[Projectiboga]

Time for Zero Tolerance, if one of these do it seize it, and levy the robotaxi company and whomever built it with Huge Fines. Not "oh that will just be another expense", make it that those fines pierce the corporate veil and get to the executives and the millionaire shareholders. And now that I think of it, if there are any passengers, arrest them. That way they can sue the RoboTaxi company too.

[ShakataGaNai]

In general I agree with the general concept, Scale up standard punishments to be in line with corporations.

* Robotaxi violates traffic laws like blocking a fire engine? Fine of $10,000

* Robotaxi drive into an active crime/fire scene? $100,000 fine

* Robotaxi actively hinder emergency services (ex parking on a hose)? Confiscate the vehicle.

Corporations are the same anywhere, until a problem becomes too expensive, they don't do anything about it. So sure, let them drive anytime anywhere, but if they make egregious mistakes the cost is not "oh darn, an minimum wage 'automation engagement specialist' will have to drive out to the car and move it", it will be a "We were fined $1 million last night due to interactions with emergency services".

[jrflowers]

> * Robotaxi violates traffic laws like blocking a fire engine? Fine of $10,000

$10,000 seems fair. A blocked fire engine could only lead to delay firefighters to get where they’re going. What’s the worst that could happen? A few building burn down? Somebody has to wait to receive medical intervention?

In the scale of things that’s a small price to pay to uh, eventually avoid small talk with Uber drivers. /s

[411111111111111]

I don't think these actions take place enough times for your numbers to have any impact on the robo taxis. At that point it wouldn't even be a slap on the wrist.

You'd have to add at least 2-3 zeros before any action would be taken, and the action would likely be something else then what you are expecting. These things just don't happen often enough for this to ever be addressed without the original point of piercing the corporate veil and making management personally responsible for these crimes.

But at that point you'd likely still end up with the dynamic of people getting paid to become the fall guy

[ShakataGaNai]

> Since Jan. 1, the Fire Department has logged at least 39 robotaxi incident reports.

Assuming they are all the lowest "class" of incident with a $10k file each, that's $390,000 . A not insubstantial fine but maybe not huge impact. Though we know several of these incidents (because they were in the news) were of a more severe class. So lets assume that's half a million in fines at least.

So a million dollars a year in fines just to operate at limited times and in limited locations. Open that up to a lot more cars in a lot more places? Those fines will add up to be quite substantial.

[EatingWithForks]

I would hesitate to arrest passengers that can't override the taxi. There are knock-on effects that can't be remediated by suing a robo taxi company, such as loss of job, violation of parole, or simply not having any money to begin the suit to begin with. [I know that it's unlikely that someone wealthy enough to hire a robotaxi for a trip may not be wealthy enough to hire a lawyer, but you never know and it would be a supremely nasty edge case]

[Mordisquitos]

I understand your point, but I can see the reasoning to arrest the passengers. In summary, the robotaxi company's business model and how its cars work is none of the emergency service's business. It's a car, in the way, with people in it.

If an ostensibly normal car were to block an emergency response, would its occupants be off the hook if they all denied having driven the vehicle to its current location, and said they have no ability to move it out of the way? I doubt it. They would be at the very least charged with something.

The same thing should go for alleged robotaxis—“But we don't control the car we're sitting inside of!”... not the city's problem. The car you were in was blocking an emergency response.

Would this be unfair? Yes it would. Would this make people fearful of using robotaxis? Absolutely yes it would. And would that put economic pressure on the robotaxi operators to fix these issues as fast as possible? Damn right it would.

[0xffff2]

These robotaxis are operating legally with permits from the city are they not? It's nonsensical to suggest arresting the passengers sitting in a licensed robotaxi for something they have no control over. This is entirely on the city (and state?) for authorizing something that clearly isn't ready for use on public streets.

[somebody78978]

So by your logic, if I order a human driven taxi, and the driver does something illegal, I should be arrested along with him? Obviously assumming I didn't threaten and/or bribe him to do that illegal action.

[EatingWithForks]

No, this is more akin to hiring an uber, the uber driver does something illegal and the cops arrest you for it with the idea that you can sue uber for the injustice. That's obviously wrongheaded.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Time for Zero Tolerance, if one of these do it seize it, and levy the robotaxi company and whomever built it with Huge Fines

This is certainly in San Francisco’s tradition. Given the economic depression those policy’s are putting it in, one might wonder if chasing away this industry, too, is smart in the long run.

[wait_what]

So, by your argument, if people are riding a bus and the driver decides to just cartwheel out the door and leaves the bus parked in front of a fire hydrant, everyone on the bus should be arrested?

Yikes.

[koolba]

Cheaper and more effective to simply add some ram bars to the fire trucks.

[kotaKat]

They're already well capable of ramming vehicles with their current bumpers, they're just too scared to do it.

Montreal has no qualms going for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCT74Szg_sA

[Gordonjcp]

You've got hydraulic cutters on board.

If a robotaxi gets in the way of your fire appliance, chop it up.

[petre]

And also bill the robo taxi company for the operation.