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.
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.
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
When it comes to breaking the speed limit or being run over by a semi, I'll break the speed limit every time.
Dunno about the US, but in the UK there aren't 4 lanes. There is one lane, and other overtaking lanes.
Technically, if you have four cars all at the same speed in all four lanes, at least three of them would be breaking the law (dunno about the US, assume it's similar). If they're overtaking, it's not a problem, because they have to pull back in when they've completed the maneouvure and you can overtake them then.
To be honest, robots obeying rules will make the roads I travel on move faster. It's the dickheads who constantly change lanes and try to "beat" the queues when speeds come down that cause most of the slowdowns and "phantom braking waves" that I witness every day.
And, to be honest, I'd rather get somewhere at 65 predictably than 70 unpredictably, in spasms and spurts and with sudden braking.
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.
When the law says X, you break it at your own risk.
When a stupid law says X, you follow it at your own risk.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
When a stupid law says X, you follow it at your own risk
Which is exactly why we need driverless cars: dumb fucks who believe they're such exceptionally good drivers that the rules don't apply to them.
St. Peter: So, what brings you here?
Ex-Parrot: UK firmware update pushed to my car in New York.
St. Peter: Bummer. We haven't seen so many show up at once since Hiroshima. Well, go stand in line.
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?
Some people already tried it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
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. . . .
Increase the speed limits? Then there will be idiots driving even faster.
No, studies have shown that people drive at a speed that feels reasonable, regardless of limit.
Raising a speed limit often means just making legal what everyone is already doing.
There will always be crazy people going faster but they were already ignoring the speed limit entirely to begin with.
Many drivers already drive too fast for the road condition, traffic situation and the limitations of both their car and their driving abilities.
What studies show that?
Instead raising the speed limit in various states has lowered accident rates.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Actually, studies have shown that raising speed limits can reduce speeds. For example, people who drove at 50mph in a 30 limit that was set far too low would often reduce their speed to obey a 40mph limit, because it was sensible enough that they weren't willing to break it any more... once they'd decided to break the 30mph speed limit, they'd already broken it, so were as likely to drive at 50 as 40.
DWB is (afaik) Driving While Black. which is a term that is used to selectivly pull over minorities for racial reasons
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is 100% the fault of the person making an unsafe lane change if there is an accident, NOT the person who was driving too slow for your taste. You still have not given a single legitimate reason why low speed limits (by themselves), or slow drivers (by themselves) are dangerous.
People who are driving at a speed that is far outside the average speed on a particular road are a danger simply because the difference between their speed and others is likely to be large. Note that whether they're going "faster" or "slower" doesn't matter - it's the difference in speed.
If I'm going 90MPH and I bump someone going 89MPH we'll be fine and have minimal damage to our cars. If I'm going 45 and bump someone going 44 it's the same. But bumping someone who's going 45 when you're going 90 will result in a major accident.
I remember reading something a few years ago said by a patrol officer. Basically, fast drivers and slow drivers cause the same number of accidents. But in his experience the fast drivers were part of the accident while the slow drivers caused other people to have an accident (trying to avoid the slow poke) and drove off possibly unaware that they had caused an accident.
Do you have ESP?