'No Driver, No Hands, No Clue': Waymo Pulled Over For Illegal U-turn (sfstandard.com)
- Reference: 0179579418
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/09/29/1329246/no-driver-no-hands-no-clue-waymo-pulled-over-for-illegal-u-turn
- Source link: https://sfstandard.com/2025/09/28/waymo-illegal-u-turn/
> This injustice became apparent to many Facebook users Saturday night after a viral post from the San Bruno Police Department showed footage of officers pulling over a Waymo for the scofflaw maneuver only to discover that no one was behind the wheel.
>
> The car stopped automatically when it saw the police lights during a Friday evening DUI checkpoint, but instead of a person IRL, officers say they were connected with a Waymo rep over the phone. After a brief exchange, the Waymo was sent on its way. Under current law, officials explained, they couldn't issue a ticket. "Our citation books don't have a box for 'robot,'" they joked on Facebook. "Hopefully the reprogramming will keep it from making any more illegal moves."
[1] https://sfstandard.com/2025/09/28/waymo-illegal-u-turn/
Corporation (Score:2)
When it comes to protections, like for example Intelectual Property or propert in general, corporations enjoy all the benefits which law provide. However, when it comes to responsibilities they suddenly can't apply to them. There's always an operator or owner of the vehicle. If there's an owner, the fine should by applied to them - no matter if it's a corporation or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
No matter who is named in the citation, the entity that holds the license plate shouldn't be able to renew the plate without discharging the outstanding ticket.
Wilhoit's Law (Score:2)
This is known as [1]Wilhoits Law [kottke.org].
[1] https://kottke.org/21/02/conservatism-and-who-the-law-protects
Pointless though it may be. (Score:3)
They should cite Waymo the company.
I don't understand why the can't or didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
> They should cite Waymo the company.
Exactly. After all, Corporations are people!!!!
Impound the car (Score:3)
If there is nobody to accept a ticket, tow the thing and make a rep show up in person and pay the fine to have it released.
Re: (Score:3)
I see no reason to treat a driver-less car with prejudice. If they would not under normal circumstances tow someone for a given moving violation, they should not invent excuses to amp up penalties just because they can't hand a ticket to someone.
Certainly Waymo has a mailing address. Corporations are people, lets have equal justice!
Re: (Score:2)
> If they would not under normal circumstances tow someone for a given moving violation
Our police do tow abandoned vehicles left in the right-of-way. Since a Waymo vehicle is indiscerinble from one that has slipped out of park and is rolling out of control, the response would be similar.
Re: (Score:3)
> I see no reason to treat a driver-less car with prejudice.
Agreed, but letting it off without a ticket is prejudical treatment. Also, had a human committed the same offence and then abandoned the car without a driver I'm pretty sure the police would tow the vehicle. If they wanted to treat the vehicle the same they should have demanded that a Waymo rep appear quickly to accept the ticket and, if they refused, then impound and tow the car.
Re: (Score:1)
Now the police know what it feels like to speak and it's like noone is there.
A bit off topic ... (Score:2)
... but illegal U-turns suddenly seem to be the rage nowadays (human drivers). A decade or so ago, it was driving the wrong way on one way streets*. I figured it was some sort of fraternity pledge thing at the time.
*I was confronted by one once in a one way alley. Some kid in a clapped out Honda stopped in front of me and started shaking his fist. I stuck my head out my window, laughed and said, "You're kidding, right?" My Power Wagon looks like a scaled down version of the Duel truck. Rusty I-beam bumper
Impound the car (Score:2)
....until it can produce ID.
I call BS (Score:2)
> "Our citation books don't have a box for 'robot,'"
This is bull. Speed cameras and redlight cameras mail out tickets without even knowing who the driver was. The owner of the car must pay the fine regardless of who was driving.
Corporate Immunity (Score:2)
This is hardly limited to self-driving cars. When has a corporation been given the death penalty or even put in prison.
So the driver was not at the scene? (Score:2)
Then treat it as you normally would when the driver has fled the scene. Impound the car, let the owner come pick it up.
The cops don't need to figure out the next steps, the owner does. Issue the ticket to the corporation, let them figure out who is responsible, and who should pay it.
Issue it to the CEO (Score:2)
He's the person that is big-R-Responsible for this.
Posted No U-Turn? (Score:1)
I didn't see anything in the article, but why was it an illegal U-turn? Was there signage? Would a human have known? Pay the fine and update the software seems like a bug bounty job.
Shut 'em down (Score:2)
If an automated vehicle is found committing an offense, an appropriate fine should be levied against the company and (depending on the potential severity of outcome of the behaviour) all its vehicles immediately banned from operation until their code is updated to prevent a recurrence.
They're not human, they aren't learning because they got pulled over by a police officer. They are just as likely to make that same mistake again as they were before the incident, and until that changes all vehicles running
Unacceptable (Score:5, Insightful)
This is absurd that they just let it drive away without a citation. When they licensed this company to start putting auto drive cars on public roads, did nobody ever ask what would happen if one violated a traffic law? The company needs to be penalized. In fact I'm sure there *is* a mechanism to penalize the company, but the police officer was just ignorant.
Re:Unacceptable (Score:5, Insightful)
The fine should have been issued to the company and the car impounded until they paid up.
Re: (Score:2)
Any self-driving vehicle found to be malfunctioning ought to be impounded immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
and let the renter get hit with loss of use fees + admin fee?
Re: (Score:2)
The next time someone can even find $799 worth of stuff at a Walgreens without buying an out-of-formulary prescription will be the first.
Fuck off, trollbot.
Re: (Score:2)
Nordstroms, a fur.
Re: (Score:3)
> This is absurd that they just let it drive away without a citation. When they licensed this company to start putting auto drive cars on public roads, did nobody ever ask what would happen if one violated a traffic law? The company needs to be penalized. In fact I'm sure there *is* a mechanism to penalize the company, but the police officer was just ignorant.
Agreed. Dropping a ticket in the driver's seat is kinda ridiculous, but there certainly should be a mechanism for recording infractions and penalizing the company.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What's the point though? They are letting Waymo test their technology on their roads, with the understanding that it isn't perfect and that Waymo will keep improving it. All the evidence suggests that Waymo are keeping up their end of the bargain as their cars do indeed improve over time.
With a human, the human is supposed to know better and therefore need punishing because they deliberately violated the law.
With Waymo, some engineers need to create a bug report and address it. You don't normally fine engin
Re: (Score:3)
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't suggest holding the engineers or programmers personally liable. I said that the company needs to be issued with some kind of fine or penalty for breaking the law, as an incentive to use care when designing these things.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't intend to do that, I'm just saying that fining the company when the city already agreed to let them develop the technology, accepting that it will take time to perfect, doesn't make much sense. Unless the company broke the contract or was negligent in some way...
Same Point as for Humans (Score:4, Informative)
> What's the point though? They are letting Waymo test their technology on their roads, with the understanding that it isn't perfect and that Waymo will keep improving it.
The point is exactly the same as it is for a human driver: to ensure that they learn to do better so that in the future they will follow the rules. If fines are the chosen method to do that then, if anything, they need to be much bigger for a company to provide the same level of motivation since they have deeper pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
Have to be careful here though. People often criticize speed traps setups as being more fundraising events than making the roads safer. If the carrot gets too big, there could be unintended consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
The fine is likely to be insignificant next to the cost to Waymo of doing triage for the issue and maybe remotely babysitting cars through that area until they have it fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, and really the fine needs to be significantly higher. Probably 100x to make it meaningful.
Re: (Score:3)
So I guess it's fine when one of these things kills or injures someone? Nobody is responsible? The device, including the code, should require sign off by a licensed, bonded professional engineer who is on the hook for the consequences. If they can't find a PE willing to do so, then I guess that's a signal that it's not ready for public testing.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not, and I'm sure the contract is quite clear that they must have reached a level of safety before removing the human monitor from the car. We have different levels of punishment for different levels of severity.
and that PE coder will need the power to tell an P (Score:2)
and that PE coder will need the power to tell an PHB to fuck off + an union to keep there job after that.
Re: (Score:2)
> With a human, the human is supposed to know better and therefore need punishing because they deliberately violated the law.
That is not a given either. In my state, most u-turns are legal except where posted. In the neighboring state, it is the opposite; u-turns are illegal unless posted. I was stopped and ticketed by a police officer in a neighboring state for making a u-turn. He looked at me incredulously when I told him I didn’t know it was illegal in that state as it was legal in my state. He refused to believe me that traffic laws can vary from state to state.
Re: (Score:1)
> the police officer was just ignorant.
Was the water also wet?