yep, for going to slow. they are currently limited to 25 mph and they were on a 35 mph road.
My friend Zandr took that. BTW, he owns a California-legal LS3 Miata that is on the track today and runs a LeMons Porsche 911 with a VW TDi engine. i.e., he's one of us.
The Google cars are registered as neighborhood electric vehicles, similar to golf carts. This means they are limited to 25 mph by law, and are allowed on roads with speed limits of 35 or lower. It was going 24 mph. So, the car was operating completely appropriately. The cop just wasn't familiar with it.
The BBC article is a bit lazy in that regard, implying that the car should have been going faster or shouldn't have been on that road.
BBC Article said: Statistics suggest that 90% of all car accidents are caused by human error and most experts acknowledge that self-drive cars will drastically reduce the number of road traffic accidents.
Isn't 90% understating this a bit? I'd expect that number to be a good deal closer to 98%.
Keith Tanner wrote: The BBC article is a bit lazy in that regard, implying that the car should have been going faster or shouldn't have been on that road.
I completely agree with the BBC's premise.
Mezzanine wrote: Isn't 90% understating this a bit? I'd expect that number to be a good deal closer to 98%.
Yeah, it's kind of hard to think of accidents that aren't driver error. Exploding tire throws you into another car? Ice / snow related ones are certainly driver error incidents. Maybe black ice, but that's still a bit of a grey area.
aircooled wrote:Mezzanine wrote: Isn't 90% understating this a bit? I'd expect that number to be a good deal closer to 98%.Yeah, it's kind of hard to think of accidents that aren't driver error. Exploding tire throws you into another car? Ice / snow related ones are certainly driver error incidents. Maybe black ice, but that's still a bit of a grey area.
I wouldn't think that mechanical failure or wildlife collisions count as driver error, but I also don't believe that can account for a whole 10% of car accidents, can it?
itsarebuild wrote:Keith Tanner wrote: The BBC article is a bit lazy in that regard, implying that the car should have been going faster or shouldn't have been on that road.I completely agree with the BBC's premise.
So you disagree with the NEV laws? Because it wouldn't have made any difference whether it was meat or silicon in charge. NEVs are limited to 25 mph, but allowed on roads with 35 mph limits.
Or do you think the Google cars should be aggressive and take more chances with other vehicles like a 16-year-old? Because the first time someone even comes close to getting hurt by one, the media is going to collectively lose its E36 M3. And they are learning, just like a new driver - but without a body full of testosterone.
Robbie wrote: yep, for going to slow. they are currently limited to 25 mph and they were on a 35 mph road.
I'm not sure, but if I was actually driving a car at 25 in a 35 zone, I'm pretty sure I would fight and win in court … speed limit, not speed requirement … now if there's a posted speed min, like I used to see on the interstates back in the '50's …that would be a different story
on our back roads around here I'm often … even usually below the speed LIMIT ...
I do disagree that anyone should be allowed to drive a car noticeably slower on a public road. i make no suggestion that vehicles or drivers that are incapable of maintaining posted speeds should drive at those speeds. But perhaps they should take a more suitable route or other transportation. This car wasn't pulled over for going 25. It was pulled over for impeding traffic.
are you sure ? or is that an opinion ?
on community roads, rural back roads, roads of that nature, 25 in a 35 isn't unreasonable
major highways, and 35 in a 55, or 50 in a 70 … you've got a point …
but the idea that I or anyone else shouldn't be on the road if we're not traveling dead on the speed limit is ludicrous … and keeping in mind that these 35 mph roads probably ARE the back roads … what the berkeley more suitable route would you suggest … and keep in mind that not everywhere has alternative forms of transportation available
if you're in that big of a hurry then I suggest you start earlier
In reply to wbjones:
The story they showed on the local news here was that it was holding up traffic. They were smart enough to make a car drive itself I imagine they will figure out how to make it pull over if a few cars stack up behind it as well.
Wait, so the Google car was pulled over, but the COP was the one mistaken? (didn't know the law)?
Talk about human error...
But all jokes aside, I agree there are roads where a minimum speed limit adds to the safety. And those roads usually have one posted.
And I agree it is infuriating to be stuck behind a slow moving vehicle on a two lane road that is too busy to allow for a safe pass. But I also don't know how you fairly legislate a minimum on those roads - farm implements, bicycles, Amish, school buses, post office vehicles, etc.
wbjones wrote: … and keeping in mind that these 35 mph roads probably ARE the back roads …
There really are no "back" roads to test a car on in Mountain view any longer. Thanks to Google deciding they needed to have basically all their Bay Area employees there and all the other companies that think they going to find some magic or at feed the Google trough by locating there, it has become very congested. Every square foot of the city that is not expensive office space or high density condos has someone eyeballing it trying to figure how to turn it into that.
ok …instead of calling them "back roads" … how 'bout high congestion, community roads .. and since Mountain View (Bay Area) is as highly built up as it is, just a WAG but the street probably is multi lane … if so, it's hard to site for obstruction, when all you have to do is go around it
I agree 35 probably is the lowest "posted" speed and I therefore have to agree that it is more than possible a better route couldn't be found. My point was that if you have a line of traffic behind you that is so obvious a policeman feels he should step in then something needs to be done to correct that. I know nothing of the area in question, but if I saw that my speed was creating a line , whether it's from going under or over the posted speed I'd find a place to pull over and let the line pass and probably break out a map to look for a less stressful path while I waited
very proud of you … in our little valley there are 3 east/west arteries … I40 (65 mph), US 70 (45 - 55 mph) and Old US 70 (about 4 mi of this road) 35 mph
if you're on Old US 70 … you already expect folk to be going anywhere from 25 to 55 … the folk that seem to get the most upset are the speeders. my point to them is if you don't mind breaking the law by speeding then go ahead and pass on the double yellow line … a ticket is a ticket … shrug …and the only reason you're on the "highway" is you're going to turn off into one of the many many communities along it's length
if you're dumb enough to be using it as a through route … and get behind a slow poke, then there are several cross overs to the 5 lane US 70
I was on a tour with our Model T club. We were taking mostly dirt back roads traveling at 25 mph, but there was one small connection we had to make to get to the next back road. It was less than a Mile on a 45 mph road. A cop pulled over the entire caravan for going too slowly. We explained that we just needed to go a bit further. He asked that we pull over if cars started to back up.
What was my point. Oh yeah, like someone else stated, it would be nice if the car was smart enough to pull to the side every so often to let traffic pass.
Most of the low speed roads they're building around here don't have a shoulder you could pull off on to let people by, they have an 8 inch curb. They probably could have pulled into a parking lot or something.
It sounds like they WERE legal, but not polite, which is going to be a significant problem when we start mixing meat and computer driven cars.
It's quite probable that this little incident will spark some new programming in the Google car to pull over when it starts to grow a tail. That's the thing about developing a car like this, it's constantly evolving.
Not every meat driver is as courteous as GRM drivers claim to be, though - slow drivers not pulling over is pretty much the norm.
I'm curious on how the car knew to pull over for the cop.
wlkelley3 wrote: I'm curious on how the car knew to pull over for the cop.
It could be programmed to recognize a police car with sirens on, but I'd be surprised if they've got that far already.
The flashing lights of an emergency vehicle are pretty distinctive. Shouldn't be a huge challenge if it hasn't already been implemented.
The cars do currently travel with a meatsack inside that can take over when an anomalous situation is encountered.
You know, delete that feature, and these cars could finally eliminate the need for a getaway driver. Also, the need for the getaway driver's inevitable "elimination."
Evil Google cars will be interesting.
You'll need to log in to post.
