Driverless Vehicles, Coming To A Road Near You Too Soon!

[mattr]

Not my cup of tea at all. The idea that you might be involved in an accident where there is some form of autonomous vehicle involved is way too difficult to unravel in terms of liability and there is a moral question as well.

there is draft legislation already in place to cover liability/insurance issues. I've got a copy in front of me now. It's not difficult or complicated.

Personally, I shall be demanding exact times and locations of any testing on any roads I use.

you can demand all you want, you won't get.

Especially worrying is the idea of lorry convoys on the M6.

Really. The computers running these things don't get bored, or tired, or drunk, or angry. They also have eyes pointing in every direction and radar. The safety requirements are really quite strict, so risk of failure is far lower than the current risk of driver failure.

 

[kenaltobelli]

Re:

Been up the a19 today.,and someone's having a bad day
A pick up on the side of the road lost a water tank off the back one of those 1000 ltr jobs with the metal frame oops :facepalm:



Driverless won't be doing that,you can't fix stupid it's forever

 

[k-rod]

Can't come soon enough for me. The government is throwing resources at it as is the US, it's coming, and coming sooner than some imagine. The stats are going to show it's x times safer than a human so once the liability bit is sorted it'll be full steam ahead. I'd be fairly sure they're well down that road already given the billions invested already.

It'll reduce accidents, fatalities, emissions, congestion and cost, and increase productivity and/or leisure time. The 'driving makes me feel powerful' small penis types won't like it but they're a minority so who cares? .

And yet ... more lower and middle class jobs that can't/won't be replaced. How will that affect things in western society, over the mid-term?

 

[technodup]

And yet ... more lower and middle class jobs that can't/won't be replaced.

Who says? Whole new industries will emerge. For a start the things will have to be manufactured, maintained, charged, repaired, software updated, cleaned and ultimately scrapped. Possibly new and/or different road infrastructure too. We could sell advertising on them. We could stick solar panels on the roofs. There will be businesses created on the back of these things which at the moment we can't even think of.

Driving jobs are repetitive, low paid and prone to error. Why mourn them?

 

[k-rod]

Driving jobs are repetitive, low paid and prone to error. Why mourn them?

Though I understand your perspective/point, those who feed their families with income derived from them surely will ... and most of those souls, are likely past their youth/prime era of retrain-ability ...

Besides, not everyone in the world is interested in designing/manufacturing the next software or electronic device (aren't most of those made by under-valued labor in unregulated/third world markets?)

 

[technodup]

Driving jobs are repetitive, low paid and prone to error. Why mourn them?

Though I understand your perspective/point, those who feed their families with income derived from them surely will ... and most of those souls, are likely past their youth/prime era of retrain-ability ...

OK, so we don't bother with progress because a handful of luddites won't be able to cope? We move on, industries come and go all the time. Some come along for the ride, others are left behind. If we didn't embrace change we'd all still be working the fields, or lighting gas lamps, or lugging coal around.

And aiui the government is ploughing money in so we can be upfront in the tech side of this stuff. We make plenty cars, and do the services side well so it's surely a case of looking for the positive. I can't see any drawbacks tbh.

And if you're being negative about loss of jobs, the positive is that the driving jobs will be fairly evenly spread. So we shouldn't see pockets of decline akin to the mining villages or manufacturing towns going tits up as they have in the past.

 

[highlandsflyer]

Not my cup of tea at all. The idea that you might be involved in an accident where there is some form of autonomous vehicle involved is way too difficult to unravel in terms of liability and there is a moral question as well.

there is draft legislation already in place to cover liability/insurance issues. I've got a copy in front of me now. It's not difficult or complicated.

Personally, I shall be demanding exact times and locations of any testing on any roads I use.

you can demand all you want, you won't get.

Especially worrying is the idea of lorry convoys on the M6.

Really. The computers running these things don't get bored, or tired, or drunk, or angry. They also have eyes pointing in every direction and radar. The safety requirements are really quite strict, so risk of failure is far lower than the current risk of driver failure.

Fine, you are happy with the idea.

Not difficult or complicated though? You can automate vehicles all you want, but you won't convert our legal system to a 100% proscription based on some legislation outlined in anticipation.

On what basis do you correlate what you have in front of you with the actual testing of all this in a court? How about a class action suit when a bus of tourists is flattened by a series of automated trucks?

Legislation means very little.

I think you are wrong about being able to find out where and when these tests will be operating. All testing will be notified, from the information we have.

Eyes pointing in every direction and radar?

Mmmm. Like this smart bombs and such that every now and then total a hospital? Very reassuring.

The reason they are testing in actual traffic is because no matter how clever some people think scenario modelling is, the only way they can really learn is by making MISTAKES.

Me and thee are the guinea pigs.

 

[mattr]

No, you're the Guinea pig, i'm the bloke in the white coat poking you.

 

[highlandsflyer]

Re:

I am not concerned at the concept, I just feel we need to move slowly.

How about we start with Sinclair C5s? How about they are autonomously directed through London traffic, to demonstrate the infallibility of the tech?

Why start with rolling HGV thunder?

 

[mattr]

How slowly do you want to move? There have been autonomous cars in development for at least 20 years. Most new cars on the road are using collision avoidance systems derived from that development work. A huge amount of the hardware and software is already off the shelf/standard componentry, some of which that has been in use long enough to be known as "mature technology". The timelines we are looking at for different levels of Autonomy mean that pretty much everything we use will be off the shelf by the time the first full autonomous cars hit the road.

And AFAIK we aren't starting with rolling thunder, we started 8 or 10 years ago with lane departure warning, auto braking, Adaptive Cruise Control. Tying them all together is where autonomous driving is "new".

Not difficult or complicated though? You can automate vehicles all you want, but you won't convert our legal system to a 100% proscription based on some legislation outlined in anticipation.

On what basis do you correlate what you have in front of you with the actual testing of all this in a court? How about a class action suit when a bus of tourists is flattened by a series of automated trucks?

Legislation means very little.

The legislation states, very clearly, at what level of autonomy the responsibility moves from driver to manufacturer. That's why it's taking so long to get to full autonomy, the first car manufacturer that makes a mistake will likely go bankrupt, that's why Tesla probably spent more on legal advice than development when they did their self driving cars. They may have been better advised to fire a couple of lawyers and do the self driving properly. Its been bad enough that within the industry it's made a few manufacturers completely reassess what they are going to do. And the assumption that autonomous vehicles will drive just like people, but computerised, is your first mistake. The whole system is designed to not get you into that situation in the first place. So all these straw man arguments don't stand up to any scrutiny once you understand the logical process used to control the system. They will be the most ultra cautious, risk averse drivers on the road. And not only that, they'll know whats ahead, far far far ahead. Well out of sight. And they'll have eyes in the back of their heads too.

I think you are wrong about being able to find out where and when these tests will be operating. All testing will be notified, from the information we have.

No, it won't and it isn't. Once a development car is approved for use on the public highway, there is no further need for anyone to notify. There are already tests ongoing across europe. The only "special" cases will be when you get to actual driverless cars/trucks/convoys, with nobody in the drivers seat, no supervision. Which is another 10 years off. At least. Mainly as there are restrictions on what sorts of roads will support autonomous driving (mainly motorways and dual carriageways)

Eyes pointing in every direction and radar?

Mmmm. Like this smart bombs and such that every now and then total a hospital? Very reassuring.

No, absolutely nothing like smart missiles. Not in any way shape or form. Why on earth would you think that?

The reason they are testing in actual traffic is because no matter how clever some people think scenario modelling is, the only way they can really learn is by making MISTAKES.

Yes, thats why we do testing. But why does a mistake have to instantly result in a squashed bus? Most mistakes during testing will result in a quick puckering of the "drivers" ring piece and a month of testing and analysis to make sure it doesn't happen again.