this post was submitted on 02 May 2026
219 points (99.5% liked)

News

37512 readers
1959 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Driverless cars are becoming more common in some California cities, but when the autonomous vehicles violate traffic laws, police haven't been able to ticket them - until now. The state's Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has announced new regulations on autonomous vehicles (AVs), including a process for police to issue a "notice of AV noncompliance" directly to the car's manufacturer. The new rules, which will go into effect 1 July, are part of a larger 2024 law that imposed deeper regulation on the technology. There have been a number of reports of the cars breaking traffic laws, including during a San Francisco blackout last year. The California DMV is calling the new rules "the most comprehensive AV regulations in the nation". Under the new rules, police can cite AV companies when their vehicles commit moving violations. The rules will also require the companies to respond to calls from police and other emergency officials within 30 seconds, and will issue penalties if their vehicles enter active emergency zones.

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Aeri@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Wild that they just kinda let them do whatever until now.

[–] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 70 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Treat the company as a single driver, specifically, complete with the three strike system.

The purpose of that system for a real person is to change the behavior of an individual. When the system that operates these cars is a single entity, you're essentially giving the system (numberOfCars x chances) chances, and the behavior cannot be changed because there is no consequence.

[–] limonfiesta@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I went ahead and crunched the numbers.

According to my calculations, there is approximately a 0.00% chance that Gruesome Gavin would do anything to jeopardize the profits of Silicon Valley.

There is however a 0.08% chance he might consider the possibility of thinking about imposing an extremely mild inconvenience.

So... fingers crossed!

[–] A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip 45 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Wait, does this mean they got a free pass til now?

[–] Humanius@lemmy.world 25 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Yep.. If I understand correctly, in California fines have to be issued to the driver of the vehicle. But since self-driving vehicles have no driver, there is noone to issue fines to, legally speaking.

[–] Mika@piefed.ca 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Why is it even considered a legal, controlled vehicle as opposed to just projectile or junk that needs to be cleared from the road?

[–] EyIchFragDochNur@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

motonormativity

[–] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

US relies heavily on a legal system. Big systems are slow to adapt to change.

Yes.

[–] Theatomictruth@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You’d think that if the system hadn’t adapted to driverless vehicles it would just treat them as if someone abandoned their vehicle in the middle of traffic

[–] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 6 days ago

That's sorta fair, so I'd have to argue that the status quo biases toward consumerism or hope or capitalism then

[–] mavu@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 6 days ago (1 children)

What do you mean "begin"?????

Why on earth would they not get tickets if they violate the rules.

Isn't it enough that the police can't shoot the non-white drivers if there aren't any?

At least let them ticket the fucking ghost cars!

[–] Holytimes@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 days ago

Can't give a ticket to someone who isn't there was the general issue till now.

[–] ianhclark510@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Only a matters until we get the first driverless car executed by ICE

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 15 points 6 days ago

They can't do that, thats a vaguely useful and morally neutral action.

[–] kikutwo@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Will they throw a tantrum and demand a supervisor?

[–] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

~~CEO~~ Conman probably does this behind closed doors with ~~conman~~ CEO-style rhetoric.

good, now will they do the same to the people driving in California that have a network greater than 300k?

because otherwise this is pointless...