Doesn’t the car have an owner? Because in Brazil, the ticket always goes to the owner, even when someone else is driving - something that has its share of problems
That’s how a lot of US states do it for speed cameras.
Just realized I’m not sure if the same happens when you get pulled over or are driving a rental but in general the idea fixes more problems than it causes.
The entire reason they’re deploying AI in the battlefields is to avoid accountability for those firing. The lack of accountability is an intended feature, not a bug.
A troubling conclusion I hadn’t yet come to. God damn.
They’re not being subtle about it. The weapons companies are offering it as a selling point at the conventions.
Easy, Just impound it. When they have to deal with going to get them in person, they’ll stop the illegal shit
Ticket the damn manufacturer. They need to be made to understand not to put substandard devices into public hands
Impound the car too!
Sho nuff
I wonder, if they hinder the car enough, wouldn’t that cause the remote operator to connect to it? Sounds like you’ve now identified a driver :-)
I would suspect they were already watching it. They pulled it over and it pulled over.
You know, we should re-assess many assumptions in light of emerging technologies. Even the conceptual value of labour is becoming more and more obsolete as AI and automation comes. We need a new Marx in relation to data as leverage to demand social equity, as in advocate for universal basic income/utility. Tech barons stole our data to train AI and automation, it’s only right we bear fruit from our personal information.
Be careful what you wish for. UBI assumes a small group in power will, while having all the resources in their hands, fairly distribute them to everyone and never use them as a bargaining chip to force our compliance with whatever actions they’re trying to take.
The whole UBI idea seems like a trap for the general public to accept the notion that it inevitable that a small oligarchic group must have all the resources consolidated to them, to stop us from working towards a true egalitarian economy.
There is no time I am aware of in history where a large group in power distributed vast resources to the community without being compelled to do so by threat of force.
It’s an understandable concern but IMO if people are made aware of the value of their personal information being used to advance information age, like people learned the value of their labour during the Industrial age, then we can leverage to demand UBI. We need to be compensated for eventually losing jobs to robots, and using our information that trained the AI doing the jobs they would replace us with.
And even if it’s not compensation by UBI, there is universal basic services in which people are provided housing and utilities unconditionally. Carbon dividend could also be a source of income to fund UBI or UBS until we achieve net zero greenhouse emissions.
That sounds concerning, but how is it different from regular taxes to collect & distribute the funds?
I mean, besides the obvious push from them to reduce taxes to 0% as they already do in the States.
Taxes are redistribution of the capital of the general populace of the governed area. UBI is different in that it proposes a special tax only on the capital class where wealth is concentrated, which is then used to supplement the incomes of the general populace, with the most future-utopian thinkers envisioning UBI replacing income and work entirely some day in a super-automated future.
The point of great concern to me is that people bought in to the idea will not resist the ownership class’ attempts to consolidate resources and capital into fewer and fewer hands, because they believe those are stepping stones on the path to UBI. Then, when the capital class has got all the resources and control all the production, what force on Earth can make sure they follow through on the redistribution?
That last question is rhetorical. If someone’s got all the money, food, and weapons, there is no such force on Earth.
Edit to add another note: Observe how the capital class already actively seeks to avoid taxation at every turn, and are typically successful. I believe a government to successfully implement UBI, it would have to be somehow completely free of corruption from moneyed lobbying.
Well if my choices are
A) live in a tyrannical oligarchy where a few powerful people hold all the power and don’t value me at all
Or
B) live in a tyrannical oligarchy where a few powerful people hold all the power and don’t value me at all but I have money for food…
Man that’s a tough choice. I’ll go with B
I don’t think there is any reason to think that those are the choices we will actually end up with. Those are just the choices being presented. I believe there are are other choices available that don’t involve me having to trust a band of thieves that have done nothing but show me they can’t be trusted at every opportunity, but they don’t want to present those choices because they would result in them having a lower concentration of wealth and power.
For example, in the USA where I am from, we once had a hybrid capitalist model with a graduated taxation system that essentially limited the maximum individual wealth by taxing all earnings over a certain amount at near 100%, making it functionally impossible to accumulate much more wealth than that. This resulted in wealthy individuals and businesses reinvesting their excess profits in themselves, their people, and their communities because they would not get to keep those profits anyway. That then created one of the most robust economies and largest per-capita middle classes in the planet’s history.
This is something that we already know for a fact will work because we have already tested it, and it is but one of probably thousands of possible economic models not being presented to the public.
Reimplementing that system or many of the other ones that don’t involve giving the thieves all the money and trusting them to divvy it up fairly are less likely to go wrong. We then need to make sure they are more resistant to being dismantled than previous systems were, so they don’t get destroyed like those were.
And that worked extremely well exclusively for white men in that great society you mentioned. It leaves out “lessers” living in that society. The ones who struggled to scrape by because their homes were redlined and valueless and they just took down your neighborhood to build another toll road.
The fact is that perfect time was only perfect for those in the chosen class. Boo.
I think we can do better than that.
Go read “the power broker” good book.
The people that were societally oppressed in the USA during the middle class boom were in their bad situation due to other societal ills, not the taxation structure.
I’m not saying that the entirety of US policy was good then. Clearly there were many societal ills, including widespread gender and racial discrimination in housing and hiring, terrible literacy rates and targeted violence against ethnic minorities in the rural south that persist to this day, and religious bigotry was widely accepted. The economic structure, though, successfully allowed for personal wealth while limiting it, and created an undeniably huge middle class. The fact that many citizens didn’t get to participate in it was due to those other non-economic social problems freezing them out.
Also, mid-20th century USA is a single example of a system that was brought up to illustrate the point that there were more than the false dichotomy of choices presented. Surely there are way more ideas out there than status quo or status quo + UBI.
UBI has no precedent for working, and I, some rando online, have already identified a potentially disastrous problem that undermines it that I’ve never heard any convincing solutions for.
I love gaming out problems and solutions, but it is important not to fall in love with our ideas. Getting upset when holes are poked in them or ignoring these weaknesses aren’t going to prevent our opponents from exploiting them. If a plan has intractable problems, there is no shame in making new plans that may avoid those problems.
I can see rego plates in the picture, are they not linked to anyone? Ticket the owner, it’s not rocket science.
Law says the driver is ticketed for driving infractions.
So if your car gets ticketed by a speed camera without the driver being identified, who do they send the ticket to?
They send it to the registered owner and treat it as a parking violation, which does not go on your driving record. The ticket also has a “it wasn’t me” box you can tick to get the fine removed when you mail it in.
And boot it to prevent repeat offense.
It’d likely require a different statute. Like how running a red light is a different penalty if the driver is pulled over by a cop versus the vehicle owner being caught by a stoplight camera.
They’re remote cars. I would ticket the operator, even if its just a corporation. Let the courts figure out if it applies
This is the right answer for issues with driverless cars. Ticket the registrant/owner. The State shouldn’t have to fight with a manufacturer to ensure legality in a vehicle’s programming, that’s a losing battle that will cost ridiculous amounts of taxpayer money. Fine vehicle operators so they’ll stop buying vehicles that incur costly fines. Losing customers is the only thing a corporation will listen to.
Well also those cars are likely insured as the state law requires and if they keep getting citations, even if those fines are easy for the company to pay off, their insurance should hopefully skyrocket causing more lasting and impactful damage
What is this “Airbud” rules.
Cant give it a ticket cause my ticket book doesn’t say anything about “robots” breaking laws.
Boot it
I think you can stop robotaxis by just putting a traffic cone on its hood.
Yeah but that’s easy to take off. The least you could do is epoxy it to the hood of the clanker.
Wouldn’t spray painting the sensors be easier and more effective?
Not necessarily. You’d be surprised how many sensors and cameras have coatings on them which prevents spray paints from sticking (before it dries it just slides off)
Oh in that case we should just boot it and call it a day.
It really doesn’t take much intelligence to figure out who needs to get the ticket for that.
It’s not a question of what feels right, it’s a question of what the law actually says. I’m pretty sure most of us are actually not all that fond of the idea of cops making up or creatively reinterpreting the law to suit their own whims, so I don’t see why we should suddenly be cheering for it now.
If the law isn’t written in such a way as to be able to apply to driverless vehicles, that’s a problem that lawmakers need to correct.
Lawmakers are too busy focusing on irrelevant distractions to be addressing gaps in the law.
And, just so we’re clear, you’re saying you’re cool with the alternative being proposed here, which is that the police just make up the law as they see fit?
Spoken like someone who hasn’t had to interact with American law enforcement much.
Being intelligent is quite literally a disqualifying characteristic.
“Couldn’t give a ticket. Tried to drag the driver out, force him do to tests and beat the ever loving shit outta him but… holds back tears There…there was no driver…”
Follow the money. Who owns the car?
That level of effort is way above the pay grade of a typical beat cop.
Considering it’s California the uturn was illegal only because the cop said so.
“Since there was no human driver, a ticket couldn’t be issued (our citation books don’t have a box for “robot”),” reads the post.
The department said that it had alerted Waymo of the glitch
That’s not how it fucking works
How have you guys not bothered to prepare for this? It’s not the cop’s fault, but it is not a secret that there are Waymo cars in San Francisco. How is this something that nobody thought of?
Last year, California governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill that allows police officers to issue a “notice of noncompliance” if a driverless car breaks traffic laws. The law goes into effect in July 2026.
Oh, pardon me. So you’re on top of it.
The bill was introduced by assemblymember Phil Ting of San Francisco amid several incidents in the city, including driverless cars blocking traffic, dragging a pedestrian, interfering with firetrucks, and entering active crime scenes.
And your plan was to call up Waymo and ask them politely to improve their tech please? Or, that becomes the plan as of 2026?
With the new law, first responders can order a company to move autonomous vehicles out of an area, and the company has two minutes to direct its cars to leave or avoid that area.
The San Bruno police department, in response to people who believed officers were being lenient, reaffirmed: “There is legislation in the works that will allow officers to issue the company notices.”
My guy these cars went on the road EIGHT FUCKING YEARS AGO
The big invasion of Ukraine was years in the future, Covid hadn’t happened and wasn’t going to any time soon, Obama had just stepped down, CALIFORNIA EXPLAIN
You finally found out how long it takes to get laws into effect bro.
Obama was elected in 2008 and took office in 2009. The biggest overhaul to American health care since FDR went into effect on March 23, 2010, and that was with the US congress involved, which always inevitably turns everything into more of a shit show than it needs to be.
You can do it, you just have to be something other than dysfunctional wreckage to do it.
Dude, you can’t just penalize a corporation. That would be commiesocialism or something.
According to the government, “Corporations are people too.”
I’ll believe a corporation is a person when The Texas department of corrections executes one.
I’ll believe a corporation is a person when one is successfully murdered. I don’t care who does it.
And just like real people. They’re dead when they have no more money.
And yet, they can sell their debt
That’s only because the liberals government took away Americans’ right to buy and sell people. Gotta bundle debt and people together for good business.
Back then, both in the US and the UK, the liberal philosophers of the times considered it an infringement on property rights to restrict the buying and selling of slaves. Liberalism: A Counter-History goes over the debates at the time.
Republicans love to point to those days to claim they’re not racist today
deleted by creator
You wouldn’t molotovcocktail a car (just because it’s putting everyone’s safety at risk simply by existing)
Surely there is a leftist or unhoused person that could be scapegoated and punished for this.
I believe the federal gubment just declared being anti capitalism is considered an act of terror or something.
If FDR was still alive, they’d execute him for “terrorism”
But exactly! You guys wanted hypercapitalism, now you complain?
“Since there was no human driver, a ticket couldn’t be issued (our citation books don’t have a box for “robot”),” reads the post.
Did nobody think to just write “waymo” and use the company HQ as the driver’s address?
Better yet, ask the waymo car for a drivers license. None present? Impound.
Just tell the cops they’re allowed to stab the tires and have it towed. The problem will fix itself one way or another.
The state’s allowed to ban the company from the roads if they bother too many people or officials—a fairly enormous stick.
Make the whole world’s governments mad? Investors won’t be too happy. Huggge stick.
It does break from our “one immediate fine/ticket for one infraction” paradigm so I understand why it looks bad.
Gosh can you imagine if they drop our numbers from ~seven Californians killed on our roads every day to [far] fewer… (guy can dream, obvy they’re not perfect)
You’ve got the right spirit but I think it’s unlikely that the car would realize its tires have been destroyed, I think it would just keep driving around just with less control over its actions which might not be the best.
Give them a little hand-carried version of The Grappler, and then if Waymo has some kind of concern about what has happened to the brakes and suspension and all sorts of shit that is broken now, just give 'em one of these.
I’m not going to stop you, but the car definitely knows the tyre status. Most modern cars have tyre pressure sensing.
Naw. Cone ‘em and then tow them- at owner’s expense.
If the waymo hadnt been painted white they would have unloaded a clip into it instead
The government is great
Just impound the vehicle when the driver refuses to sign, or rip the axle out.
You know, like if it had a human owner.
Take all cars of that make off the road for being a danger, fine the company operating unsafe cars for a chunk of their revenue, suspend their licenses until they prove extensively that their vehicles have been made safe for traffic (the burden of proof for which would have to be far higher than a human driver, since we can’t even assume a base level of human reason).
Would this kill the company? Possibly. Would I shed a tear? Only if those same cars end up driving again without better security measures.
Honestly, should just impound all of the fleet immediately.
If the goal of the ticket is to stop the danger and enforce compliance, it has to be to the company via the entire fleet, and it must hurt them financially enough to immediately change the behavior.
Tickets have never been about stopping danger, they are a fundraiser.
Corporations are people right. So why aren’t they sent all these tickets.
I mean, you’re supposed to take the ticket when you’re pulled over, and I don’t believe we should make it easier for people who aren’t in the vehicle when driving it.
Write the ticket, hold it out at the car window, when no one takes it write “Refused”, make everyone exit, disable the vehicle until it can be towed to impound, and keep it at impound until some responsible person comes to claim it, sign the ticket, and pay the fees.
Aircraft must have pilots in command.
Radio stations must have control operators.
Pedestrian manglers can just roam free!
Surprised Pikachu!
Prepare to run people over!
