Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Favors Less-Regulated UK For Self-Driving Car Development (telegraph.co.uk)

Posted by Soulskill on from the why-the-tardis-succeeded dept.

An anonymous reader writes: According to documents obtained by The Telegraph, Google considers the UK a key market for development of its self-driving car program. In one of the five meetings the documents describe, Sarah Hunter, head of Google's experimental SDV division, commented that the company is "very positive about the non-regulatory approach being taken in the UK [which] places the UK in a good position and could be seen as an example of best practice." Google has also escaped excessive regulation in the area of drone development by pursuing Project WinG in the easier regulatory climes of Australia.

82 comments

  1. Huh? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Funny

    The UK as a less regulated environment? Is this April first, or did I accidentally get to the Onion?

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:Huh? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      The UK as a less regulated environment? Is this April first, or did I accidentally get to the Onion?

      North America is horrifically regulated by comparison. Look at the taxi protests in Toronto against Uber. you know what the taxis are really protesting about?

      The police and city council say they are unable to enforce the regulations and bylaws on taxis because they are too complicated.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    2. Re:Huh? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Indeed, while there is little law governing self driving cars there are some guidelines in place that you think would put them off, like requiring passengers to pretend to drive by holding a fake wheel so as not to surprise real drivers. Considering that Google's cars don't even have steering wheels...

      There is also the extremely poor state of UK roads, basically third world quality for the most part. I suppose in that sense it is probably a good testing ground for sensors, to check that they can distinguish a typically uneven, broken, potholed road from a collision, and that they can hear voice commands over the roar of concrete road noise etc.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Huh? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      There is also the extremely poor state of UK roads, basically third world quality for the most part.

      Couldn't be any worse than down here in New Orleans.

      Hard to speed in many places down here, as that the entire city is one big speed bump....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:Huh? by nukenerd · · Score: 2

      There is also the extremely poor state of UK roads, basically third world quality for the most part.

      Also the fact that UK roads (like the country as a whole) are desparately overcrowded, narrow, traffic jams everywhere, traffic lights and roundabouts (often combined these days) everywhere, anomalous speed restriction policies, and local council traffic officers' crackpot scheme pet ideas*. I am often confused myself at unfamiliar junctions which traffic light head applies to which lane. I would have though a nation of more wide-open roads would be a better starting ground.

      * Take a look at this lunacy : https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    5. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, if some insecure nimrod hypocritically brings up that completely unrelated topic - oh, I see you've got that covered.

    6. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The UK as a less regulated environment?

      Well they deal with the more important issues, like people who would take pictures of others with their toys or designer clothing. Perhaps they are inspired by the U.S. dealing with people photographing cows.
      Do cows get mad when photographed???

      If evil-deed-doers manage to use radio controlled toys, you'd think some might be concerned with the issues a botnet of self-driving cars could present.
      Getting them to perform the desired functions safely under the normal range of conditions is enough of a challenge, trying to address every possible adverse influence seems a daunting task.
      But I suppose a fleet of robot warriors and automated sky weapons is all we need to deal with that, or at least make us feel as if we've dealt with that. Perception matters more than reality, yes?

      One lesson that we should have learned from newk you larr accidents is that even seemingly very unlikely potential events warrant considerable attention when the possible consequences are extreme. What are the potential consequences if a self-driving car isn't absolutely secure?

    7. Re:Huh? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      The UK as a less regulated environment?

      I think Google do not understand how the UK legal system works. It is negative rather than positive in that it says what is not allowed rather than what is allowed. On the face of it this is less restrictive (temporarily) because there are no laws against anything that did not occur to the original lawmakers. In fact there are a lot of laws about what is not allowed in driving, but driverless cars were never imagined by the lawmakers, so no particular restrictions currently apply to them. Nevertheless there would soon be a whole raft of new laws about driverless cars,

      Reminds me of a UK TV sitcom called "Yes Minister" about a ficticious government minister and the convolutions involved. His aide tells him about a possible new development which the minister does not like the sound of :-

      Minister : I shall stop this happening before it starts!
      Aide : Sorry minister, but you cannot stop something before it starts. You will have to let it start first, and stop it after that.

    8. Re:Huh? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Could you find some way to turn this into a pro-feminism argument?

      You usually manage it.

      Try this :- The removal of the steering wheel and other controls is to be celebrated as it removes any indication of relative status among male and female passengers, the bias of which is usually to the male.

    9. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goggle knows that if the car is capable of driving in the UK, the rest of Europe (if you don't count the whole of Italy and Paris) and the US will be a doodle

    10. Re:Huh? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      it is pretty funny out of context, but within context this is one more example of over regulations pushing business overseas

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    11. Re:Huh? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      I was working on self driving cars in university back in the 90's. The advisor to our group held the position that technically it was not a huge challenge, but legally it would be and that self driving cars would not show up first in the US. His guess was Asia or Germany.

    12. Re:Huh? by swillden · · Score: 1

      I think Google do not understand how the UK legal system works. It is negative rather than positive in that it says what is not allowed rather than what is allowed.

      Is there a legal system in the world which is not this way? The US system certainly is.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    13. Re:Huh? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      There was a similar thing in London about a month ago. The real London, not the one near Detroit.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not always. Sometimes she's wittering on about how totally awesome everything in Japan is.

    15. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most british roads dont use concrete unlike American ones. They use ashfelt. It is a different driving experience and makes a different. sound.

    16. Re:Huh? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The UK as a less regulated environment? Is this April first, or did I accidentally get to the Onion?

      I think Google meant "less stupidly regulated". The UK doesn't mandate tyre pressure monitors because it expects people to be able to check their tyres on a regular basis on their own. Little things like that.

      Also the UK has much better (read, trained and predictable) drivers than the US.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    17. Re:Huh? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I dare say that I speak from a position of authority when I state that the roundabout is sheer lunacy. Having reviewed the process at depth, I can assure you that a standard roundabout would have worked had they simply made it large enough AND with routing the left-turning traffic around the roundabout to avoid needing to account for it in the throughput-limited roundabout. Not only would it have been simpler but it would have been safer. Yes, some land would have had to have been taken for this but they'd actually have more available land because the cluster-fuck of a roundabout would be about 1/4 of the present size.

      Err... I didn't click the link but, from the comments, that can only be Swindon. Yes, yes I have studied it at great length and yes, yes I am qualified to opine.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    18. Re:Huh? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find that most US roads do not use concrete, not even as a base. They should, but they do not.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    19. Re:Huh? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      That junction looks complicated, but results in traffic passing through the junction faster than the alternatives and with fewer accidents. The 4-way stop, on the other hand,

      It's a 5-way junction actually, which makes me wonder about the reliability of your other assertions and whether you could call up citations. But do go on .......

      ...... look[s] simple but is inefficient and dangerous in comparison to the alternatives.

      You seem to be talking about a 4-way crossroads (as we'd call it in the UK, and ignoring the 5-way issue FTTB) - ie a plain simple orthogonal 4-directions junction, with or without traffic lights. But the sensible alternative to the Swindon Magic Roundabout (in my link) would be a plain roundabout, not a "4 [or 5]-way stop". I'm not sure they have roundabouts in the USA, so if you are there you might not have come across them. They work fine for situations like Swindon and are very common in the UK - too common in fact.

      That you view the safe, efficient alternative as lunacy speaks volumes.

      Tell us what these volumes are speaking, exactly.

  2. Wait what by skovnymfe · · Score: 1

    How can the UK be a key market when they drive on the wrong side? Spot the irony when self-driving cars start ramming into ongoing traffic because "Oops we forgot to driveOnRightSide = true;"

    1. Re:Wait what by amalcolm · · Score: 1

      It's you lot who drive on the wrong side, you insensitive clod!

      --
      Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
    2. Re:Wait what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly - Over here in the UK driveOnRightSide = true.
      Over in the USA, driveOnWrongSide = true

    3. Re:Wait what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I paid attention, I drove on the right side of the road.

    4. Re:Wait what by fatboy · · Score: 1

      If your not passing port to port, your doing it wrong ;)

      --
      --fatboy
    5. Re:Wait what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly - Over here in the UK driveOnRightSide = true.
      Over in the USA, driveOnWrongSide = true

      The benefit of having separate booleans instead of defining one of them as a macro is that you can set both for the Asian market.

    6. Re:Wait what by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      If your not passing port to port, your doing it wrong ;)

      All European nations drove vehicles on the left until the French Revolution. The practical reason was that, as most carriage drivers held their whip in their right hand, it made the whip less likely to get tangled in the hedge or hit pedestrians.

      OTOH pedestrians walked on the right, a rule that still applies in the UK to roads without pavements (=US sidewalks). This was so that they could see carriages approaching them on their own side and could jump into the hedge or ditch if the driver did not look like he was going to avoid them (behaviour like that caused the French Revolution).

      Obviously, people in carriages were toffs, and pedestrians were peasants.

      Come the French Revolution, everyone desparately wanted to show they were a peasant, not a toff, even if they were in a carriage. Officials of the Revolution did use carriages. So carriages started driving on the right to show solidarity with the peasants. It was the wrong side, but the idea contaminated all nations that found themselves co-lateral to the revolution, or who admired it.

      Not sure how the USA came to drive on the right. It was an admirer of the Revolution (as was possible from a distance), or perhaps it is because America has no hedges.

    7. Re:Wait what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that a self-driving car, or a Dalek??

  3. Only because... by messymerry · · Score: 1

    The UK is only less regulated because they don't have the OUTSTANDING government infrastructure that we have here in the good 'ol USSA. Europeans in general are slightly less risk averse as we are here in nannyland...

    --
    Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
    1. Re:Only because... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      The UK is only less regulated because they don't have the OUTSTANDING government infrastructure that we have here in the good 'ol USSA. Europeans in general are slightly less risk averse as we are here in nannyland...

      If the government of USA weren't nannyland it'd go Lord of the Flies in a week.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    2. Re: Only because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apart from the unsanitary practice of worshipping rotting pig heads on a pole, I don't really see why this should be a bad thing.

  4. Your other left! by deviated_prevert · · Score: 1

    All well and good but will they drive on the wrong side of the freakin' road?

    --
    This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
  5. That'll work well by timcullen2010 · · Score: 1

    Now they have to teach the car to drive on the wrong side of the road.

    1. Re:That'll work well by amalcolm · · Score: 1

      It's the right side. You lot got it wrong, as usual!

      --
      Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
    2. Re:That'll work well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is the right side, just the wrong direction. The UK is backwards...

  6. Death is the only adventure I have left, Smee. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TLDR; ho ho ho!

  7. Just like every other company says by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Don't regulate us, it's better if you just let us monitor ourselves. Don't worry, you can trust us to do the right thing."

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Just like every other company says by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Keep telling yourself that, in the meanwhile the manufacturing left for other countries. Regulations are taxes and prohibitions, USA was supposed to be an environment with minimal intervention by any government, that's what the point was, that's why people came to the country after leaving their own, not for more government and regulation and taxes and oppression, for less of that same shit.

      Beside that, what the fuck is 'the right' thing exactly? Are you telling me USA government knows right from wrong? I can give you thousands of reasons why that is bullshit, here is one: why are you in Iraq?

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
    2. Re:Just like every other company says by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Keep telling yourself that, in the meanwhile the manufacturing left for other countries. Regulations are taxes and prohibitions, USA was supposed to be an environment with minimal intervention by any government, that's what the point was, that's why people came to the country after leaving their own, not for more government and regulation and taxes and oppression, for less of that same shit.

      And would you actually want to live in any of those "other countries" to where the manufacturing has fled and which apparently have a regulatory environment more in line with what you believe in?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:Just like every other company says by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Of-course, USA used to be the country with the least regulations, taxes and generally government oppression and millions came over.

      That migration was not a coincidence, people move to where there is more economic activity, not where the economy is oppressed, restricted and destroyed by the oppression of the collectivist or any other form of authoritarian government.

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
    4. Re:Just like every other company says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why are you in Iraq?

      Oil and petrodollars.

    5. Re:Just like every other company says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no idea what you're talking about. Britain's manufacturing is all but non-existent vs pre-Thatcher. The US is still one of the world manufacturing powerhouses.

      It's precisely Keynesian intervention that has produced manufacturing powerhouses, viz. China. Both neoliberalism and fully centralised control are miserable failures - it's no surprise that reality is more complex than any ideology would like.

    6. Re:Just like every other company says by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Of-course, USA used to be the country with the least regulations, taxes and generally government oppression and millions came over.

      That worked when it consisted of lots of little self-regulating high-minded communities like the Pilgrim Fathers and the present-day surviving Amish. Breaks down soon after that. Good job the government does not leave it to individuals to decide which side of the road to drive on.

      That migration was not a coincidence, people move to where they imagine there is more economic activity, not where the economy is oppressed, [blah blah blah etc]

      Correction in bold font for you.

    7. Re:Just like every other company says by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Britain's manufacturing is all but non-existent vs pre-Thatcher. The US is still one of the world manufacturing powerhouses.

      Oh come off it. I am in the UK and must admit I do have an American car, but earlier this week I bought a box of Xmas crackers and was a very proud Englishman to see that they were "Made in Britain". Who said Britain could not make anything any more? Oh, and Scotch whisky (until Scotland breaks away). Let me find some other examples ......... er .......... I'll get back later.

  8. Only if you spell "favour" properly. by Salk · · Score: 1

    Dam yanks ;)

  9. Yaayyyy for the metric system by bazmail · · Score: 1

    BOOOO for the imperial system!!

    1. Re:Yaayyyy for the metric system by Vrekais · · Score: 1

      The USA uses the Imperial System.

      We (the UK) use Imperial for road signage and that's about it. Metric for industry, science, education, we even sell petrol in Litres but oddly still use Miles per Gallon for fuel efficiency, probably to obfuscate how much we pay for fuel here.

    2. Re:Yaayyyy for the metric system by Nutria · · Score: 1

      The USA uses the Imperial System.

      No, we don't, you ignorant git.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The US gallon is, for example, 128 fluid ounces, whereas the Imperial gallon is 160 fl oz which equals 153.7 US fl oz.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re:Yaayyyy for the metric system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they don't, they use the US customary system, which is not the same thing.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units

    4. Re:Yaayyyy for the metric system by Nutria · · Score: 1

      You crazy Brits think that a hundredweight weighs... 112 pounds.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    5. Re:Yaayyyy for the metric system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently it's all the fault of the Germans
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_%28unit%29

    6. Re:Yaayyyy for the metric system by CycleFreak · · Score: 1

      And I know of nowhere else that measures weight in "stones". Archaic much?

    7. Re:Yaayyyy for the metric system by Vrekais · · Score: 1

      No one uses hundredweight in the UK any more, I used to teach Maths and not even I was aware of 112lb in a Hundredweight. We "weigh" ourselves in Kilograms (regardless of that being a unit of Mass not Weight) now but the previous generation is still using Stones, it's getting less and less common though. At school the imperial system is now completely gone from the curriculum except Miles to Kilometres and a few other memorable conversions such as 60kg is roughly 9 Stone if a students asks.

    8. Re:Yaayyyy for the metric system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In case of a photonic rocket, how many hogsheads of anti-proton to the parsec?

    9. Re:Yaayyyy for the metric system by Vrekais · · Score: 1

      So US system took all the names of an old system and gave them new definitions? How is that better?

      I don't think that hearing people from the USA refer to Feet, Pounds, Ounces and Gallons and thinking that maybe they're using the system I've been taught those measurements derive from.

  10. I wonder if they have seen our roads by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder if they have seen our roads before writing this. There are a number of things which make it much more difficult. Narrow roads, where one car can go at a time, possibly one having to reverse. No jay-walking laws, except for a few motorways people have priority. Narrow country lanes where horses, cyclists etc. have no sense

    1. Re:I wonder if they have seen our roads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It appears that you are saying that it is not only being less regulated that makes the UK the perfect environment for testing this, before unleashing it on the rest of us.

    2. Re:I wonder if they have seen our roads by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Its almost certainly all those real world examples and more (box junctions, pulling out into a queue of traffic if no one wants to let you in etc) that are going to show that self driving cars are a LONG way from prime time use except on a motorways where everyone is going in the same direction and large US style roads without awkward interchanges.

    3. Re:I wonder if they have seen our roads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      horses, cyclists etc. have no sense

      You mean there are places where people on and around the road actually do have sense? I'm not sure I buy it.

    4. Re:I wonder if they have seen our roads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4-way stops are a lot harder for self-driving cars to deal with than any other kind. Sure, if you could trust the other drivers to follow the rules to the letter, you'd be fine. In practice, drivers will wave you through, drivers will go out of turn if they believe you're going straight or right (and they aren't going left), etc, etc. And those are the sorts of things considered "normal" and "safe".

      Most UK intersections have roundabouts, even if they are tiny ones. The rules are a bit more clear. (In the US) If there's traffic to your left or pedestrians in the way, you wait. Otherwise, go. I have heard people from the UK complain our 4-way stops are a big pain in the ass to figure out due to no specific rules to follow (though there are, it's just the written rules and what really happens are often VERY different, plus people don't know the more esoteric rules like traffic to your right gets right of way if you both arrive at the same time).

    5. Re:I wonder if they have seen our roads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? Are you saying that a self-driving car doesn't have to handle those situations elsewhere?
      They only have to happen once for the car to need the functionality and even if you have the right of way you shouldn't run over pedestrians.

    6. Re:I wonder if they have seen our roads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's going to be some hilarious exception handling code

      If Road.Class=='DirtTrackInTheMiddleOfFuckingNowhere' & OncomingVehicle=='PolishTruckDriverBlindlyFollowingHisSatNav' {
            CollisionAvoidance.DiveIntoDitch ();
            Horn.Beep (1000);
      }

    7. Re:I wonder if they have seen our roads by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      The problem with your 4-way stops is they are fucking as dangerous as hell. You could hardly design a less safe junction if you tried. Introducing a roundabout has been proven may times over to lead to around a 90% drop in fatality rates at junctions.

    8. Re:I wonder if they have seen our roads by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      The problem with your 4-way stops is they are fucking as dangerous as hell. You could hardly design a less safe junction if you tried. Introducing a roundabout has been proven may times over to lead to around a 90% drop in fatality rates at junctions.

      The roundabout has also shown itself to increase throughput, too - more cars can get through a roundabout than a 4-way stop in a given period of time. (And 4-way stops aren't the only configuration - there are the oddball 5 way stops as well.)

      In Canada, the signs do tell you how many ways the stop sign applies (3-way, 4-way, 5-way) , but in the US, it goes "All way". Except in shopping malls, because there the road rules are completely confusing - you can have an intersection, and 3 of the 4 directions has a stop sign marked "3 way", while the remaining direction has right of way.

    9. Re:I wonder if they have seen our roads by swillden · · Score: 1

      Alternatively, if the self-driving car can handle those situations well it will demonstrate that it's very much ready for "prime time use".

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:I wonder if they have seen our roads by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Citation for that 90% figure? I am a huge fan of roundabouts (rotaries) and am responsible for a whole slew of 'em but I do think you're probably making up numbers without actually thinking someone here might be fluent in these numbers - albeit a bit dated.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  11. Best practice? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Translation: "We can test our car beta software on real roads. Who cares about the risk to other road users when billions are to be made from this and Larry and Sergei will be able to buy themselves another Yacht (with a human captain naturally)?"

    1. Re:Best practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Functions that modern cars already have: Lane following, adaptive cruise control and automatic braking.
      Those can already be tested without having a "self driving" car. Just buy any car with all the extras and you have it.
      If a car manufacturer wants to tweak the automatic breaking or the lane follower to handle less clear situations then it will be an improvement over functions that are already out there.
      The step to make it self driving is letting the car switch lane, turn and adjust the cruise control.
      The things we are worried about is the car failing to brake or driving off the road but those are already automated in non-self-driving cars.

    2. Re:Best practice? by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

      "automatic breaking"
      Hmmm, every Ford I ever owned had that feature.

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
  12. Self-driving punters by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    There should be a law that the voices on all GPS systems in cars have a working-class Scottish accents.

    "YA MIST THAT LAS' RIGHT TURN YA FOOKIN' COONT MIND YER FOOKIN' DRIVIN OR YER OAN A BURST MOOTH!"

    https://youtu.be/vPKhhne8mCs

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  13. Attractive choice by badzilla · · Score: 1

    The UK land area would fit into California with plenty left over, we're just over half the size. Our population is almost double however, which means almost everywhere is really crowded. We're also used to driving in a reasonably/mostly/hopefully rule-abiding way. I think that makes us a good testbed for driverless cars. Bring it on Google, please.

    --
    "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
    1. Re:Attractive choice by dave420 · · Score: 1

      "Almost everywhere is really crowded"? Nonsense. The cities are, yes, but there is plenty of sparsely-populated land in the UK. Loads of it. Like, more than densely-populated land.

  14. In other news... by comcn · · Score: 1

    Britons Favour Less-Regulated UK.

    1. Re: In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. Britons always want more laws and clamor for the government to keep tightening the screws. As long as getting drunk and beating up people is allowed, they won't care.

  15. Gift will be wasted on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suppose if the country is more draconian in nature it has less need for regulations. We are after all talking about the same place that outlawed roller boards. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rh2zxRVuds

    And for those that don't know what draconian means its when the defendant and plaintiff both don't get what they want all caused by the legislature producing laws that are worthless to enforce.

    Also lets not forget to mention that the place is a narrow cluster fuck of foreign travelers.

  16. photo speeding tickets by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Will google pay them or try get out of them with some kind of EULA?

  17. Project WinG? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think this is about Project Wing, not the WinG API from the 90s...

  18. self-diriving on the right lane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is simple.

    Normal cars in the UK will drive on the left lane as previously
    while self-driving cars will drive on the right - very convenient.

    I wonder when the first left-right bug will pop out.

  19. Uber is just another private hire firm by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    and has been successfully regulated as that in Manchester to judge from the Uber badged cars around up here. London's mayor was proposing to CHANGE the rules to give Uber a hard time; this is a measure of the difference in regulatory attitude.

  20. UK vs US road systems, A Nightmare. by lucien86 · · Score: 1

    I've lived in both UK and Canada and also the US. Ironically I lived in London Ontario for half a year then London UK for a year, and have lived there other times.. There’s almost no comparison between the two systems.
    Firstly US and Canadian roads are built on what are essentially grid systems so almost all junctions are 4 way, there are very few curves, and the wholes system is generally a lot simpler. On the outer rural grid systems the Canadian US system works great, and for the most part that I've seen it works mostly OK in small and medium sized cities as well. Not so well in really big cities like LA where the grids kind of get scrambled and mixed and really complicated - they call them 'Parkways' for a reason..

    UK roads in rural places are much worse than rural roads in the US or Canada. Often just built on old mediaeval lanes, often very narrow, lots of ups and downs and sharp dangerous bends, fords (river crossings with no bridge). A lot of small single lane roads with soft verges (grass and soil with hidden ditches), in the North often surrounded by dry stone walls - phenomenally unforgiving.. One thing UK rural roads have that a lot of Canadian roads don't have is tarmac. A lot of smaller rural Canadian and US roads are just mud and sand..

    Yes I left the worst for last - that 'magic roundabout' (mentioned by nuknerd above) is nothing. The big multi lane main routes in the UK’s bigger cities have some true nightmare junctions. There are a few pretty bad ones in my home region the North East in Newcastle and Gateshead. Gateshead particularly has a perverse and illogical road system, largely thanks to the massive reconstruction around the Metro Centre.
    On a trip from London we accidentally ended up in Birmingham and ran into a massive roundabout system that had up to 6 lanes and wound outwards in a spiral. Not only very complex and confusing but full of angry impatient drivers. (it is real - 5232'18.36"N 143'29.88"W)
    London UK is (by far) the worst. There are many terrible roads in London, some of the very worst are right in the centre. If you drive into the centre and are not ready for it and not absolutely familiar with it - you enter the one way system which is fast flowing, very complex, confusing, multi-lane in places, and full of very angry & very impatient drivers. Kind of like being in a huge game of Pachinko where you will rapidly just be looking for an escape.. can rapidly shred almost anyone's nerves.. and that's just as a passenger.

    I can't imagine a much worse place for Google cars than London. - Except maybe a place like Mumbai India, or central Paris has an equally lovely reputation. Smaller UK towns and cities are much better than the big cities. The smallest rural roads could get pretty brutal though for a self drive car - where the etiquette is to drive off the road and let the other car pass, and then if you get stuck someone has to get out and push. I guess the cars could be fitted with Boston Dynamics Atlas robots.. (~ $2 million each)

    --
    Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..