Driverless Cars.

[Paul john]

35 minutes ago, Primus1 said:

Well, the way things are going with the state of our roads, speed cameras everywhere and the price of fuel going ever upwards, we’ll soon see plenty of carless drivers…

Perhaps the next “safety feature” should be “pot hole avoidance with built-in in satnav redirection”

[Primus1]

Just now, Paul john said:

Perhaps the next “safety feature” should be “pot hole avoidance with built-in in satnav redirection”

We’d never leave our homes

[dannyboy413]

9 minutes ago, Paul john said:

Perhaps the next “safety feature” should be “pot hole avoidance with built-in in satnav redirection”

 

[Cyker]

Oh *that's* why you're getting the CHR!  

 

[Bper]

In the UK, with the prospect of widespread driverless car technology on the horizon, what do you think will be the primary mode of transportation for most people? Will it be more advantageous and cost effective for individuals to own their own autonomous vehicles, or will private hire companies offering fleets of self driving cars become the dominant force?

[Mjolinor]

On 5/23/2024 at 8:23 AM, Bper said:

In the UK, with the prospect of widespread driverless car technology on the horizon, what do you think will be the primary mode of transportation for most people? Will it be more advantageous and cost effective for individuals to own their own autonomous vehicles, or will private hire companies offering fleets of self driving cars become the dominant force?

It's not the government that dictate what cars are on the road, it is the insurance companies. If they want to force a change like this then they will have to start by either taking over the insurance or introducing a major pile of laws governing insurance.

Is there a significant difference between "private hiring" and "leasing" other than the words chosen to define it? Leasing seems to have taken over big time in the last thirty years and the only reason for calling it leasing is that the guy who leased it can call it his car when it is on display.

[Bper]

13 minutes ago, Mjolinor said:

It's not the government that dictate what cars are on the road, it is the insurance companies. If they want to force a change like this then they will have to start by either taking over the insurance or introducing a major pile of laws governing insurance.

Is there a significant difference between "private hiring" and "leasing" other than the words chosen to define it? Leasing seems to have taken over big time in the last thirty years and the only reason for calling it leasing is that the guy who leased it can call it his car when it is on display.

 

 

Hi John,that's a good point about the influence of insurance companies on the cars we drive. The distinction between private hiring and leasing does seem to be mostly semantic, as both involve using a car without owning it. As driverless technology evolves, it will be interesting to see how insurance companies and regulations adapt.

[Mjolinor]

32 minutes ago, Bper said:

 As driverless technology evolves, it will be interesting to see how insurance companies and regulations adapt.

Hopefully I shall be wooden boxed before I have to be involved in any way.

[Haliotis]

15 hours ago, Cyker said:

I know someone's going to post and say nonsense, a computer has far faster reactions than a human, but I get what you mean - For instance with my junction issue, it takes the car approx 2 seconds to decide that I am not, in fact, going to crash into something and give me accelerator control back - Something I'd already determined far earlier. Also, 2 seconds is a very very long time to wait when there are cars approaching you from both directions at 30mph!!  

 

Cyker, I don’t think anyone is going to challenge you that your views are nonsense - we are now on page 3 without that happening.  Even those who seem to show some favour towards SDC appear to be at least a little cautious in supporting them.

Personally, I believe that SDCs will eventually fall by the wayside.  Future governments have a considerable cost ahead of them - the NHS, the Post Office scandal, the Factor8 blood scandal, the Carbon Zero costs, the uncontrolled migrant problem.

The immense (and unknown) expenditure in the required infrastructure for SDCs would be an extra burden on top of the above-mentioned greater priorities - we know how government involved schemes can spiral; just look at HS2. Also, if SDC infrastructure was introduced, and the system failed with catastrophic results, a further compensation expense would land in the government’s lap, with the already hard pressed taxpayer footing the bill.  Could/would a government risk riling the taxpayer still more?

So, for the foreseeable future (perhaps forever!), I view SDCs as a technologist’s pipe dream - and at the moment we the public are just victims of kiddology.  

 

[Roy124]

21 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

Personally, I believe that SDCs will eventually fall by the wayside.  Future governments have a considerable cost ahead of them - So, for the foreseeable future (perhaps forever!), I view SDCs as a technologist’s pipe dream - and at the moment we the public are just victims of kiddology.  

 

For quite some time Government has said what is going to happen next year and beyond.   

That was yesterday's announcements.   I think we can assign everything to the purple bin.

[Bper]

47 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

Cyker, I don’t think anyone is going to challenge you that your views are nonsense - we are now on page 3 without that happening.  Even those who seem to show some favour towards SDC appear to be at least a little cautious in supporting them.

Personally, I believe that SDCs will eventually fall by the wayside.  Future governments have a considerable cost ahead of them - the NHS, the Post Office scandal, the Factor8 blood scandal, the Carbon Zero costs, the uncontrolled migrant problem.

The immense (and unknown) expenditure in the required infrastructure for SDCs would be an extra burden on top of the above-mentioned greater priorities - we know how government involved schemes can spiral; just look at HS2. Also, if SDC infrastructure was introduced, and the system failed with catastrophic results, a further compensation expense would land in the government’s lap, with the already hard pressed taxpayer footing the bill.  Could/would a government risk riling the taxpayer still more?

So, for the foreseeable future (perhaps forever!), I view SDCs as a technologist’s pipe dream - and at the moment we the public are just victims of kiddology.  

 

Hi Albert,you raise valid points regarding the financial and practical challenges associated with implementing the infrastructure for SDCs. Given the immense costs already facing future government,ranging from the NHS and the Post Office scandal to the Factor8 blood scandal, Carbon Zero initiatives, and migration issues adding the expense of SDC infrastructure could indeed be seen as an additional and potentially unnecessary burden.

Moreover, government projects often have a history of cost overruns and inefficiencies, as evidenced by initiatives like HS2. The possibility of system failures leading to catastrophic results and subsequent compensation expenses could further strain public finances and taxpayer patience. Given these substantial hurdles, it's understandable to be skeptical about the widespread adoption of SDCs. For now, it does seem that the vision of fully autonomous vehicles might remain more of a futuristic concept rather than an imminent reality.However as I said in a earlier post that I am surprised by the amount of people who support the implementation of SDCs.

[Bper]

2 hours ago, Mjolinor said:

Hopefully I shall be wooden boxed before I have to be involved in any way.

Hi John, it often feels like we're experiencing a period of incredibly rapid change, unlike anything generations before us. We see things happening that we never thought possible, and it's easy to wonder how things strayed so far from what seemed sensible in the past.

Interestingly, every generation feels this way to some extent. Your grandparents likely felt the same when they saw the rise of cars, telephones, and airplanes, things that would have seemed like science fiction to their generation.

The key difference might be the speed of change.Today with rapid technological advancements, things might be transforming quicker than ever before. Additionally, with instant global communication, we're constantly bombarded with news of change happening everywhere, which feels overwhelming.

I suppose it's important to remember that change isn't all bad. Many advancements, like medical breakthroughs and increased social awareness, have significantly improved lives. It's also possible your grandparents felt similarly about their times.

Change is inevitable, and while it can bring challenges, it also brings progress. The best approach might be to acknowledge the pace of change, embrace the positive advancements, and try to work together to navigate the challenges.

 

[Haliotis]

Hi Bob.  It should’nt surprise you by the number of people who support SDCs.  Many are from areas where they stand to profit from the technology.  Then there are the wooden-heads who really believe that SDCs will severely cut down the accident rate.  Thirdly, there are the drivers who would dearly love to own such a car - for various reasons that capture their ego.

But the limitations we have been discussing, in the final analysis, will bring to earth the egotists who will have to finance the infrastructure, and be accountable to society if (more like “when”) things go wrong.

[Mjolinor]

Absolutely. They could not even force electric cars on us with any success and that technology is already available. 🙂

 

[Primus1]

9 hours ago, Mjolinor said:

Hopefully I shall be wooden boxed before I have to be involved in any way.

So long as the heubik isn’t driverless…

[Cyker]

I'm assuming that is supposed to say h e a r s e  

[Bper]

Many see SDCs as inevitable, but initially they'll be very expensive. These advanced vehicles will cost significantly more than conventional cars, although prices are expected to drop over time. For SDCs to function effectively everywhere in the UK, substantial investments are needed in better internet connectivity, specialised roadside infrastructure, and clearer signage. This will likely require billions of pounds.

Due to these high costs, SDCs will remain a luxury item for some time. However, as technology becomes cheaper and public trust in SDCs increases, they will become more affordable. Many steps are necessary for widespread adoption of SDCs.Government support is needed for technological development and infrastructure building.Clear laws must be established to ensure safety and determine liability in case of accidents. A major concern is funding, who will bear these costs, It will without doubt fall on UK taxpayers, presenting a significant financial challenge. Private finance is also being encouraged but little detail of sums involved remain unclear.

[Primus1]

2 hours ago, Cyker said:

I'm assuming that is supposed to say h e !Removed!  

Yes, I think auto correct is out to get me…

[Cyker]

Don't worry, it's not you, it's the forum swear filter which is delightfully archaic and the source of much mirth and/or annoyance over the years  

[Primus1]

9 hours ago, Cyker said:

Don't worry, it's not you, it's the forum swear filter which is delightfully archaic and the source of much mirth and/or annoyance over the years  

We’d be better with a swear jar, posters could contribute over the year and then we could all meet up and have a jolly good time somewhere…..Jamaica, judging by how overworked the swear filter is…

[Haliotis]

If (and it’s a big “if”) SDCs ever become fact, in my opinion they will only work on M-ways and rural arterial roads - never in urban areas.  

In urban areas there would be too many problems with the need to fit radar cameras to privately owned properties ( and the resistance of this from the owners).   Also, radar emits radio waves which may be detrimental to the health of vulnerable people, apart from the risk of the SDC network being interrupted by electrical frequencies from appliances installed in the adjacent buildings.

Getting SDCs to work in a suitably adapted research complex is one thing - to expand it into the big wide world, with all the probable conflicting technologies that already exist out there, is quite another matter.

[Bper]

2 hours ago, Haliotis said:

If (and it’s a big “if”) SDCs ever become fact, in my opinion they will only work on M-ways and rural arterial roads - never in urban areas.  

In urban areas there would be too many problems with the need to fit radar cameras to privately owned properties ( and the resistance of this from the owners).   Also, radar emits radio waves which may be detrimental to the health of vulnerable people, apart from the risk of the SDC network being interrupted by electrical frequencies from appliances installed in the adjacent buildings.

Getting SDCs to work in a suitably adapted research complex is one thing - to expand it into the big wide world, with all the probable conflicting technologies that already exist out there, is quite another matter.

Albert, good points why SDCs would struggle in cities. Problems in cities with installing radar cameras on private property and getting radar cameras installed on people's homes would be a huge issue. Most people wouldn't want them, and it would be hard to get everyone to agree to it. Health concerns and the worries about radar waves potentially affecting people’s health especially those who are vulnerable this is something that would need thorough investigation.The Interference from electrical appliances,cities are full of electrical devices that could mess with the signals SDCs use. Making sure these cars work smoothly around all this interference would be a big challenge.

Motorways and rural roads are more predictable and less crowded than city streets. SDCs would probably work better in these environments to start with.Making SDCs cars work in a controlled research setting is one thing, but doing it in the real world, with all its unpredictability, is a whole different ballgame.

While for many self driving cars sound great in theory, making them work in cities is another story. Starting with motorways and rural roads makes sense, where there are fewer obstacles. It’s a big step from testing them in a controlled environment to making them reliable in our everyday streets.

[Haliotis]

Bob, I think that SDCs operating in everyday streets is a definite no-no, and this is unlikely to change until/unless new technologies are developed which, today, are simply fantasy.

In considering the advent of SDCs, you have to think about the world and the state that it is in today.  The global population is constantly increasing, despite the fact that many countries are in desperate straits concerning food, housing and supporting people with medical problems.  Without massive amounts of cash being injected, the situation can only go one way - continually worsening.  But technological development and production and testing of prototypes also demands large amounts of money.  This raises the dilemma of choosing - peoples’ welfare or technology, and bearing in mind that technical advances will be necessary in the world of medicine.

In order to placate the masses and avoid public disorder, governments will be forced into putting people first, and scientists will be pressurised into directing their efforts in that direction.  

In the UK, our road network infrastructure is rapidly deteriorating such that current conventional cars are suffering significant damage - yet there is no advanced technology in filling in potholes, but we are losing ground on even that.

With all this going on, who really cares about the introduction of SDCs?

[Bper]

24 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

Bob, I think that SDCs operating in everyday streets is a definite no-no, and this is unlikely to change until/unless new technologies are developed which, today, are simply fantasy.

In considering the advent of SDCs, you have to think about the world and the state that it is in today.  The global population is constantly increasing, despite the fact that many countries are in desperate straits concerning food, housing and supporting people with medical problems.  Without massive amounts of cash being injected, the situation can only go one way - continually worsening.  But technological development and production and testing of prototypes also demands large amounts of money.  This raises the dilemma of choosing - peoples’ welfare or technology, and bearing in mind that technical advances will be necessary in the world of medicine.

In order to placate the masses and avoid public disorder, governments will be forced into putting people first, and scientists will be pressurised into directing their efforts in that direction.  

In the UK, our road network infrastructure is rapidly deteriorating such that current conventional cars are suffering significant damage - yet there is no advanced technology in filling in potholes, but we are losing ground on even that.

With all this going on, who really cares about the introduction of SDCs?

No arguments from me but as often reported that the introduction of SDCs are well supported, it would be interesting for those that are in favour to offer their views. With any discussion it is helpful to get both sides of the coin. 

[Haliotis]

25 minutes ago, Bper said:

No arguments from me but as often reported that the introduction of SDCs are well supported, it would be interesting for those that are in favour to offer their views. With any discussion it is helpful to get both sides of the coin. 

The question is, how “well” is well supported?  There are millions of people who never bother to publicly vent their opinions, and those who actively show support may easily be in the minority if everyone expressed their views.

We are all aware of the “experts” who appear on TV chat shows or discussion panels - all making unsubstantiated claims about how positively received are their opinions.  Where a phone-in facility is available, even if I vehemently disagree with a panelist’s view, I have never bothered to try phoning in to make my point.  Most other viewers are probably like me, so a claimant who says his/her opinions are widely supported is more likely to be kidding themselves and be totally wrong.