Driverless cars.

[RedRobin]

I have it on my car (automatic) but it's separate from the cruise control. I'v never used it so couldn't tell you about lag but I would imagine that the driver should allow for it when overtaking.

.... Yes, 'kick-down' acceleration is a totally different function from Cruise Control.

Kick-down on an automatic always involves a degree of lag before the car responds and accelerates although lag continues to be improved as technology advances.

This is off-topic but the fuel pump can cause lag too - Another reason to modify an ex-factory car.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

No way braking would have helped me. I mean, unless it was AI braking with radar tracking looking 2 cars ahead.

The minimum safe distance at which to follow another vehicle is the 2 second rule, i.e. you should note when the vehicle in front passes a point such as a bridge support, count slowly and if you pass the same point before you say "2" you should drop back. This is for good road conditions. At night you should increase the gap to 3 seconds, At these distances you should be able, provided your vehicle is properly set up, to stop without hitting the vehicle in front. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-second_rule )

 

[wyx087]

I'm totally for automating everything as much as possible, including cars. I use adaptive cruise ALL the time, from quiet 30mph to motorway, it makes driving a lot less tedious. The biggest frustration is human driver's lack of ability to keep a constant speed. ACC makes cruise control actually useful when there are cars in front.
Unfortunately my 2014 car doesn't have lane centering, I still have to do the tiny steering wheel adjustments, a pointless task that can also be automated.
I think controlled enviournment like motorways is where we'll first see people to go hands off. It is far safer than a tired driver who hadn't stopped to rest for 3+ hours.

BUT I stop at SAE automation level 3 (eg. Tesla autopilot, Volvo propilot, etc). Problem with higher level is that you take the driver monitoring out of equation. Some argue this will solve responsibility issue, where we have seen people falling asleep under good driver aid system. Whilst this is true, but I also agree with other posters that completely driverless cars are far from ready. Even if it can handle 99.9% cases, that 0.1% unhandled case is still too dangerous to let it drive on its own.
Another problem is validation, with pretty much all driverless car object recognition solutions use machine learning, how do you validate it? There are infinite possibilities for an object to appear, any slight variations may cause the machine to identify it as something else.

SAE level 2 is where human is still responsible for the vehicle. I think good visualisation of car's understanding of surroundings combined with a certification required to unlock such feature, we should be in good hands during this transition. Level 3 is where machine monitors mostly, human only require to take over during difficult tasks. For safely use this level, the certification is vital.

In summary: Automation: good. Humans: irresponsible, need regulating. Totally driverless cars: faaaar from ready.

 

[Marc]

I use adaptive cruise ALL the time, from quiet 30mph to motorway,

Me too. It's been an absolute godsend for me. I use hand controls and it really pulls on my shoulder (think I'll go for electronic next time) and if it wasn't for ACC, I'd be in absolute agony after even short journeys. I drove best part of 200 miles on the M6 & A5 yesterday and felt as relaxed at the end as I did at the beginning. Lane Keeping Assist also helped.

 

[Gremlin]

The minimum safe distance at which to follow another vehicle is the 2 second rule, i.e. you should note when the vehicle in front passes a point such as a bridge support, count slowly and if you pass the same point before you say "2" you should drop back. This is for good road conditions. At night you should increase the gap to 3 seconds, At these distances you should be able, provided your vehicle is properly set up, to stop without hitting the vehicle in front. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-second_rule )

I think you are missing the point here, a fox is a wild animal and they do run across road in front of cars as do deer and other
animals, this morning a cat ran across in front of me.
You can't keep a safe distance from them as they don't run along in front of you, just appear from nowhere
During the day you can hopefully see them but at night not so easy
Where I used to live it was a daily hazard when driving to work in the dark, my boss hit a deer on 2 occasions, I had a
few near misses

 

[Garry Edwards]

I think you are missing the point here, a fox is a wild animal and they do run across road in front of cars as do deer and other
animals, this morning a cat ran across in front of me.
You can't keep a safe distance from them as they don't run along in front of you, just appear from nowhere
During the day you can hopefully see them but at night not so easy
Where I used to live it was a daily hazard when driving to work in the dark, my boss hit a deer on 2 occasions, I had a
few near misses

And here we have a problem. . . A wild animal running out will presumably be seen and interpreted by software in exactly the same way as a human child, but the stakes involved with a human child are much higher - should the software protect this life form at all costs, possibly killing the driver?

 

[Cobra]

It is far safer than a tired driver who hadn't stopped to rest for 3+ hours.

And that raises another point.
Enough drivers fall asleep at the wheel causing accidents as it is.
If the car is doing most of the driving I would strongly suggest the driver is even more likely to nod off through lack of direct interaction,
or even boredom.

 

[wyx087]

And that raises another point.
Enough drivers fall asleep at the wheel causing accidents as it is.
If the car is doing most of the driving I would strongly suggest the driver is even more likely to nod off through lack of direct interaction,
or even boredom.

Indeed, also more likely to drive when they are tired, or not notice they are tired.

For me, personally, I really enjoy seeing when my car detects other cars in front, learning about its limits, study it as a black box. But I know most people does not have the scientific mind to do this. Many people don't even read the manual.

Many driver assist accidents are caused by people trusting the tech more they should, not fully understanding its limits. A course and testing to gain certification (like an advanced driving test) would solve this and in return offer lowered insurance because you would be safer when these features are used responsibly.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I think you are missing the point here

I was addressing the claim that you can't avoid a pile up if you can't see the initial event several cars ahead. My point is that your obligation is to drive in such a way as to be able to stop safely if the vehicle ahead of you stops without warning. That's quite different from the hazard of an animal dashing in front of you. Putting two such different issues together simply confuses the discussion.

 

[Cobra]

For me, personally, I really enjoy seeing when my car detects other cars in front,

For me its all about being alert to what is going on around me, in front / behind and to the sides.
And fully driving the car under all conditions and not letting a computer make the call.

But I know most people does not have the scientific mind to do this. Many people don't even read the manual.

I don't even think you need a scientific mind to study what the car is doing at any one point.
I'd say it'd be more like ( for a large %) they just can't be arsed.

How many people listen to the engine before changing up or down, Gear, very few that I have talked to,
they either watch the rev counter or look for the little arrow on the dash board /\ V ( on more modern cars that is )

Many driver assist accidents are caused by people trusting the tech more they should,

I totally agree and that was one of my points

 

[wyx087]

For me its all about being alert to what is going on around me, in front / behind and to the sides.
And fully driving the car under all conditions and not letting a computer make the call.

I don't even think you need a scientific mind to study what the car is doing at any one point.
I'd say it'd be more like ( for a large %) they just can't be arsed.

How many people listen to the engine before changing up or down, Gear, very few that I have talked to,
they either watch the rev counter or look for the little arrow on the dash board /\ V ( on more modern cars that is )

Yeah, I wish my car had sensors all round, but as it only has front radar, that's the direction I mentioned.

But point is, most people can't be arsed, as you said, to study how it's driving. So most people don't understand the complex system and a lot of the time trust the system more than they should.



For simplicity, let's say there's 3 types of systems:
1. Driver aid: ACC, AEB, lane assist (SAE level 1)
2. Driver automation: Tesla Autopilot, Volvo propilot, etc (SAE level 2-3)
3. Full self driving. (SAE level 4-5)

I think 1 is pretty common these days. I wouldn't buy any cars without them. Especially AEB.

For 2, I think a test and certificate should be required to unlock this feature. Any more accidents by irresponsible use would be bad press for the technology and hinder its roll out. When used responsibly, it increases car safety and reduce driver fatigue.

For 3, the topic of this thread, we are very far away from early adoption. I can't wait for it, but I fear it won't happen in my lifetime.

 

[Gremlin]

I was addressing the claim that you can't avoid a pile up if you can't see the initial event several cars ahead. My point is that your obligation is to drive in such a way as to be able to stop safely if the vehicle ahead of you stops without warning. That's quite different from the hazard of an animal dashing in front of you. Putting two such different issues together simply confuses the discussion.

I suggest you go back and read the entire post you only partially quoted, it did refer to a fox crossing the M25,

to save you finding it

Closest I've ever been to being involved in a pile up was when a fox sprinted the 15 feet from deep cover into lane 1 of the M25 at night whilst I was driving at a speed suitable to road conditions. I didn't even see it until it crossed the headlight beam. No way braking would have helped me. I mean, unless it was AI braking with radar tracking looking 2 cars ahead.

 

[Cobra]

For simplicity, let's say there's 3 types of systems:

My car has basic cruise and traction control I sometimes turn on the former and sometimes turn off the latter for fun.
( I drove for years without it, so why do I need it now? )
My van has a reversing beeper and basic cruise control .
My van has 2 mirrors why do I need a reversing beeper?
Its only there for people that have no clue as to the size of their vehicle.
The Cruise control does get used on my 100 mile journey to my first call, early in the morning and on a dual carriageway.

When I took my HGV 1 test, many years ago, the instructor said to me, and I've never forgotten it, You have to be a real nosy [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER] when driving ( one of these) .
Check everything and check it again, before pulling off, before turning and when driving generally.
And that still holds true today whatever I'm driving, the problem is some people just don't look, nor can they judge speed and / or distance before manoeuvering.
Either that or they think that an indicator has magic properties. Signal, and everything gets out of your way..
What ever happened to make a manoeuver only if you won't cause someone to alter their speed or change direction?
Arrogance I guess is the answer to the above points.

For simplicity, let's say there's 3 types of systems:
1. Driver aid: ACC, AEB, lane assist (SAE level 1)
2. Driver automation: Tesla Autopilot, Volvo propilot, etc (SAE level 2-3)
3. Full self driving. (SAE level 4-5)

I have no wish to understand or learn any of that.

I can't wait for it, but I fear it won't happen in my lifetime.

I can wait as I have no wish to use it.
And I sincerely hope that its doesn't come to pass in my lifetime.
As for "next year" I think someone is getting ahead of themselves.

 

[wyx087]

I have no wish to understand or learn any of that.

I can wait as I have no wish to use it.
And I sincerely hope that its doesn't come to pass in my lifetime.
As for "next year" I think someone is getting ahead of themselves.

Why so negative?

The point of these things is to make getting around a lot easier. Whilst it's debatable whether that's a good thing from an environmental point of view, it is absolutely a very good thing from individual point of view.

Previously someone may be tired after driving 100 miles a day. Now without needing to constantly do the mindless tasks and micro-adjust, the same person may be able to drive 200 miles in the same day. This opens up a lot of photography possibilities that would have been difficult previously.

( I drove for years without it, so why do I need it now? )

Same can be said for automatic gearboxes, automatic emergency braking, and even cruise control or power steering. Real man don't need power steering(!)

"I lived for years without a smartphone, why do I need it now?"
"We lived for years using coal, why shut it down now?"

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I suggest you go back and read the entire post you only partially quoted, it did refer to a fox crossing the M25,

You're right. I misread the post.

 

[JohnC6]

The lawyers will, no doubt, make enough out of that question to pay their chauffeurs.

I turned on the radio on Saturday to hear a discusssion about this and it’s causing a great deal of thought and the expert said there won’t be any such vehicles on public roads until it’s sorted. There’s the aspect of hacking too. I’m not a fan of driverless cars. This article states that there are 1700 fatalities each year on our roads and 180,000 injuries. An ‘injury’ being anything recorded as such by police so it could be minor cuts to severe disablement both physical and mental. It further states that 90% of road traffic incidents, I .never liked the term ‘accident’...are caused by human error. I’d take issue with that description because I suspect a minority are caused by genuine error,the rest as a result high risk driving behaviour and just plain old bad driving. Human error cannot be attributed to collisions caused by the consumption of alcohol thus impairing judgement, nor reckless driving nor travelling above the speed limit..I don’t mean 31-35 in a 30 zone given normal weather conditions etc.

Driverless Cars: How will insurers be affected?

Barnett Waddingham's Cherry Chan discusses the future of driverless cars and the impact the technology could have on insurers.

www.actuarialpost.co.uk

I’d prefer to see enhanced safety features on cars and roadside technology. . On a simple level, I had an Audi A4 in which I could select a speed ..eg 30 and when the car got to 28 a beep would sound but I’d have to input 40-50-60-70. Distracting. There should be a much safer way to do that. My brother and sister in-law visited us from Canada and we took them into the Cotswolds and he asked how we knew what the speed limit was as he’d seen no signs for miles. I had to tell him that on a normal two-way road it’s 60mph unless otherwise stated . I’d like to see it painted on the road and more frequent roadside signs. If a driver misses seeing a 30mph sign then he’ll know because the lampposts are 183m or less apart .How stupid. Auto speed limiters controlled by roadside technology has its risks, I think.There must be all sorts to bring about safe driving.

Just off piste a little. I sometimes watch the police documentaries on Chn 5.. Police Interceptors etc..and I’m astounded at the sentencing. The footage can often show a dangerous chase putting lives at risk,with speeds in excess of 70mph in urban environments..often the driver has no insurance and he..it’s invariably a male ..gets a few months disqualification,if that and a fine. Considering the potential for causing serious injury at best and death at worst they should be getting custodial sentences..5 year bans and if it’s their car having it crushed. In 2016 there were,globally, 1.35 million road deaths .It’s the leading cause of death for young people and the main cause of death of 15-29 year olds.Death as a result of injuries...not instant at the scene ,I assume...are considered to be the eighth leading cause of death across all age groups and predicted to be seventh by 2050. (WHO figures)

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

I've driven a few trucks with auto brakes my experience is not good. In reverse you can find you can reverse up to a person in direct line of the vehicle and it will not stop you alternatively if something is off to one side not in the crash zone the vehicle will jam the brakes on causing people to nearly hit you as they have judged you will be out of their way by the time they get there. The forward auto braking systems are even worse you can be going 56mph on a motorway and someone will cut in front of you a little to close but not dangerously close this will jam the brakes on when there was no need and then all you see is people smoking their tyres to try and stop, A pile up waiting to happen ! the reverse braking system has an over ride button which on a lot of wagons I get in is taped down or jammed in some way to make it inactive. I do wonder what would happed in a crash when the super safety system had been bypast or if the safety system did cause a pile up.

 

[Garry Edwards]

My car has basic cruise and traction control I sometimes turn on the former and sometimes turn off the latter for fun.
( I drove for years without it, so why do I need it now? )
My van has a reversing beeper and basic cruise control .
My van has 2 mirrors why do I need a reversing beeper?
Its only there for people that have no clue as to the size of their vehicle.
The Cruise control does get used on my 100 mile journey to my first call, early in the morning and on a dual carriageway.

When I took my HGV 1 test, many years ago, the instructor said to me, and I've never forgotten it, You have to be a real nosy b*****d when driving ( one of these) .
Check everything and check it again, before pulling off, before turning and when driving generally.
And that still holds true today whatever I'm driving, the problem is some people just don't look, nor can they judge speed and / or distance before manoeuvering.
Either that or they think that an indicator has magic properties. Signal, and everything gets out of your way..
What ever happened to make a manoeuver only if you won't cause someone to alter their speed or change direction?
Arrogance I guess is the answer to the above points.



I have no wish to understand or learn any of that.


I can wait as I have no wish to use it.
And I sincerely hope that its doesn't come to pass in my lifetime.
As for "next year" I think someone is getting ahead of themselves.

My off road car didn't come with any kind of technology, but I can't agree with everything that you've said above.
Yes, I've got door mirrors (big ones) but I've installed a reversing camera too, it's aimed at the tow bar and allows me to maneuver very precisely when I need to hitch on a trailer.
And now I'm going to fit one to our big panel van, partly for the same reason but also because it's possible for someone to walk or perhaps drive behind the van from the left whilst I'm looking in the right hand mirror, or vice - versa - situations can change in an instant, through no fault of the driver. And I have reversing beeps too, for the same reason.

In short, I embrace technology when it makes things better, easier or safer.

 

[broc]

I am a big believer in reversing cameras, our Motorhome has one which is very handy. One of our cars has 360 degree cameras which are helpful when parking and low speed manoeuvring.

I am happy with the idea of driver 'aids' that are there to assist but draw the line at handing control over to the car.

Many years ago when I had a company car my employer paid for all of us company car users to do a defensive driving course. There were two threads to the course, one was handling the car, when to accelerate, brake, change gear to keep the car 'balanced' and the other was maintaining awareness of your surroundings & anticipating what might happen.

 

[Cobra]

Real man don't need power steering(!)

Exactly

"I lived for years without a smartphone, why do I need it now?

I don't have one and can't see the need for one, I make calls send a few texts, what else does a phone need to do?
all the rest are gimmicks expensive ones at that.

Why so negative?

Just stating facts.
None of it is any use to me just like a smart phone.

but I've installed a reversing camera too, it's aimed at the tow bar and allows me to maneuver very precisely when I need to hitch on a trailer.

Fairy nuff.

I am a big believer in reversing cameras, our Motorhome has one which is very handy. One of our cars has 360 degree cameras which are helpful when parking and low speed manoeuvring.

I drove a 55 ft ( max length) artic for many years, and got it in and out of some very tight loading places / bays.
Without any of that. Never had an accident or mishap going in any direction.

But TBH if people think they can't drive a car without all these gadgets ...

Zager and Evans in the year 2525

 

[Garry Edwards]

I drove a 55 ft ( max length) artic for many years, and got it in and out of some very tight loading places / bays.
Without any of that. Never had an accident or mishap going in any direction.

But TBH if people think they can't drive a car without all these gadgets ...

Zager and Evans in the year 2525

Again, I partly agree and partly don't. I used to drive HGV 1 and again, managed without any gadgets - some didn't even stretch to a heater . . .
But we now have simple and effective technology, such as reversing cameras and it seems to me to be daft not to use them. In fact they're now being fitted to all of our vehicles except for the tractors, where we can just turn around and see the PUH.

 

[Marc]

But TBH if people think they can't drive a car without all these gadgets ...

Don't think anyone has said that they can't drive a car without the gadgets, just that they make it easier.

 

[wyx087]

Don't think anyone has said that they can't drive a car without the gadgets, just that they make it easier.

And make driving safer, when used correctly within the limits of current very primitive system.

 

[broc]

Cast your mind back (if you are old enough); what about driver aids such as windscreen screen wash/wipe, or even indicators? Things we take for granted today.

Do you suppose people were dismissive of those when they were first introduced? Did drivers of the day say "Whats wrong with sticking your arm out the window and making hand signals".........they are still part of the Highway Code but I cannot remember the last time I saw a car driver using them......

I do remember when my father had an old Ford with 'semaphore' indicators, he would routinely thump the side of the car where the offside semaphore was located as he was about to turn right as it sometimes stuck.......

 

[Suvv]

I don't use any of the gadgets either, I still double de-clutch.
Although I must admit that electric windows can be handy when signalling

 

[Sky]

I have to be extra careful now I'm getting older - I nearly ran over the bloke with the red flag this morning.

 

[Cobra]

And make driving safer, when used correctly within the limits of current very primitive system.

And there in lies the problem.

Cast your mind back (if you are old enough); what about driver aids such as windscreen screen wash/wipe, or even indicators?

Wipers help you see no one is knocking those, Indicators, are still an optional extra on some cars, or so it seems.
But none of those are remotely [sic] connected to a robot doing the driving.

 

[Cockney]

I have worked in relatively leading edge tech over the years. Comms. Microfilm, cctv and IT.
Hardware, silicon and software often go wrong in the most spectacular fashion. Including the "failsafe" back ups.

 

[Cobra]

Hardware, silicon and software often go wrong in the most spectacular fashion. Including the "failsafe" back ups.

As the saying goes to err is to be human, but it takes a computer to totally f*** things up

 

[broc]

Computers fail because they were designed,built, & programmed by error prone humans, I have worked with them for almost 50 years.

 

[Cockney]

Computers fail because they were designed,built, & programmed by error prone humans, I have worked with them for almost 50 years.

Even worse, the chips are built by machines that were built by machines that............were built by humans.

 

[broc]

Even worse, the chips are built by machines that were built by machines that............were built by humans.

Exactly......humans are to blame at all levels....

 

[Cobra]

Computers fail because they were designed,built, & programmed by error prone humans, I have worked with them for almost 50 years.

As above a human err(or) and a computer total f*** up
So which ever way you look at it, humans will be programming the cars ....
Masses of scope for a total melt down

 

[Cockney]

There is a junction near me that I am sure driverless cars would never pull out of.

 

[broc]

As above a human err(or) and a computer total f*** up
So which ever way you look at it, humans will be programming the cars ....
Masses of scope for a total melt down

Car manufacturers have enough difficulty delivering reliable software in their vehicles to enable them to be driven, never mind drive themselves. Things like CANBUS is supposed to make wiring simpler, easier & cheaper but CANBUS introduces it's own problems. Not forgetting the software used to manage emissions control (or cheat if you happen to be VAG)........

 

[Cobra]

There is a junction near me that I am sure driverless cars would never pull out of.

MK is 89 km2 and growing.
Last count there was 130 roundabouts ..
A good proving ground I think
( and it is)

You only have to watch these little starship bots stutter and fart about crossing even small estate roads, to get the idea why autonomous
won't work for a very long time to come.
To be fair to the little bots I've never seen one splattered just hesitate for several minutes before attempting to cross a minor road.
And then change its mind and "back up"

 

[woof woof]

It is very probably fantasy to think the tech is anywhere near ready.

It's good that people are pushing the envelope and developing the tech but I'll be surprised if it's reliable and practical in the real world anytime soon.

 

[JohnM100]

Would like to see how one navigates the Magic roundabout in Swindon.

 

[JonathanRyan]

MK is 89 km2 and growing.
Last count there was 130 roundabouts ..
A good proving ground I think
( and it is)

You only have to watch these little starship bots stutter and fart about crossing even small estate roads, to get the idea why autonomous
won't work for a very long time to come.
To be fair to the little bots I've never seen one splattered just hesitate for several minutes before attempting to cross a minor road.
And then change its mind and "back up"

Wow. I'd never heard of these and those are amazing. Who cares if they have to "think" a bit before crossing junctions? Plenty of drivers do the same.

Not everything needs the agility of Spot or Atlas (and yes, I know those aren't autonomous yet)

BTW, driverless cars are almost nothing to do with cars. It's driverless *lorries* where the money is. 24/7 trucking with none of those annoying mandatory rest stops or wasting space on cabs or sleeping compartments. Combine with a road surface that charges them as you drive and you're talking about a revolution.

But sure, people prefer driving, right?

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I imagine that driverless vehicles will remain impractical until they have exclusive use of the roads. The problem won't be the technology but the random actions of the humans in other vehicles.