T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Keeping bikes away from cars sounds great, yes. I'm all for having motor-vehicles only and cycles-only roads in towns and cities.
autonomous cars - the future of motoring is driverless
- Thread starter roryer
- Start date
hash tag
Books, not bombs
This might work with autonomous cars but otherwise, no, not a fan. It just gives drivers a feeling of confidence and tends to turn the
roads into race tracks.
cybershot
Well-Known Member
Mazda? I've had mine kick in when parking when shadows for some reason react with it. Only happened twice in about 3 years though, also had it kick in on an island when it thought i was too close to a vehicle that was going across lanes and let in, that was a bit of a shock as it brings you to a complete stop, thankfully the driver behind was on the ball (or his computer was too)
I've liked comments welcoming autonomous cars when they're ready, but there is some way to go
Our Honda Fit's auto braking has only ever activated when slowing to join a queue of traffic at lights when the light changes and cars move off, and I'm wondering why the car is still slowing down, and then won't accelerate to join the moving traffic, and then notice the auto braking warning light
It didn't stop my partner bumping into the back of a car in traffic either (no damage to either car)
Our Honda Fit's auto braking has only ever activated when slowing to join a queue of traffic at lights when the light changes and cars move off, and I'm wondering why the car is still slowing down, and then won't accelerate to join the moving traffic, and then notice the auto braking warning light
It didn't stop my partner bumping into the back of a car in traffic either (no damage to either car)
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
The future of motoring is not driverless... the future of motoring is in the air 
Flying car completes test flight between airports
The vehicle runs on regular fuel and can travel up to 1,000km while airborne, its creator says.
www.bbc.co.uk
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Yeah, that can fuck off.
ska invita
back on the other side
FT looking at where this is all at, and being the FT which technology is financially viable
www.ft.com
The Big Read Driverless vehicles
Robotaxis: have Google and Amazon backed the wrong technology?
An evolutionary approach to building driverless cars is challenging the companies targeting a ‘moonshot’ solution to full automation
------
tldr regular cars with computer assisted bits are happening, roll out will increase massively, and are profitable
fully automated currently the opposite
to me it all still sounds improbable, though i have never had the experience of how these things work
ultimately i am very wary of having faith in a computer when every computer device ive ever had is prone to crash (no pun intended)
Robotaxis: have Google and Amazon backed the wrong technology?
An evolutionary approach to building driverless cars is challenging the companies targeting a ‘moonshot’ solution to full automation
Robotaxis: have Google and Amazon backed the wrong technology?
An evolutionary approach to building driverless cars is challenging the companies targeting a ‘moonshot’ solution to full automation
------
tldr regular cars with computer assisted bits are happening, roll out will increase massively, and are profitable
fully automated currently the opposite
to me it all still sounds improbable, though i have never had the experience of how these things work
ultimately i am very wary of having faith in a computer when every computer device ive ever had is prone to crash (no pun intended)
hash tag
Books, not bombs
Boy, 8, in hospital with 'serious injuries' after Tesla hits children by school
Five children suffered minor injuries in the crash at Ardingly College, but one boy was flown to a hospital by air ambulance, where he is being treated for serious injuries
www.mirror.co.uk
hash tag
Books, not bombs
Not sure I like the look of the way this is going. If in autonomous mode then the manufacturer OR the supplier will be responsible for any accident/law breaking.
That opens the door for arguments and buck passing. If I bought a used vehicle, who the previous owner be responsible. I guess MOT's will have to be adjusted
to check out all these things - bu a mechanic or a tech person?
That opens the door for arguments and buck passing. If I bought a used vehicle, who the previous owner be responsible. I guess MOT's will have to be adjusted
to check out all these things - bu a mechanic or a tech person?
Major legal changes needed for driverless car era
The company behind the driving system would be responsible, rather than the driver says Law Commission.
www.bbc.co.uk
Not sure I like the look of the way this is going. If in autonomous mode then the manufacturer OR the supplier will be responsible for any accident/law breaking.
That opens the door for arguments and buck passing. If I bought a used vehicle, who the previous owner be responsible. I guess MOT's will have to be adjusted
to check out all these things - bu a mechanic or a tech person?
Major legal changes needed for driverless car era
The company behind the driving system would be responsible, rather than the driver says Law Commission.www.bbc.co.uk
There is no way you could own a car in this situation, the liable third party wouldn’t let you - they’d need an on-going contract to manage the liability.
It’s going to limit your behaviour, require regular dealer servicing all sorts
Alex
Not sure I like the look of the way this is going. If in autonomous mode then the manufacturer OR the supplier will be responsible for any accident/law breaking.
That opens the door for arguments and buck passing. If I bought a used vehicle, who the previous owner be responsible. I guess MOT's will have to be adjusted
to check out all these things - bu a mechanic or a tech person?
Major legal changes needed for driverless car era
The company behind the driving system would be responsible, rather than the driver says Law Commission.www.bbc.co.uk
I think its a good thing. We really need to stop talking about autonomous cars . They don't exist yet and its arguable whether they will ever exist, certainly not in the short term.
What we have in increasing amounts of driver aids. If we start thinking of these systems as a more advanced version of cruise control and lane assist etc then we would realise that the onus and responsibility remains on the driver.
If manufacturers want to market their cars as autonomous that's great but it has to be their responsibility for how that car behaves.
I think it's a good thing, the current situation is too muddy, with Musk talking about 'Full Self Driving' when selling the cars (and pumping his stock) and the people who take that at face value being on the hook when it goes wrong. If Musk wants to call it Full Self Driving let his stock be on the line if it goes wrong (even better his liberty).Not sure I like the look of the way this is going. If in autonomous mode then the manufacturer OR the supplier will be responsible for any accident/law breaking.
That opens the door for arguments and buck passing. If I bought a used vehicle, who the previous owner be responsible. I guess MOT's will have to be adjusted
to check out all these things - bu a mechanic or a tech person?
Major legal changes needed for driverless car era
The company behind the driving system would be responsible, rather than the driver says Law Commission.www.bbc.co.uk
With things like this where lives are at risk the lines of responsibility need to be clear and the markets are currently rewarding irresponsible behaviour by Tesla. That's only going to lead to other manufacturers to follow to keep up.
FWIW I am not against autonomous driving in general and am excited about what possibilities it offers but I think there needs to be more joined up thinking and better standards. The authorities should be providing proper machine readable road information directly to the car. Vehicles should be better coordinating between themselves. Proper autonomous driving should be applied only where conditions allow (roads are properly set up for it) and responsibility for driving be given unambiguously back to the human at the wheel (or maybe remotely) where this isn't possible.
hash tag
Books, not bombs
It's far too murky. Currently if there is a collesion it is a straight agreement between two cars. If one were self driving, it is a discussion between the two drivers, the supplier and manufacturer of the self driving one. If there are three parties linked to the self driving car, there is also solicitors and insurers of those companies also involved. It would be a nightmare to sort out even the smallest claims
There won't be two human drivers in the second scenario though as one of the vehicles is self driving. So it doesn't need to be any more confusing then now, you're just switching one liable party (a human driver) for another (the supplier of the autonomous system).
The legal system needs a frame work that covers things like a self driving vehicle that is acting as a taxi or making a delivery with no one on board. There needs to be some responsible party when a vehicle is in autonomous mode and I suspect that there will be a small per mile fee charged for that service. Taking human error out of the equation this might be balanced by a cheaper insurance policy when in autonomous mode.
Last edited:
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
All this legal back and forth is why truly autonomous cars are a long, long way away.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
I think there’s enough money invested in the idea for this to get thrashed out well before the tech gets good enough.
hash tag
Books, not bombs
There could of course be the argument over whether the car was in driver or driverless mode.
I’m sure the computer will be very good at recording that the driver is to blame
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
The other crap that will come from the car manufactures will be a push for stricter “jaywalking” type laws and bicycles to have some sort of beacon etc. Which is another reason this stuff is a long way away, because fuck that.
pseudonarcissus
fluttering and dancing
I suspect collisions will just become knock for knock unless a driver is found to be at fault. At the moment, if two cars collide because one driver had a heart attack it’s a no fault accident and is knock for knock…you pay for the damage to your car caused by the old codger. If autonomous cars reduce the number of accidents, I can’t see insurers going after well-resourced car makers to prove fault deep in the software
And insurers aren’t going to be bothered about it - as long as it’s predictable enough they can price policies.
What people haven’t figured out here is that once about 10% of the cars on the road won’t go over the speed limit no one else will be able to either.
Last edited:
pseudonarcissus
fluttering and dancing
A there could be a period of crazy overtaking for while
rubbershoes
not the only raver in the village
How would that work with a car hitting a pedestrian?
With the new Highway Code - the driver would always pay
hash tag
Books, not bombs
Not if car is in autonomous mode; it's down to manufacturer or supplier, probably.
When going into autonomous mode, I assume the car automatically know the top speed and that the driver will not be able to override this.
Yes and we can't really have this conversation without accepting first that fully autonomous or self-driving cars do not exist or at least not in the way that would meet most peoples expectations of self-driving.
The mass market stuff out there such as Tesla Autopilot is not self-driving it is an advanced driver aid. The fully self-driving cars are out there but are completly restricted to a very small local area with relevant infrastructure or a pre-defined and set route and it will be limited to that actual route. There is noting out there where we can just stick a random post code into the sat-nav and it will drive us there without us having to have any input.
The problem is the motor manufacturers have themselves been muddying the waters over the last several years with their outlandish claims of self-driving and what the future is going to be. They've all been at it and they've all missed their self-imposed timescales for when they will be a thing. Again self-driving or fully autonomous doesn't exist in anything close to a mass market way.
Far from causing confusion this is an attempt to get ahead of the game and get rid of the confusion that already exists. It won't be perfect but its a good start and if the motor manufacturers want to continue to make misleading claims for the purposes of marketing and sounding all futuristic and keeping up with Tesla well they need to put their money where their mouth is.
