Technology

One would think that in a situation where a driverless vehice was, say, speeding, it could be argued it represented a danger to the public at large and thus had to be impounded right?

I gotta imagine if my cars e-brake failed while parked, then it rolled down a hill and hit a mailbox or something, they wouldn't just leave it there for me to grab later.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Driverless cars are facing a growing backlash after a series of high-profile accidents — but in California, they are reportedly avoiding traffic tickets.

Thanks to a loophole in California law, police are unable to give driverless cars traffic tickets, according to an NBC report, as offending vehicles can only be booked if there is an actual driver at the wheel.

"No citation for a moving violation can be issued if the [autonomous vehicle] is being operated in a driverless mode," read an internal memo from San Francisco Police Chief Bill Scott obtained by NBC News.

Unlike California, Texas, and Arizona — which have also been used as a testing ground for driverless cars — have passed laws holding companies who operate autonomous vehicles responsible for any driving infractions.

GM-owned Cruise recalled its entire fleet of robotaxis in San Francisco last in November after a pedestrian was dragged 20 feet under one of its cars after being hit by another vehicle.

Both Cruise and its rival Waymo — which is still operating in San Francisco — have insisted that their driverless cars are safer than human drivers.

The original article contains 359 words, the summary contains 186 words. Saved 48%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!