Time for driverless cars?

[Xplora]

Reality is that the technology will simply strip your autonomy away. ESC and ABS are the opening salvos - the ECU will just reduce the threshold for emergency situations more and more. Too close to the car in front, too close to the peds, the curb, speed limit, tank about to be empty etc etc etc. Mercedes S class is able to do this, self parking is on tons of things.

We only just got a car with cruise control, it's awesome. I prefer to drive but I am sick of the whining about the speed limit etc. I can tell my wife to pull her head in because the machine doesn't overdo it. A big big chunk of the marketplace is not interested in driving so this will get through easier than you would think.

[rkelsen]

We only just got a car with cruise control, it's awesome.

Welcome to 1958!

Shhh... Nobody mention EFI, or we could have a mess on our hands...

I prefer to drive but I am sick of the whining about the speed limit etc. I can tell my wife to pull her head in because the machine doesn't overdo it.

The other day my GPS (i.e: the computerised one, not the organic one sitting in the passenger's seat) told me that I was exceeding the speed limit. I was quite impressed by that... But then I thought about the possibility of the GPS satellite reporting me to the police... How far off could that technology be?

A big big chunk of the marketplace is not interested in driving so this will get through easier than you would think.

I agree. Most people couldn't care. They just want to get to work. A driverless car gives them one less thing to worry about. It'll be adopted very quickly.

[Xplora]

The other day my GPS (i.e: the computerised one, not the organic one sitting in the passenger's seat) told me that I was exceeding the speed limit. I was quite impressed by that... But then I thought about the possibility of the GPS satellite reporting me to the police... How far off could that technology be?

Way way way closer than we'd like to think. The worst part is that it will not be the USA's leading the charge, it will be the progressive Scandinavians who will develop and bring to market - and the PC culture isn't prepared to consider freedom of expression or freedom of choice to be important enough.

And the bike will be embraced again, because people like control.

[gorilla monsoon]

First of all it would involve your GPS unit being able to transmit, it cannot, it is a receiver only. Then it would have to have some sort of registered ID linking to you, it doesn't. The only way this could happen is if you use a phone GPS and you would simply disable location updates or your WWW access so information cannot be relayed to a central point. Big Brother is not quite here yet.

Correct. But what if legislation was passed requiring every car to be fitted with the requisite equipment to do that? Remember, in 1966 everyone thought seatbelts were impractical to use on a regular basis and unlikely to ever be fitted to regular, everyday road cars but by 1968.......

[bychosis]

And the bike will be embraced again, because people like control.

And for everyone who likes the control there will be one or more that don't like the 'work' involved in driving and would much rather be texting their friends or updating nosebook on their way to work/destination.

[V8rider]

If cars are wizzing about at 200kmh and metres from each other, do you really think you'll be allowed (or want) to ride a bike anywhere near them?

[rkelsen]

If cars are wizzing about at 200kmh and metres from each other

They won't be. Well they might, but certainly not in the cities and suburbs.

[Xplora]

If cars are wizzing about at 200kmh and metres from each other, do you really think you'll be allowed (or want) to ride a bike anywhere near them?

These cars cater to the lowest common denominator

They slow to the situation. They actually drive the way people are SUPPOSED to, and LEGALLY OBLIGED to. It will be safe on a bike because a driverless car won't be a twit and drive too fast and too close.

[simonn]

First of all it would involve your GPS unit being able to transmit, it cannot, it is a receiver only. Then it would have to have some sort of registered ID linking to you, it doesn't. The only way this could happen is if you use a phone GPS and you would simply disable location updates or your WWW access so information cannot be relayed to a central point. Big Brother is not quite here yet.

Correct. But what if legislation was passed requiring every car to be fitted with the requisite equipment to do that? Remember, in 1966 everyone thought seatbelts were impractical to use on a regular basis and unlikely to ever be fitted to regular, everyday road cars but by 1968.......

It is more likely that it becomes an imperative of insurance rather than a legal requirement. People will get discounts to have some kind of tracking (even if it is a just a dangerousdrivingometer summary figure that is sent to the insurer) so the safe drivers will get it to (initially) reduce their premiums. Then dangerous drivers will be forced to get one because their premiums will become to high if they do not. Then everyone gets tracked in their cars and insurance goes back up, until self driving cars. Then, everything will change because it is not obvious where the liability will reside.


Hmmm I should ask an actuary acquaintance if he knows much about this.

[march83]

If cars are wizzing about at 200kmh and metres from each other, do you really think you'll be allowed (or want) to ride a bike anywhere near them?

no you wouldn't want to be, nor would you be allowed to be, just like you can't ride your bike on motorways in some states, you can't ride your bike next to the train tracks or swim alongside harbour ferries or skydive onto airport runways. there will be new rules, current rules will change, people will get used to it. yay progress.

[V8rider]

Sounds dull to me, but then I don't need sensors to tell me how to park or stay in my lane. Not that I'm not infallible, but then neither is technology.

[Xplora]

This might sound like death, V8, but that's the thing about society. The desires of the individual are always second fiddle to the needs of the group. And you will NEVER be able to justify "driving is more interesting when I am controlling it" against "drivers are killing hundreds of people every year and it isn't necessary anymore"

[V8rider]

I can't see it happening in my lifetime, even from the sheer logistics of replacing the 17.6 million vehicles which are registered in this country. We've not even been able to outlaw cigarettes which kill hundreds of people a year, good luck with outlawing (and replacing) "normal" cars.

[gorilla monsoon]

That will always be the problem here. Because we don't have cold weather extremes that call for the salting of our roads our cars last longer than they probably should so we tend to take a much longer time to get rid of them. And our various governments won't tax them off the road as is done in other countries so we have a relatively large portion of the community driving around in 15 to 20-year-old cars convinced there is nothing wrong with them. Which there is not in some respects.

[rkelsen]

I can't see it happening in my lifetime, even from the sheer logistics of replacing the 17.6 million vehicles which are registered in this country. We've not even been able to outlaw cigarettes which kill hundreds of people a year, good luck with outlawing (and replacing) "normal" cars.

Hold on. Nobody is talking about outlawing anything. You're reading too much into things here.

What is being said is that the take up of driverless technology will be rapid. Within 10 years of the technology being introduced, I reckon the majority of cars on our roads will be driverless.

[Xplora]

Don't need to outlaw anything. Very easy to crush the outliers. Insurance companies will punish cars without the driverless tech, and it will become clear that driver controlled cars are a severe liability. Imagine having a 20 dollar green slip, and a 50 dollar comprehensive insurance premium? It is completely realistic, because the premium vs property value for most insurances is usually cheap, except where you are relying on human strength and intelligence. Income protection, workers comp, hospital cover, this stuff is frightfully expensive vs house and contents or public liability insurance when you consider how much the payouts compare in a claim.

It is not hard to destroy the cars from the 80s and 90s, insurance prices them off the road before fuel, oil or parts.

[wombatK]

Having worked in IT related engineering for over 40 years, there is absolutely no way I am going to put my life in hands of the software or hardware programmers
behind driverless car technology. And having watched dealers and mechanics fail to resolve intermittent computer related problems in cars in recent years
gives me even less faith that car manufacturers are anywhere remotely close to the reliability required for driverless technology.

Technology can provide aids for drivers (such as ABS, lane guidance, and proximity based braking). But it can't make up for the impaired intelligence
that some drivers take to the roads with. That's a cultural problem, not a technology one.

[rkelsen]

^ Of course you realise that they've been using driverless trucks on minesites for ages now?

They have driverless passenger trains in 23 countries.

Google's driverless cars have clocked up half a million miles without incident.

Rio Tinto found that site safety increased dramatically with their driverless trucks.

[Mulger bill]

Having worked in IT related engineering for over 40 years, there is absolutely no way I am going to put my life in hands of the software or hardware programmers
behind driverless car technology. And having watched dealers and mechanics fail to resolve intermittent computer related problems in cars in recent years
gives me even less faith that car manufacturers are anywhere remotely close to the reliability required for driverless technology.

Technology can provide aids for drivers (such as ABS, lane guidance, and proximity based braking). But it can't make up for the impaired intelligence
that some drivers take to the roads with. That's a cultural problem, not a technology one.

You'll just have to remember to stop what you're doing regularly, save all your journeys, close the windows then shut down and restart the car.

[Xplora]

I can certainly envisage these driverless cars being 30kmh max wxcept on major highways but that is better than many city drivers get. Reality is that the human beast isn't capable of dealing with 100 cars at once while driving a car, a PC could though. It would be slow enough to safely deal with everything.

Ultimately every excuse can be managed by adjusting the parameters of the programming. You can't do that people. And seriously, I see growth for the bike in this.

[wombatK]

^ Of course you realise that they've been using driverless trucks on minesites for ages now?

They have driverless passenger trains in 23 countries.

Google's driverless cars have clocked up half a million miles without incident.

Rio Tinto found that site safety increased dramatically with their driverless trucks.

Well aware of both. Minesite driverless trucks deal with much less congestion than ordinary road
traffic, and operate in quite predictable paths. Driverless trains are even more constrained.

AFAIK, we only have Google's word for the claim on no-incidents in their driverless cars, and
no breakdown of how many of those miles were on test circuits v's open road conditions.
There are reports that operating in difficult conditions like heavy rain hasn't been worked
out yet. And there isn't the slightest indication of how many miles involved exposure
in places where cyclists were present.

Lots of money is no doubt being spent by Google in developing and getting legal approval
for the concept - just like the mining companies have spent a fortune developing their
driverless trucks. Until there is a legal approval to put these cars into production and
on the road in the hands of untrained passengers, they are vapour ware. Even then,
the problems will come when someone starts mass-manufacture and takes cost-cutting
measures that compromise the design or implementation of the
system.

Cheers

[simonn]

There are reports that operating in difficult conditions like heavy rain hasn't been worked
out yet.

There has been reports of human operators not working so well in difficult conditions and heavy rain too ya know (and ideal conditions as well for that matter). Just sayin'.

The advantage with automation is that when a problem occurs you can fix the problem and it stays fixed. People OTOH just keep doing the same old stupid people stuff over and over again for far longer.

[march83]

The advantage with automation is that when a problem occurs you can fix the problem and it stays fixed. People OTOH just keep doing the same old stupid people stuff over and over again for far longer.

exactly. a car hits a pothole, suspension detects that it has happened, reports it to the cloud and every other car that goes past that spot knows exactly where the pothole is and avoids it.

there are lots of solutions to be implemented over a long timeline, but there are also different ways to frame the problem...

[simonn]

The advantage with automation is that when a problem occurs you can fix the problem and it stays fixed. People OTOH just keep doing the same old stupid people stuff over and over again for far longer.

exactly. a car hits a pothole, suspension detects that it has happened, reports it to the cloud and every other car that goes past that spot knows exactly where the pothole is and avoids it.

there are lots of solutions to be implemented over a long timeline, but there are also different ways to frame the problem...

exactly. a car hits a pothole, suspension detects that it has happened, reports it to the cloud and every other car that goes past that spot knows exactly where the pothole is and avoids it until the automated repair vehicle repairs it/makes is safe.

FTFY

[Marx]

For me?

A/ Worst idea in history. All other means of getting about (except bicycles) involves someone else doing the work, but now the idea to automate the only other self governed vehicle is regarded as good one? Take a taxi/bus/train/tram/rickshaw/gondola....

B/ Commerical flights are pretty much automated from taxi out to taxi in. But would you board a commerical flight knowing the cockpit is unmanned?

C/ The need for such free movement in a modern progressive western society is a myth. People live, work, shop & go to school with such great distances between them iis detrermined because they have access to a car, not because they needed a car for transport - the car came first, then the decision of where & how to live/work/shop/ and generally get around is made.