Slashdot Mirror
Google Car Pulled Over For Driving Too Slow, Doesn't Get a Ticket (thenextweb.com)
New submitter slickwillie writes: A Google self-driving car was pulled over for going too slow. A photo uploaded to Facebook by Zandr Milewski shows one of Google's self-driving cars being pulled over by a Mountain View, California police officer. On on its Self-Driving Car Project page on Google+ the team wrote: "We’ve capped the speed of our prototype vehicles at 25mph for safety reasons. We want them to feel friendly and approachable, rather than zooming scarily through neighborhood streets. The Mountain View Police Department also commented on the traffic stop in a blog post saying in part: "...The officer stopped the car and made contact with the operators to learn more about how the car was choosing speeds along certain roadways and to educate the operators about impeding traffic per 22400(a) of the California Vehicle Code. The Google self-driving cars operate under the Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Definition per 385.5 of the California Vehicle Code and can only be operated on roadways with speed limits at or under 35 mph. In this case, it was lawful for the car to be traveling on the street as El Camino Real is rated at 35 mph."
>"Google Car Pulled Over For Driving Too Slow, Doesn't Get a Ticket "
I think you mean "slowly" (echos of my HS English teacher are in my mind).
I can think of many times I am driving I wish others would get pulled over for driving too slowly :)
I do not look forward to the day of mixed autonomous vs. non-autonomous conflict on the road! At least I hope the autonomous vehicles are predictable..... somehow I doubt my motorcycle will be self-driving.
Basically what I take away from this is that the cars are not ready for prime-time if they're limited to NEV speeds and have been mostly used in suburban neighborhoods.
I actually want autonomous vehicles. I want them to be capable of driving entirely without occupant involvement beyond stating a destination. I do want honest disclosure of how development is going though, and most of the discussion to this point has made it sound like they were further along and further tested than this article describes.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Cops pull people over for "driving too slowly" regardless of safety reasons all the time. And if you're from out of town they fine you. They didn't ticket the google car because it would have brought scrutiny, not because it was legal to drive that slowly on the road.
I believe there's a CA law that says if you are holding up 3 or more cars, you must pull over at the earliest safe turn-out and let them pass. However, I cannot find the text of that law at the moment.
It may be tricky to detect 3 or more cars computationally, as the view of those further back is often blocked.
Table-ized A.I.
auto drive car better be able to go over the limit on some roads. Like in Chicagoland interstates
"We’ve capped the speed of our prototype vehicles at 25mph for safety reasons. We want them to feel friendly and approachable"
If I'm stuck behind one and it's going well below the speed limit, I'm going to HATE it and everyone that owns one. Of course, that's after I'm done laughing at how ridiculous it looks.
There is a simple explanation for this. After being lost on El Camino Real for hours and hundreds of miles, the car simply lost its will to live and was looking for a safe-ish place to park for the night.
I've never heard of a cop pulling over a car for going too slowly. Never once in my life.
How else do you harass stoned teenagers?
Or the policeman was looking for an excuse to pull over the obviously marked Google car, perhaps so he could boast about giving it a ticket.
I've never heard of a cop pulling over a car for going too slowly. Never once in my life.
It's pretty much how a lot of drunk/stoned drivers get caught...
It had to be an excuse and they were really pulling it over for an illegitimate reason.
Because if you're a beat cop and want an easy target, you pick ... Google?
That's because when you investigate the issue close enough to be 'insightful', you realize that self-driving cars can, at least theoretically, handle themselves just fine up to around 100 mph in ideal circumstances; in less than ideal that scales down, but they're still typically safer at higher speeds.
That being said, I doubt they're going to be allowed to speed, so you have 5-15 mph right there, but that might change as well as communities realize that yes, that ticket money is indeed gone.
It typically takes about 0.5 - 1 seconds for a human to react and hit the brakes. Automated cars are a lot faster. This chops a surprising amount off the stopping distance, and properly set up the car can 'see' further as well, especially at night.
I don't read AC A human right
If you read slashdot more often, you'd already know that in California they let the self-driving cars be programmed to go +10mph over the "limit." But the ones they are actually using that way are the ones that drive on regular roads. This kind is a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle, not a general purpose car.
Happened to me a few months back. He was looking for drunk people. Since I wasn't one, I went on my way.
These assholes possibly stop using the subject as part of their comment?
Mountview cops have been known to pull drivers over who are going too slow because they suspect they are drunk drivers who are being extra careful to avoid being pulled over by the cops. If you are in a bar late at night in Mountview someone will often warn you don't drive too slow when you drive home.
or did the engineers have to take manual control of it and do so?
It does happen. Not going to bother with linking but....
In Maryland some lady was hit with 2 miles under speed limit, for hogging the left lane. Her excuse that there were 40mph winds that day making for hazardous conditions was denied.
In North (South?) Carolina a stop was ruled valid because 'The speed limit was 60, everyone was doing 75, so the trooper was right in pulling you over for doing 55'. This was an attempt at an appeal on the basis of unlawful stopping pursuant to a possession charge.
In Ontario a man was dinged for doing 17 kmph over the speed limit: 'you are breaking the law if you do even one kilometer over the speed limit' said the judge. He protested a month later by doing the exact speed limit, causing a 4km long traffic jam. He was hit with obstructing traffic and had his license suspended. Of note: he had a 'partner' that was nailed with the same fine, who was driving in tandem in the adjacent lane.
Ontario has a section of it's Highway Traffic Act (132) that states basically 'don't slow or block traffic unless there is a damn good reason' - 110$ fine and 2 demerits.
Lastly, someone in Australia was nailed by photo radar for 'allegedly doing the speed limit in a speed limit zone'. That one I'm pretty sure was dismissed as a stupid glitch.
Basically people do get nailed for driving too slow, but it's generally because they are interfering with traffic, or in a few cases, are a safety concern (i.e. it's more that the vehicle is unfit for the highway/severe grade).
to remain silent.
that's driving erratically, suspiciously, unusually or whatever. not for 'driving 10mph under the limit'. in a neighborhood you would think that they would thank them for not going 35+10mph.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Meanwhile, in european countries, specially the nothern ones (like Germany, scandinavian countries, etc. with Switzerland being the southernish exception among them) and a lot less in southern countries (like all the latin and slavic ones):
- People tend to respect much more limitations. A robot that meticulously respects every limitation won't stand out that much. You don't need to drive above limits or recklessly just to stay in the flow.
- People tend to make less a fuss about other driving slowly. No police is going to pull over just because you drive slowly (at least above the minimal requirement. Obviously you can't do 40 km/h on a Highway). In fact, on small mountainy road you can get stuck behind a slow vehicle (heavy loaded utility vehicle that has difficulties climbing the slope), it's your responsibility to overtake when it is safe to do so, the slow vehicle will eventually pull-out once in a while if a giant queue has formed behind.
In fact, in some jurisdiction it *is forbiden* to make a fuss about slow drivers: On german autobahn, if the driver in front is slower, you are required to stay calm and not start to get aggressive (tail-gate, blink lights, etc.) you could get fined for that.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Gosh they're really putting the system through its paces then. It really shows how immature this tech is and will be for the foreseeable future.
I think the answer to that is obvious. I bet the engineers have to take over a lot because the car is acting stupid, or ignoring hazards or signs that a human would easily recognize.
Wow! So Google cars recognize every single law enforcement uniform and every hand-signs they use to stop cars and direct them to the desired stopping point?
Also, can any idiot stop them with a sexy Halloween police uniform?
But seriously, IMO it's just a publicity stunt from Google.
The first couple years the cars are available to the general public, the driver will push a button to pull over. A few years later, the police will type/read your plate number into their in-car computer and it will get the signal and pull over.
The best solution would be to allow a human to drive and have a computer to help with emergency braking, skid control, smart cruise control, lane tracking, safe overtake, parallel park etc., Assistance that makes driving safer and more convenient without lobotomizing the vehicle in the process.
The problem with this, as found by the USAF with drones, is that when you automate too much it becomes impossible for the operator to keep sufficient attention on the drone's automation. And this is with professional pilots.
'without lobotomizing the vehicle' would be to go ahead and make it fully autonomous. Once it's fully autonomous it can also do things like pick you up at the door of your work, the mall, etc...
I don't read AC A human right
I believe self-driving cars in all states are still required to have manual controls in order to be licensed. It's not how Google would like the cars to be operated, but it's currently the law.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Once they're electric they'll be silent. ;-)
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
If I were behind that car, I'd be leaning on my horn while smoke poured form my ears. 10 mph under the limit? Shoot the car and burn the engineer. Or is that the other way 'round? Whatever, do it.
Reposting under my name. /. forgets my login in some browsers
One of the most dangerous things you can do on a road is to be stopped dead at a long-been-green stoplight, say playing with your phone. That's because *no one sees you as stopped*, specifically the car coming up to the light going 50. No one looks for it. People glance at the light, it's green, keep going at speed. What sort of idiot is stopped at a green light, your big chance to go? It's in the same category as saying "no" to free money. Being stopped at a green light is a nearly invisible event.
So let's talk about how dangerous going too slow is because your algorithm encountered a novel traffic situation (aren't a majority of them novel, really?) and urged caution to the accelerator. It's nearly as bad as being stopped at a green light, especially if you're the only one *reasoning* the way you reason about things, rightly or wrongly. In fact, this may be their fallback tactic- when confused, slow down. That way Google doesn't have any high-speed accidents that actually kill people. That would be bad, and bad press, too.
This is another thing about Google cars and self driving cars generally. They're safer *if they're in the majority*. They all know what each other is likely to do and can take account of it in their own behavior. They can coordinate. It's sort of the opposite effect of the Wall Street bots. They all know do the same thing, and then crater the market on account of it.
So here is a thing to think about. Self driving cars may have real trouble as an incremental approach. I have to think that it's a self conscious part of Google's game plan to reach a tipping point of self-driving cars where they are a significant minority. Until then, the project is a financial loss. Past that point, and working in tandem with insurance companies, expect to pay a first a little then a LOT more for insurance to drive regular cars. This will force the market (that means you) towards self-driving cars, if only for economic reasons. Somewhere along the way to this tipping point, the government will subsidize the purchase of self driving cars using the argument that that money comes back to them and more in the cost savings realized by fewer accidents, less healthcare costs associated with accidents, less police and emergency costs etc etc.
It's interesting to think that owning a car with self driving features is a status symbol now, reflecting wealth and prestige but in the future, driving a regular car will be the status symbol, signalling wealth and the freedom and autonomy it brings.
Google must be reasoning all this through even as they try to get self-driving car technology working. The players- insurance companies, the government the regulators, are all talking about these kinds of things- how they can economically *flip* everyone onto self-driving cars. They also have to be thinking about the popular perception and possible resistance to the technology. Obviously, cars are a form of individual autonomy. The government can't remotely pull the plug on your driving or automatically track your whereabouts. But with self-driving cars, expect to see them demand these *features* and Google *begrudgingly* go along with it.
When we switched from horses to cars, there were obviously numerous social issues that got dragged along. There was a large popular resistance because with a horse, you went where you wanted, the way you wanted. With a car, you could only go where what roads there were were. One of the things that made cars popular was amusingly enough, sex. A car was a kind of rolling bed, a possibly subversive dual purpose technology with a respectable side. The very first porn movie features a man and two women driving in an car in the country. The woman says she has to get out and pee. The car stops and woman gets out and after a little while the man follows. Pants-down embarrassment is followed by flirting which leads to fucking, of course. The other woman follows onto the scene and the gates o
The problem with this, as found by the USAF with drones, is that when you automate too much it becomes impossible for the operator to keep sufficient attention on the drone's automation. And this is with professional pilots.
And that's why you don't automate too much. And you require the driver to hold the wheel and perform any other tests that measure alertness. And to prevent the driver getting lazy (e.g. letting the car slam the brakes on) the car "punishes" them by ringing an annoying alarm for 30 seconds.
"'without lobotomizing the vehicle' would be to go ahead and make it fully autonomous. Once it's fully autonomous it can also do things like pick you up at the door of your work, the mall, etc..."
Except such a thing is virtually impossible any time in the forseeable future. Ain't going to happen.
Wasn't it a Toronto Star reporter or some such? But yes, Ontario traffic law is to 'go with the flow of traffic.'
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
With current technology, there's no way any cars can be totally automatically operated on any of the roads in all situations.
The same is true for manually operated vehicles as well.
The most dangerous drug
One thing about ticketing an autonomous car when it is not breaking the law, is that there is likely to be plenty of recorded telemetry fight the ticket in court. Google doesn't infractions on the record, and would likely put all necessarily legal effort into fighting it.
Would you really want to be the cop who went through all that hassle to not have a ticket upheld? Not the good sort of fame either.
My uncle received a ticket for going to slow in Ottawa, Ontario. He was on a 4-lane highway (always 100 kph max) in the city and was doing 90 kph. No idea if he was obstructing anyone, but he was pretty pissed about it.
In Ontario a man was dinged for doing 17 kmph over the speed limit: 'you are breaking the law if you do even one kilometer over the speed limit' said the judge. He protested a month later by doing the exact speed limit, causing a 4km long traffic jam. He was hit with obstructing traffic and had his license suspended. Of note: he had a 'partner' that was nailed with the same fine, who was driving in tandem in the adjacent lane.
I remember this, back in the 90's I think (probably why I can't find a link). It was a stupid stunt. Based on what was reported, the license suspension was well deserved.
+10 over does not work on all roads like.
I-294 I-94 (IL) I-90 (IL) (I-355) I-55 (IL) I-80 (IL) I-290
Since the vehicle is classified as a NEV, it's not allowed to drive over 25mph. If NEV is permitted on a road with a 35mph speed limit,then it's not impeding traffic at 25mph, it's traveling at its maximum legal speed.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/...
V C Section 385.5 Low Speed Vehicle
Low Speed Vehicle
385.5. (a) A "low-speed vehicle" is a motor vehicle that meets all of the following requirements:
(1) Has four wheels.
(2) Can attain a speed, in one mile, of more than 20 miles per hour and not more than 25 miles per hour, on a paved level surface.
(3) Has a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 3,000 pounds.
(b) (1) For the purposes of this section, a "low-speed vehicle" is not a golf cart, except when operated pursuant to Section 21115 or 21115.1.
(2) A "low-speed vehicle" is also known as a "neighborhood electric vehicle."
If a self-driving car goes too fast, too slow, gets in an accident, etc who gets the ticket? The driver is software. The owner is merely a passenger. If it's a question of, the town needs money and has to ticket someone, then of course the owner gets stuck. But if the goal is to penalize bad driving, then the ticket should go to Google.
Under self-driving control because it doesn't know if the police car wants to pass or if it is being pulled-over. However, the driver took over and stopped the car just to be sure.
And if your name is Ben Caxton, they will signal the doors to lock and knockout gas to be deployed.
Last time I was on the 401 I did 70 MPH though Toronto.
Except such a thing is virtually impossible any time in the forseeable future. Ain't going to happen.
Your 'forseeable' future must be really short then. Because I can see them coming out, with some limitations, within the next 10. They might be 'Sunday drivers' that don't venture out in inclement weather, but I think they're pretty close.
I don't read AC A human right
How many proxies do you post through to make so many AC posts in one day? Seriously.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Gord Thomson, a teacher from Campbellford, back in 1995. http://www.freerepublic.com/fo... http://www.drivers.com/article...
to ticket an auto-drive car.
That's because when you investigate the issue close enough to be 'insightful', you realize that self-driving cars can, at least theoretically, handle themselves just fine up to around 100 mph in ideal circumstances;
Let me know when this has been demonstrated in real life, on a real road, in a real uncontrolled sitiation just like I face on the road everyday. Until then, your claims will sit in the 'marketing bullshit' pile.
that's driving erratically, suspiciously, unusually or whatever. not for 'driving 10mph under the limit'.
"Whatever" includes driving too slowly. Trust me, I know from experience.
You're moving the goal posts. 'Real uncontrolled situation' is incompatible with 'ideal circumstances'. A highway or race track is hardly uncontrolled. In addition, there's quite the difference between 'theoretically' and 'real world'. There's still a lot of development work to be done.
Speeds would be lower on highways than race tracks.
I don't read AC A human right
You never drove in Germany
*Did* drive quite a lot there.
German r{oad}s are filled with speed crazed drivers.
It's not fun for me to drive there.
You never drove in southern europe (Latin countries. or worse: Slavic countries).
Compared to there, these "speed crazed german drivers" seems more like a polite club of english gentlement indulging a bit into a few harmless mischief.
Alors, their german car don't tend to fall appart in the process (unlike the junk you'll find in some slavic countries).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
there was no backtalk or skin color, nor any body to, tase, plant drugs on, beat, choke or ultimately shoot down. I mean this is so far off from their everyday "reality," like who are they going to write the ticket to? Cops in this scenario were most likely dumbfounded.
You're moving the goal posts. 'Real uncontrolled situation' is incompatible with 'ideal circumstances'.
The goal posts are firmly fixed. Operate on a public road, just like I do, under every circumstance that I face every day, and do it as well as me, or better
I have no emotional attachment to this, if the robot car does that, and costs similar to a regualr car, I'll buy one. Based on what I've seen so far, this is a long way away.
Ah, you're doing the equivalent of talking about Swimming when I'm talking about football...
From what I understand, robotic cars are already quite good, superior to humans, at what I'll term Rule 1: Don't hit anything. I guess I wasn't clear about that enough on my first post.
There remains other concerns - routing and such. I'm not saying they're ready for prime-time.
I don't read AC A human right
The Google self-driving cars operate under the Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Definition per 385.5 of the California Vehicle Code and can only be operated on roadways with speed limits at or under 35 mph. In this case, it was lawful for the car to be traveling on the street as El Camino Real is rated at 35 mph." Maybe my confusion is that El Camino Real is RATED, not POSTED 35? But if it is legal for the car to operate AT OR under 35, and the speed limit is 35....the it was unlawful to be there how?
According to what he has posted elsewhere, he uses bridges to to it. Not sure exactly what he means though, as a bridge is something that connects to networks (like a primitive router). If he is using it in that way, it is most definitely a proxy, as it is proxying his connection, but for some reason he thinks it is not a proxy, and so trashposts about it acting like he is some kind of networking god.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Parsing error... this is what happens when you try to post as someone else, APK. Simply keeping your post short and avoiding bold text isn't enough to hide the fact that this is one of your posts, APK. The giveaways include the insulting tone, complete lack of any actual information that might indicate why you are so superior to everyone else (oh, so you wrote a program, yippee), and your liberal use of the same core vocabulary. That's not to say that your vocabulary is limited, it is clearly not, but there is a small dictionary of words that readily identify your posts; and you've managed to stuff a few of them into this one-liner. Also, referring to yourself in the third person, now? So we can add schizophrenia to the list, alongside narcissism.
I know how to read just fine, the problem is that you think I even tried to read your series of off-topic (and yes, they are off-topic in the thread in which they were posted) wall-of-text replies. Let me ask, and you educate, since you're oh so great: if not proxies, what do you use and how do they differ from proxies? That is, how is what you're using not simply a proxy by another name? To put it another way, you are posting more than Slashdot would allow an AC to post from a single IP, so you must be using multiple connections, and a lot of them; either you have a couple hundred IP addresses at your disposal at your home or office and have set up a system that allows you to rapidly switch between them (<sarc>because that would be less complex than using proxies</sarc>), you're paying people to repost your trash (<sarc>because maintaining a network of paid sockpuppets is surely less complex than using a few proxies), or you're using proxies by whatever name you refer to them. And here's the kicker: If you're writing the material and paying others to post it, those people are proxies. So, either I've missed something or you're using proxies. Since you claim to not be using proxies, please, tell me what I've missed.
We're all waiting for you to educate us. You claim to be so great, show us the greatness.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Yeah, sure. Keep dreaming that you are so much better at everything than anyone else.
I have no abused modpoints, and frankly haven't gotten any modpoints in about a month, but that probably relates to me getting 15 twice in a week more than anything else. People down modding your garbage has nothing to do with me, and everything to do with you.
If that is what you call crying, I am sorry to say that you are overly emotional. I said you are spamming enough, there is no complaint there, just a comment on the lack of the Slashdot editors to give a shit. I am highlighting the problem by goading you into constant shitposting like you did last week, but for some reason not this week, that also isn't crying.
I have proved you wrong on numerous occasions, you inability to understand when you have been proven wrong vs when you are deluding yourself that you have won an argument is not an issue on my end.
Other Slashdotters have done nothing of the sort, and I pointed that out to you, you then tried to move the goalposts. No one uses your software. No one will use your software soon, as MS is phasing out the hosts file.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
LRN to NETWORK! You are wrong on what a bridge is, and no one who is competent will use a bridge for anything as a router works better. Considering this is not a technique that has any use in faking your source address to get around Slashdot's post limits on AC accounts, I can only presume you don't know what you are talking about and are trying to act like you do.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
So,
1. You ARE APK, and no one would even think otherwise.
2. You are claiming that by reading something that you wrote, you have seen proof of something that you claim.
3. You are claiming that I have never proved you wrong, which is a flat out lie.
4. You are an insufferable troll, you think you are bothering me, but you just don't get it. I WANT you to keep posting your garbage. The only person you are making look bad is yourself.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
That's funny coming from most likely) APK of all people.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
The only thing he (you, APk) broke is his (your, APK) own brain.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.