I feel like this is going to be a huge problem if we have mixed human operated and self-driving vehicles on the road at the same time. If we ever move to entirely self driving cars we could move to some sort of protocol for cars to communicate about ambiguous self driving actions.
It's really common to see the Uber Volvo's driving around, but it definitely causes me to tense up when driving around them. I have no idea why, I realize there is significant risk when around any other car on the road. It's new. Hopefully these issues get worked out in a reasonable time frame, but it is software.
The real issue is not self driving cars, it's poorly designed intersections.
It's easy to insult design but very rarely are intersections, especially in Pittsburgh, easy to design.
The bigger one is to make sure that the next traffic signal down the road is also green. To avoid traffic piling up on an intersection because it has nowhere to go. Of course, this should also depends on the amount of traffic.
Any city can in theory build systems where traffic that wants to go to empty roads gets more green and any traffic that wants to go to full roads gets less green.
Honestly, I'm amazed urban traffic is as good as it is, since the core problems are usually irreducible. (i.e. more people want to go to a place than fit there.) A quick look at gridlock in cities where traffic signals aren't carefully planned and widely respected shows just how bad things can get.
(Suburban traffic is another story, but that mostly seems to be about overbuilt roads with no actual planning at all. My hometown has a couple of intersections that literally don't function - you can get caught at a permanent red light.)
Err... I modeled traffic.
The possible solution would be roundabouts and yield signs, but that would be expensive, require redesign, and we humans pretty much suck at roundabouts.
So, these things are very much fixable given sufficient priority and resources.
Pittsburgh isn't flat, many times it is not "move this road." It's bore through this mountain, build this bridge, fix the drainage issues around this creek, etc. and fixing intersections almost always leads to more issues downstream.
Your comment also reminds me of a proverb to the tune of "bad drivers aren't a problem until they meet".
Sure, one can be that driver that leaves death and destruction in their wake but still look good on paper if the metric is legal and financial penalties since those only loosely correlate with actual bad behavior.
Why exactly would they follow the new rules?
I am curious how we sort this out. Will roads become stricter with cars self enforcing the limits? How do self driving cars know who is next at a four way stop?
There is not a hard law that states speed limit at least in California; instead the law sets 'reasonable and prudent' as the limit, and that lawfully set and posted or legislated limits set forth evidence of what is reasonable and prudent. Driving over 100 mph is separately off limits, however. (I would rarely find that speed to be reasonable or prudent!).
A self-driving vehicle would likely be recording evidence of conditions which could show that the speed was reasonable and prudent given the conditions, which include other traffic on the road.
The basic California speed law is:
> 22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.
It is furthered by:
> 22351. (b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing.
Additionally section 22348 describes a specific additional infraction for driving at a speed greater than 100 miles per hour.
From an implementation perspective that sounds like a lot of overhead just to let Californians drive fast.
So it's not a 49/1 rule.
And, in any case, 100% of US jurisdictions prohibit driving at a speed above the safe and reasonable speed if that is lower than the posted and/or statutory limit, so you need to be able to determine what is safe for conditions anyway; it's just a minority of states where that is a relevant determination when the results are above the posted limit.
> There is not a hard law that states speed limit at least in California
Incorrect.
I don't know what you mean by "a hard law", but, in California, there is a section, from the very statues you present, that sets a statutory maximum limit.
The complication, being that there are three maximum speed limits in California: 55mph, 65mph and 70mph, depending on the scenario.
CVC §22349 sets a maximum speed limit of 65 mph throughout the state (except for the 70 mph limit on some freeways).
CVC§22349(a) reads: Except as provided in Section 22356 [70 mph on some freeways], no person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles per hour.
The CVC§ 22356 referred to above allows a 70 mph speed limit if justified by an engineering and traffic survey where a 65 mph limit would otherwise be applicable.
Try arguing the 22350 while you have been cited the §22349 on a ticket. Not going to fly regardless of what one might read on websites online.