238
Police pulled over a Waymo car for driving in the oncoming lane
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
238 points (99.6% liked)
News
23659 readers
2908 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm not sure why the police say it's "not feasible" to issue Google a citation. Google are the registered owners of the vehicles and thus responsible for any actions it performs, just mail them a ticket?
I'm just speculating, but there is probably a very efficient workflow for sending a ticket to an individual (given the number of tickets police write and the revenue they generate), and I wouldn't be surprised if the workflow doesn't accommodate an AI operated vehicle. Kind of like how a restaurant would need to restructure its workflow to accommodate DoorDash.
In other words, "infeasible" might actually mean "would take extra effort".
Yeah they probably just use a 20 years old out of date system (like any government agency that respects itself) that doesn't take into account that maybe a car doesn't have a driver
I thought the laws in the USA prevented this. It's why you have manned speed traps because citations must be handed over personally to the driver while other countries have automated speed check systems and send the ticket to the owner of the car, and that can be a leasing company for example.
how about you tape/glue copies of the ticket over the lenses of any exposed cameras and allow Google to figure out the logistics of how to pay the ticket?
In Arizona, the operator of an AI vehicle must submit a law enforcement interaction plan that specifies how they will be ticketed.
However, it's quite possible that actually following the plan is a pain in the butt for traffic cops, and they simply don't want to put in the effort.
Generally in the United States you have an opportunity to cross-examine all evidence, these cameras are not calibrated regularly and generally not kept up (arguably they are so low budget they need no upkeep), so they become un-admissable when you challenge them, which many people win because the camera was last calibrated and cleaned when it was installed.
We have that opportunity too. You can opt to not accept the proposed (automated) settlement, and challenge the citation itself. People have done that and won. However, administrative fees for that are often higher that the proposed settlement so it's only worth it in special cases.
Can’t speak to other countries but that generally offends American Courts, it comes off as retaliatory for exercising your American rights and has been struck down numerous times in various venues. One of the most scared rights in America is to be heard and reheard in front of a court of competent jurisdiction, we all have our day in court.
I think the issue is theres no specific person or driving license, purely by speculation
Then the vehicle is being operated unlicensed. Impound it, suspend the registration, and fine the owner. That's how it works for everyone else.
I'd love to see that happen