Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google self-driving car pulled over for driving too slowly

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 218 posts

Re: Google self-driving car pulled over for driving too slowly

#141

Post by ubernostrum »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #131
ubernostrum wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're basically saying that everyone should defect because everyone else does. So, there are three speeds we need to be concerned with here: 1. Design speed -- this is the speed anticipated and planned for by the engineers who designed the road. It's visible in features like curves, merging areas and so on. 2. Operating speed -- this is the actual speed of traffic on the road once built, and typically is measured as…

You realize that "politics" only works because drivers drive like idiots and generally ignore speed limits? If they were responsible, the operating speed would always be less or equal than speed limit.

As long as ticket revenue goes into the budget of the local government entity issuing the tickets, it doesn't really matter how awful you think drivers are. There are plenty of documented cases of deliberate meddling with safety features to increase revenue. Look at red-light cameras, for example, where local governments have been known to change the light timing in unsafe ways in order to manufacture ticketable violations.

And, again: the safest thing is to keep to the average speed of surrounding traffic. If you deliberately operate your vehicle at a significantly different speed than surrounding traffic, you are deliberately creating a hazard to yourself and others.

Re: Google self-driving car pulled over for driving too slowly

#142

Post by TeMPOraL »

ubernostrum wrote: post #141
TeMPOraL wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize that "politics" only works because drivers drive like idiots and generally ignore speed limits? If they were responsible, the operating speed would always be less or equal than speed limit.

As long as ticket revenue goes into the budget of the local government entity issuing the tickets, it doesn't really matter how awful you think drivers are. There are plenty of documented cases of deliberate meddling with safety features to increase revenue. Look at red-light cameras, for example, where local governments have been known to change the light timing in unsafe ways in order to manufacture ticketable viol…

> There are plenty of documented cases of deliberate meddling with safety features to increase revenue. Look at red-light cameras, for example, where local governments have been known to change the light timing in unsafe ways in order to manufacture ticketable violations.

Didn't know that, thanks. If you have any links to some well-documented cases of meddling with safety features like that, I'd be glad to read.

> the safest thing is to keep to the average speed of surrounding traffic.

Safest for drivers, not for pedestrians; but assuming pedestrian-free area, then ok, that is of course true for the reasons you describe (basically introducing any unexpected element on the road is making the situation less safe). But since many (AFAIR most) traffic-related injuries and deaths are caused by speeding, how do you propose we force drivers to slow down? Personally I'm in favour of ALPRs and distance-based speed checks (i.e. distance traveled / travel time > limit == you get ticketed).

That is, if it matters now. Self-driving cars are hopefully around the corner, and they should be able to solve this problem once and for all.

Re: Google self-driving car pulled over for driving too slowly

#143

Post by agumonkey »

clort wrote: post #110
agumonkey wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's universal behavior. Driving at speed limits gets you angry looks, below speed limit and people wanna hurt you. All that so they can reach the red light earlier.

> angry looks I wonder how well the self driving car copes with these. In fact, I wonder how well the self driving car copes with an overly aggressive driver cutting in front and slamming on their brakes just to piss you off. I guess it would handle that better than my mothers elderly neighbour who recently didn't manage to brake in time and hit the twerp, writing off her vehicle in the process. Of course, it was cou…

I'd love to see fringe behavior, I couldn't find anything like these, how their system react to limit cases. I'm sure they're overly conservative and always overstimate margins so they can handle crazy drivers, but surely there's a limit.

Re: Google self-driving car pulled over for driving too slowly

#144

Post by Piskvorrr »

ThePhysicist wrote: post #140
declan wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks! That MV police blog post says the traffic officer stopped the car to "educate the operators about impeding traffic per 22400(a) of the California Vehicle Code." That section of the vehicle code says, emphasis added: "No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of…

I think if the vehicle is only able to drive 25 mph it is not allowed to drive on the freeway, otherwise one would need to allow tractors by the same argument. In most European countries there is a minimum speed requirement when driving on thr motorway (usually between 60 - 80 km/h), and sometimes there are even lane-specific speed limits (e.g. left lane requires at least 110 km/h). All that is only relevant if the t…

It was not driving on a freeway. It was going 25 in a 35 zone, taking one whole lane out of 3 in that direction. Shocking, SHOCKING! ;o) https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3955848,-122.1017317,3a,75y,...

Re: Google self-driving car pulled over for driving too slowly

#145

Post by Piskvorrr »

btiede wrote: post #104
kriro wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively, they could also share their data in an open way and some device in regular cars could pick it up and use it to assist regular drivers. I think both scenarios are possible. That data is valuable so maybe Google doesn't share it. Sharing it would create quite a bit of goodwill towards their cars so maybe they will. It's an interesting strategic decision. [not sure about data protection laws but maybe the…

Yes, I would be a HUGE advocate of them sharing this data. Autonomous cars can share their data with human drivers in the vicinity to alert them to situations on the road. Perhaps each vehicle (autonomous and human-driven) could contribute to an open network of data that any vehicle in the vicinity can access and process to alert their drivers or take necessary actions to protect the safety of all passengers. Would b…

Easy: a walled garden is much more valuable to its operator, and sharing the data would reduce (potential) profits. In other words, only Google can use the data it gets from its Waze, which gives it a competitive advantage.

Oh, you mean downsides to users? Never mind ;)

Re: Google self-driving car pulled over for driving too slowly

#146

Post by brazzledazzle »

dickdastardly wrote: post #118
ilyanep wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

El Camino always seemed to me like it has an absurdly low speed limit, then a friend reminded me that there are unsignaled pedestrian crosswalks along it in Mountain View. It's true that it feels like it ought to be a 45 road, though.

Here in Britain, it's entirely lawful and very common to cross 40-60MPH roads without signals. Often the roads don't even have a marked crossing, since you can legally cross wherever you want. It's also not too uncommon to cross a non-motorway 70MPH dual carriageway, when walking outside a city. I don't know if our roads are safer for pedestrians than the USA. They're considerably safer in total, but it seems difficu…

A lot of drivers in the US are hostile towards anything that's not a vehicle. Heck, they're often hostile towards anything that's not a car or a truck like motorcycles. I see more hate for those riding bicycles but pedestrians get a fair amount too.

Re: Google self-driving car pulled over for driving too slowly

#147

Post by jacobolus »

ubernostrum wrote: post #72
thrownaway2424 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You meant the safest thing for people in cars. This is not the safest thing for pedestrians, thousands of whom die from being hit by cars in the USA every year.

The safest thing for pedestrians would be to ban all motorized vehicles, then ban all other vehicles, then ban pedestrians from venturing out of their homes on foot. Good road design accommodates pedestrians when pedestrians will be present (i.e., controlled-access freeways are designed with the assumption that pedestrians will not be present), but speed limits have very little to do with pedestrian safety. Pedestria…

Pedestrian safety is improved very very dramatically by cutting speed limits on urban streets to 25 or even 20 mph.

A pedestrian hit at 20 mph is likely to sustain minor injuries. A pedestrian hit at 40 mph almost always dies.

Drivers also have much better road awareness and much more time to react at 20 mph, and pedestrians likewise have a better chance of jumping out of the way of a slower-moving car.

One good street design idea is narrowing traffic lanes. This makes drivers slower and more careful, but doesn’t cause any increase in accidents, and doesn’t substantially reduce car throughput. It also provides extra space that can be used for bike lanes, sidewalks, and better designed intersections.

Re: Google self-driving car pulled over for driving too slowly

#148

Post by brazzledazzle »

threeseed wrote: post #83
joedavison wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see police start giving tickets for tailgating instead of speeding. Speeding alone is rarely very dangerous, especially on roads with few other cars. On the other hand, tailgating is always extremely dangerous, even when the speeds involved are relatively low.

Tailgaiting is a vague concept though. One person's idea of tailgaiting is another person's idea of maintaining a safe braking distance. If you tried to for example leave a car's body length distance in most busy cities you would have car after car aggressively cutting in front of you. This is even more dangerous than the original tailgaiting.

Now, I'm not saying a car's length is an appropriate distance. Generally speaking it should be 2-3 seconds. But I see this idea a lot on the internet, particularly on reddit: I should be unsafe because other people will get mad at me for being safe which will make them do wildly unsafe things.

I'm sorry, but I can't accept that. Police need to start focusing on safety instead of revenue generation. I don't care what some idiot is doing, if you're tailgating them at highway speeds in the lane next to me you're putting us all at risk just so you can get somewhere 3 minutes faster. I don't care if you're upset about the length between the car ahead of you and the one ahead of it. Cutting them off in the lane next to me and nearly causing a reck is insane. We have to stop just accepting that being an asshole is okay and start holding people accountable.

Re: Google self-driving car pulled over for driving too slowly

#149

Post by brazzledazzle »

DanBC wrote: post #119
anon4 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but is a couple of infrared lights enough to be considered "police"? What if I yell "VWEEEWOOOWEEEOOO" and someone mistakes that for a legitimate police siren -- am I still impersonating police, or is that person incredibly stupid?

intent matters. If you say "Here's some infra-red lights. They simulate enough of a police car for other cars to change their behaviours" you're not going to have a fun time in court.

Why does everyone think that the entire law system is like tax code and finance laws? You (usually) can't just break a law because you found a technical loophole.

Re: Google self-driving car pulled over for driving too slowly

#150

Post by maxerickson »

geon wrote: post #123
declan wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks! That MV police blog post says the traffic officer stopped the car to "educate the operators about impeding traffic per 22400(a) of the California Vehicle Code." That section of the vehicle code says, emphasis added: "No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of…

Is it at all allowed to drive slow vehicles like tractors or scooters on a highway? Here in Sweden, highways are off limits if the vehicle may not legally be driven faster than (i think) 45 kmph.

In the US there are many roads with access limitations and minimum speeds, but many do not have those conditions.
Post reply on HN