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.
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
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?
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”.
Yeah they probably just use a 20 years old out of date system (like any government agency that respects itself) that doesn’t take into account that maybe a car doesn’t have a driver
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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”.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think the issue is theres no specific person or driving license, purely by speculation
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.
Maybe it means they can’t be bothered to try something different.
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.