'No Driver, No Hands, No Clue': Waymo Pulled Over For Illegal U-turn (sfstandard.com) 120
What's the proper punishment for an illegal U-turn? If you're a human being in California, it's a fine of up to $234. If you're a robot, apparently, it's nothing at all. The San Francisco Standard: This injustice became apparent to many Facebook users Saturday night after a viral post from the San Bruno Police Department showed footage of officers pulling over a Waymo for the scofflaw maneuver only to discover that no one was behind the wheel.
The car stopped automatically when it saw the police lights during a Friday evening DUI checkpoint, but instead of a person IRL, officers say they were connected with a Waymo rep over the phone. After a brief exchange, the Waymo was sent on its way. Under current law, officials explained, they couldn't issue a ticket. "Our citation books don't have a box for 'robot,'" they joked on Facebook. "Hopefully the reprogramming will keep it from making any more illegal moves."
The car stopped automatically when it saw the police lights during a Friday evening DUI checkpoint, but instead of a person IRL, officers say they were connected with a Waymo rep over the phone. After a brief exchange, the Waymo was sent on its way. Under current law, officials explained, they couldn't issue a ticket. "Our citation books don't have a box for 'robot,'" they joked on Facebook. "Hopefully the reprogramming will keep it from making any more illegal moves."
Unacceptable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unacceptable (Score:5, Insightful)
The fine should have been issued to the company and the car impounded until they paid up.
Re: (Score:1)
Was it illegal? (Score:5, Informative)
Are we quite sure it was illegal? That's what was reported, but doing a u-turn prior to a DUI checkpoint is not typically unlawful. If this was a pretextual stop to check for drunk driving, and it really sounds like it was, they might not have had the reasonable articulable suspicion needed for a lawful stop. It happens more than you think. And clearly the "driver" was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs. If they go impounding the car, the deep pockets who own it are going to figure out the legality right quick.
Re: Was it illegal? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're programmed to avoid delays from high congestion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need an excuse. Doing a U-turn when you see a DUI checkpoint is almost always legal.
You'll catch the cops' attention but the courts have ruled that solely turning around is not sufficient to generate reasonable suspicion of a crime which would justify stopping you. They might follow you a little while to see if you do anything that would generate reasonable suspicion, but if the cop pulls you over immediately he's probably breaking the law.
https://www.findlaw.com/legalb... [findlaw.com]
Re:Unacceptable (Score:4, Interesting)
Any self-driving vehicle found to be malfunctioning ought to be impounded immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
and let the renter get hit with loss of use fees + admin fee?
Re: (Score:2)
It should be pretty easy to pick up a refund in small claims court, at least in California.
Ideally Waymo and other operators would give the refund up front without having to waste time and money sending a non-lawyer representative from the company to court.
Re: (Score:2)
It should be pretty easy to pick up a refund in small claims court, at least in California.
Have you ever actually dealt with the court system? There is nothing "easy" about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever actually dealt with the court system? There is nothing "easy" about it.
Small claims? Yes.
Easier for me than it is for the company. And a worthwhile learning experience even if the money isn't worth your time.
Re: (Score:2)
It makes me wonder if this really is a "malfunction" or they know they're breaking the rules of the road for the sake of expediency.
Last time I was driving though SF, I pulled up to a light with a Waymo on my left and while waiting for the green it proceeded to cross in front of me making a right turn from the center lane.
Re: (Score:2)
Since it's a software issue applicable to all cars then that fine multiplied by the number of cars on the road.
Re: (Score:2)
I want to agree, but you don't give a guy who owns three cars triple the fine for a traffic violation in one car.
Re: (Score:2)
The article is sparse on details. I don't necessarily think driverless cars should be given a free pass -- in fact, we should probably have higher fines for the manufacturers -- but 9 times out of 10 when a road is blocked, it's because of construction or an accident, not a checkpoint. I suspect it was reacting to the obstruction, because when a road is obstructed, the "no U-Turn" rule generally doesn't apply (or isn't enforced anyway). In fact, if it hadn't been a checkpoint, I doubt they would have eve
Re: (Score:2)
That's great when we can make things up on the spot, but show us the legal text that says cars may be impounded for doing a U-turn. Ultimately we live in a society of rules and not one of feelings.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The next time someone can even find $799 worth of stuff at a Walgreens without buying an out-of-formulary prescription will be the first.
Fuck off, trollbot.
Re: (Score:3)
The next time someone can even find $799 worth of stuff at a Walgreens without buying an out-of-formulary prescription will be the first.
Fuck off, trollbot.
You never have purchased cosmetics, skin care, vitamins and nutritional supplements, diabetic supplies, baby supplies, pet supplies, etc.
It is trivial to get to $800 in a Walgreens, with fewer than 20 items, without needing to scour the store for obscure items. Just throw a few bottles of CoQ-10 and Glucosamine in your handbasket, then stop by the lotion aisle to get a set of whatever the newest ANooYoo[tm] Rejoovenating RetinaCollagenauric Peptide Facial Anti-Aging regimen is, and you can hit $800 in about
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Unacceptable (Score:2)
All that expensive stuff is locked up in SF.
Re: (Score:2)
That's kind of the point: these policies, like almost every other so-called liberal policy, have enriched and protected the criminal at the expense of everyone else.
Great, now go back and do the policies which enrich and protect the oligarchs at the expense of everyone else, like the Republicans constantly giving the rich tax breaks, or opposing raising the contribution cap on Social Security.
not only have these policies enabled criminals to rob a corporation blind, they have robbed society at large of something even more important but less tangible. Trust.
No one should trust a system where it makes more sense for people to loot a retail aisle than work for a living, but you're here waving flags for it. Cuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is absurd that they just let it drive away without a citation. When they licensed this company to start putting auto drive cars on public roads, did nobody ever ask what would happen if one violated a traffic law? The company needs to be penalized. In fact I'm sure there *is* a mechanism to penalize the company, but the police officer was just ignorant.
Agreed. Dropping a ticket in the driver's seat is kinda ridiculous, but there certainly should be a mechanism for recording infractions and penalizing the company.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the point though? They are letting Waymo test their technology on their roads, with the understanding that it isn't perfect and that Waymo will keep improving it. All the evidence suggests that Waymo are keeping up their end of the bargain as their cars do indeed improve over time.
With a human, the human is supposed to know better and therefore need punishing because they deliberately violated the law.
With Waymo, some engineers need to create a bug report and address it. You don't normally fine engin
Re:Unacceptable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't intend to do that, I'm just saying that fining the company when the city already agreed to let them develop the technology, accepting that it will take time to perfect, doesn't make much sense. Unless the company broke the contract or was negligent in some way...
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't intend to do that, I'm just saying that fining the company when the city already agreed to let them develop the technology, accepting that it will take time to perfect, doesn't make much sense.
Of course it does, unless the city specifically exempted the company from the law. In fact from a purely "makes sense" point of view, not punishing the company doesn't provide any incentive for improvement, and THAT wouldn't make sense.
Same Point as for Humans (Score:4, Informative)
What's the point though? They are letting Waymo test their technology on their roads, with the understanding that it isn't perfect and that Waymo will keep improving it.
The point is exactly the same as it is for a human driver: to ensure that they learn to do better so that in the future they will follow the rules. If fines are the chosen method to do that then, if anything, they need to be much bigger for a company to provide the same level of motivation since they have deeper pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
People often criticize speed traps setups as being more fundraising events than making the roads safer.
That's why I was careful to word it as "If fines are the chosen method...". If the local legislature choose to use fines to motivate compliance in humans then that's what should be used on companies although I have to say that if a jurisdiction opted for driver re-education as a response to minor infractions then I think requiring all those responsible for the driverless car program, from the engineers up to the CEO, attend the lessons would provide much more motivation, especially when the executive team
Re: (Score:2)
The fine is likely to be insignificant next to the cost to Waymo of doing triage for the issue and maybe remotely babysitting cars through that area until they have it fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Same Point as for Humans (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Unacceptable (Score:5, Interesting)
So I guess it's fine when one of these things kills or injures someone? Nobody is responsible? The device, including the code, should require sign off by a licensed, bonded professional engineer who is on the hook for the consequences. If they can't find a PE willing to do so, then I guess that's a signal that it's not ready for public testing.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not, and I'm sure the contract is quite clear that they must have reached a level of safety before removing the human monitor from the car. We have different levels of punishment for different levels of severity.
and that PE coder will need the power to tell an P (Score:3)
and that PE coder will need the power to tell an PHB to fuck off + an union to keep there job after that.
Re: (Score:2)
bonded professional engineer who is on the hook for the consequences. If they can't find a PE willing to do so, then I guess that's a signal that it's not ready for public testing.
One of the problems with your thinking seems to be the assumption that a PE is somehow an infallible logical being that certifies correctness. The reality couldn't be further from the truth. A large portion of engineering is based on assumptions, good practices, and general design cases. Simply having a PE drop their signature on something won't prevent a death or injury, and it is insanely unlikely that the PE would face any practical consequences if the code they signed off actually did kill someone provi
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Go to hell with your sensible, rational comment. Don't you know the entire internet is fuelled by faux outrage and indignance? We can't have people posting this kind of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
With a human, the human is supposed to know better and therefore need punishing because they deliberately violated the law.
That is not a given either. In my state, most u-turns are legal except where posted. In the neighboring state, it is the opposite; u-turns are illegal unless posted. I was stopped and ticketed by a police officer in a neighboring state for making a u-turn. He looked at me incredulously when I told him I didn’t know it was illegal in that state as it was legal in my state. He refused to believe me that traffic laws can vary from state to state.
Re: Unacceptable (Score:2)
Re: Unacceptable (Score:2)
U-turns are usually legal in residential zones, and illegal elsewhere. I don't know about where you are though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Unacceptable (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So Waymo suffered absolutely zero consequences for the bug. How much time do you think the engineers will be given to fix the bug when it's consequence-free for the company?
Re: Unacceptable (Score:2)
Depends on whether they want to avoid consequences the next time it happens; eg causing an accident and getting on the news.
Re: (Score:2)
There things called student drivers who are also new to driving and are training their brains how to do it properly. They get fined for breaking the law. "Consider it a teaching moment." Waymo should be taught a lesson too.
Google is free to build it's own private road network and fake city to test their cars. Just as people are free to teach themselves to drive on their own private roads/load without issue. Once you get on public roads, you're required to follow the related laws regardless of your driv
Re: (Score:1)
Was the water also wet?
Re: (Score:2)
This is absurd that they just let it drive away without a citation. When they licensed this company to start putting auto drive cars on public roads, did nobody ever ask what would happen if one violated a traffic law? The company needs to be penalized. In fact I'm sure there *is* a mechanism to penalize the company, but the police officer was just ignorant.
OR, you could realize that a cop pulling over the 15-year old trainee or a new 16-year old driver for the same infraction, would most likely let them off with a warning too.
The fuck do we want here? A mindless robot armed with hollow points and zero tolerance, or human discretion?
Re: (Score:2)
You know, sometimes officers let human drivers off with just a warning too. I kind of appreciate it when they do that. This doesn't seem so different.
Corporation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wilhoit's Law (Score:2)
Pointless though it may be. (Score:3)
They should cite Waymo the company.
I don't understand why the can't or didn't.
Re: (Score:3)
They should cite Waymo the company.
Exactly. After all, Corporations are people!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
The police have to follow a legal process or the city gets sued. While parking citations are technically issued to vehicles and the registered owner is ultimately responsible to clear those citations, moving violations are issued to vehicle operators and the issuance of those citations require specific data that cannot be gathered from an autonomous vehicle.
These are the operational issues that SHOULD HAVE been sorted out prior to the vehicles being allowed to operate in public, but it wasn't until last yea
Re: (Score:2)
Updating the law was the error.
This is a just yet another example of corporations adding -'with a computer' to the end of something and pretending it is materially different.
If I am behind the wheel of a conventional car, clearly I am the operator - or am I - what if the cruise control was on, and I was asleep I wasn't operating the car even though it was operating, anyone court going to excuse my culpability in casing that crash on the interstate?
Existing law had this covered just fine.. Just because the s
Re: (Score:2)
Does Waymo go in the first name or last name of the citation? The problem is usually one of paperwork and system design. Police doing traffic stops basically have no way of fining a company. Companies aren't liable for traffic infractions, individuals are. It is very likely that the police had no way of figuring out how to do this, and the legal system had no way of coping with a car that had no driver.
You see similar quirks all over the world for all sorts of insane reasons. For example:
Germany - There's n
Impound the car (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I see no reason to treat a driver-less car with prejudice. If they would not under normal circumstances tow someone for a given moving violation, they should not invent excuses to amp up penalties just because they can't hand a ticket to someone.
Certainly Waymo has a mailing address. Corporations are people, lets have equal justice!
Re: (Score:2)
If they would not under normal circumstances tow someone for a given moving violation
Our police do tow abandoned vehicles left in the right-of-way. Since a Waymo vehicle is indiscerinble from one that has slipped out of park and is rolling out of control, the response would be similar.
Re:Impound the car (Score:4, Insightful)
I see no reason to treat a driver-less car with prejudice.
Agreed, but letting it off without a ticket is prejudical treatment. Also, had a human committed the same offence and then abandoned the car without a driver I'm pretty sure the police would tow the vehicle. If they wanted to treat the vehicle the same they should have demanded that a Waymo rep appear quickly to accept the ticket and, if they refused, then impound and tow the car.
Re: (Score:1)
Now the police know what it feels like to speak and it's like noone is there.
Re: (Score:2)
If there is nobody to accept a ticket, tow the thing and make a rep show up in person and pay the fine to have it released.
On what basis do you tow the vehicle? Mention the specific law that allows it to be towed. Note the vehicle is registered and has a permit to drive without a driver. I certainly agree something needs to be done, but we do NOT want police making up non-existent laws on the spot.
Re: (Score:2)
A bit off topic ... (Score:2)
*I was confronted by one once in a one way alley. Some kid in a clapped out Honda stopped in front of me and started shaking his fist. I stuck my head out my window, laughed and said, "You're kidding, right?" My Power Wagon looks like a scaled down version of the Duel truck. Rusty I-beam bumper
Impound the car (Score:2)
....until it can produce ID.
I call BS (Score:5, Insightful)
>> "Our citation books don't have a box for 'robot,'"
This is bull. Speed cameras and redlight cameras mail out tickets without even knowing who the driver was. The owner of the car must pay the fine regardless of who was driving.
Re: (Score:2)
States that have speed cameras and red light cameras, made specific amendments to the law that allowed vehicles to be ticketed without identifying a driver. Other traffic laws do not have such an exemption.
Re: (Score:3)
>> "Our citation books don't have a box for 'robot,'"
This is bull. Speed cameras and redlight cameras mail out tickets without even knowing who the driver was. The owner of the car must pay the fine regardless of who was driving.
It's not BS. By state law in California speeding detected by camera is not a moving violation. There are no points assigned to the owner. The owner is responsible for paying the fine no matter who is driving. Red light camera tickets are a moving violation, but the cameras must take pictures of the license plate and the driver.
Corporate Immunity (Score:2)
So the driver was not at the scene? (Score:2)
Then treat it as you normally would when the driver has fled the scene. Impound the car, let the owner come pick it up.
The cops don't need to figure out the next steps, the owner does. Issue the ticket to the corporation, let them figure out who is responsible, and who should pay it.
Issue it to the CEO (Score:2)
He's the person that is big-R-Responsible for this.
Posted No U-Turn? (Score:1)
Shut 'em down (Score:2)
If an automated vehicle is found committing an offense, an appropriate fine should be levied against the company and (depending on the potential severity of outcome of the behaviour) all its vehicles immediately banned from operation until their code is updated to prevent a recurrence.
They're not human, they aren't learning because they got pulled over by a police officer. They are just as likely to make that same mistake again as they were before the incident, and until that changes all vehicles running
Fun civil rights lawsuit! (Score:2)
The next human driver cited for this should file a civil rights lawsuit claiming racial discrimination. Since there's apparently video evidence of "we don't/can't ticket robots" (rather than a hard to prove "officers have discretion" type thing), it might stick, especially if it goes before a jury.
Wow (Score:2)
So many people are for the impounding of the car or fining the company. I'm more interested in why the u-turn was considered illegal in the first place. Most places, in my experience, where u-turns are not allowed are setup arbitrarily. Depending on where exactly this was, there might be zero signage saying "no u-turns" and you would just have to "know" that you aren't supposed to do one there. Human drivers regularly (and stupidly) use the middle two-way left turn lanes for merging right back into traffic
Re: (Score:2)
California has very specific laws that govern when a U-turn is or is not legal. For example, iirc it is illegal across a double solid center line. Whether it is legal at an intersection depends on whether there is a median. In addition, it might be governed by signage. Due to poor maintenance, it might not be easy to even see signage, or tell what worn out line might be in the middle of a road.
In this particular case, it appeared to the officers that the car was making a U-turn to avoid a DUI checkpoint
Re: (Score:2)
California has very specific laws that govern when a U-turn is or is not legal.
Yeah, most states or cities with high populations do.
That in itself might be illegal even if it would be a legal maneuver if a checkpoint were not present.
It is not illegal to avoid a DUI checkpoint. So the u-turn, in theory, was illegal regardless of the checkpoint. But if there is no median or physical blockers, and no traffic, there isn't anything to worry about to begin with and no point in pulling someone (or robot) over for it. No new additional danger was created nor property damaged, which is the only reason u-turns are illegal in certain places to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
The said it was stopped at a DUI checkpoint. It's probably illegal to u-turn to avoid one of these, or else all the drunks would just dip on them.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no way the robot taxi even knows what a DUI checkpoint is. If it just sees flashing police lights, it may turn around simply to find a better route assuming that there might be an accident or some other blocking of the road.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh someone's mad that they have zero critical thinking skills, whomp whomp. It doesn't matter if it's congested or not. It's not part of a "normal" route, so of course the computer would want to avoid it.
Re: (Score:2)
But at 2:30am when there are no other cars near me? I'm turning on red.
And that's how and why I got hit by a car one early morning when I was walking home. Car was slowing down as if would stop like it was supposed to do, so I started crossing. Driver decided no one was around and hit the gas rather than stop and wait for the light.
Traffic laws make people behave predictably and thus everyone nearby (in cars, bikes, walking, etc...) can make assumptions on what you're going to do. This lets traffic flow relatively safely nearly all of the time. If people were allowed to ig
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant. Based on available data, the US and Mexico average almost the exact same rate of accidents per capita.
Re: (Score:2)
Big whoop. Memphis has well over 100 die in car accidents every year. Tijuana isn't special, and it's residents being retarded drivers has nothing to do with local traffic laws or lack thereof.
More traffic laws do not help people drive better. Instead, comprehensive driving education that cannot be tested out of should be mandatory in order to obtain a driver's license. It should be significantly harder to obtain a license and even harder to keep it. Cause an accident? Lose your license completely. Caught d
Re: (Score:2)
You point out a place where they ignore traffic laws with a negative result, and I pointed out a place where traffic laws are not ignored with an even worse negative result. You've provided essentially nothing.
The point being, that the illegal u-turn has no point in being illegal to begin with regardless of whether its robot or human performing it.
Parking Citation (Score:2)
GPS navigation fault (Score:2)
Was is performed safely? (Score:2)
If no one was injured and no property was damaged, it's hard to argue any crime was committed. This should be the presumption for human activity as well.
No Driver, No Hands, No Clue, No Liability (Score:2)
I'm guessing that this is a feature, not a bug (of the legal system).
They know it has no driver, don't be stupid... (Score:2)
Opportunity (Score:2)
Cameron needs to rewrite Terminator 1 (Score:2)
The problem with the police station scene in The Terminator, was that the cops shot back. Now we realize, they wouldn't do that. "Well, no I can't stop you from seeing Ms Connor because you're not a human, so I guess go right in there and do what you need to, mister, uhrr, clanker skin job."
Sovcit robot? (Score:2)