The left turn fuckup is really bad though, as is the instance of the robotaxi dropping someone off in the middle of an intersection after they hit the "drop off earlier" button: https://sh.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/1liku3o/tes...
That lower speed limit was set for a reason.
Additionally, predictable car movement is important for wildlife, pedestrians, and other vehicles. If the cars on that street always go 30, the others there will learn to predict the movement of a car. If some rando car start speeding along at 40 out of the blue, that will disrupt the calculations and decision making of everyone else.
Finally, are we comfortable saying, "Any company can decide whether it thinks obeying the speed limit is important, and is free to go over the speed limit by 1/3rd if they deem it safe"? Are we sure that precedent is healthy and desirable? I'm not. I don't think automated cars should just decide to add 33% to a speed limit and go that fast in normal operating conditions.
So yes, it does matter.
If it's intentionally programmed to violate speed limits, then sure.
If it's intending to follow speed limits but is failing, then that's terrifying, because where is its wrong information coming from, and how catastrophic could the errors be?
And guess who's at fault when you're caught?
Edit: No, crossing double-lines to avoid obstructions isn't breaking the law. People in the Comma Discord bring up these weird edge cases that are outlined in law, too. No, you're never forced to break the law when driving.
You can downvote me all you want. You're wrong. The police would find you wrong, a traffic law court would find you wrong. People are animals and don't want to obey the law. Just obey the law. Drive the speed limit, keep right unless passing or turning left.
Legally.
The law where I am is that human traffic directors (police, sheriffs, construction crews, etc) take precedent over what's in the book. If they didn't, nobody could ever get around a fire truck at a fire.
I just ignored him and went around when it seemed safe.
And that's where you get a ticket. Plenty of cops around here sitting at the exit of construction zones waiting for people just like you.
I get that nobody's perfect and you might do it by mistake (going 35 on a unmarked road that was 30 max or something), but the way you write your comment makes it sound like it's something one does in a deliberate way?
Drivers like that shouldn't be on the road.
If there's an obstruction in the middle of my lane then obviously I'm going to deliberately go around it. Have you ever driven a car?
That's not breaking the law though.
Slowing down surrounding traffic to the speed limit would be an amazing safety multiplier for AVs.
No, it takes a person who hasn’t had an accident outside a parking lot in decades.
Speed limits save lives. I am not an angel when it comes to them. And we definitely have an issue with stupid speed limits in towns as revenue traps. But on freeways? 65 to 80 mph is plenty.
> tightly packed surging traffic that follows those rolling road blocks is far, far, less safe than the baseline for the same road/traffic conditions sans the rolling roadblock
Totally false. Crashes decrease with congestion [2][3]. And mortality in a crash is essentially governed by speed [1]. A surging bolus is only as dangerous as its speed.
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29323934/
[2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10149483/
[3] https://www.roads.maryland.gov/OPR_Research/MD-03-SP308B46-C...
I have driven many hours at posted speed limits on highway in the rightmost lane in the US, and I yet need to hear one honk. And I have seen cars driving even slower -- absolutely no problem. Anyone that wants to move faster just changes lanes and moves on.
No one seems to notice the speed limit is 50 and not 65 so the majority of cars are going 65 to 75mph. I thought about carrying a sign I could hold up "Speed limit 50mph!" for when I got screamed at for trying to go the speed limit
I'm on the "enforce it or repeal it" side. I personally wish they'd put up cameras there and ticket everyone until they slowed down. Or change the signs to 65 if they're not going to enforce it.
The north bound side is also treacherous in that area. Again, the speed limit is 50mph but the 280 merges on the right and people come off it at 65mph+. That makes it harrowing to get in the right lane for the Cesar Chavez exit from the 101. If you're going the 50mph speed limit you'll merge into a line going 65-70. If you go 65-70 you have far less time to get in the right line in time to make the exit.
I just don't think there's going to be any issue in most geographies if they go on highways/freeways and follow the speed limit (I guarantee that's true in the US; I'd go out on a limb and guess it's true almost everywhere).
edit: grammar
Garbage truck leaving a slowly but as fast as he can -> no problem
Tesla M3 leaving a light slowly -> dude deserves ever honk he gets.
BMW M3 weaving through traffic cuts people off but is gone as fast as he came -> nobody cares
Prius doing 55 in the right lane -> no problem
Prius doing 55 in the left lane because entitlement -> lots of middle fingers
I have complete confidence waymo would have "done the right thing". The real problem is that there still would have been a million rear endings. Eventually the insurance companies would have sued them because no amount of idiots online screeching about the "rules" actually makes it ok to habitually create the preconditions for an accident. It would have been a big expensive legal fight. The state doesn't want high speed limits to reflect how fast people actually drive. Waymo doesn't wanna be involved in that. The insurance companies don't wanna be involved in that. It's just a no brainer not to given the constraints.
Though I can't help but wonder if insurance rates would've eventually gone down for everyone if the issue got forced and it resulted in some sort of "after the 3rd rear ending they're on you by default" rule or something.
Which also highlights one of the inherent flaws with laws and rules like speed limits. They don't ever actually mean, drive at this velocity. They always mean, drive at a safe speed and here is the number we all collectively agree on, unless we don't.
Um ... kinda...
If we mean, that this is dangerous: Yes, of course. It's an obvious, somewhat dangerous error (and I say "somewhat", only because I assume currently everyone participating is cognizant of the fact, that this is in some kind of testing stage)
But I think the more interesting question is: How quickly can this issue (and others like it) be fixed? If the answer at this point is "we will have to retrain the entire model and just hope for the best" that sounds, like, really bad.