Subject: Re: California Amends Vehicle Code to Allow for Ticketing Driverless Cars
On 2026-05-01 2:08 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHekv_GfYWw
This still doesn't solve the problem of who to hold responsible for the actual
traffic violation penalties. Steve says it will be analogous to a corporation designating an employee for receipt of process, but that doesn't really work at all with regard to traffic violations.
Sure, a cop can pull over a Waymo and write it a ticket based on its license plate and the DMV can mail it to the registered corporate address on file, and
a big company like Waymo will likely just pay them without question as they come in and write it off as a business expense, but who do you hold responsible for the actual violation the way a normal driver would be on the side of the road? Whose driver license gets the points, or is suspended if there's too many points in a given year?
In a sensible world, Waymo (or whoever is operating the car) would see
any ticket as an immediate and urgent engineering problem that needs to
be addressed pronto. Once they've verified that the cop wasn't just
making things up to meet their quota of tickets, they should have the engineering team on the situation trying to figure out why it drove too
fast or was in the wrong lane or whatever. This IS an engineering
problem, first and foremost.
Waymo can't just designate an employee to be held responsible for that. They have thousands of cars on the roads in California. With that many cars, it would only be a matter of weeks, if not days, before the designated employee's
drivers license would accumulate enough points for their license to be suspended. That employee would accumulate points so fast, it would probably trigger grounds for an arrest and criminal charges.
If their cars are operating in such a way that they rightfully earn
tickets, they need to get to the bottom of why. As I understand it,
these cars are designed from the ground up to operate within the law and
to put safety first and foremost. Assigning a person to take the fall
should be the least of their worries.>
Also, under the Michigan statute Steve read, the definition of 'operate'-- whoever causes a vehicle to drive on the road regardless of whether they are physically present or not-- would seem to make the passenger of a Waymo responsible for whatever the car does. The passenger is the one who ordered the car and told it where to go, so they would be the operator under Michigan law. It would also seem to open passengers up to charges of DUI if they're intoxicated and riding one of these Waymos home from a bar.
The notion of penalizing the passenger - sober or not - is surreal but I
can picture some bureaucrat coming to that conclusion by the reasoning
you propose. That ought to be fought vigorously in court by the first
person who gets that charge.
One of the strengths of driverless cars is that they can be a safe and convenient way to get people who are drunk or high home safely rather
than causing serious or even fatal accidents by driving themselves home
in their own cars. (We know some people will do that rather than calling
a cab or taking public transit.) I can even picture a bar operating its
own fleet of driverless cars to get people home after a night out and
then return to base for the next passenger. The bar could even have the
car go back to the customer's home the next morning after they've
sobered up to bring them back to the parking lot so they can collect
their own car.
Here in L.A., they're also rolling robbery targets. The thugs know they're programmed to stop for a person in the street and the car can't tell the difference between a normal pedestrian and a hijacker, so the criminals just have one guy walk out in front of the Waymo and when it stops as programmed, the others run out and smash the windows and rob the passengers at gunpoint. And the car just sits there and lets it happen rather than speeding off as you
would do in your own car or an Uber driver would do.
Wow, that's nasty. Once again, thugs show ingenuity at creating a new
crime opportunity for themselves and ordinary Joes and Joannes suffer
for it. Too bad they don't use that ingenuity to get honest jobs....
I don't have a quick fix for that but maybe making it less obvious that
the car is a Waymo would be a good start. If it looks like any ordinary
car driven by a human - who may be packing - the robbery attempt might
be precluded anyway. Toughening the car with shatterproof glass and
fitting it with klaxons and flashing lights that would go off if someone attacks it might help deter the thugs. Having the car sent out a Mayday immediately may get the LAPD or sheriffs out quicker. Maybe electrify
the body so that anyone outside who touches it gets a jolt that makes
them back off. (I suppose you could also provide firearms to the
passengers that they can use if they feel so inclined to defend
themselves but I imagine that idea would go over like a lead balloon
with the "progressives". A mere PICTURE of a gun gives them the vapours!)
--
Rhino
--- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)