I see a good number of bikes in the video but no moving car for the most part, and in the few instances of an oncoming car, IIRC the other car was yielding, the auto-driving car just stayed its path, maybe slowed a bit. No cutting, no weaving, no squeezing, no nothing. Not the kind of “dense traffic” I have in mind. I would call it light-to-no traffic on poor roads.
It already fails in Manhattan. I know that by US standards, the traffic in Manhattan is already considered chaos, but it's usually pretty tame compared to other countries.
There are these videos by this HUGE Tesla fanboy, just look here
where at 8:20 it fails to properly deal with a cop car and the fanboy complains that the cop did not obey traffic laws (good luck arguing that when you make him do an emergency stop...).
FSD consistently has problems with pedestrians in NY, who of course will just walk also on a red light if you hesitate during turning. US people might consider this "chaos", but it's perfectly normal behavior in many countries, where a red light for pedestrians is more a suggestion than a rule...
> where at 8:20 it fails to properly deal with a cop car and the fanboy complains that the cop did not obey traffic laws
More specifically, the cop car had its lights on and emergency siren going, so presumably was trying to respond to a call, in which case it is the responsibility of other vehicles to get out of the cop's way.
> US people might consider this "chaos", but it's perfectly normal behavior in many countries, where a red light for pedestrians is more a suggestion than a rule...
Also worth nothing the "jaywalking" is not a thing in many jurisdictions:
About other countries:
Well, the pedestrian is always bargaining with its physical integrity. The pedestrian must damn well always be right unless it is definitely suicidal (not rethorical)
> the fanboy complains that the cop did not obey traffic laws
Emergency responder (fire/paramedic) here. EVIP (Emergency Vehicle Incident Prevention) is a course that in most states, responders are required to take to operate a vehicle in "emergency mode" (i.e. lights, sirens, both). In some states it also serves as a replacement/alternate for requiring a CDL for larger vehicles.
In "emergency mode", the vehicle, based on most state's laws or administrative codes, "may ignore any and all rules of the road, including but not limited to, speed limits, traffic control signals, designated lane markings, one way directionality". Quite simply, on the road, in emergency mode there is no "obeying traffic laws"...
BUT...
What the words give you, the fine print often takes away. While in emergency mode, the driver of the emergency vehicle is -presumptively liable- for ANY incident that occurs, unless it can be demonstrated otherwise (and even then there is still likely to be contributory liability). This liability is personal and organizational (i.e. I can be personally sued if I hit someone in my ambulance, even going code 3).
To mitigate this, in additional to the department/organization's own insurance coverage (often self-insured by the appropriate government entity) will draw up their own department policy that applies intermediate limits (i.e. while the admin code may allow me to drive at any speed I like, our department policy says I may exceed the speed limit by no more than X mph, and X is reduced by 5 for every complicating factor, like night, or weather). The department will then take a separate insurance policy that says as long as I am within department policy rules, they will cover any personal liability that may occur.
>While in emergency mode, the driver of the emergency vehicle is -presumptively liable- for ANY incident that occurs, unless it can be demonstrated otherwise (and even then there is still likely to be contributory liability). This liability is personal and organizational (i.e. I can be personally sued if I hit someone in my ambulance, even going code 3).
I think you are mistaken. Please cite your sources.
Drivers of emergency vehicles must exercise due regard, but as long as they meet that standard, AFAIK they are not liable for accidents they cause while operating with lights and siren, when lights and siren are warranted.
For example, CA Vehicle Code section 17004 provides: “A public employee is not liable for civil damages on account of personal injury to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from the operation, in the line of duty, of an authorized emergency vehicle while responding to an emergency call or when in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law, or when responding to but not upon returning from a fire alarm or other emergency call.”
There is an exception to the rule: California Vehicle Code 21056 states that CVC 17004 and CVC 21055, “does not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway, nor protect him from the consequences of an arbitrary exercise of the privileges granted in that section.”
The law may be different in other states, but I doubt that your statement of the law is true in any U.S. state. Very curious to learn if I am wrong about that.
In your state, 21056 basically takes away all of the protections, when you read it as such.
"You may operate a vehicle outside of normal traffic law"... "not relieved from a duty to drive with due regard for the safety", means that if a court rules that your driving didn't meet "due regard" standards, well, now you are "not protected from the consequences".
While I am not an expert personally, in Washington, all EVIP courses must be approved and accredited by the Washington State Patrol.
RCW 46.61.035 states much similar:
> (4) The foregoing provisions shall not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons, nor shall such provisions protect the driver from the consequences of his or her reckless disregard for the safety of others.
There is also no specification in the RCW regarding "no liability".
You might think 'reckless' is a good escape clause. "Just don't drive recklessly". Problem is even if you slow from 60mph to 20mph (school zone speed) to go through a red light... going through a red light at 20mph would generally be considered a reckless act. (Most departments will typically expect that you come to a complete stop until you are able to "clear" the intersection visually.)
Coziness of cops to DAs and prosecutors, most likely:
> King County Prosecutor's Office decided against filing criminal charges against Dave. Manion stated that the criminal review did not turn up enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dave had acted with recklessness or criminal negligence, as required under Washington State law. The decision drew widespread criticism from communities in India and the US.
That is the criminal side. To the earlier point on liability or protection therefrom:
> The Kandula family declared their intent to pursue civil actions against Dave and the Seattle Police Department.
Try traffic in India [1][2] If it were a game, then India will be the last boss fight in ultra-hard mode.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnPiP9PkLAs
[2] https://youtu.be/WC2FUEmKEu8?t=412