Most active commenters
  • jakelazaroff(7)
  • mothballed(5)
  • AngryData(4)

←back to thread

Waymo granted permit to begin testing in New York City

(www.cnbc.com)
597 points achristmascarl | 18 comments | 22 Aug 25 17:02 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
vinkelhake ◴[22 Aug 25 17:40 UTC] No.44987373[source]▶
I live in the bay and occasionally ride Waymo in SF and I pretty much always have a good time.

I visited NYC a few weeks ago and was instantly reminded of how much the traffic fucking sucks :) While I was there I actually thought of Waymo and how they'd have to turn up the "aggression" slider up to 11 to get anything done there. I mean, could you imagine the audacity of actually not driving into an intersection when the light is yellow and you know you're going to block the crossing traffic?

replies(13): >>44987402 #>>44987434 #>>44987566 #>>44987773 #>>44987794 #>>44988469 #>>44988487 #>>44988623 #>>44989128 #>>44989185 #>>44989296 #>>44992865 #>>44993957 #
setgree ◴[22 Aug 25 17:43 UTC] No.44987402[source]▶
Semi-related, but just once in my life, I want to hear a mayoral candidate say: “I endorse broken windows theory, but for drivers. You honk when there’s no emergency, block the box, roll through a stop sign — buddy that’s a ticket. Do it enough and we’ll impound your car.”

Who knows, maybe we’ll start taking our cues from our polite new robot driver friends…

replies(11): >>44987457 #>>44987497 #>>44987533 #>>44987639 #>>44987665 #>>44987768 #>>44987936 #>>44988163 #>>44988214 #>>44988298 #>>44988999 #
chrisshroba ◴[22 Aug 25 17:52 UTC] No.44987497[source]▶
This always astounds me about cities who have a reputation for people breaking certain traffic laws. In St. Louis, people run red lights for 5+ seconds after it turns red, and no one seems to care to solve it, but if they'd just station police at some worst-offender lights for a couple months to write tickets, people would catch on pretty quickly that it's not worth the risk. I have similar thoughts on people using their phones at red lights and people running stop signs.
replies(10): >>44987653 #>>44987850 #>>44988100 #>>44988152 #>>44988170 #>>44988205 #>>44988345 #>>44988790 #>>44988794 #>>44998180 #
rahkiin ◴[22 Aug 25 18:03 UTC] No.44987653[source]▶
In europe we use traffic cameras for this. Going through red light? A bill is in your mailbox automatically. No need for a whole police station.
replies(11): >>44987777 #>>44987978 #>>44988024 #>>44988141 #>>44988156 #>>44988222 #>>44988281 #>>44988291 #>>44988721 #>>44989145 #>>44989876 #
mothballed ◴[22 Aug 25 18:39 UTC] No.44988156[source]▶
In most the USA, or at least Arizona, you have to serve someone. Just dropping something in a mail box doesn't mean dick. The very people that invented the traffic cameras up in Scottsdale were caught dodging the process servers from triggers from their own camera.

Another words, you have to spend hundreds of dollars chasing someone down, by the time you add that on to how easy it is to jam up the ticket in court by demanding an actual human being accuse you, it's not the easy win some may think. You're basically looking at $500+ to try and prosecute someone for a $300 ticket.

replies(7): >>44988311 #>>44988372 #>>44988586 #>>44988725 #>>44988728 #>>44988780 #>>44989657 #
1. peteey ◴[22 Aug 25 19:26 UTC] No.44988780[source]▶
In FL, a speed camera can give a car's owner can a ticket without needing to know he was the driver. Your perspective is not true nation wide.

"The registered owner of the motor vehicle involved in the violation is responsible and liable for paying the uniform traffic citation issued for a violation"

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ...

replies(1): >>44990106 #
2. AngryData ◴[22 Aug 25 21:34 UTC] No.44990106[source]▶
That seems completely fucked to me. Charging people who aren't guilty of any crime with a crime because somebody else was driving their car?
replies(2): >>44990453 #>>44991512 #
3. andelink ◴[22 Aug 25 22:08 UTC] No.44990453[source]▶
What would be the alternative? Just get who was driving your car to pay you back for the fine. If they are not accountable/honorable enough to back you back, then why were you letting them drive your car in the first place?
replies(1): >>44991064 #
4. AngryData ◴[22 Aug 25 23:11 UTC] No.44991064{3}[source]▶
The same "alternative" that there is to every other crime in existence, proving the person you charged with a crime actually committed the crime. The default is suppose to be innocence, not guilty. It is the state's responsibility or problem to prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not a citizen's responsibility to prove their continued innocence at all times.
replies(1): >>44991480 #
5. jakelazaroff ◴[22 Aug 25 23:58 UTC] No.44991480{4}[source]▶
I mean, the state obviously has photo evidence. So you need to show that either the photo was taken in error, that it misidentified your vehicle or that you weren't the legal owner at the time.
replies(3): >>44992830 #>>44995931 #>>44997071 #
6. jakelazaroff ◴[23 Aug 25 00:02 UTC] No.44991512[source]▶
What do you mean by people who aren't guilty? The infraction here is allowing your vehicle to run a red light.
replies(1): >>44997062 #
7. lotsoweiners ◴[23 Aug 25 03:22 UTC] No.44992830{5}[source]▶
I got a couple of them like 20 years ago. Picture was terrible. I just through the ticket in the trash and never thought about it again.
8. mothballed ◴[23 Aug 25 13:42 UTC] No.44995931{5}[source]▶
That's absolutely hilarious. They take a photo of something approximating your vehicle that shows your plate number, toss it in a mail system that loses more than 0.5% of the class of mail used, then according to another poster in NY they impound your car after all this.

Anyplace with the slightest adherence to the rule of law requires the state to positively identify an actual person, not a vehicle owned by a person, that is responsible for a moving violation. And then personally serve that person rather than just coming up with this absolute bullshit excuse that an unreliable mail system with a letter dropped god knows where somehow is legal service.

replies(1): >>44998174 #
9. AngryData ◴[23 Aug 25 16:30 UTC] No.44997062{3}[source]▶
How do you allow a vehicle to run a red light that you aren't driving?
replies(1): >>44998024 #
10. AngryData ◴[23 Aug 25 16:31 UTC] No.44997071{5}[source]▶
They have a photo of a car, but the car cannot commit a crime all on its own, someone has to be driving it. And if you have no idea who is driving when you charge them you are inevitably going to be charging innocent people.
replies(1): >>44998115 #
11. jakelazaroff ◴[23 Aug 25 18:31 UTC] No.44998024{4}[source]▶
Easy:

1. Allow someone else to drive your vehicle

2. That person runs a red light

Your responsibility as the vehicle owner is to either not do step 1, or only do it for people whom you trust will not do step 2.

replies(1): >>44998752 #
12. jakelazaroff ◴[23 Aug 25 18:47 UTC] No.44998115{6}[source]▶
When the police come across a car that's parked illegally, do you think they should need to wait around and figure out exactly who left it before issuing a ticket? Of course not; the vehicle owner is responsible for ensuring it's parked legally.

In the same way, it's the vehicle owner's responsibility to make sure their car is not driven through a red light. If they abdicate that responsibility, they aren't innocent!

13. jakelazaroff ◴[23 Aug 25 18:55 UTC] No.44998174{6}[source]▶
A couple things wrong here:

1. Camera-issued tickets are not moving violations

2. Your car will not be impounded for failure to pay (maybe unless you have many, many unpaid tickets)

If the photo is bad, you can dispute it! That isn't presumption of guilt, it's the legal system working exactly as intended: one side presents their evidence, and the other side has a chance to respond.

Even if USPS loses 0.5% of mail (I am skeptical; that seems crazy high) the state sends at least three notices, so the chances of you missing every notice of your infraction is something like one in a million.

replies(1): >>44998701 #
14. mothballed ◴[23 Aug 25 20:04 UTC] No.44998701{7}[source]▶
Only by the most ridiculous fiction is running a red light or speeding not a moving violation. They've intentionally pretended like it's not to get around the due process involved.
15. mothballed ◴[23 Aug 25 20:11 UTC] No.44998752{5}[source]▶
You don't even have to 'allow' them. Either you could live in a community property state, where your spouse, even a spouse who has initiated divorce against you, legally also owns the vehicle that is in your name. Or someone could steal it. Or someone could steal or duplicate your plates and put it on a nearly identical car, which happened to a friend who had to spend years fighting all the tickets that were mailed to him when an entirely different car (same make/model) used his same plate numbers.
replies(1): >>44999100 #
16. jakelazaroff ◴[23 Aug 25 21:01 UTC] No.44999100{6}[source]▶
If you can show that your vehicle or plates were stolen, you won't have to pay the ticket; in NYC that is explicitly listed as a possible defense [1].

The spouse thing honestly seems fine — it just means that you're both responsible for paying the ticket, rather than you alone — but if you have an issue it's with the property laws, not the red light cameras.

[1] https://www.nyc.gov/site/finance/vehicles/red-light-camera-v...

replies(1): >>44999338 #
17. mothballed ◴[23 Aug 25 21:36 UTC] No.44999338{7}[source]▶
My friend "showed" the plates were not his (he couldn't prove the car wasn't stolen because it wasn't -- they only copied his plate) but they kept sending him tickets because apparently it only counts for one ticket. They wanted him to go through a laborious process every time. I think he finally just stopped challenging them because it took too much time, and probably can't go to that state again unless he wants his car seized.
replies(1): >>44999518 #
18. jakelazaroff ◴[23 Aug 25 22:06 UTC] No.44999518{8}[source]▶
Sounds like the issue here is that the police aren't doing their job!