Google's driverless cars designed to exceed speed limit

[Victorious Secret]

 

See, even Google's driverless cars know better than politicians, sometimes you just have to go faster than what the limit says. And of course, this is a safety thing. You going slower than the flow is just as dangerous as you going faster than the flow. 

 

But hey, at least when Skynet takes over it'll know how to speed and that makes me a little happy. 

 

Merc technically has a "driverless" system in place, you just can't legally use it in the States, though Europe gives less damn. I honestly give us a few years before the technology can be compact and reliable enough that you can shove it into almost anything. 

 

 

 

Dmitri Dolgov told Reuters that when surrounding vehicles were breaking the speed limit, going more slowly could actually present a danger, and the Google car would accelerate to keep up.

Google's driverless prototypes have been widely tested on roads in the US.

The UK will allow driverless cars on public roads from 2015.

Google first announced its driverless car division in 2010, and has been testing its technology in modified cars built by other manufacturers.

The cars have travelled on more than 300,000 miles of open road, mostly in California.

In May, the US tech firm said it would start building its own self-driving cars.

The bubble-shaped vehicles will seat two people, propulsion will be electric, and to begin with they will be limited to 25mph (40km/h) to help ensure safety.

In July, the UK government announced that driverless cars will be allowed on public roads from January next year.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28851996

[Suika]

And people said I was stupid and a jackass for even going 5 over lol.

[Enderman]

I drive at 10km/h over the speed limit and still get passed by every car behind me. This is why Linus said he hates Vancouver for driving.

[Victorious Secret]

I drive at 10km/h over the speed limit and still get passed by every car behind me. This is why Linus said he hates Vancouver for driving.

 

Sounds like Edmonton.

 

I'll be doing 90 on one of our freeways (posted limit is 80) and I'm still doing the "average" speed. 

Shits not even dangerous, we're just flowing along. But hey, why change laws to update roughly 3 decades of car improvement in braking and safety when you can instead just hand out tickets for speeding and generate revenue... 

[AlwaysFSX]

And people said I was stupid and a jackass for even going 5 over lol.

5? You mean 50? That's the proper way.

[RelentlessAF]

There really isn't a point, the flow of traffic is meant to go at the speed limit. Traffic in the right lane are for cars that travel under the speed limit and the left lane for those who want to go around them. At the speed limit. It doesn't matter really though, humans have the natural tendency to disregard their own safety so they can "get to work 1 minute earlier" because let's be honest. You cannot justify speeding is getting you anywhere that much faster to warrant the added danger.

[Victorious Secret]

There really isn't a point, the flow of traffic is meant to go at the speed limit. Traffic in the right lane are for cars that travel under the speed limit and the left lane for those who want to go around them. At the speed limit. It doesn't matter really though, humans have the natural tendency to disregard their own safety so they can "get to work 1 minute earlier" because let's be honest. You cannot justify speeding is getting you anywhere that much faster to warrant the added danger.

 

No, no it isn't. Not even close. 

 

I don't have enough bandwidth on Earth to link every single study that says "Higher speed limits work" and the reason people speed more is because the cars are better, the roads are better, the driver training is better, by all accounts we are 21st century drivers in 21st century cars using the rulebook from the 20th century that no longer applies. 

 

There is a reason people go above the limit. The limit was made in a time that had worse technology and worse training. We're in an age where compact cars can do 0-60 in 6-7 seconds, all of them happily exceed 120mph, and all can brake properly. The limits have rarely been updated to reflect the change in technology and training. 

[juretrn]

Sounds like Edmonton.

I'll be doing 90 on one of our freeways (posted limit is 80) and I'm still doing the "average" speed.

Shits not even dangerous, we're just flowing along. But hey, why change laws to update roughly 3 decades of car improvement in braking and safety when you can instead just hand out tickets for speeding and generate revenue...

I'll let you in on a little "secret" : the lawmakers have no idea just how much every single aspect of modern cars has improved in the last few years. Speed limit for highways could easily be set to 150 km/h, that kind of speed is nothing to a modern car.

[RelentlessAF]

-snip-

Higher as in how? Where I live the speed limits all make sense, 25 for residential, 35 for commercial, and 65 for highways. These are all speeds that the average driver has a chance of actually safely driving at. I don't know what super elaborate racing type driving school you have but for the most part in the U.S. the driving test is so simple and easy it's surprising there's as little casualties as there are.

 

Not all cars are super high end with technology. Not everyone has new cars either. In order to brake in most cars at 100 mph you would need quite a bit of notice before slamming on the brakes. Higher speed limits are not the solution. The solution is for people to just follow what is already in place. It really isn't that hard.

[wpirobotbuilder]

You cannot justify speeding is getting you anywhere that much faster to warrant the added danger.

Depends on whether the speed limit reflects the quality of the highway construction. For example, Route 3 in Massachusetts is designed for traffic to flow at 67 MPH, but the speed limit is 55.

 

On its own, speeding does increase danger. However, in the presence of other people speeding, it is safer to speed along with them than going the speed limit.

 

Also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzVaa557I9k&list=UUabaQPYxxKepWUsEVQMT4Kw

[Victorious Secret]

Higher as in how? Where I live the speed limits all make sense, 25 for residential, 35 for commercial, and 65 for highways. These are all speeds that the average driver has a chance of actually safely driving at. I don't know what super elaborate racing type driving school you have but for the most part in the U.S. the driving test is so simple and easy it's surprising there's as little casualties as there are.

 

Not all cars are super high end with technology. Not everyone has new cars either. In order to brake in most cars at 100 mph you would need quite a bit of notice before slamming on the brakes. Higher speed limits are not the solution. The solution is for people to just follow what is already in place. It really isn't that hard.

 

This mentality is why things don't progress, at all. 

 

Pray tell why places like Texas are upping their limits to 85? Cause they've clued into the fact that lower speeds don't mean safety. Lower speeds don't solve anything. There have been factual studies that state higher limits actually resulted in fewer crashes, because the average speed of all drivers had a smaller deviation as opposed to old limits where the deviation was higher. 

 

Driver education has gotten better over the years, but it still has a long way to go. North American education is a joke compared to the Europeans, then again the Europeans get to enjoy much better roads and much more reasonable limits. 

[RelentlessAF]

Depends on whether the speed limit reflects the quality of the highway construction. For example, Route 3 in Massachusetts is designed for traffic to flow at 67 MPH, but the speed limit is 55.

 

On its own, speeding does increase danger. However, in the presence of other people speeding, it is safer to speed along with them than going the speed limit.

Again, sometimes. Trusting other drivers with your life by allowing them to also increase in speed is ridiculous. You may be able to handle driving your car at 75+ mph but that doesn't mean the average Joe can. 

[RelentlessAF]

This mentality is why things don't progress, at all. 

 

Pray tell why places like Texas are upping their limits to 85? Cause they've clued into the fact that lower speeds don't mean safety. Lower speeds don't solve anything. There have been factual studies that state higher limits actually resulted in fewer crashes, because the average speed of all drivers had a smaller deviation as opposed to old limits where the deviation was higher. 

 

Driver education has gotten better over the years, but it still has a long way to go. North American education is a joke compared to the Europeans, then again the Europeans get to enjoy much better roads and much more reasonable limits. 

The deviation in speed is not the problem, the issue lies with the drivers inability to properly drive at such a speed. At 85 mph most cars will become a lot harder to handle. A slight adjustment in the wheel makes a huge difference compared to at slower speeds. Not all people on the road have the ability to do this and to sustain a constant straight path on the highway. A lot of them swerve back and forth between lanes as it is. Giving them less control will result in more casualties. Testing in some places to find "the end all be all result" is even more ridiculous. Drivers are different in every state and country. In some countries maybe it's safer, in others it will cause more mayhem. The problem is you are expecting everyone to be able to handle what few can.

[patrickjp93]

There really isn't a point, the flow of traffic is meant to go at the speed limit. Traffic in the right lane are for cars that travel under the speed limit and the left lane for those who want to go around them. At the speed limit. It doesn't matter really though, humans have the natural tendency to disregard their own safety so they can "get to work 1 minute earlier" because let's be honest. You cannot justify speeding is getting you anywhere that much faster to warrant the added danger.

Driving from my home in NJ to my school in Ohio is exactly 10 hours if I speed and make only one stop. Speeding on a LONG trip is somewhat worth it to avoid highway hypnosis and exhaustion.

[patrickjp93]

The deviation in speed is not the problem, the issue lies with the drivers inability to properly drive at such a speed. At 85 mph most cars will become a lot harder to handle. A slight adjustment in the wheel makes a huge difference compared to at slower speeds. Not all people on the road have the ability to do this and to sustain a constant straight path on the highway. A lot of them swerve back and forth between lanes as it is. Giving them less control will result in more casualties. Testing in some places to find "the end all be all result" is even more ridiculous. Drivers are different in every state and country. In some countries maybe it's safer, in others it will cause more mayhem. The problem is you are expecting everyone to be able to handle what few can.

Darwinism: survival of the fittest both in dexterity and intelligence.

[Victorious Secret]

"Warrant the added danger" sounds like a phrase that my local politicians use to justify not reviewing the speed limits and even thinking about making a change. 

 

The "for the children" argument would work, if they actually enforced such areas where accidents happen. 

 

Last I checked, placing a photo radar truck just by the bushes on the highway to catch people doing 10 over (which on any given day could be thousands of tickets), yea, they are clearly protecting our greater good. 

[AlwaysFSX]

This mentality is why things don't progress, at all. 

 

Pray tell why places like Texas are upping their limits to 85? Cause they've clued into the fact that lower speeds don't mean safety. Lower speeds don't solve anything. There have been factual studies that state higher limits actually resulted in fewer crashes, because the average speed of all drivers had a smaller deviation as opposed to old limits where the deviation was higher. 

 

Driver education has gotten better over the years, but it still has a long way to go. North American education is a joke compared to the Europeans, then again the Europeans get to enjoy much better roads and much more reasonable limits. 

Actually it's because we have so much damn open space you need to get to places across the state in a timely fashion. Roads are pretty clear too, maybe 15-20 cars ahead and behind you at any given time. Within a mile.

[WanderingFool]

This mentality is why things don't progress, at all. 

 

Pray tell why places like Texas are upping their limits to 85? Cause they've clued into the fact that lower speeds don't mean safety. Lower speeds don't solve anything. There have been factual studies that state higher limits actually resulted in fewer crashes, because the average speed of all drivers had a smaller deviation as opposed to old limits where the deviation was higher. 

 

Driver education has gotten better over the years, but it still has a long way to go. North American education is a joke compared to the Europeans, then again the Europeans get to enjoy much better roads and much more reasonable limits. 

 

Driver education might have gotten better, but that is no reason to also increase the speed limit.  Every time I drive on a highway, there are multiple people who I know would not be able to brake if something happens.   While I agree that certain speeds need to be increased, my guess is it is more to do with the standards *or certain parts of the highway being unable to handle the speed*.  A classic example would be a new highway where I live.  There are complaints that the highway wasn't designed properly and that the trucks are flipping/crashing because of that.  The problem with this is that after driving along the road, people are going 10km above the speed limit...and there are a few turns that if you don't slow down to the speed limit, it could get a bit dicey for trucks.

[ToxicFire]

Darwinism: survival of the fittest both in dexterity and intelligence.

You do realise under Darwinism, you'd be one of the first ones removed from the gene pool because your willing to put the group safety at risk for you sole benefit.

 

 

Also lets throw some statstics into this argument, http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1108.pdf thats speeding related fatalities in the US 2009 from the census bureau

[Trik'Stari]

If it's a driverless car, it's abilities (barring equipment failure) far exceed a humans. So honestly, if we all had driverless cars, they should be going as fast as possible to decrease travel time.

 

Granted, that only works if non-driverless vehicles aren't on the road.

[patrickjp93]

You do realise under Darwinism, you'd be one of the first ones removed from the gene pool because your willing to put the group safety at risk for you sole benefit.

 

 

Also lets throw some statstics into this argument, http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1108.pdf thats speeding related fatalities in the US 2009 from the census bureau

And how many of those involved intoxication? About 90%.

 

And no, I wouldn't be removed from the gene pool because I'm good at risk analysis. Speeding is not inherently dangerous as long as the car can handle what you're doing and you have the reflexes to do it safely. I do, therefore I should be able to speed as long as I don't cause an accident.

 

The INCOMPETENT, least useful get shoved aside and removed from the gene pool (arrogant and callous as that sounds) in a pure Darwinian scenario. Way too many drunk drivers get rescued by EMTs. Frankly they should be allowed to die.

[Opcode]

* Year 2040 *

"Okay Steven it's time to go to school."

* In pulls electric school bus, doors open*

"Hello Steven, please step aboard and take a seat"

* Doors close and the bus drives away *

"Heh, remember when those things were actually driven by someone"

[Yoinkerman]

Up here people already think they can drive over the speed limit in the winter, and die all the time/flip their cars on the highway. Increasing speed limits just isn't feasible in a lot of places, and for most others will increase the amount of yahoos driving with frontal lobotomies.

Maybe higher speed limits make sense on freeways where it's warm. Here in the north it just doesn't.

[patrickjp93]

Up here people already think they can drive over the speed limit in the winter, and die all the time/flip their cars on the highway. Increasing speed limits just isn't feasible in a lot of places, and for most others will increase the amount of yahoos driving with frontal lobotomies.

Maybe higher speed limits make sense on freeways where it's warm. Here in the north it just doesn't.

Well yes you're an idiot if you speed when it's cold enough for there to be ice. No one's disputing that.

[Kingofpants]

If it's a driverless car, it's abilities (barring equipment failure) far exceed a humans. So honestly, if we all had driverless cars, they should be going as fast as possible to decrease travel time.

Granted, that only works if non-driverless vehicles aren't on the road.

Same issue with the speed limit , gotta have them at the lowest common denominator setting.