User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 11:11:48 AM EDT
[#1]
Skynet draws closer everyday.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 11:17:15 AM EDT
[#2]
If those cars are limited to 25MPH, they should be prohibited from roads that have +25MPH speed limits.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 11:17:18 AM EDT
[#3]
What is a self driving car going to do when there is a car 1 foot off it's rear bumper because it is driving too slow? Also what will it do when the driver swerves around it in a no passing zone and then cuts back over a foot in front of its front bumper? The Google team might be bragging about not getting a ticket but if they piss off the general driving public they will make it very hard on themselves to get self driving cars approved and not have the public mess with them on purpose.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 11:19:59 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: What I don't understand is why the cars don't have a "driver" as in someone responsible for the operation of the vehicle? They do. They have at least one person in the car in the driver's seat while the vehicle is operating because "self driving cars" are not legally allowed on the road. The physical driver is there to take over if need be. So the Google employee knew he was being an asshole to all the cars behind him but he was letting the car "learn". |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 11:20:28 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If those cars are limited to 25MPH, they should be prohibited from roads that have +25MPH speed limits. That didn't make a lot of sense to me, either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 11:21:39 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If those cars are limited to 25MPH, they should be prohibited from roads that have +25MPH speed limits. Would that apply to other users of the road? Say cyclists? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 11:23:06 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They do. They have at least one person in the car in the driver's seat while the vehicle is operating because "self driving cars" are not legally allowed on the road. The physical driver is there to take over if need be. So the Google employee knew he was being an asshole to all the cars behind him but he was letting the car "learn". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What I don't understand is why the cars don't have a "driver" as in someone responsible for the operation of the vehicle? They do. They have at least one person in the car in the driver's seat while the vehicle is operating because "self driving cars" are not legally allowed on the road. The physical driver is there to take over if need be. So the Google employee knew he was being an asshole to all the cars behind him but he was letting the car "learn". I thought I read somewhere that they had some kind of exemption, but the scenario in your post makes a lot more sense. I would have thought they would have made that a little more clear in the article. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 11:24:07 AM EDT
[#8]
"Driving too slowly? Bet humans don't get pulled over for that too often," the post said. Um, actually it's pretty common, usually for suspected DUI. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 11:24:36 AM EDT
[#9]
Again...this is getting bad.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 11:27:04 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryIf you are trying to say this is a dupe, sorry - I searched and didn't find anything. If you are saying this isn't newsworthy, I'd have to disagree as this has been a frequently pondered question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 11:30:17 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would that apply to other users of the road? Say cyclists? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If those cars are limited to 25MPH, they should be prohibited from roads that have +25MPH speed limits. Would that apply to other users of the road? Say cyclists? Generally a speed limit is a maximum, not a minimum. I realize there are minimum speed limits in some instances, this doesn't appear to be one of those. People seem to forget this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 11:31:18 AM EDT
[#12]
I wonder what "I am being pulled over" logic self driving cars have.
Does it automatically stop when a patrol car is behind them with the lights and siren on? How can it tell the difference between being pulled over and a cop on a call needing to pass the car? What about a cop standing on the shoulder pointing at you and then to the side of the road means it has to stop? Gonna be a lot of fun when a self driving car decides "I will not comply" and ends up with the occupant getting tazed, beaten or jailed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 11:33:21 AM EDT
[#13]
Basic speed law could have been written down as the violation. Skynet is alive.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 11:35:06 AM EDT
[#14]
Fuck that slow, self-driving piece of shit.
It gets in the way, Pit that bitch !!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 11:37:38 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Generally a speed limit is a maximum, not a minimum. I realize there are minimum speed limits in some instances, this doesn't appear to be one of those. People seem to forget this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If those cars are limited to 25MPH, they should be prohibited from roads that have +25MPH speed limits. Would that apply to other users of the road? Say cyclists? Generally a speed limit is a maximum, not a minimum. I realize there are minimum speed limits in some instances, this doesn't appear to be one of those. People seem to forget this. Impeding traffic is a ticketable offense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 11:38:37 AM EDT
[#16]
I would have loved to hear " Am I being detained?" in that weird assed computer voice.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 11:39:19 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
In the end, the officer determined the car had broken no law. No harm, no foul. Except that impeding traffic IS usually a violation. Driving 10 MPH under limit causes unsafe conditions for the rest of the drivers. Then again even if the car had gotten a ticket, I'm betting Google would have tried to play it off as "not our fault" etc. When they don't get in trouble they take pride in their system but when they do get it trouble it's passed off as "human error, not our fault." Basically they pick and choose when it's their fault. Besides I'm personally against this kind of car because I can just see how it can be used against citizens... - Hackers/government deciding "nope you can't go to this conservative event!" and diverting the cars away. - Increased taxes: gas/registration/whatever ... because with less tickets the government will get less money. Oh and then they'll use the GPS to add on a milage tax too I'm sure. Be careful what you wish for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 11:39:24 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
The question of what happens if the car breaks a traffic law has come up in every thread about self driving cars here. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/us/google-self-driving-car-pulled-over/?iid=ob_homepage_tech_pool&iref=obnetwork No driver? No ticket.
That, at least, was the result when a police officer pulled over one of Google's self-driving cars Thursday in Mountain View, California. The car wasn't speeding. On the contrary, it was driving too slowly -- 24 miles per hour in a 35 mph zone, according to the Mountain View Police Department -- with traffic apparently backing up behind it. In the end, the officer determined the car had broken no law. No harm, no foul. And no ticket was issued -- not because there was no driver to whom to issue it but because the car had committed no violation. For its part, the Google Self-Driving Car Project seemed proud of the whole affair. "Driving too slowly? Bet humans don't get pulled over for that too often," the post said. And the cars' unblemished record continues. "After 1.2 million miles of autonomous driving (that's the human equivalent of 90 years of driving experience), we're proud to say we've never been ticketed!" the car project posted.? Apparently it was "impeding traffic" although I would think that 10 under would be appropriate in certain conditions (reduced visibility, kids or wildlife present, construction adjacent roadway etc etc.) What I don't understand is why the cars don't have a "driver" as in someone responsible for the operation of the vehicle? I bet one would be found right quick if that self driving car hit a pedestrian who stepped out from between two parked cars. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 11:48:55 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you are trying to say this is a dupe, sorry - I searched and didn't find anything. If you are saying this isn't newsworthy, I'd have to disagree as this has been a frequently pondered question. Quote HistoryQuoted: If you are trying to say this is a dupe, sorry - I searched and didn't find anything. If you are saying this isn't newsworthy, I'd have to disagree as this has been a frequently pondered question. It's a dupe so long ago it probably doesn't show up in search. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 11:50:28 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
The question of what happens if the car breaks a traffic law has come up in every thread about self driving cars here. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/us/google-self-driving-car-pulled-over/?iid=ob_homepage_tech_pool&iref=obnetwork No driver? No ticket.
That, at least, was the result when a police officer pulled over one of Google's self-driving cars Thursday in Mountain View, California. The car wasn't speeding. On the contrary, it was driving too slowly -- 24 miles per hour in a 35 mph zone, according to the Mountain View Police Department -- with traffic apparently backing up behind it. In the end, the officer determined the car had broken no law. No harm, no foul. And no ticket was issued -- not because there was no driver to whom to issue it but because the car had committed no violation. For its part, the Google Self-Driving Car Project seemed proud of the whole affair. "Driving too slowly? Bet humans don't get pulled over for that too often," the post said. And the cars' unblemished record continues. "After 1.2 million miles of autonomous driving (that's the human equivalent of 90 years of driving experience), we're proud to say we've never been ticketed!" the car project posted.? Apparently it was "impeding traffic" although I would think that 10 under would be appropriate in certain conditions (reduced visibility, kids or wildlife present, construction adjacent roadway etc etc.) What I don't understand is why the cars don't have a "driver" as in someone responsible for the operation of the vehicle? You are correct. California has its "Basic Speed Law" which states that you can be ticketed for driving too fast for the local conditions, even if you are slower than the speed limit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 11:52:40 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
The question of what happens if the car breaks a traffic law has come up in every thread about self driving cars here. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/us/google-self-driving-car-pulled-over/?iid=ob_homepage_tech_pool&iref=obnetwork No driver? No ticket.
That, at least, was the result when a police officer pulled over one of Google's self-driving cars Thursday in Mountain View, California. The car wasn't speeding. On the contrary, it was driving too slowly -- 24 miles per hour in a 35 mph zone, according to the Mountain View Police Department -- with traffic apparently backing up behind it. In the end, the officer determined the car had broken no law. No harm, no foul. And no ticket was issued -- not because there was no driver to whom to issue it but because the car had committed no violation. For its part, the Google Self-Driving Car Project seemed proud of the whole affair. "Driving too slowly? Bet humans don't get pulled over for that too often," the post said. And the cars' unblemished record continues. "After 1.2 million miles of autonomous driving (that's the human equivalent of 90 years of driving experience), we're proud to say we've never been ticketed!" the car project posted.? Apparently it was "impeding traffic" although I would think that 10 under would be appropriate in certain conditions (reduced visibility, kids or wildlife present, construction adjacent roadway etc etc.) What I don't understand is why the cars don't have a "driver" as in someone responsible for the operation of the vehicle? I'm pretty sure you can in fact receive a ticket for what the vehicle was doing, but it's just rare and IIRC the CHP has a policy of refusal to issue them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 12:06:31 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm pretty sure you can in fact receive a ticket for what the vehicle was doing, but it's just rare and IIRC the CHP has a policy of refusal to issue them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The question of what happens if the car breaks a traffic law has come up in every thread about self driving cars here. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/us/google-self-driving-car-pulled-over/?iid=ob_homepage_tech_pool&iref=obnetwork No driver? No ticket.
That, at least, was the result when a police officer pulled over one of Google's self-driving cars Thursday in Mountain View, California. The car wasn't speeding. On the contrary, it was driving too slowly -- 24 miles per hour in a 35 mph zone, according to the Mountain View Police Department -- with traffic apparently backing up behind it. In the end, the officer determined the car had broken no law. No harm, no foul. And no ticket was issued -- not because there was no driver to whom to issue it but because the car had committed no violation. For its part, the Google Self-Driving Car Project seemed proud of the whole affair. "Driving too slowly? Bet humans don't get pulled over for that too often," the post said. And the cars' unblemished record continues. "After 1.2 million miles of autonomous driving (that's the human equivalent of 90 years of driving experience), we're proud to say we've never been ticketed!" the car project posted.? Apparently it was "impeding traffic" although I would think that 10 under would be appropriate in certain conditions (reduced visibility, kids or wildlife present, construction adjacent roadway etc etc.) What I don't understand is why the cars don't have a "driver" as in someone responsible for the operation of the vehicle? I'm pretty sure you can in fact receive a ticket for what the vehicle was doing, but it's just rare and IIRC the CHP has a policy of refusal to issue them. In Missouri the driver has to be issued a warning first for impeding traffic. If they continue then you write the ticket. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 12:14:02 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Would that apply to other users of the road? Say cyclists? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If those cars are limited to 25MPH, they should be prohibited from roads that have +25MPH speed limits. Would that apply to other users of the road? Say cyclists? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 12:35:21 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
The question of what happens if the car breaks a traffic law has come up in every thread about self driving cars here. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/us/google-self-driving-car-pulled-over/?iid=ob_homepage_tech_pool&iref=obnetwork No driver? No ticket.
That, at least, was the result when a police officer pulled over one of Google's self-driving cars Thursday in Mountain View, California. The car wasn't speeding. On the contrary, it was driving too slowly -- 24 miles per hour in a 35 mph zone, according to the Mountain View Police Department -- with traffic apparently backing up behind it. In the end, the officer determined the car had broken no law. No harm, no foul. And no ticket was issued -- not because there was no driver to whom to issue it but because the car had committed no violation. For its part, the Google Self-Driving Car Project seemed proud of the whole affair. "Driving too slowly? Bet humans don't get pulled over for that too often," the post said. And the cars' unblemished record continues. "After 1.2 million miles of autonomous driving (that's the human equivalent of 90 years of driving experience), we're proud to say we've never been ticketed!" the car project posted.? Apparently it was "impeding traffic" although I would think that 10 under would be appropriate in certain conditions (reduced visibility, kids or wildlife present, construction adjacent roadway etc etc.) What I don't understand is why the cars don't have a "driver" as in someone responsible for the operation of the vehicle? I write at least 1 ticket to too slow drivers a week. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 12:36:39 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would that apply to other users of the road? Say cyclists? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If those cars are limited to 25MPH, they should be prohibited from roads that have +25MPH speed limits. Would that apply to other users of the road? Say cyclists? It does. Eta.. from the TN.gov site In Tennessee, a bicycle has the legal status of a vehicle. This means that bicyclists have full rights and responsibilities on the roadway and are subject to the regulations governing the operation of a motor vehicle. - |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 12:38:41 PM EDT
[#26]
The vehicle's on board computer screen flashed "Am I Being Detained?" when the officer approached the driver's side window.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
