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

181–190 of 218 posts

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

#181

Post by maxerickson »

Amezarak wrote: post #169
Piskvorrr wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bit of a "lost in translation" issue here: what is usually called a "highway" in Europe is usually a "freeway" in the USA. What we'd just call a "road" (pretty much any road) is called a "highway" in the US legal codes.

> what is usually called a "highway" in Europe is usually a "freeway" in the USA. I think that usage is mostly West Coast. :) Everywhere else, I've only heard "highway" or "interstate."

Freeway is fairly common in many parts of the US:

http://www4.uwm.edu/FLL/linguistics/dialect/staticmaps/q_79....

In common usage highway is still sort of reserved for larger connectors, road and street are used for local stuff.

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

#182

Post by DonHopkins »

deathanatos wrote: post #100
kissickas wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that required by law? FTA '"We've capped the speed of our prototype vehicles at 25 mph for safety reasons," the post explained. "We want them to feel friendly and approachable, rather than zooming scarily through neighborhood streets."' Sounds like Google's decision to me. Either way, it's not a highway, so that section seems irrelevant. And "in compliance with the law" is quite a broad redirect.

> Either way, it's not a highway, so that section seems irrelevant. (IANAL) "Highway" means road or street[1]: > 360. "Highway" is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes street. (I've never actually heard highway used in common speech that way; only in the vehicle code, but that I think is what would count here.) The…

According to Woody Guthrie's fairly common usage of the term, you can walk on a highway in the United States of America, and nobody living can ever make you turn back or stop you. [1]

[1] https://www.woodyguthrie.org/Lyrics/This_Land.htm

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

#183

Post by eatmyshorts »

declan wrote: post #50
finnn wrote: post #10

They didn't link to either of their sources, so I went and found them: Mountain View Police Department blog post: http://mountainviewpoliceblog.com/2015/11/12/inquiring-minds... Google Self-Driving Car Project Google+ post: https://plus.google.com/+SelfDrivingCar/posts/j9ouVZSZnRf

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…

Well, the law also says "upon a highway"...which seems in line with my observations that I only ever see minimum speed limits posted on highways. It sounds to me like the google vehicle was in compliance with the law.

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

#186

Post by talmand »

nitrogen wrote: post #126
clort wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incitement to riot is no excuse for rioting, surely? Holding up a line of cars that would otherwise be driving too fast is not going to be the cause of an accident. The cause of the accident would be the driver who was driving too fast!

The point of traffic is to run an economy, not to parade at a precise speed for the amusement of deontologically obsessed nannies. If a line of traffic wants to go at speed+5, then the proper speed of traffic is speed+5, and going speed-5 is causing economic harm.

Take humans out of that equation and I would agree. Otherwise, that kind of thinking gets people killed. Which, I suppose, you don't care about since you are more concerned over the minute details of the economy.

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

#187

Post by judk »

joedavison wrote: post #74
fletchowns wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In California, if you aren't driving 5 mph over the speed limit, the car behind you is going to tailgate the hell out of you. It's ridiculous, I know.

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.

If tailgating is dangerous, in the sense that it is involved in a collision, the law finds the tailgater responsible 99% of cases. It just isn't applied predictively.

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

#188

Post by judk »

ilyanep wrote: post #94
ggreer wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, many of the speed limits are low. Look at street view where the car was pulled over.[1] El Camino Real is a divided boulevard with three lanes in each direction. There are stoplights and dedicated turning lanes. I'm not an aggressive driver, but I've caught myself speeding on that road before. Everything about it makes my mind think, "It's safe to go faster." 1. https://goo.gl/maps/WdfhEAGBsDP2

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.

It is a stupid road. Built for speed, legistlated for slow. The road should be modified to make traffic calmer.

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

#189

Post by judk »

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…

Sad and interesting. I rear ended a vehicle who turned into my lane, and the officer cited the other driver for an unsafe turn.

I guess it depends on officer mood and how long the car was safely in your lane before the breaking. Mostly officer mood.

Still, there are lots of completely legal sudden braking activities that would cause a collision over 10% of the time. People don't actually drive totally defensively all the time.

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

#190

Post by judk »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #138
nitrogen wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of traffic is to run an economy, not to parade at a precise speed for the amusement of deontologically obsessed nannies. If a line of traffic wants to go at speed+5, then the proper speed of traffic is speed+5, and going speed-5 is causing economic harm.

You need to balance it against the amount of disutility from deaths caused by the line going at speed+5 on a road where they were supposed to be going at speed. You need to also add the disutility generated by that line fucking up traffic flow in the nearby area. Seriously, this stuff is to be determined from top down, not from perspective of individual self-interested drivers with zero context, little responsiblity…

How very undemocratic of you. Sometimes the law from top down is incorrect. The experiences of stakeholders matters.
Post reply on HN