Driverless Cars

boliston

boliston

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,959
Name
Adrian
Edit My Images
No
I've noticed there seems to be a lot of talk about driverless cars eg http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/11/driverless-cars-roll-out-trials-uk-roads
It could certainly be useful for photography enthusiasts as one of the main things that puts me off road based trips is actually having to drive. It would nice to be able to just program in a location and be safely "chauffeured" to your ideal photo location without having to worry about other idiot drivers all the time as you would simply chill out and let the in car processor take the "stress" :cool:
 
Last edited:
I, for one will rage war against our new robot overlords. lol

I'm not even keen on today's modern cars. Too many different types of assists for the lazy drivers to rely on. Give me an old car with no assists any day of the week over a fancy luxury car with all the gadgets and gizmos.

Before I sold my old rally car, a mk2 Escort, I let my friend drive it and she asked within the first few minutes where the reversing camera and auto headlights were...*facepalm*! I detest drivers that rely on certain features to do the driving/actions for them, IMO it's not safe and just pure lazy. ~Not unless they need assists, like perhaps a disabled person needing an auto, reversing camera for a bad neck, etc.

I drive a BMW that's got every extra added from the factory, never even used half of them, but it's good come resale. That kinda goes against my first point but oh well. lol
 
Last edited:
CaveDweller said:
I, for one will rage war against our new robot overlords. lol

I'm not even keen on today's modern cars. Too many different types of assists for the lazy drivers to rely on. Give me an old car with no assists any day of the week over a fancy luxury car with all the gadgets and gizmos.

Before I sold my old rally car, a mk2 Escort, I let my friend drive it and she asked within the first few minutes where the reversing camera and auto headlights were...*facepalm*! I detest drivers that rely on certain features to do the driving/actions for them, IMO it's not safe and just pure lazy. ~Not unless they need assists, like perhaps a disabled person needing an auto, etc.
Click to expand...

Amen Brother!!! :-)
 
All sort of liability issues. If said auto car crashes and injures occupants/3rd parties who's liable, the car maker, the "driver" or "person in charge".

How does it work for unlicenced/drunk drivers. A nice idea, but in my view, unimplementable
 
I don't think this is the same as modern cars with "gadgets" like park assist, lane assist etc as at the end of the day you still have to "drive" those cars.
The whole point of driverless cars is to allow you to do a journey without the stress of actually having to "drive" at all so you can enjoy the journey as if you were a passenger in a carefully driven car.
 
They could link lots of them together and just have one driver. And to make it easier, they could run on their own roads - perhaps a couple of steel rails. And they will need a catchy name such as a train!


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
They could link lots of them together and just have one driver. And to make it easier, they could run on their own roads - perhaps a couple of steel rails. And they will need a catchy name such as a train!


Steve.
Click to expand...
That would be handy as long as there is a network of steel rails covering everywhere you are likely to need to go, and someone is willing to act as a free chauffeur.
 
Last edited:
Yes you still have to drive a modern car which has every gadget possible, but if your routine when you get in the car is to flick on all the assists like you're trying to start an aircraft then you're only "driving" to a certain extent. It's bad enough just having to plug todays cars into the diagnostics just to find out whats wrong with them. My old Mk2 escort was simple to work on. A stethoscope to each carb would normally give a good indication to what was wrong :rolleyes:

I'm building up another project car now and to be honest it's probably going to be my daily driver.The wirings so simple just now I'd let my kids do it for me.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
All sort of liability issues. If said auto car crashes and injures occupants/3rd parties who's liable, the car maker, the "driver" or "person in charge".

How does it work for unlicenced/drunk drivers. A nice idea, but in my view, unimplementable
Click to expand...

As I've mentioned before, smart people are currently being paid a lot of money to figure out details like this. They are looking at which laws we need to change to make this work.

The latest is a proposal that driverless cars should be held to a higher standard than the current (human) driving test.
 
JonathanRyan said:
As I've mentioned before, smart people are currently being paid a lot of money to figure out details like this. They are looking at which laws we need to change to make this work.

The latest is a proposal that driverless cars should be held to a higher standard than the current (human) driving test.
Click to expand...

Then you need to get the buy in of the public. IN theory, its a great idea, in practice legistlation, perception will mean its a long time coming.
 
JonathanRyan said:
As I've mentioned before, smart people are currently being paid a lot of money to figure out details like this. They are looking at which laws we need to change to make this work.

The latest is a proposal that driverless cars should be held to a higher standard than the current (human) driving test.
Click to expand...

Which is great; but the fact remains that they are programmed by humans, and as such are likely to break. Alot.
 
Horrific!!

Any driver who isn't a zombie knows that what happens on the roads is an ever evolving dynamic scenario which requires human intelligence and reactions. You can only build so much into robotic artificial intelligence.

I love driving and so this really horrifies me as it encourages people to switch off their brains. But hang on.... Not everyone has a brain when it comes to driving. :D
 
Acceptance might take a while. But when people see the benefits of speed and safety compared to idiot drivers on the roads today, acceptance will surpass resistance.

Cities will be the main movers here. As the problems are already acute. They may separate auto drive from human driven cars for numerous benefits. While human driven cars are stuck in their own made traffic jams, auto drive cars will convoy at high speeds in safety and not have to stop or slow down at junctions. This will reduce pollution too.

Sure there will be go-kart tracks for those that want to have control and make a lot of noise for recreation. But when it comes to travelling from A to B there is no comparison.

Next time you are driving your car and you are stuck in traffic, searching for an elusive parking space, or someone does something stupid. Just remember. This is going to get worse. Much worse. And if some people want to cling on to their old ways and keep us in this dangerous, slow, expensive, polluting world, then be thankful that the next generation won't have so many hang ups. And want to get on with their lives.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
All sort of liability issues. If said auto car crashes and injures occupants/3rd parties who's liable, the car maker, the "driver" or "person in charge".

How does it work for unlicenced/drunk drivers. A nice idea, but in my view, unimplementable
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite I think, the thing that will have us all using autonomous cars will be the insurance costs of a "manual" car. Imagine the claim, human memory and frailty against a fully instrumented computer controlled car that was doing exactly the right speed for the conditions and has a full record of the accident including video, radar, speed, acceleration/deceleration, etc.

Google already has driverless cars running round parts of California, it's fine to be in one whilst drunk because you are not driving.
 
viv1969 said:
Which is great; but the fact remains that they are programmed by humans, and as such are likely to break. Alot.
Click to expand...

There's some stat on how many thousand miles Google driverless cars have done on public roads. So far, no accidents ;) I'm not saying the code will be infallible but the fail safes should be.

ST4 said:
Then you need to get the buy in of the public. IN theory, its a great idea, in practice legistlation, perception will mean its a long time coming.
Click to expand...

Make it work, pass laws to allow it to happen, put them on sale. Capitalism will sort out whether there's a market or not. But there really is.
 
sirch said:
Quite the opposite I think, the thing that will have us all using autonomous cars will be the insurance costs of a "manual" car. Imagine the claim, human memory and frailty against a fully instrumented computer controlled car that was doing exactly the right speed for the conditions and has a full record of the accident including video, radar, speed, acceleration/deceleration, etc.
Click to expand...

'xactly. All the research shows that by FAR the biggest cause of accidents is drivers. Mech failure and truly unavoidable situations are a tiny tiny fraction of them.
 
JonathanRyan said:
There's some stat on how many thousand miles Google driverless cars have done on public roads. So far, no accidents ;) I'm not saying the code will be infallible but the fail safes should be.



Make it work, pass laws to allow it to happen, put them on sale. Capitalism will sort out whether there's a market or not. But there really is.
Click to expand...

To be fair, nothing is infallible.
They're testing driverless cars in Greewich today.
They are apparently moving at walking speed....Yes...That'll be handy for a 30 mile commute :lol:
 
sirch said:
Quite the opposite I think, the thing that will have us all using autonomous cars will be the insurance costs of a "manual" car. Imagine the claim, human memory and frailty against a fully instrumented computer controlled car that was doing exactly the right speed for the conditions and has a full record of the accident including video, radar, speed, acceleration/deceleration, etc.

Google already has driverless cars running round parts of California, it's fine to be in one whilst drunk because you are not driving.
Click to expand...

All true and valid, but in the event of failure no manufacturer wants to open themselves up to a liability claim costing life(s).

Public perception needs a huge shift too.

Look at the uptake of electric cars vs ICE cars. People stick to what they know, even if it is inferior.
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
To be fair, nothing is infallible.
Click to expand...

Of course. And to be clear, driverless cars will kill people. The manufacturers know this.

But car defects kill people right now - 61 people by the GM ignition fault at the latest figure.

Overall, they will work out how many people they will kill, how much each life costs them and whether that fits their business model or not. Smart people with calculators and accounting degrees.
 
JonathanRyan said:
Of course. And to be clear, driverless cars will kill people. The manufacturers know this.

But car defects kill people right now - 61 people by the GM ignition fault at the latest figure.

Overall, they will work out how many people they will kill, how much each life costs them and whether that fits their business model or not. Smart people with calculators and accounting degrees.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
Tort lawyers are going to have a field day.
 
Change is, well, change. It is never all good or all bad, it is just different. Looked at from the other end of the telescope it is quite remarkable that in this day and age pretty much anyone over 17 is allowed to hurtle about at alarming speeds in a ton and a half of steel full of flammable liquids. The tort lawyers won't get their field day because driver-less cars will make the roads so much safer that the government will be persuaded to "level the playing field" by legislating to absolve manufacturers from all but the most egregious failures of their cars.
 
I heard this earlier, seems they are being tested in my home town of MK.
Lets hope they can signal better and use lane discipline better, at the roundabouts than the "manned vehicles"
Either that or "they'll" have an epileptic fit trying :D

As an aside
But Peter Marland, leader of Milton Keynes council, sees in the prototype an eventual potential solution to dwindling public transport budgets.
He said: “We’re making £22m of cuts and a lot is from bus services.

The bus service is pretty appalling TBH, I don't even see how the budget can possibly be that amount in the first place ;)

CaveDweller said:
I'm not even keen on today's modern cars. Too many different types of assists for the lazy drivers to rely on.
Give me an old car with no assists any day of the week over a fancy luxury car with all the gadgets and gizmos.
Click to expand...
absolutely!
 
ST4 said:
All sort of liability issues. If said auto car crashes and injures occupants/3rd parties who's liable, the car maker, the "driver" or "person in charge".

How does it work for unlicenced/drunk drivers. A nice idea, but in my view, unimplementable
Click to expand...

If it's a driverless car, then obviously no-one in the car is the "driver" so it doesn't matter if they're drunk or don't have a license, and it's difficult to see how they could be "in charge". I agree that it poses some interesting questions about liability though - manufacturer, software developer etc - which lawyers will see as a new and potentially lucrative source of income.

I assume there's some means of reigning in the car if it decides to go on a private detour to somewhere 100 miles away, instead of just taking you home from the pub? Assuming you can't, or shouldn't, take over, do you call a control centre to reprogramme the damn thing remotely?
 
Driverless cars will be utterly boring! How about driverless buses and then there might be less driverless cars.

And will they be able to be overriden by a human driver so save a catastrophe if something goes wrong, as it inevitably will.
 
I heard a news item this morning saying that Vince Cable was going to test drive a driverless car. How does one test drive a driverless car ?
 
I presume I'll be able to start my new career as a highwayman!

Because if I stand in front of a driverless car, it'll stop for me, but it won't realise that I'm waving a revolver and it wont have the self-preservation instincts to rush off in the other direction
 
arclight said:
I heard a news item this morning saying that Vince Cable was going to test drive a driverless car. How does one test drive a driverless car ?
Click to expand...

You sit in it.

I imagine, but could be wrong, that a driverless car would have to have someone nominated to be in charge, ie to take control if it all went wrong, even if it was over a big red button to emergency stop the thing. I cannot imagine people embracing something they have NO control or overiding ability to stop/control whilst travelling with their nearest and dearest on board with at 60mph plus in close proximity to other boxes doing the same
 
arclight said:
I heard a news item this morning saying that Vince Cable was going to test drive a driverless car. How does one test drive a driverless car ?
Click to expand...

Perfect man for the gig! He's [nominally] in charge of a rudderless Government department! ;)
 
sirch said:
Change is, well, change. It is never all good or all bad, it is just different. Looked at from the other end of the telescope it is quite remarkable that in this day and age pretty much anyone over 17 is allowed to hurtle about at alarming speeds in a ton and a half of steel full of flammable liquids. The tort lawyers won't get their field day because driver-less cars will make the roads so much safer that the government will be persuaded to "level the playing field" by legislating to absolve manufacturers from all but the most egregious failures of their cars.
Click to expand...

That's rather naive.
The government won't work to absolve the manufacturers ...they'll ensure that that's firmly where the buck will stop.
Do you honestly believe that these wonder vehicles won't result in any serious injuries or deaths?
And even with legislation in place, it will be a case of someone will be blamed and made to suffer financially.
It's a Tort dream.
 
Insurance, so is the car insured and held culpable if it drives into another car?
It obviously wasn't the drivers fault as there isn't one.
Does it rack up no claims bonus's?
Who pays the speeding fine when its nailed, or indeed a parking fine.
We all know how keen these people are to collect revenue.
What about wheel clamps, or will it be like "KITT" and just move when they try and clamp it?
Better still discharge a few hundred volts through the body work. :D

Does it need ID rather like theses private hire cars you see, with a nondescript ID badge
hanging from the mirror?
Oh wait, It won't need mirrors will it?

Stay tooned, [sic] All these and other pointless questions will be answered in due course,
once they figure out where the buck actually stops :D


 
Last edited:
Yves Geza said:
I presume I'll be able to start my new career as a highwayman!

Because if I stand in front of a driverless car, it'll stop for me, but it won't realise that I'm waving a revolver and it wont have the self-preservation instincts to rush off in the other direction
Click to expand...
Years ago in the press shop at Ford's Dagenham, we had automated carts to move the pallets of panels around the plant following a metallic strip buried in the ground. Because of safety they moved at a walking pace or slower and a lot of people would jump in front of them forcing them to stop. I don't think the system was in place a year before they went back to tow trucks with drivers.

I for one don't want to be driven around in a driverless car, I'm not that keen on being driven around as it is, purely based on the fact I enjoy driving and would rather continue to do so,
 
Cobra said:
Insurance, so is the car insured and held culpable if it drives into another car?
It obviously wasn't the drivers fault as there isn't one.
Does it rack up no claims bonus's?
Who pays the speeding fine when its nailed, or indeed a parking fine.
We all know how keen these people are to collect revenue.
What about wheel clamps, or will it be like "KITT" and just move when they try and clamp it?
Better still discharge a few hundred volts through the body work. :D

Does it need ID rather like theses private hire cars you see, with a nondescript ID badge
hanging from the mirror?
Oh wait, It won't need mirrors will it?

Stay tooned, [sic] All these and other pointless questions will be answered in due course,
once they figure out where the buck actually stops :D


Click to expand...
I'm sure I read somewhere the car occupant will still have to sit in the driving seat and will still be in charge of the vehicle.
 
nilagin said:
I'm sure I read somewhere the car occupant will still have to sit in the driving seat and will still be in charge of the vehicle.
Click to expand...
OK so what ever the car does the human is liable for
Sounds about right,
as the saying goes, to err is to be human,
but it takes a computer to really f*** things up :D
 
sirch said:
Looked at from the other end of the telescope it is quite remarkable that in this day and age pretty much anyone over 17 is allowed to hurtle about at alarming speeds in a ton and a half of steel
Click to expand...

If roads and cars didn't exist and someone came up with the idea of little tin cans on wheels going up to 70mph passing within feet of each other, I don't think it would be allowed!

Cobra said:
It obviously wasn't the drivers fault as there isn't one.
Click to expand...

Fault and responsibility are not the same thing.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
hey could link lots of them together and just have one driver. And to make it easier, they could run on their own roads - perhaps a couple of steel rails. And they will need a catchy name such as a train!
Click to expand...

Less of this forward thinking radicalism!

It will take the fun out of driving. No more broken speed limits, no power slides round the pub car park, Roads Policing Unit officers being destitute as there'll be no court on overtime.........

For this to work, it will have to be all on automatic, or none. Having a mix is a recipe for a disaster. A computer in Mr Average's car wont be able to deal with the actions of a 14 year old driving his car like he's nicked it, because he has nicked it. Never mind the lawyers arguing if that line of code should have ended in a 1 or a zero! Then there's the problem of when it goes wrong in a set of circumstances where no ones sure what went wrong, and DVLA taking everything with that bit of code off the road until it's fixed. Nice idea, but I think there's a lot of things that need sorting out before I would feel safe with them on the road.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top