Google self-driving car pulled over for driving too slowly (opens in new tab)

Not 60, but 59kph, so you are within the 10kph threshold.

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:

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.

That urban planners should really have bike highways/trials.

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.

Or people using a horse and cart.

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.

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.

Due to unfortunate phrasing, "no person" was driving at such slow speed ;)

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.

Is it at all allowed to drive slow vehicles like tractors or scooters on a highway?

Here in Sweden, highways are off limits if the vehicle may not legally be driven faster than (i think) 45 kmph.

> 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.

In California, if you aren't driving 5 mph over the speed limit, the car behind you is going to tailgate the hell out of you. It's ridiculous, I know.

In Mountain View, 24 in a 35 zone will cause traffic jams and road rage. It's a busy place.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

That's true, but consider the amount of extra protection a rider wears in order to mitigate risk of injury.

Worrying about the risk does not correlate with the actual risk. Funny how you picked the poster example of this.

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).

Impersonating a police car is, unsurprisingly, already a crime:

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...

It really depends on what you are buying.

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.

I agree with this. But why use a gun-analogy when you can use a car-analogy?

40mph? Really? Not 40kph? Because holy fuck -- once I managed to go 50kph for a minute and that's incredibly FAST.