Jef PoskanzerSupposedly, SFPD can't ticket misbehaving robocars because there's no driver to sign the ticket. I have come to believe that this interpretation is in error. Standard procedure when a driver won't sign a ticket is to arrest them and impound the vehicle. Just because the driver, meaning the person responsible for the driving, is not present, shouldn't change this.
SFPD should write the ticket, ask the car if it's willing to sign, then call for a tow. If someone from Cruise/Waymo shows up at the impound lot to recover the car, they can sign the ticket then. This is 100% standard police procedure and should not be a problem for anyone.
Also, if the robocar tries to leave while the officer is writing the ticket, they should follow standard police procedure for that too: shoot the fuck out of it. Keep shooting until it stops.
The Overhead Wire@jef Resisting Arrest! Resisting Arrest!
M Mayo-Moyle@jef *only if the car is black. White cars get a free pass.
Oggie
Jym Dyer 🚲🌎
Brian Baresch
Badger AF (he/him) DEMOCRACY@jef I think we can workshop this into the next "Bladerunner".
@Badger_AF Or Futurama
@jef A Bladerunner parody would be a helluva opening on Futurama.
Tito Swineflu@jef please, let the enforcement of this be via Mech. "you have 10 seconds to comply"
arclight@jef "I smelled weed. Robot weed."
Alexander Portnoy 🌊 🏳️🌈@jef SFPD has towed on flimsier excuses in the past.
bastage@jef Yeah, really feels like an opportunity to test out their spike strip techniques.
Angus McIntyre@jef “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a police officer beating on a robocar with his baton while shouting ‘Stop resisting! Stop resisting!’ -- forever.”
John [He, Him, His] 🌈👨🏼🔬🧬🧫🧪💻@jef I don’t think this is right. I think every time a robocar is in violations of traffic law they should show up wherever the CEO is and write THEM a ticket. Eventually there will be enough tickets, making signing these literally all they do. You have to make it consequential for the company. Paying a fee and retrieving the car won’t impact executives.
Joe ❌👑@jef If there is any legal ambiguity, SF should just pass a law clarifying it. If a robocar is blocking traffic or otherwise severely misbehaving it should be towed and the owner should pay.
Jon Gilbert@jef dude, look around: SFPD doesn't do that even when there IS a driver in the car
AlexanderMars
Dan Shick@jef but we know the real reason they can’t write tickets is that the self-drive firms have given the City material considerations
Jon 
@jef yes please. We need to make the punishment for the robotaxi’s fucking around suitably painful for the companies that own them. If we do not, then they will never have any incentive to improve their behavior. Watch how fast they fix some of these stupid repeated issues if they are racking up multimillion dollar fines each month.
Rachel@jef if I put a car in neutral and walk off that is definitely a crime/violation and I will be ticked for it.
But if I write some code as an extra step and have the same result, it is fine actually?
Just another case of techbros insisting they have a real solution to a problem, while ignoring the *actual* solutions (just build good transit!) that they're ignoring because using transit means interacting with or seeing poor people which they absolutely cannot stand.
If we have to do this sort of thing because it might reduce congestion, maybe, or lower parking needs, etc then it needs to be taken seriously.
Every single incident should have a full NTSB investigation to determine what happened and how to prevent it from happening again. Like we do for airplane crashes
Have the nearly unlimited VC money pouring into it all pay for it.
If the roads need to be fixed do that but only after making them safe for vulnerable road users
Rachel@[email protected]
If we have to do this sort of thing because it might reduce congestion, maybe, or lower parking needs, etc then it needs to be taken seriously.
Every single incident should have a full NTSB investigation to determine what happened and how to prevent it from happening again. Like we do for airplane crashes
Have the nearly unlimited VC money pouring into it all pay for it.
If the roads need to be fixed do that but only after making them safe for vulnerable road users
If we have to do this sort of thing because it might reduce congestion, maybe, or lower parking needs, etc then it needs to be taken seriously.
Every single incident should have a full NTSB investigation to determine what happened and how to prevent it from happening again. Like we do for airplane crashes
Have the nearly unlimited VC money pouring into it all pay for it.
If the roads need to be fixed do that but only after making them safe for vulnerable road users
Pseudo Nym
ninavizz@jef acab.
jakob.pxi@jef how about every single robot vehicle needs to pass a driver's license test drive before being issued a permit? If the robot can't pass, why would we even consider allowing it to drive on public roads?
I jest, but I suspect there is actually a legal precedent to be set here in earnest, if passing familiarity with US case law memory serves correctly. Not that I would argue for robots to be allowed to drive in the first place. Schildbürger Strategy.
Dark Matter Zine@jef also how dangerous to leave dangerous vehicles unattended on the road? IMO they should ticket the owners or the company who built the damned things. That would save lives.
LyndeeLaw enforcement could be given the ability to shut the robocab down. Nope. Stupid suggestion.
MaybeMyMonkeys@jef how do they deal with illegally parked cars?
adamrice
hapbt@jef if theres no one in the vehicle than can we just push it into a sinkhole
MikiIt reminds me of a Stalone flick with Sandra Bulock and Wesley Snipes where Stalone as John Spartan is frozen for 30 years and thawed in a techno dystopia LA.
Three shells, sex by wire and rat hamburgers.
Simon Brooke@jef And the person responsible for the driving is the CEO of the company operating the vehicle, so they are easily identifiable and arrestable.
@simon_brooke Every employee shares responsibility and should be charged with conspiracy.
@jef if I put a car in neutral and walk off that is definitely a crime/violation and I will be ticked for it.
But if I write some code as an extra step and have the same result, it is fine actually?
Just another case of techbros insisting they have a real solution to a problem, while ignoring the actual solutions (just build good transit!) that they're ignoring because using transit means interacting with or seeing poor people which they absolutely cannot stand.
But if I write some code as an extra step and have the same result, it is fine actually?
Just another case of techbros insisting they have a real solution to a problem, while ignoring the actual solutions (just build good transit!) that they're ignoring because using transit means interacting with or seeing poor people which they absolutely cannot stand.