6 ms·

I for one, welcome law-abiding driverless cars. Speed limits are set for a public benefit, and its a sort of tragedy of the commons why speeding by humans is t

I for one, welcome law-abiding driverless cars. Speed limits are set for a public benefit, and its a sort of tragedy of the commons why speeding by humans is the norm.

CountHackulus 14y ago
Sadly, a lot of speed limits aren't set according to government standard 85th percentile, and local governments are easily swayed to lower speed limits just with a few letters from citizens, no study needed. That's when you get things like 6 lane divided roads with a 50km/h speed limit. Just excruciatingly slow.
- repsilat 14y ago
  > 6 lane divided roads with a 50km/h speed limit. It's important to note that there isn't an obvious relationship between traffic volume and traffic speed. If you model traffic separation as a constant two seconds (front-to-front) your traffic flow is 1800 vehicles per hour at all speeds. Of course, your average person cares more about how close the back of the car in front of them is, so flow rates at very low speeds are lower than at high speeds. At higher speeds you get other problems, though - traffic gets "patchy" as some people get a little nervous, as people drive at different speeds and so on. You probably get the most people per hour through a lane of traffic at around 60km/h. Everyone's travelling at about the same separation and about the same speed, and they're all tailgating the guy in front of them trying to make him go a little faster. The speed leaves enough breathing room for everyone to drive consistently, which is supposed to be the big benefit of these self-driving cars. Of course, these lower limits seem to increase travel times in a very obvious way, and the congestion relief they provide is pretty abstract. It's understandable that people aren't entirely convinced.
civilian 14y ago
The major danger on highways is difference in speed between cars ("variable traffic"), it's much safer to go with the flow of traffic. Absolute speed has little to do with it. Additionally, speed limits are set for the benefit of police (increasing ticket costs) and for the benefit of politicians who can now say they are "making roads safer". Case in point: the Autobahn http://autos.aol.com/article/driving-the-autobahn/ http://autos.aol.com/article/driving-the-autobahn/ (but I am also still welcoming driverless cars! I'm okay getting places slower if it means I can read or study.)
- SlipperySlope 14y ago
  The debate over the exact causes of traffic accidents, fatalities, with regard to speed limits, intoxication, texting, etc. can be simplified by just agreeing that the largest general cause is driver inattention or error, without drilling down any deeper. Driverless cars are fully attentive, and should have a lower error rate than normal / tired / drunk / distracted / angry / frustrated humans. This I welcome.
- MrFoof 14y ago
  Well, there are a lot of other reasons for the speed limits as well. Lack of sufficient climbing lanes on most of the original interstate system. Poorly designed junctions, including merges into the high-speed lanes Inadequate road thickness (autobahn is 55-75cm, US is 28cm), initial quality, drainage capability and maintenance. Inadequate driver training. Lack of enforcement for failing to bear right (though the US is doing this more now) and other minor moving violations that disrupt traffic flow. The US interstate system would need considerable re-engineering, more funding to keep up with the required maintenance, and both tougher licensing requirements and stricter enforcement of minor moving violations that increase risk. It's a huge cost, that doesn't provide proportionate benefit in all parts of the country, and a questionable ROI. Trust me, I'd love higher speed limits, but I realize the giant mountain of money and effort that would be required to make it happen.
SwellJoe 14y ago
Speed limits will, inevitably, climb as safety increases based on self-driving cars and more predictable traffic conditions. Self-driving cars will not just obey the law, they'll also keep a safe distance to the car in front, based on speed and time-to-stop (among correcting many other common mistakes drivers make that lead to more accidents, the faster they drive).
- philwelch 14y ago
  And my state, for one, will have to find another source of revenue. It's politically impossible to raise taxes, or even keep taxes at the same level, in Washington.
  - SlipperySlope 14y ago
    I suppose that new use taxes will be created for driverless cars. Especially driverless and eventually passenger-free commercial vehicles. The state can take a share from the resulting productivity increase. As a thought experiment, imagine that Walmart is given the opportunity to buy more expensive driverless long haul trucks, that are still much cheaper to operate because no driver is needed. Walmart would be willing to pay a use tax for each mile driven as long as the total business case made sense for the life of the new vehicles.
    - SwellJoe 14y ago
      I hope new taxes don't happen. That would set back the move to driverless cars...every year we don't make the switch is a year in which tens of thousands of people die in car accidents that didn't have to happen. I suspect this is one of those areas where we're only thinking of the negative consequences, and not the positives. What if you no longer need highway patrol officers to enforce speed limits and traffic laws? Or maybe you need a tenth as many on the road? What if the number of times emergency responders are needed dropped precipitously because of fewer accidents? Emergency room visits are the only socialized medicine in the US (and horribly inefficient socialized medicine at that), so reducing them will have a huge impact on road-related expenditures borne by all of us. What if we can begin to phase out signage and signals because the cars know where we're going and know when to stop and start? It will be decades before all cars are self-driving, but roads and lanes could be designated self-driving only, and those lanes could be free of extraneous signals and signs. What if we can reduce number of miles traveled by optimizing routes, thus reducing damage to roads (subtly, but for big trucks, the differences could add up faster)? Taxing self-driving vehicles more would be an impediment to a great good, so I hope that doesn't happen.

I for one, welcome law-abiding driverless cars. Speed limits are set for a public benefit, and its a sort of tragedy of the commons why speeding by humans is the norm.

CountHackulus 14y ago

Sadly, a lot of speed limits aren't set according to government standard 85th percentile, and local governments are easily swayed to lower speed limits just with a few letters from citizens, no study needed. That's when you get things like 6 lane divided roads with a 50km/h speed limit. Just excruciatingly slow.

repsilat 14y ago
> 6 lane divided roads with a 50km/h speed limit. It's important to note that there isn't an obvious relationship between traffic volume and traffic speed. If you model traffic separation as a constant two seconds (front-to-front) your traffic flow is 1800 vehicles per hour at all speeds. Of course, your average person cares more about how close the back of the car in front of them is, so flow rates at very low speeds are lower than at high speeds. At higher speeds you get other problems, though - traffic gets "patchy" as some people get a little nervous, as people drive at different speeds and so on. You probably get the most people per hour through a lane of traffic at around 60km/h. Everyone's travelling at about the same separation and about the same speed, and they're all tailgating the guy in front of them trying to make him go a little faster. The speed leaves enough breathing room for everyone to drive consistently, which is supposed to be the big benefit of these self-driving cars. Of course, these lower limits seem to increase travel times in a very obvious way, and the congestion relief they provide is pretty abstract. It's understandable that people aren't entirely convinced.

civilian 14y ago

The major danger on highways is difference in speed between cars ("variable traffic"), it's much safer to go with the flow of traffic. Absolute speed has little to do with it. Additionally, speed limits are set for the benefit of police (increasing ticket costs) and for the benefit of politicians who can now say they are "making roads safer". Case in point: the Autobahn http://autos.aol.com/article/driving-the-autobahn/ http://autos.aol.com/article/driving-the-autobahn/ (but I am also still welcoming driverless cars! I'm okay getting places slower if it means I can read or study.)

SlipperySlope 14y ago
The debate over the exact causes of traffic accidents, fatalities, with regard to speed limits, intoxication, texting, etc. can be simplified by just agreeing that the largest general cause is driver inattention or error, without drilling down any deeper. Driverless cars are fully attentive, and should have a lower error rate than normal / tired / drunk / distracted / angry / frustrated humans. This I welcome.
MrFoof 14y ago
Well, there are a lot of other reasons for the speed limits as well. Lack of sufficient climbing lanes on most of the original interstate system. Poorly designed junctions, including merges into the high-speed lanes Inadequate road thickness (autobahn is 55-75cm, US is 28cm), initial quality, drainage capability and maintenance. Inadequate driver training. Lack of enforcement for failing to bear right (though the US is doing this more now) and other minor moving violations that disrupt traffic flow. The US interstate system would need considerable re-engineering, more funding to keep up with the required maintenance, and both tougher licensing requirements and stricter enforcement of minor moving violations that increase risk. It's a huge cost, that doesn't provide proportionate benefit in all parts of the country, and a questionable ROI. Trust me, I'd love higher speed limits, but I realize the giant mountain of money and effort that would be required to make it happen.

SwellJoe 14y ago

Speed limits will, inevitably, climb as safety increases based on self-driving cars and more predictable traffic conditions. Self-driving cars will not just obey the law, they'll also keep a safe distance to the car in front, based on speed and time-to-stop (among correcting many other common mistakes drivers make that lead to more accidents, the faster they drive).

philwelch 14y ago
And my state, for one, will have to find another source of revenue. It's politically impossible to raise taxes, or even keep taxes at the same level, in Washington.
- SlipperySlope 14y ago
  I suppose that new use taxes will be created for driverless cars. Especially driverless and eventually passenger-free commercial vehicles. The state can take a share from the resulting productivity increase. As a thought experiment, imagine that Walmart is given the opportunity to buy more expensive driverless long haul trucks, that are still much cheaper to operate because no driver is needed. Walmart would be willing to pay a use tax for each mile driven as long as the total business case made sense for the life of the new vehicles.
  - SwellJoe 14y ago
    I hope new taxes don't happen. That would set back the move to driverless cars...every year we don't make the switch is a year in which tens of thousands of people die in car accidents that didn't have to happen. I suspect this is one of those areas where we're only thinking of the negative consequences, and not the positives. What if you no longer need highway patrol officers to enforce speed limits and traffic laws? Or maybe you need a tenth as many on the road? What if the number of times emergency responders are needed dropped precipitously because of fewer accidents? Emergency room visits are the only socialized medicine in the US (and horribly inefficient socialized medicine at that), so reducing them will have a huge impact on road-related expenditures borne by all of us. What if we can begin to phase out signage and signals because the cars know where we're going and know when to stop and start? It will be decades before all cars are self-driving, but roads and lanes could be designated self-driving only, and those lanes could be free of extraneous signals and signs. What if we can reduce number of miles traveled by optimizing routes, thus reducing damage to roads (subtly, but for big trucks, the differences could add up faster)? Taxing self-driving vehicles more would be an impediment to a great good, so I hope that doesn't happen.