Another huge problem with AVs is not about the technology, but about corporate impunity. Corporations expect to be above the law, to "move fast and break things".
Self-driving cars can't be cited for traffic violations. They share as little incident data as possible, so we only know the extent of the problems they cause from the news or social media. They are somehow exempt from accessibility requirements, and won't even pull to the curb to drop people off or pick them up.
Anecdotally, they seem to have become more aggressive as soon as they have started taking customers. Suddenly they're forcing pedestrians out of crosswalks, for instance. But they don't have to tell the public about any such changes.
We know that there's no market for safe cars. Cars are designed to speed, and Tesla "self-driving" already has a mode for breaking the law. If customers expect cars to drive fast and recklessly, and it's profitable for the corporations to oblige, that's what we're going to get.
Why can't self-driving cars be cited for traffic violations?
Certainly the traffic cameras automatically issuing violations don't stop to see whether there is a human behind the wheel.
Each car is owned and operated by someone, whether that operation involves a human on board or not.
@volkris It would definitely be possible to have laws that allow self-driving cars to be cited, but government officials have decided that under the law as it stands today, self-driving cars cannot be cited.
You might think this is a loophole they'd address before expanding the self-driving car program, but they aren't doing that either.
Do you have a good reference that goes into the law and the determination of it? I'm curious.
I'm especially curious as to whether those government officials simply have the law wrong, and so are creating a problem that's already been solved, making an unnecessary mess of things.
@volkris https://sfstandard.com/2023/06/16/san-francisco-wants-robotaxis-to-get-tickets-for-moving-violations/ is an article on it
One way or another they're making an unnecessary mess of things. Maybe they could interpret the law differently, or maybe they could introduce legislation that would plug this loophole, but in either case they're choosing not to do it. We're hoping at an absolute bare minimum, among many other things, to pressure them to close this loophole.
Thanks!
I want to read more of the links in the article, but from just reading the article itself, it does sound like people having disagreements about what the law actually is and whether they can be cited or not.
So that's an issue if it's down to talking about closing a loophole that's not actually legally open in the first place, if the local official is just playing wrong about what the law says then It may be more effective to fix his misunderstanding (or fire him) than to work to make changes to the law that is right the first time.
After all, in the course of those changes such a loophole might actually be introduced!
There are different levels to the game it sounds like they are playing.
