Slashdot Mirror
Google's Driverless Cars Capable of Exceeding Speed Limit
mrspoonsi sends a report about how Google's autonomous vehicles handle speed limits. It's easy to assume that driverless cars will simply be programmed never to exceed a posted speed limit, but Google has found that such behavior can actually be less safe than speeding a bit. Thus, they've allowed their cars to exceed the speed limit by up to 10 miles per hour.
In July, the U.K. government announced that driverless cars will be allowed on public roads from January next year. In addition, ministers ordered a review of the U.K.'s road regulations to provide appropriate guidelines. This will cover the need for self-drive vehicles to comply with safety and traffic laws, and involve changes to the Highway Code, which applies to England, Scotland and Wales. Commenting on Google self-drive cars' ability to exceed the speed limit, a Department for Transport spokesman said: "There are no plans to change speed limits, which will still apply to driverless cars." In a separate development on Monday, the White House said it wanted all cars and light trucks to be equipped with technology that could prevent collisions.
If you take an American driverless car to London, I hope it can figure out which side of the road to drive on...
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
couple white house mandate with their assuming power to kill anyone without due process, and things are coming together nicely for a robust fascist police state
I bet most companies will follow google's plan and have autonomous automobiles (auto-autos??, auto-squared?) travel at the speed limit or lower, even if it makes things 'more dangerous'. But they should also do that only in the right lane, not blocking the left lane.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
It is within Google's capability to dynamically map every speed trap and even moving police cars.
With this in place, and with computer reflexes why not speed like a maniac? I for one would buy Google car tomorrow if it could get me to work at 120mph shaving time off my commute.
Yeah, going the speed limit in certain areas will simply result in google cars getting shot at, or ran off the road.
IE, the 101 or I-17 in Phoenix. LOL@75mph. Unless there's a traffic jam of course.
and makes them do all sorts of evil things
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
If I were a terrorist group and wanted to cripple any city in America, I would get a group of 20 people together and simply go back and forth on all the major roads, driving the speed-limit abreast with one another in all lanes.
After a few days of that the city would do whatever you demanded.
That is, if you all survived the road rage.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Once there are enough autonomous vehicles on the road, highway speeds will SLOW DOWN. Think about it. If, on a 4-lane highway, there are 4 autonomous vehicles all driving the speed limit, each in its own lane, all side-by-side, then traffic behind them will be slowed to the speed limit. The end result is a rolling roadblock. Nobody will be able to exceed the speed limit because there will be too many vehicles all doing the exact same speed.
When it comes to breaking the speed limit or being run over by a semi, I'll break the speed limit every time.
Retard detected. Suggested fix: RTFA.
Because I would not want any driverless car I own to *EVER* decide that it is safe to exceed the speed limit if I didn't explicitly allow it to.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
10Mph is still an arbitrary assumption, just like legal limit. Correct speed varies far too much for such a static definition. There was an article (with video) on slashdot awhile back that explained how their heuristics work, and it said the whole stack was basically built from prefabricated scenarios, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
its safer to drive fast... got it
Depends, are you going for safe or legal? The safest driver on the road is predictable. If driving 10 over is more predictable and expected than driving exactly the speed limit, and safety is your concern, so long speed limit.
In a separate development on Monday, the White House said it wanted all cars and light trucks to be equipped with technology that could prevent collisions.
And finally law enforcements wet dream of being able to remotely disable your car becomes a reality. If you think this is anything but that, you're very naive.
I think the V2V proposal should be scrapped altogether. It would take decades to implement, be very expensive (at hundreds of dollars per car) and it won't actually make cars safer compared with relatively simpler collision avoidance using cameras and other relatively cheap proximity sensors that don't rely on everyone else having functioning V2V systems in their car.
Autonomous cars have cameras and other fail safe sensors they can rely on. GPS is for navigational way points and route planning. Just getting a signal from another car that it is at a certain position is not a sufficient replacement for actually seeing that car with a camera. In all cases I would program that car to trust the camera and distrust the V2V and if it didn't have a camera then the car should stop as safely as it can and not continue to try and drive automatically. GPS is better for navigational way points where precision on the scale of feet and inches is not as important. For collision avoidance in close proximity you want to rely on sensors.
If the speed limit is unsafe, that means that too many people around the car attempting to travel at "only" the speed limit. This, in turn, means that there is insufficient traffic enforcement. I see two solutions...
Solution A: Allow automated vehicles to routinely exceed the speed limit thus contributing to the unsafe environment.
Solution B: Implement appropriate traffic enforcement and raise city revenue on the reckless habits of traffic offenders.
Why the hell is Solution A even being considered?
I'm pretty sure people wouldn't argue with that stance and are almost certain to come to the same conclusion.
It's just such a shame that some people on the road believe they are in a perpetual state of potentially being run over by a semi.
If they have the ability to detect a human on the road, they can look for them and drive to them. Thus these cars can hunt and kill people. I don't see how the ability to speed is a bid deal.
If the speed limit is unsafe, that means that too many people around the car are traveling above the speed limit. This, in turn, means that there is insufficient traffic enforcement. I see two solutions...
Solution A: Allow automated vehicles to routinely exceed the speed limit thus contributing to the unsafe environment.
Solution B: Implement appropriate traffic enforcement and raise city revenue on the reckless habits of traffic offenders.
Why the hell is Solution A even being considered?
It's a smart move, lane changes, hazards and other scenarios that require a little extra speed will be safer... I'd go 10 mph faster any day to avoid someone hitting me even if it's their fault.
You are "driving" a Google automated car. You get pulled over for doing 10 over the speed limit. You didn't tell the car to do it, the programmers did. Who gets the ticket?
If you do, then that suggests that you have liability for the control of the vehicle. If that's the case, you probably shouldn't allow the car to make the choice whether or not to exceed the speed limit without your input.
If the programmer has liability, then say good by to automated automobiles! No one wants this liability.
Thus, Google cars will not automatically speed... but they may allow you to tell the car to exceed the speed limit... thus reducing the safety of the product overall.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I can easily see a future 30 years, potentially even 20 down the road where auto-drive become mandatory on metropolitan freeways at certain times of day (rush hour). In fact, I could easily see a not-too-distant future where such a thing is mandatory, regardless of time-of-day. Now the question I ask is, as with concern with electric vehicles and lower revenues from gasoline tax, how are municipalities going to cope with the reduced revenue from speeding tickets?
When it comes to breaking the speed limit or being run over by a semi, I'll break the speed limit every time.
To what advantage if the semi is also being driven far above the speed limit?
Realistically, what are your chances of actually keeping pace with the thing or out-running it without losing control of your own vehicle?
They need to test year around in the chicago area.
In Pennsylvania, the vehicle code (Title 75, 3368), you can not be cited for speeding less that 6 miles per hour when the posted limit is less than 55 miles per hour, and over 55, you have to be going 10 miles an hour or over. I'm pretty sure this is what it is all about.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
I believe it is fairly certain that one of the first types of vehicles to fully automate will be trucks. The computer will never get tired or frustrated or impatient, and it will never not be aware of where other vehicles are on the road.
And just how often does that situation arise (outside of movies). By far, most 'getting run over by a semi' incidents do not occur when the car in front actually had the option to speed up. They happen because traffic suddenly slows or stops. So that leaves really only a few possibilities: the truck is out of control (runaway truck), the driver is asleep or incapcitated, or the driver is intentionally trying to hit you. None of those situations are likely to be solved by increasing your speed a few MPH.
"We have you for no drivers license, old title and insurance, no learners permit, failure to submit for blood test, failure to take field sobriety tests, 11 miles over the limit, and an open oil can. Son, you is in a HEAP of trouble, you hear me? BIG trouble. why, you haven't even posted your code online in open forum. we are going to haul you in, toss your butt in the scrapyard, and impound the vehicle for forfeiture. you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to a hardcopy of the indictment, and a translator if we can find out your toolset. you only have the right to one message from confinement, less than 140 characters...."
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Well duh, that's because that's the rule in California. The driver's handbook says it's illegal not to do this. Presumably in areas where that's not the case it will not do that.
Last time I attended a "driver improvement school" in person, the instructor inquired about what we were cited for. It was obvious to see that all the white attendees had been charged when going greater than 10 MpH over the speed limit, while the persons of color reported being cited while going 5 MpH over the speed limit or less, or similar minor infractions, such as unsignalled lane change. When using a driverless car to transport a recently dead body or felony quantities of illicit substances, one might want to turn off the "drive like everyone else" flag, and turn on the "follow driving rules religiously" flag, as would anyone who was DWB. Of course, when the cops see a driveless car following the speed limit, it just might get a second look just because they'd consider it suspicious.
Some people already tried it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yep. Same applies to sports. As a skier, I can tell you it's a bad idea to straight line down near vertical chutes. Sometimes, however, it's a very good idea.
I have the same concerns about driverless cars. Most of the time, the normal rules of the road will keep you safe enough, but if you're in a convertible being chased by a hungry lion, the last thing you want to do is obey a 10mph speed limit on some dirt road somewhere in the middle of nowhere. Same thing applies for tornados, tsunamis, being shot at by someone, driving to the hospital in a true emergency, and other similar cases.
Muphy's law of computing #8 also applies here: To screw up is human, to screw up royally requires a computer. A human may drive off an unfinished bridge. It takes a computer to redirect an entire interstate over an unfinished/broken bridge.
It's just such a shame that some people on the road believe they are in a perpetual state of potentially being run over by a semi.
Similar logic of some carrying guns everywhere. [Not trying to start an argument, just sayin' ...]
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
From the story:
Research shows that sticking to the speed limit when other cars are going much faster actually can be dangerous, Dolgov says, so its autonomous car can go up to 10 mph (16 kph) above the speed limit when traffic conditions warrant.
Anyone know what "research" Dolgov is referring to? It's always been self evident to me that a car travelling slower than the flow of speeding traffic is a danger, but actual evidence would be nice.
Not that it matters. We don't really prioritize safety. We pay lip service to safety and then pursue other agenda. If safety was our first priority small cars wouldn't be allowed on roads; mortality and injury severity is substantially higher for light vehicles. And no, it's not because SUVs are slaughtering Prius owners. It's physics; all else being equal a small, light vehicle will more often kill or more severely injure you in a crash.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
I wouldn't have a problem with going the speed limit.
See, here's the thing. A lot of the traffic jams are because people are hopping lane to lane or cutting people off or really just not doing enough planning about where they want to go. Autonomous vehicles would know what lane to go in and what cars are around it so it would be able to plan appropriately. No more traffic jams (or at least greatly reduced)
When I drive from MA to NY, I may break the speed limit at times, but the average speed is still 50-55MPH because of traffic. In an autonomous vehicle that goes at the speed limit, it would shave close to 30 minutes off what is normally a 3 hour trip. And at no point do I have to speed. A trip into Boston no longer takes an hour in the morning - vehicles know where they're going and you get into town in a fraction of the time.
Longer term, it means that police departments no longer have a benefit of setting up speed traps - nobody is breaking the law, no tickets to write, no additional funding. Cities get no funding from red light cameras.
So here's the real question: Is this a tradeoff that we as society are willing to make? Do we give up the ability to break the law in order to get the benefit that we wanted out of that in the first place (i.e. get to your location quicker)?
As I've been saying throughout this thread... Google have looked up limit - in the California drivers handbook. In the state in which they're driving, the law is explicit that you should keep up with other traffic, as it is more dangerous to have lots of cars doing different speeds than to exceed the speed limit a bit.
Yep, lorries, then delivery vans, then taxis, then busses, then private vehicles.
We've all seen those "baby on board" stickers/signs, with the intention being that you should keep your distance or take extra caution.
If I've got V2V enabled, I'd want to broadcast that my vehicle that is bigger than it really is. Or you could screw with people and spoof their car to tell other cars that the semi-truck is really a miata.
realistically, do you really think a semi would handle better at high speed than a car?
having driven both, i can assure you semis are harder to handle, but both handle just
fine in montana at the speed limit or higher.
sometimes i wonder if /. is largely populated by weenies who drive under the speed limit
on 101 to prove a point.
From http://missingbytes.blogspot.com/2012/12/self-drive-engage.html
Just like in software development with large teams, sometimes it's better to be consistent bad than being inconsistently correct.
It's better for the car to go with the flow.
problem is it allows for selective enforcement due to personal disposition of the cop, ticket quotas, or racial profiling. it's just not a good idea to have unspoken law breaking. just change the fucking limits and enforce it strictly. make the hwy limit 75 and anything over 80 is an automatic ticket.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
In my area I've seen a sharp uptick in enforcement of laws like "no swimming in the ocean after 8pm" and "no drinking wine with your family on a picnic in a quiet park" type laws.... I figure the municipalities will do fine if they keep laws like those ones for the Police to collect "being human" taxes with.
or your just going a few mph faster than a Semi trying to pass on the interstate and due to high winds the truck is fighting to keep it in the lane... I consider that almost getting hit and because I rack up tens of thousands of miles a year on interstates in midwest it happens ALOT.
Just accelerate past the speed limit and get around the hazard as quickly as possible = safest.. It should not become a several min encounter/maneuver passing someone because your autopilot wont go faster than a couple mph more than the object your trying to overtake.
Once I started driving motorcycles around I became deathly afraid of sitting next to a semi truck after watching a re-tread come off one and having to avoid it; if I had been next to the truck when it had happened I would not be posting here; since that experience I make an effort to spend the least amount of time trying to pass one as possible regardless of the vehicle; screw the speed limit.. 16 giant wheels that have hundreds of thousands of miles on them will blow eventually; it happens all the time and how much of your life do you want to spend next to one hoping it dont go off?
...I always drove about 5 MPH faster than the prevailing traffic speed.
It's totally subjective, but it felt a lot safer to be determining my own path through traffic than merely fitting into the herd.
Seems like Google needs to look up the word "limit" in its own dictionary.
Just because others break the law is no excuse for Google to do so.
On one hand I agree with you. Technically speaking, the law is the law.
However It's obvious you've never driven on the NJ Turn Pike. I remember the first time I did 20-some years ago. I initially set my cruise control at 5 mph over the limit. Little old ladies were passing me like I was parked and flipping me the bird. Two people passed me on the shoulder at close to 100 mph. Frankly, just going 10 mph over the limit was dangerous. I settled on 75 to 80 mph as well over half the other cars were still passing me. This was back when the limit was 55 mph.
Back when the speed federal speed limits were 55 mph there was a group of several hundred people who drove on the DC beltway at 55 mph one day during the work week. It snarled traffic as no one drove that slow on the beltway.
If the police enforced the speeding laws at zero tolerance, then of course the Google cars should not speed. But the reality is, is you can easily go 5 over, and even 15 over in many areas with no chance of getting pulled over. So you have roads where the posted limit is 65, but the average speed in the drive lane is closer to 80 mph. Adding cars that are only going 65 is going to be a major problem. Either the driver is going to have to disengage the "auto-pilot", or risk getting run off the road. I'm not saying it right, but that's how it is in the real world.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Of course if they drive a Pinto, they are much safer being the fastest car on the road. :-)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But will it still try to pass another truck only to pace it in the passing lane for 5 miles and give up when it realizes there's gridlocked traffic behind it?
Realistically, what are your chances of actually keeping pace with the thing or out-running it without losing control of your own vehicle?
Pretty damned good, actually - Unless talking about an intentionally homicidal driver in an unencumbered tractor, even the wimpiest piece of crap passenger car on the road can blow the doors off a loaded semi.
Now, against that trailer-less tractor, good luck. 400-600HP with no load and tires the size of your entire car means you can kiss your Fortwo, aka that shiny metal smear on the pavement, goodbye.
so why should I trust their cars? I routinely see Google Maps/Navigation giving directions that are impossible to follow, for example, exit an interstate and must cross 4 lanes of high-speed frontage road to make an immediate right turn onto a side street. The correct route would be to take the previous exit and safely merge across those lanes of frontage instead. Other times it routes you down an interstate and then proclaims that "you've reached your destination", in the middle of an interstate while traveling 75 MPH -- I guess the Google Car will just stop right in the middle of traffic and await its imminent demise.
If the Google Cars are relying on Google's Navigation to get from Point-A to Point-B, god help us all.
If the choice is to run over a pedestrian or be run over by a semi, I wonder what the car driving software chooses to do... Would the user manual clearly spell out the answer? Is there a configuration menu somewhere where I can tell the car whether I would prefer to have the car take another life if it would save my life?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
just change the fucking limits and enforce it strictly.
make the hwy limit 75 and anything over 80 is an automatic ticket.
LOL, wut? I don't think you and I have the same definition of "strictly"...
Yep, couldn't have said it better myself. In Kansas, there's not a whole lot of urban areas to be found, so most of my driving is on nasty two lane highways. When a semi is going 5 under, you speed up to 10 over and blow by them. This keeps the semi from sliding into you and it also keeps anything in the oncoming lane from hitting you too. Win-win.
this is proof, then, that if you are only going the speed limit (or less), especially in the fast lane, that you are a traffic hazard!
Will this be a user-configurable option? Who is responsible for paying a ticket if a self-driving car is pulled over?
That... is a situation I've never run into. I hope to never run into that situation but it is an interesting question.
Same logic for banning guns. OMG criminals everywhere! Blood in the streets!
Same logic for banning drugs.. OMG potheads everywhere! They will eat me to satisfy their munchies!
Same logic for banning anything else that makes you feel inferior or emotionally insecure.
Simple, they will raise the taxes on electricity.
Most drivers speed, and those who don't act as obstacles for the majority. I routinely drive on two-lane I-10 where the speed limit is 70mph, but I drive at 79 since it's common knowledge that the highway patrol only pull over cars going over 80 (and my gas mileage suffers greatly at 80+). Despite going 9 over, I still get passed by most other drivers and always end up having to deal with some asshole riding my ass because I'm not passing another car fast enough. The only safe option in such a situation is to go even faster so I can quickly move into the right lane and allow the tailgater to pass. The most dangerous situations I've seen are when a car going 71 decides to pass a car going 70 and the speeders behind them switch lanes back and forth trying to force one of the cars to speed up. Going the speed limit is a recipe for disaster.
You didn't read the rest of the law:
This paragraph shall not apply to evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (2) or (3)
Semi-tractors are not exactly speed demons without trailers. They tend not to get good traction on the drive wheels (because obviously they are designed for heavy loads) and the engine is geared toward low-speed torque, not high speed torque like a car.
Without a trailer, a tractor can accelerate about as quickly as a very slow car (think Prius) and is going to top out well-under the top speeds of most cars. Most cars are geared to go at least 100 mph with higher-end models maxing out around 140-160 mph in overdrive.
Some tractors are not even geared to go over 75 mph.
A former coworker of mine hit the retread off of a semi once, it flipped up around his front wheel and got caught in the front fender. He was thrown from the bike and skidded quite a ways. Luckily for him he was wearing a full kevlar suit but it still split and left him with some road rash. Ultimately he was ok and is back out riding as far as I know.
Do watch out for that stuff and always choose to avoid if possible. I am glad for what I was taught about riding over obstacles as it has come up, but avoidance is always the best bet if you can manage it.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
In country roads in Australia (where driverless cars would be great!), the following is sometimes the case:
- speed limit for cars = 110km/h; trucks 100km/h
- one lane in each direction
- trucks can be B-doubles, B-triples or road trains (ie verrrrrrry lonnnnnnng)
You'd usually exceed the speed limit by say 20 km/h in order to get past safely and quickly:
1. minimising the amount of time next to it, where wind or it swerving could cause it to hit you
2. reducing the time you are in the oncoming lane (and traffic approaches)
A hard limit of +10 mph would be bad.
The most dangerous situation is when one truck doing 100 overtakes another doing 99. In the time that takes, traffic coming the other which wasn't initially visible may have to make an emergency stop / pull off the road. I've also seen trucks pull out to overtake, whilst (presumably unbeknownst to them) a car is overtaking them, so the car is suddenly in an emergency with 3 choices (brake, accelerate, or run off the road). That's a situation in which the computer might make a better judgement than most humans, but where accelerate is the safest option, it needs to be able to do it.
You need to re-read California law. In California, you can be cited for exceeding the maximum speed limit regardless of the speed of traffic.
You are confusing the fact that California law also allows you to be cited for failing to keep up with the speed of traffic if:
1) You are using a passing lane at below the speed of traffic and not actually passing anyone or making a legal maneuver
2) You do not use a turnout on a single lane highway when available and more than four vehicles are following.
I've been to traffic court several times and I've never seen anyone use the "keeping up with the speed of traffic defense" successfully, though many have tried.
Furthermore, I've never known anyone who was ticketed for driving below the speed of traffic in a passing lane even though it is illegal.
Finally, the way people in the urban parts of California drive, high speeds tend to be inherently dangerous. It's typical for there to be vehicles moving at 55 mph on the highway, and because the maximum speed in metropolitan areas is 65 mph on the highway and because driving standards are low, drivers are not expecting to be dealing with traffic in passing lanes moving at high speeds (like they are in countries like Germany). People will often enter a passing lane at 60 mph without signaling, which is dangerous if passing traffic is moving 80 mph or more.
That's why a ticket for driving over 10 mph of the speed limit on the highway is usually incontestable, because, it is inherently unsafe with the way people drive in the State.
Not to take a side here, but no, it's not the same logic. You were trying for reductio ad absurdum but you actually achieved a slippery slope argument.
The substance of his argument was not emotional issues but physical harm.
TFP, HAND.
If you're in the right-hand (non-passing) lane and you get rear-ended by a semi, I think 4 times out of 5 it's going to be pretty clearly the semi's fault. Unless you just passed him, pulled back into the right, and slammed on your brakes, which Google would undoubtedly make sure their cars don't do, he should have time to slow down or pass you if the passing lane is open.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
They're assholes on the turnpike though, they'll sometimes do the strict enforcing they're permitted to in the 65 zone, and pull over everybody.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
so if my driverless car speeds because everyone around it is also speeding, who is at fault? me for buying it? the programmer? the drivers of the cars around me?
With the sheer obliviousness of pedestrians around near where I grew up, it will inevitably happen.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
I don't mean on set easy routes on well-planned Californian highways, but e.g. along (US equivalent to) the winding roads of Skye where the only way to drive safely is to know in advance which turns immediately precede the lambs and the potholes, around the mountains of Andalucia in the snow, through London rush hour, where traffic signs are utterly irrelevant and you just move slowly enough to not knock into bike or sufficiently large swarm of pedestrians, negotiating the East Grinstead one way system when school's out...?
True, but that's not the situation I'm dealing with on a daily basis. Most of the time, I deal with semis that go inconsistent slow speeds on a two lane highway. That gets worse if it's windy out, as it frequently is. I run greater risks if i stay behind the semi or pass it at the speed limit than if i just speed up and blow by it as quickly as possible. That's where I need to be above the speed limit.
Deliberate misdirect:
This paragraph shall not apply to evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (2) or (3) within a school zone or an active work zone
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
But how do you actually tell a driverless vehicle to pull over so you can give it a speeding ticket?
It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.
No speeding tickets, means you don't need people enforcing speed. Means no police hours or court time spent on speeding matters. That's also a good savings.
They can also increase taxes for keeping the streets flowing, if there's no accidents, the incentive is that there shouldn't be reason for people to be late.
In any case, what I was wondering was, Why 10 mph instead of 10% of the speed. Seems like speeding 10mph on a 20mph is dangerous.
In country roads in Australia (where driverless cars would be great!), the following is sometimes the case: - speed limit for cars 100 or 110 km/h, trucks 100 (when cars are 110) or 90 (though usually not) - one lane in each direction - trucks can be B-doubles, B-triples or road trains (ie verrrrrrry lonnnnnnng: a type 2 road train is a prime mover hauling unit towing three or four trailers with a total length of up to 53.5m) Where the truck is doing 100, many drivers would exceed the speed limit by say 20-40 km/h in order to get past safely and quickly: 1. minimising the amount of time next to it, where wind or it swerving could cause it to hit you 2. reducing the time you are in the oncoming lane (and traffic approaches) A hard limit of +10 mph would be bad. The most dangerous situation is when one truck doing 100 overtakes another doing 99. In the time that takes, traffic coming the other which wasn't initially visible may have to make an emergency stop / pull off the road. I've also seen trucks pull out to overtake, whilst (presumably unbeknownst to them) a car is overtaking them, so the car is suddenly in an emergency with 3 choices (brake, accelerate, or run off the road). That's a situation in which the computer might make a better judgement than most humans, but where accelerate is the safest option, it needs to be able to do it.
Not disagreeing with your general point, but as you speed up doesn't your car slightly "ride up" on the road? So not as much of your tire surface is in contact with the ground anymore, making it harder to stop/maneuver suddenly. Cf. hydroplaning for applications.
Just a thought.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
If the police turn a blind eye to google cars scanned at 10MPH over the limit, then they must also turn a blind eye to normal drivers too. So the speed at which people drive on average will rise by 10MPH.
But then the google cars will, for safety reasons, sometimes have to go 10MPH faster than those cars i.e. 20MPH above the official limit... Okay, so the police accept this and also must allow normal driver to go 20 MPH faster...
Where does it end? ....
In the crash barrier I think!
A primary cause of accidents is "differential speed". This can be 100 when traffic is 72, or 45 when traffic is 72.
Just a wild guess, here, but taxes just might be a viable way for a government to collect revenue.
Yeah, going the speed limit in certain areas will simply result in google cars getting shot at, or ran off the road.
IE, the 101 or I-17 in Phoenix. LOL@75mph. Unless there's a traffic jam of course.
Good luck ramming a computer car off the road that has quicker reflexes than the police do, unless they remotely disable the car by contacting Google or by more old fashioned methods like using Stingers (bed of spikes) and have the whole highway covered (both directions) so the computer has no way to escape it.
BS. You will NEVER be rightly pulled over for driving at the speed limit as long as you are in the rightmost lane that you can safely move into and/or are passing even slower traffic. Period. Point out any law in any US state that would be violated by that and I'll concede, but A. I'm pretty certain there isn't one, and B. if there were it would be an asinine law.
Well, if we apply Asimov's rules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
Then we start with rule #1:
1.A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
So, the car is not allowed to drive into the pedestrian. Nor is the car not allowed to drive into the pedestrian (as that would be inaction that would get the occupant of the car killed by the semi.)
Therefore, based upon a classic Star Trek episode "Nomad! Execute your prime directive!" (or perphaps the M5 episode is a closer match?) I believe that the car when faced with this dilemma would self-destruct or shutdown.
When it comes to breaking the speed limit or being run over by a semi, I'll break the speed limit every time.
To what advantage if the semi is also being driven far above the speed limit?
Realistically, what are your chances of actually keeping pace with the thing or out-running it without losing control of your own vehicle?
My chances of outpacing a semi in my Nissan 200sx are quite high as I race professionally. However this would be on a clear road with controlled entry points, I know my chances of hitting another object in front of me in traffic are higher than a hippy on the third day of an open air festival.
The correct procedure is to attempt to get out of the way. Because everyone checks their mirrors you should be able to spot it a mile away and because everyone drives in the inside lane they can drive onto the shoulder*.
You've got more chance of winning the lottery twice than being on the receiving end of a runaway semi.
You however have a real risk of being hit by a driver who doesn't keep a safe distance, changes lanes without checking, speeds or is drunk this evening as you drive home. The irony is that they think they're a good driver as they speed, lane hop and tailgate (the Dunning-Kruger effect or as Bertrand Russell put it "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."). *I'm not sure if some people can detect the sarcasm.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I dont think most drivers could.
Doubly so seeing as most drivers drive auto's these days. They dont know about accelerating from 80 to 150 KPH, what gear they should be in or how to deal with wheelspin at those speeds.
Also I highly doubt a 100KW corolla could do 80-120 KPH fast enough. Especially if it's an automatic.
As for you Mr AC, I am almost certain you cant.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
If a semi can do a given speed without going off the road, your properly maintained vehicle most certainly should be able to with its much lower center of gravity and better suspension.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
I can go 25, with my eyes on the spedometer instead of
on the road. I can kill people at 25 MPH.
Alternately, I can focus on the road (and sidewalk too!)
while going roughly 50 MPH. I won't hit anybody because
I'll be paying careful attention.
Look on Google Earth for the border crossing between Thailand and Laos: the lanes cross themselves at 90 degrees in the no man's land, to switch traffic on the other side of the road. An autonomous vehicle should know how to yeld at the crossing (and keep straight, instead of turning).
Here it is, on wikimapia:
http://wikimapia.org/#lang=ro&lat=17.887784&lon=102.711284&z=18&m=b&show=/8257241/Crossover-for-changing-from-driving-on-the-right-to-the-left-and-vice-versa
Are these,
I. Google Driverless Cars
II. Ambulance Chasing Google Cars
III. Ambulance Chasing Google Cars with Lawyers Inside
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
If someone stoops to classic, even dramatically ridiculous errors in logic,
yet you totally 'get' what their point is,
and 'get' where they are coming from
(seeing the view and the person behind the view)
is there a Latin phrase for that?
Just simply understanding people?
Blood in the streets!
you actually achieved a slippery slope argument.
Ergo, San Francisco.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
An Asimovian robot would likely go into some state of malfunction, and might not respond to even First Law situations. There's examples in the stories.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
This makes sense. In the US the posted speed limits seem to be 10 or 15 miles below what most drivers would deem a "safe" speed on that road. More then likely this is because the authorities expect that people will be 5 or 10 mph over. I have previously argued that there would be a push to raise the speed limit on some roads when self driving cars became common. It is quite annoying and somewhat dangrous when a car is actually doing the speed limit on some of the roads around here.
Some of the limits also seem to be designed purely to generate tickets. There is one four lane road near my house that is posted 25 mph. This is a silly posting for this road and there is often a speed trap set up on it.
There are exceptins of course. I don't think anyone would argue that the speed limit in residential areas should be raised.
soapbox warning:
Creating laws that people will ignore or "bend" on purpose is bad for a society. Once people get used to breaking this law or that law because it is stupid or it "doesn't really matter" it fosters a general disrespect for authority and law. They start to select which laws they will obey and which don't apply to them.
Every wrong attempt discarded is a step forward - T. Edison
incredibly realistic. any car can accelerate much faster than a semi.