Google's Driverless Cars Capable of Exceeding Speed Limit 475
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.
Re:A limit is a limit (Score:5, Insightful)
When it comes to breaking the speed limit or being run over by a semi, I'll break the speed limit every time.
ya no (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Safety vs Law (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Safety vs Law (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Who pays the ticket? (Score:4, Insightful)
You are "driving" a Google automated car. You get pulled over for doing 10 over the speed limit. You didn't tell the car to do it, the programmers did. Who gets the ticket?
If you do, then that suggests that you have liability for the control of the vehicle. If that's the case, you probably shouldn't allow the car to make the choice whether or not to exceed the speed limit without your input.
If the programmer has liability, then say good by to automated automobiles! No one wants this liability.
Thus, Google cars will not automatically speed... but they may allow you to tell the car to exceed the speed limit... thus reducing the safety of the product overall.
Surprised no one has mentioned revenue generation (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A limit is a limit (Score:5, Insightful)
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' ...]
Re:Why speed only a little? (Score:5, Insightful)
Come now. What percentage of people on the road actually have any situational awareness? They're not looking around to track voids in traffic should they need to change lanes in an emergency. They're not looking downstream to see that accident half a mile away and traffic backing up. They're watching no further than the brake lights in front of them. Even if they are trying to pay attention, it takes a hell of a lot of concentration and practice to constantly track a dozen cars around you in all directions, and a hell of a lot more to anticipate movements when those cars leave line of sight. This sort of thing is trivial for a computer.
As for "self", are you referring to the current state of the car? Surely autonomous control tied into your vehicle's data bus with direct access to engine sensors, accelerometers, gyroscopes, suspension deflectometers, and all manner of other equipment would have a much better chance of assessing the current state of the vehicle than the driver.
Re:Safety vs Law (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Safety vs Law (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why speed only a little? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that few speed limits are set based on the laws of physics, so when people run into one of the few that is, they ignore it and crash.
The vast majority were just made up by some bureaucrat. If you're lucky, they were made up by some bureaucrat based on the performance of a 1970s road yacht, so they bear some tiny resemblance to reality, rather than just pulled out of thin air.
Re:Safety vs Law (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Safety vs Law (Score:2, Insightful)
The one going 90 should have watched where he was going. Unless it's more important to pay attention to what's behind you than to what's in front of you?
It would be good if the USA adopted the Autobahn's rule of cruising in the right lane and passing only on the left, to separate fast moving traffic from slow moving traffic.