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.)

The cap is legally mandated, for safety reasons. They are not regulated for safety in high speed crashes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-speed_vehicle

The cap is 35 mph according to the link here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10558220

It looks like Google limited it to 25 mph on their own accord.

You are misunderstanding. They can drive on roads with 35 as a posted limit, but are limited to driving 25 mph themselves. The law sets the cap, not Google.

From https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_...

An NEV/LSV is a motor vehicle that:

- Has four wheels.

- Within one mile can reach a speed of more than 20 miles per hour (mph) but not more than 25 mph on a paved level surface.

...

Local authorities, by ordinance or resolution, may restrict or prohibit the use of NEVs/LSVs. An NEV/LSV may:

- Not be operated on any roadway with a speed limit above 35 mph.

...

> 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.

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.

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?

Just stay in the right lane go the speed limit and we're cool.

The problem would be resolved quite nicely if all cars were self driving, interconnected, and could be governed by a master plan.

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..

It would also be great when a traffic light turned green that all cars started moving at exactly the same time, as opposed to the delay where every car waits for the car in front of them to start moving with human drivers.

Fuck I hate it when people do that i.e. 99.99% of the time. Just go as soon as the person in front of you starts going and build your gap by accelerating slightly slower than the person in front of you _after_ you are on the other side of the traffic light.

Without having a gap before you start, how do you plan on stopping in time if the car in front stops suddenly? Which they might do if they see someone running the red light, or a pedestrian thinking there's just enough time to run across.

The needed gap is proportional to your speed. Starting speed from a stop is quite low so the gap needed is low. As you gain speed you expand the gap.

You can't all accelerate at the same rates and expect the distance between the cars to increase. The slow trundle off the starting line is needed to establish following distance.

That is why I said accelerate _slower_ than the person in front of you to build a gap. (Once you are on the other side of the traffic light)

When the light goes green everyone should go at the exact same time and acceleration. Because you just started moving your speed is very low, so you don't need a large following distance.

You are clearly one of the millions of people that doesn't understand this.

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.

Definitely an interesting scenario (not sure why you were downvoted). New enabling technologies may promise the potential for utopia, but human nature persists. If the standards for the technology can't come from competitors cooperating, we're left with regulation. Forgive me for repeating your point, but it seemed lost on some, perhaps unintentionally.

Where we will we get the new rules for a new road?

In which case the car finds out a problem in the design of the road that needs to be fixed.

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.

Alternatively, they could also share their data in an open way and some device in regular cars could pick it up and use it to assist regular drivers.

I think both scenarios are possible. That data is valuable so maybe Google doesn't share it. Sharing it would create quite a bit of goodwill towards their cars so maybe they will. It's an interesting strategic decision. [not sure about data protection laws but maybe they can't share it even between Google cars unless the owners opt in]

Yes, I would be a HUGE advocate of them sharing this data. Autonomous cars can share their data with human drivers in the vicinity to alert them to situations on the road. Perhaps each vehicle (autonomous and human-driven) could contribute to an open network of data that any vehicle in the vicinity can access and process to alert their drivers or take necessary actions to protect the safety of all passengers.

Would be interested in hearing legal opinions about whether this data would only be shared if the individual car owners 'opt in' or if the operator - Google - could mandate the sharing of this data while the cars are on the road.

Trying to think of downsides to an open shared platform of such data.

Easy: a walled garden is much more valuable to its operator, and sharing the data would reduce (potential) profits. In other words, only Google can use the data it gets from its Waze, which gives it a competitive advantage.

Oh, you mean downsides to users? Never mind ;)

Similar to other drivers being at a disadvantage by not using e.g. Waze? Possibly; I'd agree that an AV would be capable of processing both a wider range of alerts and a larger volume of them.