238
submitted 4 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Reality_Suit@lemmy.one 104 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The company is responsible. Waymo should get the citation. If there were a live driver, the driver would get the citation. If companies want to start going down the route of AI, then whoever is in ownership or responsible for training, should be responsible for the actions of the AI.

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 54 points 4 months ago

Arizona law does allow officers to give out tickets when a robotaxi commits a traffic violation while driving autonomously; however, officers have to give them to the company that owns the vehicle. Doing so is “not feasible,” according to a Phoenix police spokesperson

[-] Chozo@fedia.io 49 points 4 months ago

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?

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 29 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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".

[-] independantiste@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 months ago

Yeah they probably just use a 20 years old out of date system (like any government agency that respects itself) that doesn't take into account that maybe a car doesn't have a driver

[-] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] Ferris@infosec.pub 11 points 4 months ago

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?

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

citations must be handed over personally to the driver

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.

[-] Spiralvortexisalie@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] Spiralvortexisalie@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] independantiste@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

I think the issue is theres no specific person or driving license, purely by speculation

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 18 points 4 months ago

Then the vehicle is being operated unlicensed. Impound it, suspend the registration, and fine the owner. That's how it works for everyone else.

[-] independantiste@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 months ago

I'd love to see that happen

[-] Reality_Suit@lemmy.one 12 points 4 months ago

How is it not feasible? Companies have addresses and records of employees. I know you're just citing, but something doesn't sound right. I mean, we are talking about Phoenix police so that could explain it.

[-] Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

Maybe it means they can't be bothered to try something different.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 35 points 4 months ago

Corporations are people until a crime is committed, at which point you can't punish a corporation for a crime a person commits.

I don't understand it, but apparently that's how it works.

this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
238 points (99.6% liked)

News

23311 readers
1449 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS