Nevada Approves Rules For Self-Driving Cars

Griller_GT writes with news that Nevada has become the first U.S. state to approve regulations for allowing self-driving cars on its roads. "Autonomous test vehicles will display a red license plate, Nevada officials said. If and when the technology is approved for public use, the cars will carry a green license plate. ... Nevada said it worked with Google, automobile manufacturers, testing professionals, insurance companies, universities and law enforcement to develop the regulations. Other states also have similar bills that will be voted upon to determine if they, too, can follow suit."

Comments

How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[Assmasher]

I've seen lots of video of them under ideal scenarios.

Let's get some crash video! :)

Hydroplaning, black ice, big potholes, road debris, silver-hairs stomping on the brakes, et cetera.

Should be entertaining, if disconcerting, to say the least.

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[petteyg359]

Here's an ideal scenario: Get all the manual idiots off the road, so the smart cars don't have to deal with them :)

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[rykin]

One could argue that those who drive a manual transmission are the only ones who actually know how to drive. ;)

Re:How well do they handle dangerous situations?

[hawguy]

I've seen lots of video of them under ideal scenarios.

Let's get some crash video! :)

Hydroplaning, black ice, big potholes, road debris, silver-hairs stomping on the brakes, et cetera.

Should be entertaining, if disconcerting, to say the least.

I would guess that automatic cars would be even better than humans at any of these conditions:

Hydroplaning, black ice: The car has an excellent sense of traction of each wheel and can take the appropriate action (like reducing power to the slipping wheel(s)) without overreacting (slamming on the brakes because the driver feels the car start to slide), and can take proactive measures when sensors detect hazardous conditions (i.e. drive slower when ice/snow/heavy rain are detected rather than thinking "Hey, it's an SUV, I can drive 75mph through the snow, just like on the commercials.). Depending on what kind of sensors they use, it might be able to see perfectly through heavy fog/rain and in the dark.

Big potholes: I've never hit a pothole big enough to make me feel like I was going to lose control, but since the automatic car always has a firm grip on the wheel and is never distracted by changing radio stations or talking on the phone, I'd say it can do a better job.

Silver-hairs stomping on the brakes? It's the young drivers in sports cars that seem to have that problem -- most older drivers seem to drive slow and brake way before they need to. But this is where the automatic car has the real advantage - not only will it keep a safe following distance, but its sensors will sense the stopping car ahead and calculate the closing rate and will know exactly when it needs to panic stop, and it can do it faster than a human (which for most people means around 250ms just to recognize the threat and then a couple hundred ms to get pressure on the brakes). And the car will sense it regardless of whether or not the brake lights are working on the car ahead of you, and will stop even if it's not a car. If the sensor pod is on top of the car, that extra foot or so of height will help it see over hill crests better than a driver.

I hit a refrigerator on the road one dark night, an automatic car probably would have avoided it completely. I saw a pickup backing up on the road shoulder and was focused on him to see what he was up to and didn't see the refrigerator that had fallen off his truck until it was too late to stop. I started to slow when I saw the truck and hit the brakes as soon as I did see the refrigerator so was only going around 25mph when I hit it. The 'fridge was totaled, but the only damage to my car was a broken front turn signal.

Granted, a heads up display linked to sensors might be able to feed all of the same information to a driver that an automatic car has (threat ahead - object in road! Losing traction in left-front and left-rear wheels! You will have a collision, brake now and turn wheel 10 degrees to the left!) But it's still relying on the driver to react correctly and react quickly.

Hopefully the first of many

[pegasustonans]

If the rest of the states follow suit in the next few years, we may actually be able to purchase driverless vehicles in our lifetime.

I'm not holding my breath, though.

All it will take is one "think of the children" campaign courtesy of the chronically ignorant to derail this.

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[mcgrew]

Faster decisions doesn't necessarily mean better decisions. However, I do think driverless vehicles will be far safer than vehicles piloted by humans. Humans are limited by emotion (fear, anger, impatience) while machines are not.

Rather than having people complain that they're dangerous, I suspect the main complaint will be "but that 100 mile trip took ten minutes longer!"

Re:Hopefully the first of many

[mlts]

I can't think of any disadvantages of driverless vehicles once the kinks are worked out. In fact, on the highway, with a grid system, cars can be packed far closer together because there isn't need to have the space needed for human reaction time. Coupled with a local/regional highway computer, vehicles can be shifted from lane to lane depending on their destination and mechanical ability.

Heck, even roads could be designed differently because roads wouldn't have to deal with drivers behind the wheel who have 2-3 too many bowls, and 4-6 too many Bud Lights. Four way intersections on expressways could be made because the local computer could time when to send a northbound car so it doesn't hit an eastbound car that is currently in the intersection, or slow down a southbound car so it hits the intersection right after two cars going on a cross street pass.

Of course, nothing is perfect, but there was a time when computers were thought of never being the king of the chessboard, and now are top dog. Self driving cars were laughed off previously, but as connectivity and technology matures, it might be the answer to US transportation issues, especially in sprawling regions where a bus/train/tram system would be impossible.

This also would provide ease of renting/reserving cars. If someone didn't want to own one, they could have one reserved to be sitting in front of their place when they needed to go to work.

Colorblindness?

[bondsbw]

I thought we learned a long time ago not to use only color, especially red and green, to distinguish between signage.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[smi.james.th]

Different coloured plates may be useful, but I disagree that different rules should apply. I REALLY don't want racecar drivers with new BMWs tearing around the place. That's dangerous, frankly.

I've done a bit of track driving, I don't consider my ability to be much above mediocre for an enthusiast, but I'm better than your average driver. I'm fastidious about sticking to the road rules, just because not everyone has the same level of skill as me.

The roads are for transport, not personal amusement. I want to arrive safely at my destination, please. I'm not too bothered if you're bored because it's slow.

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[hipp5]

And how often do we check the condition of the car? Do you need to go in monthly to validate the good condition of your tires? What about when the 16 year old son of the race car driver takes the car out? Does he get the +20kph license plate? Or does he have to unscrew it and put his on?

I think the logistics of the whole thing make it a rediculous undertaking for marginal benefit (is there even a benefit?)

#1.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

A driverless vehicle may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, unless in Reno and with the intent of observing said human's demise.

Car goes out alone at night

[fleebait]

Next thing, after I go to bed, the car wants to go out on it's own, and just "hang out"

Morning: "Where did you go?"
Car: "Out"
Me: "What did you do?"

Car: "Nothing."

Re:Coloured license plates to ID drivers

[Antimatter3009]

The point of speed limits is usually not to keep you from going "too fast", it's to keep everyone going roughly the same speed. Driving gets more dangerous when cars are all going vastly different speeds. That's why highways also have minimum speed limits. Having someone going 25 on a 60+ mph highway is just as dangerous as having someone go 100.

This is less of an issue where there's not much traffic (parts of the Autobahn, for instance), and you could maybe make it work by having different lanes going different speeds, but there is a point beyond just making you drive slower than you're capable of doing.

Use the existing standard!

[GiantRobotMonster]

Green licence plates? Pah!
Everybody already knows that a sweeping line of red LEDs in the grill is how you recognise a self driving car.
Sheesh!

What a waste of Energy

[Oswald McWeany]

Self driving cars are a waste of energy.

They should at least be driving goods or people around. But just driving themselves around is such a waste.

One could, and one would be wrong

[Kupfernigk]

I'd like you to explain to me the relevance of being able to fiddle with a dangerous piece of machinery (try engaging reverse at 70) while driving, to competence in things like anticipation of traffic ahead, interpreting other driver behavior, observing road signs and the like. The manual transmission is simply an artefact of the invention of the car having preceded the invention of a good way to get the power to the road. There is simply no reason to believe that the ability to use it correlates to the ability to drive.

And before you start - long history of manual motorbikes and cars ranging from Triumph T100 to BMW, also long experience of automatics ranging from Kia to Merc, and now a Prius. I have also driven extensively in the US and Europe, on both sides of the road. My conclusion? For a given skill level, the auto is always safer because your attention is never distracted at a crucial moment. When you brake, you brake; no remembering the "clutch" or to "change down".

The ability of an architect isn't measured in terms of her/his ability to bake bricks.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[w_dragon]

Next you'll be saying that having an automatic starter doesn't improve driving performance! Obviously everyone was a better driver when they had to manually crank their engine to get it to start.

Re:One could, and one would be wrong

[Sevalecan]

Having driven manual cars and motorcycles plenty myself, I can say that I don't find the need to use the clutch or change gears really that distracting at all. Sure, it's something else to do, but something I can do without thinking about it. On top of that, if you just want to stop in a manual and you're more concerned about avoiding an accident? You can still just hit the brake. The car will stop and stall, no big deal. It's a lot better than getting in an accident, and it probably won't do any real damage to your car. Trust me, I've stalled mine plenty when I first learned to drive a stick.

P.S. Good luck shifting a manual into reverse going at 70 MPH on the highway. Most cars, to my knowledge, don't have a synchro on the reverse gear.

actually,

[Anonymous Coward]

One could argue that those who drive motorcycles are the only ones who actually know how to drive. Funny how much a heightened sense of mortality teaches you about how to spot and avoid dangerous situations. Also teaches you a hell of a lot about braking and cornering that's hard to learn when you have all four wheels planted.