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 a grade, or in compliance with law." https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/vctop/vc/d11/c...
If Google's self-driving cars are limited by law to 25mph, and the car was not exceeding 25mph, then it was "in compliance with the law" and 22400(a) doesn't apply. It would be allowed to impede or block traffic, even if we human drivers would really prefer it to be going 45mph.
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.
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."
Sounds like a Dukes of Hazzard episode where the Duke boys are driving a piece of junk and Rosco gets them in his speed trap. They explain that the car is incapable of exceeding the speed limit, so he gets them for impeding traffic.
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 traffic actually allows you to go that fast of course.
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.
It's absurd that 24 mph in a 35 zone is considered "too slow". This is nearly equivalent to driving 40 km/h in a 60 km/h zone, and there is not a single traffic court in any Canadian city that would uphold a ticket being served for that difference. How is this even a thing down there? In a 60 km/h zone here, you'd have to be going 25 km/h to even warrant being pulled over at all (ie: doing 15 mph in 37 mph zone).
If 24 mph is too slow for that particular road or neighbourhood, then the speed limit should be 45+ mph, not 35. Clearly the average citizen is already driving 45+, or the "slow" wouldn't even be noticeable.
Edit: wait, this is even more absurd. The traffic violation quoted is https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/vctop/vc/d11/c... which mentions "highway". 35 mph or 56 km/h is residential street speed, not highway speed. This whole thing makes no sense to me.
> It's absurd that 24 mph in a 35 zone is considered "too slow"
It's absolutely too slow.
Majority of people drive at or slightly below the speed limit. Driving that far under causes people to start behaving irrationally resulting in lots of lane changes/tailgaiting etc. This can be dangerous when lots of cars are doing it.
I'm California USA, driving too slow is considered a hazard. It's kinda fuzzy to be honest. They can still pop you for speeding whenever they want but they're really looking for the person who stands out.
This means they are legally limited to 25mph and legally allowed to drive on roadways with speed limits up to 45mph.
NEVs let you have very light weight, inexpensive vehicles with exceptional economy… that would be instant death traps in a high speed collision. They don't undergo ordinary crash testing. Think of them as posh golf carts.
I looked into getting an NEV, but most of my local streets are 30mph and I can't in good conscience drive down them at 25mph.
At least your NEVs are limited to less than 25 mph. Here in Europe, cars like the Renault Twizy [1], the Reva etc. are all registered as four-wheel motorbikes because they won't survive a crash test. But they will easily do 50 mph and you can legally drive them on any highway. These things really are death traps.
While they may not "worry" about the risk, they are certainly cognizant of it. Most wear helmets and gloves, many wear armor and leathers.
In the case of a NEV, it's a 4-wheel car with doors... Unless told otherwise, most drivers are going to assume they meet passenger car safety standards.
I think about this often. Every day in rush hour traffic I have to take a number of calculated risks in order to get to work. This usually crops up when making a turn onto a highly congested road. I could easily see a self driving car being too conservative to find a gap and pull out, leading to a furious string of drivers behind it.
I don't think this a case of the car being so careful that it got pulled over. It mentions in the article that Google artificially capped the speed of the prototype to 25mph. That implies that the car is able and willing to go faster, but Google doesn't feel comfortable going that fast yet. (I don't buy their stated PR reason for the cap.)
I don't know about you, but people raging behind the wheel because I'm in front and driving safely gives me schadenfreude... It might be less safe on the whole, given that angry people drive more aggressively, but they would have driven aggressively anyway, so... meh?
The possible improvements would truly need mind blowing. I can't even think of a reason why those cars would have to stop asking the way if everything goes right. There would be no more need for traffic lights or stop signs to coordinate traffic between cars. You would still need them for pedestrians. However, if the traffic lights are integrated I the same system as the cars then the cars can just adjust their speed to not have to stop at the light. Their gain in fuel efficiency would be huge!
As long as nobody jaywalks or we have cross walks without traffic lights or bicycles..
If competing commercial systems are allowed, they might try to game the various systems as a matter of competition. To fix it, the regulation ends up being a form of government mandated mass transit.
Yes, though once there are enough of them on the road, they could be made to help each other out. In fact, they could make it so that human drivers are at a disadvantage.
Agreed that enough of these self-driving cars on the road would put human drivers at a relative disadvantage if the self-driving cars are able to transmit and share data among themselves regarding dangerous road conditions that require extra precautions (e.g., icy, slick surfaces), accidents, traffic conditions or dangerous human drivers that are putting others at risk.
IME it's not that uncommon for humans to do this, but we should expect better from robot cars :)
In NZ technically the local-road speed limit is 50kph, but normal accepted practice is to drive at 60. Anecdotally, I get stuck behind someone driving at 40 at least once a week. It's really annoying.
Banning cyclists on roads should be done based on road usage, not speed. There are lots of 60-80 kph roads that are perfectly safe to ride on and where you won't obstruct car traffic.
To be silly, I could turn the question around. How do you feel about cars on roads that are slower than 60 kph? We could ban cars on all residential roads and have wonderful walking/cycling communities. When I was living in the UK I was amazed at how many high streets have gone pedestrian. It has reinvigorated small towns.
Of course the problem is, "What happens if I can't get from A to B in my car?" I think for car drivers the idea of banning cars on residential roads makes this point very clear. The same thing happens with bicycles. In many cities it is impossible to get from point A to point B without a car. This encourages/forces cyclists to use inappropriate roads. As the sibling post notes, we need to do a better job of designing our cities.
I hate seeing cyclists on the very same road in question (El Camino Real in Mountain View). There is a substantial bike 'boulevard' network of side streets made safer for bicyclists, so it's mostly ignorance that brings people to bike down El Camino.
Check out the line of red dots in this accident map:
Considering that cyclists are expressly encouraged to use other roads, this thoroughfare is MUCH more dangerous to a cyclist than most of the rest of the city.
I am a cyclist myself (2 mtbs, 1 roadie, 1 cx commuter); take a guess. Hint: It's a lot easier to overtake a considerate cyclist than it is to overtake a slow moving car.
Also: A cyclist will ride at the speed the cyclist can ride. No beef there. The lethargic, social network distracted drivers, however...
FWIW I also have a full motorcycle license, although I gave up my 600 many years ago; I miss doing Phillip Island at 180km/h leaned over. I like to believe that having used multiple modes of transport broadens my horizons.
Living in Germany, I never heard about anyone ticketed for this. The only case really covered by this rule is, that one drives extremely slow under good conditions. Otherwise, in many situations "safety" would be a good reason. And in general, you cannot be asked to drive faster than your car can go. With the exception of the Autobahn and a very few similar streets, the Google car would be legal to drive speed-wise, most tractors are even slower and road-legal.
This car was driving a bit too conservatively: However, this highlights my own experience trying to follow traffic laws. First, speeding: I figured out that the time saved speeding wasnt enough to actually help - theoretically, I could save 2 minutes if things went well. It is upsetting when people follow laws and safety instead of normal local social driving standards.
So long as we are mixing drivers and driverless, I think we'll need to close the gap while the problem exists. Laws that reflect driving and better enforcement paired with continual updating to driverless cars so that they can safely manuever in traffic without causing problems.
Safety and posted speed limits are often not super compatible; the safest thing, in most road conditions, is to be driving relatively close to the speed of the surrounding traffic, even if that means exceeding the posted speed limit.
(in other words, speed itself is not dangerous except in certain situations -- like sharp curves or wet/snowy/icy roads -- speed differential is dangerous)
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.
You're basically saying that everyone should defect because everyone else does. Which may well be true for a single human driver, but is probably not how autonomous cars as a whole should be programmed.
Nor does it support the claim that "speed itself is not dangerous". If everyone were driving slower, everyone would be safer (which we may actually be able to achieve once a sufficient number of law-abiding robot cars displace human drivers).
No, it was driving 1 mph below the maximum that vehicles in the NEV classification are allowed to operate at, and on a road that NEVs are allowed to operate on. Which is why it wasn't ticketed; it was operating properly.
I don't think that argument holds up under examination.
If you define safety as the risk of your car getting damaged, then maybe you reduce the probability of any kind of accident, without reference to severity.
But you define safety as the "risk and severity of injury,", as almost any person would, the slower you go, the safer you are, under all but a few scenarios, like driving below the posted speed limit on a highway.
Going at an unusually low speed can attract police attention up here in Oregon. The legalization of recreation cannabis has increased the number of non-alcohol intoxicated drivers. Apparently one sign of DUI of cannabis is going too slow for traffic conditions.
AFAIK no driverless cars around here (yet), but there are plenty of other potential hazards for motorists, like pedestrians and bicycles on narrow, twisty, dark and wet streets this time of year.
Ideally it calls for everyone to be patient, careful and vigilant. Above all be thankful if born with great reflexes, on the road alas only a few are so gifted.
Personally i think it is quite obvious that a self driving car a tool that you use. And therefore you as a user is accountable for the actions/damage you inflict with your tool.
No different that using a gun and shooting someone by accident.
A gun isn't very autonomous, though. As tools become increasingly autonomous, it might not always be fair to place blame on the end user rather than the manufacturer.
Are you buying a car that is guaranteed to never be in or cause any form of car-accidents.
Or are you buying a car that will try to it's best to get you from point A to point B.
In an accident with the first example the there is a manufacturing flaw, the car did not meet it's specs.
In an accident with the second example you fucked up, you should not have given the control away and it is your fault. The car did nothing wrong it did what you told it to do.
Readit News
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
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 a grade, or in compliance with law." https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/vctop/vc/d11/c...
If Google's self-driving cars are limited by law to 25mph, and the car was not exceeding 25mph, then it was "in compliance with the law" and 22400(a) doesn't apply. It would be allowed to impede or block traffic, even if we human drivers would really prefer it to be going 45mph.
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.
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 traffic actually allows you to go that fast of course.
Here in Sweden, highways are off limits if the vehicle may not legally be driven faster than (i think) 45 kmph.
If 24 mph is too slow for that particular road or neighbourhood, then the speed limit should be 45+ mph, not 35. Clearly the average citizen is already driving 45+, or the "slow" wouldn't even be noticeable.
Edit: wait, this is even more absurd. The traffic violation quoted is https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/vctop/vc/d11/c... which mentions "highway". 35 mph or 56 km/h is residential street speed, not highway speed. This whole thing makes no sense to me.
It's absolutely too slow.
Majority of people drive at or slightly below the speed limit. Driving that far under causes people to start behaving irrationally resulting in lots of lane changes/tailgaiting etc. This can be dangerous when lots of cars are doing it.
This means they are legally limited to 25mph and legally allowed to drive on roadways with speed limits up to 45mph.
NEVs let you have very light weight, inexpensive vehicles with exceptional economy… that would be instant death traps in a high speed collision. They don't undergo ordinary crash testing. Think of them as posh golf carts.
I looked into getting an NEV, but most of my local streets are 30mph and I can't in good conscience drive down them at 25mph.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Twizy
In the case of a NEV, it's a 4-wheel car with doors... Unless told otherwise, most drivers are going to assume they meet passenger car safety standards.
Deleted Comment
That's why the google cars have a little 'aggression' factor which makes them move out a bit without waiting for a completely clear gap.
In NZ technically the local-road speed limit is 50kph, but normal accepted practice is to drive at 60. Anecdotally, I get stuck behind someone driving at 40 at least once a week. It's really annoying.
To be silly, I could turn the question around. How do you feel about cars on roads that are slower than 60 kph? We could ban cars on all residential roads and have wonderful walking/cycling communities. When I was living in the UK I was amazed at how many high streets have gone pedestrian. It has reinvigorated small towns.
Of course the problem is, "What happens if I can't get from A to B in my car?" I think for car drivers the idea of banning cars on residential roads makes this point very clear. The same thing happens with bicycles. In many cities it is impossible to get from point A to point B without a car. This encourages/forces cyclists to use inappropriate roads. As the sibling post notes, we need to do a better job of designing our cities.
Check out the line of red dots in this accident map:
http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2012/09/13/over-200-bike-relate...
Considering that cyclists are expressly encouraged to use other roads, this thoroughfare is MUCH more dangerous to a cyclist than most of the rest of the city.
Also: A cyclist will ride at the speed the cyclist can ride. No beef there. The lethargic, social network distracted drivers, however...
FWIW I also have a full motorcycle license, although I gave up my 600 many years ago; I miss doing Phillip Island at 180km/h leaned over. I like to believe that having used multiple modes of transport broadens my horizons.
Deleted Comment
There are also many places where driving slowly enough to be disruptive to traffic (in the officer's judgment) is an offense.
Maybe she could build it out of IR LEDs, so it's not obvious to humans. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_impersonation
States have similar laws for other emergency vehicles. E.g.: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/2...
Skip to 10:00 for the police man halting the car, then waving it through.
The whole video is worth a watch, to be honest. It's amazing how well they cater for edge cases.
So long as we are mixing drivers and driverless, I think we'll need to close the gap while the problem exists. Laws that reflect driving and better enforcement paired with continual updating to driverless cars so that they can safely manuever in traffic without causing problems.
(in other words, speed itself is not dangerous except in certain situations -- like sharp curves or wet/snowy/icy roads -- speed differential is dangerous)
Nor does it support the claim that "speed itself is not dangerous". If everyone were driving slower, everyone would be safer (which we may actually be able to achieve once a sufficient number of law-abiding robot cars displace human drivers).
No, it was driving 1 mph below the maximum that vehicles in the NEV classification are allowed to operate at, and on a road that NEVs are allowed to operate on. Which is why it wasn't ticketed; it was operating properly.
If you define safety as the risk of your car getting damaged, then maybe you reduce the probability of any kind of accident, without reference to severity.
But you define safety as the "risk and severity of injury,", as almost any person would, the slower you go, the safer you are, under all but a few scenarios, like driving below the posted speed limit on a highway.
AFAIK no driverless cars around here (yet), but there are plenty of other potential hazards for motorists, like pedestrians and bicycles on narrow, twisty, dark and wet streets this time of year.
Ideally it calls for everyone to be patient, careful and vigilant. Above all be thankful if born with great reflexes, on the road alas only a few are so gifted.
No different that using a gun and shooting someone by accident.
Are you buying a car that is guaranteed to never be in or cause any form of car-accidents.
Or are you buying a car that will try to it's best to get you from point A to point B.
In an accident with the first example the there is a manufacturing flaw, the car did not meet it's specs.
In an accident with the second example you fucked up, you should not have given the control away and it is your fault. The car did nothing wrong it did what you told it to do.