3 ms·

The point is, with software you don't need tickets. Either the software is written to try to follow the law or it isn't. If it's trying, then we establish thres

The point is, with software you don't need tickets. Either the software is written to try to follow the law or it isn't. If it's trying, then we establish thresholds. If the company is actively trying to break the law, it should be shut down. Tickets are a silly, roundabout way to go about it. They make sense for human drivers because they're all running different independent "brain software" and it's unrealistic for minor violations to ban someone from driving. But with shared software across a fleet, you can just require the company to fix its driving software directly when possible. Ticketing is actually counterproductive, because it allows these companies to avoid many of these fixes if the tickets are infrequent enough.

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
> Either the software is written to try to follow the law or it isn't Then the real world intervenes. Nobody plans to block an intersection. But a lack of planning and shits given will put one into that position even without intention. > it allows these companies to avoid many of these fixes if the tickets are infrequent enough Sounds fine? Like, as long as AVs and human drivers share the roads, modulating enforcement with infraction frequency seems fine.
- crazygringo 5mo ago
  > Sounds fine? A major benefit of AV's is that they're supposed to be better than human drivers, not breaking traffic laws just as often.
  - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
    > major benefit of AV's is that they're supposed to be better than human drivers, not breaking traffic laws just as often If they're infrequently breaking minor traffic laws they may still be doing so (a) less frequently than humans or (b) with less consequence than when humans do it. I say this as someone who tends to drive the speed limit: our traffic laws were not written for perfect parsing.
xphos 5mo ago
I feel like this trivializises all software development. It happens but 99% of development is done to follow the spec or law in this case. The failures or bugs are usually not intentional. You basically saying if 1 car in the fleet breaks the law shut them down? If thats a strawman im sorry but even in software algorithm have unintentional bugs and make mistakes. The same is true for human drivers but we dont revoke their licenses when they break the law we have a proportional penalty for break. If driverless cars are speeding its a slap on the wrist. If they are driving the wrong way down the freeway the penalty would be revoking licenses
- crazygringo 5mo ago
  Re-read my root comment. I specifically outlined having thresholds for unintentional violations.
  - xphos 5mo ago
    I feel like your unintentional thresholds are just what ticketing is but in more complex way. Also your points about being easier on AV companies tickets are very aggressive against repeat offenders. It works mechanically the same as setting threshold x# of tickets. Ticketing gets weird because it varries by state I cannot speak to Califorina because I don't live there but in the northeast many states have points and if you get 10 points you lose your license. Not every ticket gives points i.e parking tickets. But speeding X miles over is 4 points. Drunk driving is 10 points generally speaking. Their are others like drag racing on public roads etc. But Those systems would be very harsh on a self-driving vechicals which all have the same "driver". You might need to be more permissive on the number of points because the "driver" is clocking 1000x-10000x what an ordinary driver does but tickets solves all the practical problems your bring up. The only grounds to debate feel like the number of points or threshold which besides stating I don't feel like you stake a position on where the threshold is (doing sound seems really hard without data on how often violations can be). Intentionality is also ignored because it doesn't matter in driving since you could always say you didn't know X law i.e unintentional but its not an excuse because you are opt in to using public roads you have to know the laws. I am not trying to be dismissive but I am really unsure what other system and thresholds you are describing while you are being compared to an extremely concrete and effective systems (effective at punishing drivers :) from actually dangerous behavior). Usually the only hard part is observing offense but I think that makes ticketing acceptable because generally speaking the penalty for getting a ticket is very harsh on low income earners (increases compliance)

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago

> Either the software is written to try to follow the law or it isn't Then the real world intervenes. Nobody plans to block an intersection. But a lack of planning and shits given will put one into that position even without intention. > it allows these companies to avoid many of these fixes if the tickets are infrequent enough Sounds fine? Like, as long as AVs and human drivers share the roads, modulating enforcement with infraction frequency seems fine.

crazygringo 5mo ago
> Sounds fine? A major benefit of AV's is that they're supposed to be better than human drivers, not breaking traffic laws just as often.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  > major benefit of AV's is that they're supposed to be better than human drivers, not breaking traffic laws just as often If they're infrequently breaking minor traffic laws they may still be doing so (a) less frequently than humans or (b) with less consequence than when humans do it. I say this as someone who tends to drive the speed limit: our traffic laws were not written for perfect parsing.

xphos 5mo ago

I feel like this trivializises all software development. It happens but 99% of development is done to follow the spec or law in this case. The failures or bugs are usually not intentional. You basically saying if 1 car in the fleet breaks the law shut them down? If thats a strawman im sorry but even in software algorithm have unintentional bugs and make mistakes. The same is true for human drivers but we dont revoke their licenses when they break the law we have a proportional penalty for break. If driverless cars are speeding its a slap on the wrist. If they are driving the wrong way down the freeway the penalty would be revoking licenses

crazygringo 5mo ago
Re-read my root comment. I specifically outlined having thresholds for unintentional violations.
- xphos 5mo ago
  I feel like your unintentional thresholds are just what ticketing is but in more complex way. Also your points about being easier on AV companies tickets are very aggressive against repeat offenders. It works mechanically the same as setting threshold x# of tickets. Ticketing gets weird because it varries by state I cannot speak to Califorina because I don't live there but in the northeast many states have points and if you get 10 points you lose your license. Not every ticket gives points i.e parking tickets. But speeding X miles over is 4 points. Drunk driving is 10 points generally speaking. Their are others like drag racing on public roads etc. But Those systems would be very harsh on a self-driving vechicals which all have the same "driver". You might need to be more permissive on the number of points because the "driver" is clocking 1000x-10000x what an ordinary driver does but tickets solves all the practical problems your bring up. The only grounds to debate feel like the number of points or threshold which besides stating I don't feel like you stake a position on where the threshold is (doing sound seems really hard without data on how often violations can be). Intentionality is also ignored because it doesn't matter in driving since you could always say you didn't know X law i.e unintentional but its not an excuse because you are opt in to using public roads you have to know the laws. I am not trying to be dismissive but I am really unsure what other system and thresholds you are describing while you are being compared to an extremely concrete and effective systems (effective at punishing drivers :) from actually dangerous behavior). Usually the only hard part is observing offense but I think that makes ticketing acceptable because generally speaking the penalty for getting a ticket is very harsh on low income earners (increases compliance)