California to begin ticketing driverless cars that violate traffic laws
California has introduced new rules allowing police to ticket companies when their autonomous vehicles break traffic laws, shifting liability from human drivers to manufacturers and operators. Commenters broadly welcome greater accountability but clash over how penalties should work — from income-scaled fines and license revocations to potential criminal liability for executives — and whether tickets are enough to change behavior or if unsafe fleets should simply be banned. The debate also highlights wider issues: how AV safety compares to human drivers, the risk of cities using fines as revenue, and how to regulate software that sometimes must balance strict legality against real-world traffic norms.
Who Should Be Fined and How Much
- Many argue fines should scale to income or company revenue, with floors and escalating penalties for repeat offenses.
- Others say AV tickets should be identical to human tickets; proportional corporate fines risk becoming a manageable “cost of doing business.”
- Some propose normalizing penalties by miles driven or fleet size to avoid punishing more efficient operators.
Liability and Criminal Responsibility
- Strong debate over whether the manufacturer, fleet operator, or vehicle owner should get the ticket.
- For today’s robotaxis (owned/operated by companies), most posters favor holding the operator/company responsible.
- For privately owned AVs, some argue the owner should be fully liable unless a post-sale update introduces defects.
- A minority advocate criminal liability (including jail) for executives in cases of reckless design or known-bug releases.
Comparisons to Human Drivers & Justice System
- Several posts challenge the idea that humans “get the book” for vehicular manslaughter, citing frequent light or no punishment and weak license revocations.
- Others stress deterrence and incapacitation (license loss, prison) as key goals, but note that many fatal crashes, especially involving elderly or impaired drivers, get minimal sanctions.
Effectiveness of Ticketing AVs
- One camp says per-violation tickets are the right incentive: break law → pay; enough violations → permit suspension, fleet restrictions.
- Another camp prefers regulatory thresholds (e.g., violations per mile) and outright bans for persistent noncompliance, arguing tickets are too human-centric and let unsafe systems keep running.
- Some suggest AVs should face stricter standards than humans; others think laws should be relaxed for AVs with strong safety records.
Safety, Edge Cases, and Road Design
- People report AVs speeding slightly, rolling stop signs, blocking lanes, and using bike lanes, often mirroring common but technically illegal human behavior.
- Debate over whether AVs should follow the “flow of traffic” social norms (e.g., at four‑way stops) or the strict letter of the law.
- Concerns about AVs blocking emergency vehicles and calls for remote “commandeer” capabilities.
Broader Policy and Motives
- Some see this as necessary accountability; others suspect revenue-seeking by cities and states.
- Wider suggestions include income-based fines for all drivers, tougher DUI and safety laws, and investment in public transit as a more direct way to reduce road deaths.