't care about safety" here. Building a perfect system without real world testing is impossible, for exactly the same reason it's impossible to write bug-free code on the first try. That's not a suggestion to be lax, just that we need to be realistic about what's achievable if we agree that some form of this technology could be beneficial.
  - bluGill 1y ago
    The courts get to decide that. Often it is a "I know it when I see it". The real question is did they do enough to fix all possibly safety issues before this new one happened that was different. If they did "enough" (something I'm not defining!) then they can start over.
- lawlessone 1y ago
  >The first fines should be meaningless to the company. Why?
  - platevoltage 1y ago
    Fines are completely useless if they are small enough to be considered "the price of doing business".
    - lawlessone 1y ago
      I agree.
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    Because 100 million dollars isn't a reasonable fee for a traffic violation.
  - hyghjiyhu 1y ago
    The goal should be to make them appropriately cautious. Not careless but also not paralyzed by fear. Escalating fines have the property that they are self-tuning. They basically say "go ahead and try it! But if there are issues you have to fix them promptly"
whimsicalism 1y ago
the discourse around “corporations” has gotten absolutely ridiculous at this point, especially on this website.
- d4mi3n 1y ago
  It’s not an unreasonable take given historic behavior. Rather than decrying the cynicism, what steps can we take to ensure companies like Tesla/Waymo/etc are held accountable and incentivized to prioritize safety? Do we need hasher fines? Give auto regulators as much teeth as the FAA used to have during accident investigations? Genuinely curious to see how addressing reasonable concerns in these areas can be done.
  - terminalshort 1y ago
    Why isn't allowing people to sue when they get hurt and general bad PR around safety enough? Did you see what happened to Boeing's stock price after those 737 crashes?
    - d4mi3n 1y ago
      I’d counter that with the Equifax breach that raised thei stock prices when it became clear they weren’t being fined into oblivion. Suing is also generally only a realistic option if you have money for a lawyer.
  - trollbridge 1y ago
    Right. We have a precedent for how to have an ridiculously safe transportation system: accidents are investigated by the NTSB, and every accident is treated as an opportunity to make sure that particular failure never happens again.
- varenc 1y ago
  It's ironic given this forum began as a place for aspiring startup (Delaware C-Corp) founders.
  - 1y ago

xbar 1y ago

Waymo seems more interested in delivering a true solution than I have seen elsewhere.

daseiner1 1y ago

> a fine that means nothing to them Yes, this is often the case. In this instance, though, endangering children is just about the worst PR possible. That's strong leverage.

tanseydavid 1y ago
This^^^ -- the impact of positive vs negative PR is unusually huge with this type of tech.

bluGill 1y ago

The first fines should be meaningless to the company. If the issue isn't fixed the fines should get higher and higher. If the company fixes one issue but there is a second discovered quickly we should assume they don't care about safety and the second issue should have a higher fine than the first even though it is unrelated. Companies (and people) have an obligation to do the right thing.

AlotOfReading 1y ago
What do you mean by "second issue"? A second instance of the same underlying problem, or a different underlying problem? The way you phrase it as unrelated suggests the latter to me. It's pretty wild to jump straight to "they don't care about safety" here. Building a perfect system without real world testing is impossible, for exactly the same reason it's impossible to write bug-free code on the first try. That's not a suggestion to be lax, just that we need to be realistic about what's achievable if we agree that some form of this technology could be beneficial.
- bluGill 1y ago
  The courts get to decide that. Often it is a "I know it when I see it". The real question is did they do enough to fix all possibly safety issues before this new one happened that was different. If they did "enough" (something I'm not defining!) then they can start over.
lawlessone 1y ago
>The first fines should be meaningless to the company. Why?
- platevoltage 1y ago
  Fines are completely useless if they are small enough to be considered "the price of doing business".
  - lawlessone 1y ago
    I agree.
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  Because 100 million dollars isn't a reasonable fee for a traffic violation.
- hyghjiyhu 1y ago
  The goal should be to make them appropriately cautious. Not careless but also not paralyzed by fear. Escalating fines have the property that they are self-tuning. They basically say "go ahead and try it! But if there are issues you have to fix them promptly"

whimsicalism 1y ago

the discourse around “corporations” has gotten absolutely ridiculous at this point, especially on this website.

d4mi3n 1y ago
It’s not an unreasonable take given historic behavior. Rather than decrying the cynicism, what steps can we take to ensure companies like Tesla/Waymo/etc are held accountable and incentivized to prioritize safety? Do we need hasher fines? Give auto regulators as much teeth as the FAA used to have during accident investigations? Genuinely curious to see how addressing reasonable concerns in these areas can be done.
- terminalshort 1y ago
  Why isn't allowing people to sue when they get hurt and general bad PR around safety enough? Did you see what happened to Boeing's stock price after those 737 crashes?
  - d4mi3n 1y ago
    I’d counter that with the Equifax breach that raised thei stock prices when it became clear they weren’t being fined into oblivion. Suing is also generally only a realistic option if you have money for a lawyer.
- trollbridge 1y ago
  Right. We have a precedent for how to have an ridiculously safe transportation system: accidents are investigated by the NTSB, and every accident is treated as an opportunity to make sure that particular failure never happens again.
varenc 1y ago
It's ironic given this forum began as a place for aspiring startup (Delaware C-Corp) founders.
- 1y ago