I mean, this can't be the first time somebody has interfered with them ...
> The incidents include ... blocking firehouse driveways
Straight up impound the car and they'll start not doing this.
Is someone simply telling them to be "lenient?" First responders already deal with a lot of bullshit. Especially in San Francisco and Lo Angeles right now. Adding more to the least is peachy...
The concern is probably that the consequences designed as an incentive for human drivers to be attentive to the rules (and which are not, otherwise, a compensation for the harms of the rules not being followed) are not a solution if robotaxis are irreducibly unable to follow the rules.
Seize, not impound. Your driverless car interferes with emergency services, it is to be given up and sold off to pay for the delays your driverless car caused. Impound implies they should be given a chance to pay to get it back -- I say no. One of the few applications of civil asset forfeiture I would be okay with.
I mean they’re operating a handful of cities, there’s not that many firehouses. like it could even be manually programmed into the map as a second order rule that kicks in after stopping that activates a remote driver and then is a harsh penalty in the training functions.