upvote
> I live in Denver, Colorado. A Waymo drove into a farmers market. Luckily, no one was hurt. I assume a human doing this would be charged with reckless driving.

I also live in Denver, and while the quote is technically true, it is misleading. A Waymo did drive into a farmers market...before there were barricades up, when other cars were still driving through as well for set-up time. Nobody would have been charged with anything.

> “It entered through our food truck area,” said Nicole Jarman, the production director of the farmers market... there was a “Road Closed” sign on one side of the street, but the other side of the street was still open to vendor traffic during set up and the Waymo followed a vendor vehicle past the sign and then turned onto the 1400 block of South Pearl Street.

> “It’s still load-in, our barricades are moved to the side, so there’s vehicular access, and it followed that traffic, went slow, and then made its way on out at Arkansas and kept going” she said.

> “It was not anything that made us nervous,” Jarman said.

[0]: https://kdvr.com/news/local/waymo-drives-through-denver-farm...

reply
Earlier this year a 92-year-old woman drove into our local Asian supermarket, killed three people and injured at least six. No criminal charges were filed. At least they pulled her driver license.

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/investigations/westwood-99-ran...

I don't say this to suggest excusing autonomous car companies from bearing liability, but just for context.

Perhaps we should not make the regulations too punitive on the AV companies as that would reduce the speed of replacing bad human drivers who currently cause 40,000 deaths a year in the US.

reply
>Luckily, no one was hurt.

It wasn't luck though, the cars are incredibly cautious around people. Yes the car did the wrong thing here, but it wasn't driving at speed or endangering people.

reply
This exactly. The car didn't drive into people: it followed a vendor truck into a place it shouldn't have gone, apparently slowly exited the area.

It's bad, and obviously shouldn't have happened, but the car is cautious around people and didn't hit anyone. It's a far better failure mode than the typical case of a human who drives into a crowd.

reply
> drove into a farmer's market

> wasn't...endangering people

There's a bit of a disconnect there.

reply
The first comment is like saying I drove into a building when I entered my garage.
reply
"Endangering" is an exaggeration based on what actually occurred it seems. What the car did was technically in violation of traffic regulations but it was careful to not hit anybody or cause significant damage to people's property as it did so. This is essentially no different than a careful driver ignoring (intentionally or otherwise) a sign restricting them from entering an area, but still driving through the area successfully without doing any harm. Technically, traffic rules were broken, by mistake (an algorithmic one most likely) in this case, but there were no lasting effects.

People make mistakes like that all the time, and sometimes they still get ticketed for that kind of thing, and other times they get a simple warning or don't get any form of rebuke at all. How many of us have never accidentally gone into a one-way traffic lane from the opposite side and managed to still drive through and get back on track without killing or maiming anybody? It's unlikely anybody would get charged with a crime for this, nor should they over a simple mistaken rule violation that did no harm.

reply
A self driving car can drive places it isn't supposed to be while ALSO very carefully avoiding colliding with anything.
reply
Were you standing on top of the car at the time?
reply
> I assume a human doing this would be charged with reckless driving.

I would be shocked if that was the case.

reply
I disagree with this. I'm okay with permissive permitting of self driving (it seems to be much safer according to their own studies, which I am willing to skeptically accept), but where I agree is being permitted should not give you any special rights when it comes to avoiding civil (criminal?) liability.

A taxi company that kept a drunk employed might be liable for damages that drunk causes, same rules should apply to your own self driving fleet.

reply
A human driver, mowed down and killed a family of four in my city [1]. They got six days in jail. With this context, what level of punitive laws are you think for autonomous car companies? Humans drive through these situations too [3].

When people point out "reckless" behavior of autonomous cars to me, the conversation simply isn't worth having unless you're comparing to current conditions. We're looking at 40,000 deaths per year so, endless community meetings and hand-wringing around regulations is not an option, unless we're ready to first stop all human driving and have the same process for those.

[1]:https://abc7news.com/post/80-year-old-san-francisco-driver-k...

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLLkGaKX7NI

[3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8gMd9XZJyg

reply
I happened to be in that area of West Portal on that fateful day (damn you, Noe Valley Bakery!) I did not see it happen, but went to see what that noise was all about. The images of that scene from that day still haunt me; they are very vivid. It was a terrible, terrible accident and may that old witch Mary Lau spend an eternity in hell.
reply
>A human driver, mowed down and killed a family of four in my city [1]. They got six days in jail.

And that's an easy case to prosecute too, because the driver clearly broke laws beyond just "crashing into people":

>when they were killed by Lau, driving 70 miles an hour in the residential area of West Portal in San Francisco.

reply
> Two years ago, the family of four was on their way to the San Francisco Zoo with their two young children when they were killed by Lau, driving 70 miles an hour in the residential area of West Portal in San Francisco.

Horrifying. Life is short, enjoy what you have.

reply
> is not an option, unless we're ready to first stop all human driving and have the same process for those.

Why?

reply
Process A is killing 40,000 people per year.

Process B has killed none to do the same job.

I'm sure per mile driven, there is an "acceptable death rate", but should we atleast wait till the autonomous cars are on the board to make that a priority?

reply
How is that different from a malfunction of human-operated car?

There are drive-by-wire cars on the road. ABS systems can disable breaks.

If a malfunction is caused by the control software of that car or a mechanical malfunction by bad design it seems to me like the same thing. Do you/we don't have a solution for that already?

reply
Did you want the cops to arrest the car?
reply
Just to be clear: there are humans choosing to have the car operate. That's not just semantics. Responsibility lies with the people making the choice to cause a system to operate.
reply
So we should start arresting engineers and executives?
reply
Executives, definitely yes. One person should be responsible for automated systems and services. The CEO is the most logical choice.
reply
If people act with gross negligence, then yes, we should arrest them. How that is defined may depend on a variety of factors, though, and is something that already has relevant case law in related fields.
reply
Immediately stop all Waymo's in the jurisdiction, start legal proceeding against the company. Someone signed off on software/hardware that lacked sufficient protections, find out who.
reply
> Immediately stop all Waymo's in the jurisdiction

When we start taking idiot drivers' licenses away, sure. Otherwise this is a silly overreaction with a calculable cost in human lives.

reply
>Someone signed off on software/hardware that lacked sufficient protections, find out who.

Crashed prod? Straight to jail.

reply
Bridge collapsed? Straight to jail.
reply
not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_(1940) nothing happened to the lead designer (Moisseiff) or engineer (Eldridge)
reply
> nothing happened to the lead designer (Moisseiff) or engineer (Eldridge)

It's a joke–a riff on a Parks and Recs meme making fun of Venezuela at the time. We don't jail aircraft engineers when they make a mistake because just sending people to jail doesn't work as well as encouraging them to co-operate ex post facto so the root cause can be identified.

reply
>It's a joke–a riff on a Parks and Recs meme making fun of Venezuela at the time.

Poe's law strikes again. Of course nobody thinks crashing prod should result in jail, or most software engineers would have spent some time behind bars by now. However it's entirely unclear whether @CountHackulus meant "of course autonomous car engineers should be jailed, just as if an engineer signed off on faulty plans" (which to be fair, also happens), or is just repeating my joke with bridges.

reply
> of course nobody thinks crashing prod should result in jail

You'd be surprised at how many intelligent people really do want this.

reply
Exactly, people on HN want new laws passed every time Cloudflare goes down for 5 minutes
reply
To be fair, Cloudflare is near or at the point where they should be regulated as a utility.
reply
Sure, but it's not a cop's job to perform legal proceedings.
reply
Are you referring to the actual case mentioned here, where a car passed slowly through a market and... that was all what happened?
reply
Aren’t waymos actually much safer and have less incidents per mile compared with human drivers? (Yes, they are and yes they do)
reply
A driver's license suspension would be sufficient, say for six months or so?
reply
Depends on the circumstances, if it's a mechanical issue without an obvious cause neither the car or driver gets suspended.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932011_Toyota_vehic...

reply
What do you believe is the correct course of action for law enforcement to take in this situation?

https://apnews.com/article/robot-germany-sexual-assault-colo...

Can you extend that to this situation?

reply
> Local cops said there are no laws to charge a driverless car with a crime.

This is bananas. Cops are not experts in the law. I'm sure a competent district attorney would be able to throw somebody in jail for this.

reply