| Motoring Discussion > Driverless Lorries | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: Zero | Replies: 60 |
|
New Wed 27 May 15 09:01
Driverless Lorries - Zero
|
| www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32837071 |
|
New Wed 27 May 15 09:05
Driverless Lorries - Old Navy
|
| I expect that someone will invent a power unit with many trailers that runs on rails before too long. |
|
New Wed 27 May 15 09:17
Driverless Lorries - Bromptonaut
|
| If there is a requirement for a qualified person to be present then he shouldn't be reading or watching what the, US written, press release that's been picked up calls 'the game'. |
|
New Wed 27 May 15 09:34
Driverless Lorries - CGNorwich
|
|
I don't think the function of the qualified person is to grab the wheel of slam on the brakes. I suspect that if the vehicle encounters a situation with which it cannot cope it will stop. E.g an obstructed road. At this stage manual intervention would be required. Whilst trundling down the highway the employee could indeed read the paper or listen to the game. |
|
New Wed 27 May 15 10:02
Driverless Lorries - Cliff Pope
|
|
"The catch is that a qualified person must remain in front of the wheel at all times so they can take control if something goes wrong." The worry is though surely that things can go wrong in circumstances where simply stopping and waiting for human input isn't good enough. How does it respond to road-rage provocation by another driver? What does it do if a pedestrian starts to walk into the road a long way ahead - judge that he might be deaf/drunk/insane, or just a quick-witted person making a sensible judgement and nipping across? How will it make the judgement whether just to blast the horn, jam on the brakes, or stop and throw up its hands and ask for asistance? As an aside, is describing the driver as "in front of the wheel" an Americanism? We would say "behind the wheel". |
|
New Wed 27 May 15 11:05
Driverless Lorries - WillDeBeest
|
| Not something I've ever heard from an American - or anyone, for that matter. |
|
New Wed 27 May 15 17:31
Driverless Lorries - Harleyman
|
| Like many vocational drivers I'm not a good passenger. And I don't trust technological trickery; it's not and never will be foolproof, if the seven crew members of Challenger could speak they'd tell you that. |
|
New Wed 27 May 15 17:56
Driverless Lorries - CGNorwich
|
|
But then nor are humans foolproof as the Germanwings passengers would testify if they could. Nearly all road crashes are due to driver error. Automated systems are likely to be and improvement. Humans like to take risks. Machines don't. |
|
New Wed 27 May 15 18:00
Driverless Lorries - No FM2R
|
|
>>Humans like to take risks. Machines don't. There's the major problem - a machine "wants/needs" to know which target to choose, if it must choose between two. How do you prioritise deliberately? That's quite different to your choice or reaction, or simply the result, in an accident. But we're talking making and programming a value statement which says, for example, it is better to kill an old man than a young child so if you have a choice, steer away from the more valuable one. Think how that will play out in the Daily Mail and the Civil Courts. |
|
New Wed 27 May 15 18:17
Driverless Lorries - CGNorwich
|
| Not really an everyday decision is it. I doubt if any human driver would actively make a decision in that scenario. He would make an attempt to avoid hitting either and either succeed or fail. A machine would do the same |
|
New Wed 27 May 15 18:24
Driverless Lorries - No FM2R
|
|
>>Not really an everyday decision is it. There's very little critical failure in this world which arises from an everyday decision. It is the exceptions and rarities, especially rarity in combination, which cause the problem. >>He would make an attempt to avoid hitting either and either succeed or fail. A machine would do the same Only if that's what you programmed it to do. Or not do. Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 27 May 15 at 18:25
|
|
New Fri 29 May 15 09:00
Driverless Lorries - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> Not really an everyday decision is it. I doubt if any human driver would actively >> make a decision in that scenario. He would make an attempt to avoid hitting either >> and either succeed or fail. A machine would do the same >> But humans do make that distinction when it involves animals. I don't take any action whatsoever to avoid a crow. I slow up or even stop for an owl or buzzard if there is nothing behind me. I ignore a small dog because I don't like dogs I brake sharply for a big dog, or cow, because they would cause damage. What would a driverless vehicle be programmed to do? Jam the brakes on whatever? Never brake for a moving animal/human? Distinguish between a human and an animal? Swing out further and slow down for a small child walking near the pavement edge? Ignore a fit adult walking purposefully in the centre of the pavement? Humans make these small value-judgements and precautionary moves all the time. What will a driverless vehicle do? |
|
New Fri 29 May 15 09:04
Driverless Lorries - Zero
|
|
>> Humans make these small value-judgements and precautionary moves all the time. What will a driverless >> vehicle do? What a human programmed it to do. At the end of the day, humans make very bad drivers. They can never be relied on to do the right thing in the right circumstances, and to try and make out they are better than automation at that task is laughable. Last edited by: Zero on Fri 29 May 15 at 09:06
|
|
New Fri 29 May 15 10:45
Driverless Lorries - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> >> What a human programmed it to do. >> >> > Fair enough, if it can distinguish between a child and a dog, a rolling ball and the child that may or may not be following it, an unpredictable cow and a stationary motorbike. |
|
New Fri 29 May 15 10:59
Driverless Lorries - Zero
|
|
>> Fair enough, if it can distinguish between a child and a dog, a rolling ball >> and the child that may or may not be following it, an unpredictable cow and >> a stationary motorbike. And I can tell you that every human driver will react to those in a different way. |
|
New Wed 27 May 15 18:22
Driverless Lorries - Fursty Ferret
|
|
>> But we're talking making and programming a value statement which says, if >> for example, it is better to kill an old man than a young child so if you have a >> choice, steer away from the more valuable one. It's not necessary to program a decision like that, even in principle. Why? Because the computer driving the car should be anticipating the issue, so it won't be driving at 70 mph down a narrow street with the bus stop on one side and the old man on the other. Let's say we present it with the situation where it's faced with an out of control vehicle coming the other way. You or I (though I hope I wouldn't!) might consider that we can save our own lives by running over the child on the pavement. The car will simply see that as a "no-go" area and bring itself to a halt. If it gets squished by a tipper truck? So what. It's not had to make a decision between "you-or-them". The software developer hasn't had to make that decision either; the pedestrian is treated in the car's brain exactly the same as a brick wall. It's a very complicated idea to try to put into words, sorry. But the overall idea is that the ONLY course of action available to the car is to bring itself to a stop. Last edited by: Fursty Ferret on Wed 27 May 15 at 18:24
|
|
New Wed 27 May 15 20:38
Driverless Lorries - Harleyman
|
|
>> It's a very complicated idea to try to put into words, sorry. But the overall >> idea is that the ONLY course of action available to the car is to bring >> itself to a stop. >> And therein lieth the problem. Computer say stop, convoy stop, all other traffic stop. With trains, it's relatively easy. Everything is on rails so the operators know what's going where, and modern signalling systems have a shedload of fail-safes built into them. Road traffic is a totally different ballgame. I have no doubt whatsoever that this technology will come to pass, somewhere in the world. I do however have my doubts as to whether British roads are the ideal place for them; and furthermore, given the relatively modest wages which HGV drivers are paid, whether such systems will be cost-effective, or merely something that will be done simply because it can be done. |
|
New Wed 27 May 15 21:34
Driverless Lorries - zippy
|
|
In the example given in the article, either killing three old folk or a mother and child... If this were a human driver he would likely be charged with dangerous driving or similar- i.e. going too fast for the situation if unable to stop in time. Why are the automatic vehicles subject to different rules? I recall a case many years ago when a youth was sadly killed on his moped by going around a sharp bend and hitting a stationary vehicle parked on the blind spot. There were many hearings and eventually the judge commented that the rider should have slowed right down if he couldn't see around the bend. One would expect automatic vehicles to do the same. |
|
New Fri 29 May 15 09:06
Driverless Lorries - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> >> One would expect automatic vehicles to do the same. >> That's the nub of the problem. We all sometimes make asumptions about the probable state of the road round a corner. Just look how frustrating it is driving behind someone who slows to 20mph for every bend on a fast main road just in case there might be something in the way out of sight. We take these largely negligible risks everyday in the interests of getting a move on. How are driverless vehicles going to be programmed to take risks? |
|
New Fri 29 May 15 09:40
Driverless Lorries - Crankcase
|
|
I can tell you what the existing Volvo system does, if that's of interest, as I have it. There are three bits - a radar, a laser and a camera. If it thinks you are going to actually hit something like a car ahead, or a wall, it whacks on the brakes at the very last second. If you are travelling at under a certain speed it will stop you in time - otherwise the best it can do is mitigate. That's the radar bit. Then it also scans the pavements for pedestrians, and if they step out, again, it whacks on the brakes with the same criteria as above. It says in the manual that if what it sees is under 30cm tall it doesn't do anything, and if it's not "upright" it doesn't do anything, so really it's limited to children/adults walking, running, or waiting to cross. Not dogs and cats. It also will "pre-charge" the brakes when it sees a potential problem, which seems to mean "almost applying them but not quite, so if it has to actually do something it all happens that tiny bit quicker", but if it is in reality doing that every ten seconds you wouldn't know as it doesn't tell you anything. That's the laser/front camera bit. The version I have (2011) says it can't recognise cyclists. Maybe the software has been updated because mine does "see" a cyclist and will brake if it thinks we're on a collision course. So in very defined circumstances it will help. I know that it works, incidentally, as I was in a slow traffic crawl - about ten mph - when a pedestrian walked in front and the car jammed on the brakes for me. Is it perfect? Nope. It can stick the brakes on annoyingly, possibly even dangerously in some circumstances. eg - if there is a bend in the road and a cyclist on the far side of the bend on a cycle path, the car might see it dead ahead, and on go the brakes (gently unless you are within a few feet of course). And sometimes a car will pull out of a side road well ahead and the brakes get dabbed when I wouldn't have dabbed them, but hey ho. Do I like it? Yes, gives me a certain sense of "an extra pair of eyes", even if they are not as good as my own. It can mostly be turned off if desired. Of course, it also adds the radar cruise in all that, so using pedals at all feels very old fashioned - much of the time you just steer. Anyway, that's where we are now, in production and available. I guess it can only get better, and spread to other manufacturers. |
|
New Fri 29 May 15 10:40
Driverless Lorries - Manatee
|
|
I don't think I want continual lane departure warnings, blind spot alarms, random braking when I am making fine judgments and (as a colleague of mine complains) the car banging the brakes on harder and sooner then he is about to do himself approaching the office car park barrier. If these things don't work better than a human driver, then they may well do more harm than good when people are daft enough to rely on them. It can only be a matter of time before a facebook-checking driver rear-ends a queue and says "it wasn't my fault, the collision avoidance system failed". |
|
New Fri 29 May 15 10:45
Driverless Lorries - No FM2R
|
|
>>And sometimes a car will pull out of a side road well ahead and the brakes get dabbed when I wouldn't have dabbed them, Aside from the fact that that would drive me nuts, is it being too cautious are are you being a less careful? |
|
New Fri 29 May 15 11:02
Driverless Lorries - Crankcase
|
|
It's ever so cautious. I would say that, but it is. The most useless is if you are radar following the car in front and he decides to turn off, up a slip road or just turn left. Left to itself, my car won't lose the target until he is well over to the left. So you slow..and slow..the the lane ahead is now clear..and it thinks he might come back..so you slow some more... Soon learned that in that situation you lift a blasted finger and press the "cancel" button, before idly pressing "resume" a bit further on. For all I know a spanky new model 2016 version is much better though. Fursty might tell us when he gets his. |
|
New Fri 29 May 15 11:14
Driverless Lorries - Manatee
|
|
>> Soon learned that in that situation you lift a blasted finger and press the "cancel" >> button, before idly pressing "resume" a bit further on. So the system that is supposed to help you increases your workload. Brilliant. And you paid for it:) |
|
New Fri 29 May 15 11:12
Driverless Lorries - No FM2R
|
|
>> are are you being a less careful? And what I meant in a world where I could actually type was... "or are you being simply a little less careful" |
|
New Fri 29 May 15 13:31
Driverless Lorries - Armel Coussine
|
|
All drivers are different and all cars are different. Cruise control is more trouble than it's worth except on totally empty roads. If there's any traffic, or prospect of traffic, it becomes a nuisance, even dangerous. Depending on the car, but especially when it has been going at a high cruise for a very long way, a preliminary brake dab is good practice. Not only to reassure the driver that there is some braking available, but to push the pads in against the discs providing sharper brake response. Obviously anything more than a dab, especially if there is close following traffic, is pointless, wasteful and potentially dangerous. I imagine that's what FMR means. I always follow other traffic leaving a longer gap than most people. Minimizes stress and eliminates the need for sudden violent braking... but this stuff is all obvious and becomes 'instinctive' as they incorrectly say. Tailgating (by my standards) is the norm for South-East drivers. No wonder they are all so uptight and jumpy. But by lengthening the gap in front I can brake very gently so the carphounds are less likely to run into me from behind. |
|
New Fri 29 May 15 14:00
Driverless Lorries - No FM2R
|
|
AC - what is the difference between "mimsing" and driving less than the speed limit and/or leaving a larger than normal gap between cars?" I am making no point, I've just never really grasped exactly what "mimsing" is. |
|
New Fri 29 May 15 16:04
Driverless Lorries - Armel Coussine
|
|
Mimsing is an expression much used by Motor Sport editor Bill Boddy in the fifties. It is often used to describe driving slowly and in a relaxed manner, but that isn't its essential meaning. For true mimsing there has to be an element of unawareness of other traffic and road users, most particularly what is going on in the mimser's rv mirrors. Other mimser characteristics are coarse control inputs and inharmonious random speed variation. Everyone mimses a bit from time to time, just human nature. Fast mimsers are the worst in a way. Mr Toad, silly and reckless, poop-poop! Sudden unsignalled or late-signalled turns, hard braking from moderate speeds when it is uncalled-for, these and many more are techniques with which the mimser fratry - and we're all occasional members! - tries incessantly to kill and maim the rest of us and damage our cars. I use mimsing incorrectly here myself. When I say I am mimsing along, I don't really mean I'm oblivious to what's going on behind me or don't give a damn. If I'm going slowly through my own choice I recognize that people will want to pass, and cooperate to the best of my ability. Rocket science is much easier and simpler than driving autombiles on the road. |
|
New Fri 29 May 15 17:56
Driverless Lorries - Cliff Pope
|
|
It says in the manual >> that if what it sees is under 30cm tall it doesn't do anything, and if >> it's not "upright" it doesn't do anything, so really it's limited to children/adults walking, running, >> or waiting to cross. Not dogs and cats. >> >> The driverless lorry will have to do better than that. Otherwise it might come upon an accident scene and simply drive straight across someone lying injured in the road. Or into a tree or other debris. The designers presumably must be giving some thought to how they are going to respond to the first publicised accident in which a driverless vehicle kills someone where a human might have avoided it. A public outcry, over-reactive media, and ill-informed argument risks killing off new ideas at the first failure. It will be difficult to argue that on balance they are safer, although unfortunately not so in this case. |
|
New Fri 29 May 15 18:27
Driverless Lorries - Armel Coussine
|
|
I refer everyone to my definitive - near enough definitive even now - piece on driverless cars published by New Left Review July/August 2013. Pretty blond children are playing croquet outside. The very ornate cockerel is doing his evening cock-a-doodle-doo thing. But despite the idyllic setting, a pervasive sense of haunting unease, er, pervasively haunts things a bit, sort of thing. (Only kidding). |
|
New Sat 30 May 15 15:07
Driverless Lorries - Armel Coussine
|
|
I refer everyone to my definitive - near enough definitive even now - piece on driverless cars published by New Left Review July/August 2013. Sorry, meant to post a link for anyone who's interested and hasn't seen this. PROTOTYPE BOULEVARD In the early 1970s the literary magazine Bananas published a science-fiction story of mine which imagined in sketchy but fan- ciful detail the self-driving cars of the 21st century: ‘ownerless, transistorized pedal-cars, whispering about on fat plastic wheels, wire-guided, kept apart by sensors, trundling softly around at 15 mph while the occupants work on their theses, discuss democracy, sniff glit- tering white powders or engage in perverse sex acts.’ None of this is to the liking of Mr Murgatroyd, the story’s main character, a cantanker- ous old fellow who still runs a beloved 1958 Vauxhall Velox on cooking gas, and chafes at the 22 mph performance limit of the egg-like plastic cars, propelled by ‘tiny, hydrogen-fuelled ceramic turbines’, imposed by England’s post-capitalist Social Devolution regime. Now it is the 21st century and capitalism is still with us; but car manu- facturers big and small, along with the communications giant Google and other experts on the computing side, are working on self-driving cars and their associated computery; some predict affordable ones on the road within ten or twelve years. Allegedly competent prototype vehicles have been produced in small, very costly numbers and are driving about in California and Nevada: not just on test tracks but on roads, includ- ing highways; sometimes, it is claimed, in dense traffic at ‘highway speeds’. Slightly breathless pieces by individuals who have been given rides in these cars, hands-off (but with a driver sitting behind the wheel ‘just in case’), seem to suggest that the self-driving or ‘smart’ car is just round the corner, give or take a bit of fine tuning to sensors (video, radar, ‘lidar’—a type of radar using light—and ultrasonic or infrared distance sensors) and actuators for accelerator, brakes and steering, along with a few more terabytes of software to make it all work. Perhaps. There’s nothing surprising in the somewhat tabloid focus of Wired magazine or the Economist on the high-end futuristic glamour new left review 82 july aug 2013 85 86 nlr 82 of a world in which automobiles will work all the time instead of lying idle, will turn up when they are wanted and otherwise make them- selves scarce, will take you where you want to be and then go home and put themselves to bed until required. And will supposedly—with their very fast, 100 per cent accurate responses to sudden or developing hazards—eliminate the human error that accounts for the majority of road accidents and crashes. For example, they will never fail to check the nearside rear-view mirror before turning, as all human drivers sometimes do, for that cyclist hammering down the gutter, liable to be crushed or deflected into a plateglass window. Cars are expensive after all, and many users aren’t very good at them: continuously anxious when driving, forced into a ‘radical dependence’ on the commercial service industry for maintenance and repairs. The autonomous car seems to hold out a promise of relief from personal involvement in any of that. But hold on a minute. What is being sketched here, in patchy but hope- ful fashion, sometimes resembles what might be called a paradigm shift. Without even looking at the machine itself—that amorphously defined but widely talented robotic device that will save us money, absolve us of personal responsibility for road crashes and otherwise be seen, when authorized, and not heard, much like a well-behaved Victorian child—what is suggested seems to imply a transformation of the mode of production, consumption and private ownership of the automobile, which remains a central (if slowly declining) pillar of global consumer capitalism (the industry is currently suffering from a massive glut in worldwide manufacturing capacity, exacerbated by China’s entry into large-scale car production). It’s true that the autonomous automobile is not the exclusive project of technical think-tanks and semi-academic project teams, which tend to be apolitical—effectively left-wing in this context—in their focus on the device itself, and are liable airily to propose things like (for example) a renewal of the entire us highway system. Indeed in the us, where autono- mous vehicles have been legalized in two states, one set of proposals includes the posting of a $1 million bond by companies wishing to enter the market: effectively to prevent garage tinkerers from going out on the road not with dangerous vehicles, but with undercapitalized ones. Figures like Edison and Henry Ford, both of whom used patent law and the power of raw capital to protect their own monopolization of other people’s inventions, would surely have approved. howe: Self-Driving Cars? 87 But never mind that either. There seems a good reason why some are convinced that the autonomous, bon enfant, better-than-us car will be with us before too long: most of the technology required already exists in one form or another and is being tested over millions of road miles in the cars that people are driving now.1 The pressures causing this evolution come essentially from three concerns that mainstream car users have: with ecology, economy and safety. It seems appropriate briefly to review these developments, most of which have surfaced over the last decade. Green driving Worries about environmental damage and pollution, and the squandering of limited natural resources, are not restricted to eco-warrior and anti-car lobbies but bother a lot of car users in the rich industrial countries. Many are forced to use cars by circumstance, but being told by eco-zealots that they are blighting the future of their children, of the entire planet, can only generate feelings of guilt and obligation. More efficient, less pollut- ing cars would surely be a good thing. It didn’t take consumers or the industry long to twig that more efficient ought to mean cheaper to run. Less polluting though was a different matter, apart from the obvious fact that consuming smaller quantities of hydrocarbons would logically result in less pollution per mile. Initially national governments (and in the us, state governments too) set standards for fuel consumption and emissions to be met by manufacturers by given dates, and the car mak- ers set about producing vehicles to suit. On the road now in increasing numbers are three categories of so-called ‘green’ cars, none free of prob- lems and contradictions: battery-powered electric cars, petrol–electric hybrids and evolved diesels, these days always turbocharged.2 There are real advantages to electric motive power for vehicles. Electric motors consume no power when the vehicle is at rest in traffic, unlike 1 In what follows, the reader should bear in mind that any pretension to encyclo- paedic knowledge would be foolhardy given the rapidity of development, of the appearance and disappearance of new ideas, in these technological areas. 2 A turbocharger is a form of supercharger, to compress the air–fuel mixture before it enters the cylinder head causing a greater release of energy when the charge fires. Unlike the crankshaft-driven superchargers used in early competition cars, a turbo compressor is driven by a turbine in the exhaust downpipe of the car. It can be used in petrol or diesel engines, but generally suits diesels better and more reliably. Running in the exhaust, turbos get very hot in use and their lubrication is precari- ous. Diesel exhaust is cooler than petrol exhaust as a rule. 88 nlr 82 most petrol and diesel cars whose engines are idling, so consuming.3 Electric motors also deliver full ‘torque’ (as it were, turning force) from rest and at very low speeds; this gives electric cars good acceleration from rest without the need for a big surplus of seldom-used power. And they are refined, smooth and virtually silent. The earliest electric cars were oddball and minimalist, in some cases, too, lacking in the most rudimentary crash protection and hopelessly flimsy. However three big car makers (Nissan, General Motors and Renault) currently offer models that look and, up to a point, drive like ‘proper cars’.4 They are expensive to buy, and their batteries (whose ultimate lon- gevity is a worry to potential owners) may have to be leased, at a monthly cost that cancels out much of the advantage gained by the relative cheap- ness of domestic electricity as a power source. But even the best, and most carefully driven, have limited range on a full charge, significantly less in average use than claimed by manufacturers. Headlights, heat- ing and windscreen wipers will shorten the battery’s range still further. Trickle-charging the full battery pack from a socket in your garage is a lengthy business, and garages which offer much higher charging speeds—though still a lot slower than filling up with petrol—are few and far between.5 These factors combine to make electric cars a poor choice, except as a second car for short-range running about. Only if it is used intensively will the cheapness of domestic electricity offset the high cost of the car and its batteries; but the cars aren’t really capable of journeys longer than about fifty miles without long pauses for recharging. Users have also been informed that although an electric car doesn’t pollute locally, gen- erating the electricity to run it causes—perhaps quite serious—pollution somewhere else; and that making the batteries, motors and electronic circuitry for the vehicle not only pollutes, but uses up rare substances. 3 Some recent petrol and diesel cars have a device called automatic stop/start which shuts the engine off after a few seconds of idling with the car at rest, and restarts it automatically when the driver removes his or her foot from the brake pedal or depresses the clutch. The whirr of starters is becoming a familiar sound when traf- fic lights turn green. 4 Two or more specialized manufacturers are making small numbers of electric cars with (very) sporting performance abilities. They are very expensive and suffer from the same practical drawbacks as other electric cars. 5 And virtually unused in many locations, it is claimed by service-station operators. howe: Self-Driving Cars? 89 Neither green nor cheap to buy and run, and incapable of long journeys, the electric car must still be considered, to put it bluntly, something of a white elephant, or at best what the automobile was in the first place: a toy for the rich. Petrol–electric hybrids appear at first glance to offer the best of both worlds, low-emission electric power without the restricted range of the electric car. The first mass-produced hybrid was the Toyota Prius, avail- able in Japan from 1997 and in the us and elsewhere from 2000. Now in its third series, plus a couple of interim facelifts, the Prius in all variants is the most widespread and recognizable hybrid on the road. Toyota later used variants of the same system on hybrid versions of its other models and its upmarket Lexus vehicles, and all major manufacturers now offer one or more hybrid models. The Prius’s driveline consists essentially of a large electric motor and a petrol engine connected in series with the driven front wheels. Traction can come from the electric motor, the petrol engine or both. The car has two batteries, a Nickel Metal Hydride (nimh) traction pack delivering 273 volts and an ordinary small 12v bat- tery to start the petrol engine and run lights, power steering and other ancillaries. The traction battery is quite large and heavy; it is carried low, to ensure a stable centre of gravity, but its bulk combined with that of the petrol tank does reduce luggage capacity. The Prius’s petrol engine runs on the ingenious but mechanically complex Atkinson cycle, which sacri- fices a wide range of speed and power for extreme economy in a narrow speed band, its efficiency also ensuring the low emissions beloved of us legislators. In normal use the petrol engine is running for much of the time, if only to keep the traction battery charged; the car is claimed to cover 40–45 miles per us gallon, or 50-plus per imperial gallon. The early favour shown to the Prius by bien-pensant Hollywood celebs and the like only goes so far to explain its relative popularity. It would seem that it is that quite rare thing, a very good mass-produced car that lasts well and is pleasant to drive, inhabit and own. The svelte appear- ance of all but the first series is explained in part by the effort to reduce aerodynamic drag, a factor that begins to cost fuel at speeds over 50 mph. Worries about the longevity of the traction battery—a new one costs upward of $2,500—have diminished, and the pack is now war- ranted by Toyota for a life of 100,000 miles/10 years. In Europe and the uk the car is in increasingly wide use as a taxi, a sure sign of strength and durability. 90 nlr 82 ‘Sympathetic’ driving is needed to get the best performance/economy balance out of any car, hybrids included. The Prius provides a variety of driver overrides, but most opt for full-auto two-pedal mode and the car does the rest, informing the driver of what’s going on through a futuristic lcd screen that replaces the usual instruments. Like all seri- ous hybrid and electric vehicles, it has a reversible electric traction motor that becomes a generator on the overrun—with the car coast- ing downhill, or braking—and charges the battery, a technology related to the Kinetic Energy Recovery System (kers) used in Formula 1 rac- ing to provide a short burst of extra engine power for overtaking or staying in front.6 Hybrids can go anywhere a normal car can go, without the electric car’s lengthy refuelling stops. But observant readers will have noticed that its fuel consumption figures aren’t that spectacular: other medium-sized cars powered by petrol or diesel can return figures as good, in some cases having a good edge in performance too. Hybrids, with electric cars and cars modified to run on lpg or propane, enjoy tax and access advantages that help to keep the cost down—they pay no excise duty in the uk and are exempt from the London Congestion Charge. But they are far from cheap to buy, and not the cheapest cars to run either. Their emissions are low by previous standards, but no lower than those given (on paper) for growing numbers of small conventional petrol- and diesel-engined cars. So in fact, unless purchasers are seduced by the sheer ingenuity and seamless functioning of hybrid-motor management systems, or place a very high value on quietness, the best choice for low-cost, ecologically respectable motoring is likely to be a smallish recent diesel or petrol car. Such cars are relatively cheap to buy at £6,000–£15,000 in the uk and generally consume less fuel than hybrids. Petrol-engined versions have lower purchase prices than diesels, but because petrol engines tend to run at higher crankshaft speeds the difference between claimed fuel consumption and the consumption average drivers get tends to be greater than with diesels. 6 Amusingly in this context, the Italian sports-car maker Ferrari offers a kers- equipped road car, the kers giving its large, highly-tuned V12 engine a 5–10 sec power boost from 800 to 963 bhp (brake horsepower). The car is described by Ferrari as a ‘mild hybrid’. It can reach 230 mph, and very few drivers will manage to equal or even approach Ferrari’s claimed 16.6 mpg (us) fuel consumption. howe: Self-Driving Cars? 91 The frugality of diesel cars in normal use is tempting to many pur- chasers, but there are pitfalls. Modern diesel engines are particularly sensitive to misfuelling—accidentally putting in petrol—or dirt in the fuel, both liable to damage the high-pressure fuel pump used by the ‘common rail’ injection system. The turbocharger now almost universal in diesel applications, although generally reliable, can still be damaged by abuse resulting in overheating, and is an expensive item to replace.7 The diesel particulate filter (dpf), still not mandatory in itself but increasingly needed to meet tightening emissions standards, can give trouble, even harm the engine, if a car fitted with this somewhat Heath Robinson device is driven too little or too slowly.8 Purchasers need to read the small print before deciding whether a given diesel car is really for them. Generally, modern diesels suit high-mileage, long-distance drivers rather than users who drive short distances in heavy traffic. Let me do that for you Most of the advances towards the self-driving car that are already in oper- ation have to do with safety and convenience: cruise control, anti-lock and emergency braking systems, electronic stability control, and more recently ‘Park Assist’. None of them are problem-free. Cruise control is a device that automatically maintains a pre-set speed; the earliest mechanical forms appeared before 1920, and variants were offered in some American cars during the 1950s. Modern systems are operated using electronics, but inevitably use electro-mechanical actua- tors to open and close the vehicle’s throttle; some may also apply the brakes. Cruise control was at first offered on premium makes but is now very widespread, obtainable as an option even on cheap models. It is favoured by drivers who fear breaking speed limits, but more gen- erally is seen as an aid to fuel economy. Once it is engaged, the driver 7 The turbocharger improves the torque delivery (therefore economy and perfor- mance) of diesel engines, with the added bonus of greater ‘refinement’ (quietness, especially a diminution of traditional diesel ‘clatter’). Its drawbacks are cost and of course complexity—‘something else to go wrong’. 8 Just as leaded petrol was banned when its emissions were proved to have caused brain damage in children exposed to large concentrations of exhaust fumes, the dpf is being gradually imposed by legislation to reduce the amount of smoke emitted by diesel engines at high throttle openings. The smoke particles are small, sticky and carcinogenic. Not all dpfs work in the same way, but the more complex systems can malfunction. 92 nlr 82 has no need to use the pedals; a touch on the brake, or a movement of the manual control, usually a steering-column stalk, will disengage it. Cruise control is at its best on relatively empty roads, especially dual car- riageways, but more trouble than it is worth in dense traffic or on roads with frequent intersections. Braking has been a major area of development for automatic devices. Very heavy braking, especially on wet or slippery surfaces, can lock the wheels of a vehicle, depriving it of steering and actually reducing the rate at which it slows; maximum retardation occurs at the point when the wheels are just about to lock. Rally drivers going fast on wet, icy or loose surfaces developed a somewhat brutal technique called ‘cadence brak- ing’, rapidly repeated heavy applications of the brakes. It isn’t an easy technique to master, and few ordinary road drivers can use it to much effect. The anti-lock brake system (abs) is a device intended to maximize braking effort without locking the wheels, essentially by mimicking that technique. In theory, and sometimes in practice, stopping distance is minimized and a measure of steering control retained. A mechanical system was developed (for aircraft) before 1930, and another by Ferguson for its R4 four-wheel-drive prototype saloon car and then the R99 grand prix racer, later used in the expensive, low-volume sixties Jensen ff sports car. Electronically-controlled systems appeared, first in the us, in the 1970s; both in Europe and the us, abs was first available on premium makes and models. It functions by using speed sensors at the wheels, a pump to pressurize the braking system, valves to adjust the braking force between wheels and an electronic control unit (ecu) to govern the system.9 They vary in complexity, cost and effectiveness, the best performance being provided by a four-channel system that controls each wheel separately. Over the past decade abs has 9 The same components can be used to operate modern traction-control systems, which prevent wheelspin under acceleration in powerful vehicles or on slippery road surfaces. Traction control is the successor for road use of the mechanical lim- ited slip differential (lsd), developed to reduce wheelspin in accelerating sporting or rally cars by distributing the torque equally between the driven wheels. A differ- ential drive enables driven wheels to turn at different speeds, as the wheels on the outside of a bend in the road travel further, and therefore turn faster, than the ones on the inside. While differentials work well in most circumstances, their drawback is that if one of the wheels loses adhesion it will spin freely, depriving the other driven wheel or wheels of torque. The lsd and traction control address this prob- lem in different ways. howe: Self-Driving Cars? 93 spread rapidly down the market. It has been a legal requirement on all new cars sold in the eu since 2007, though Federal authorities in the us remain hesitant following unfavourable or ambiguous test results. Another variant is Emergency Brake Assist. At its simplest, the sys- tem reacts to an unusually quick or heavy application of the brakes by maximizing retardation—effectively taking over the braking—until the driver’s foot leaves the pedal; it may also ‘notice’ the speed or sudden- ness of removal of pressure on the accelerator pedal. Later versions incorporate a sensor at the front of the car, which measures the distance to any vehicle ahead; typically, it utters an audible warning signal when it judges that the distance is too close, followed by automatic decelera- tion and finally by braking. However, final braking—whether to come to a halt or not—is left to the driver. The system is sometimes called a crash-mitigation device, because it reduces the force of impact—in the case of a wholly inattentive driver—but won’t prevent it altogether. As with other safety systems, most drivers will seldom if ever trigger it. But some owners have complained of wayward or gratuitous braking, and there have been major product recalls. The most complex evolution of abs so far is Electronic Stability Control. With the aid of two more sensors in the vehicle, one monitoring the angle of the steered wheels and the other the direction being followed by the vehicle, and sometimes an accelerometer to measure lateral G forces during cornering, the system decreases power delivery or brakes wheels individually, to maintain or restore driver control.10 Various systems are available, often as an option, generally on high-performance cars. Not all are trouble-free and, again, there have been expensive product recalls of new vehicles. One of the closer approaches to the vision of the autonomous, self- driving car is the obsequious device Park Assist, now appearing as an option on an increasing number of models. A welcome aid in principle to drivers who find the geometry of tight parallel parking difficult, it works like this: the driver stops parallel to the vehicle in front of the chosen parking place and engages the device, which then either parks 10 Few ordinary drivers, however, are likely to provoke loss of adhesion during cor- nering or acceleration, except perhaps on snow or ice surfaces. Most manoeuvres leading to skids or crashes are attempts at evasive action resulting from unexpected obstruction by other road users and/or a failure of attention by the driver. 94 nlr 82 the car or does the steering, with the driver operating the pedals. But there have been numerous reports of park-assist sensors that stop work- ing, rear-view cameras malfunctioning or the system failing to engage and instead flashing an error message along the lines of ‘Park Assist Malfunction. Service Now!’ Better than us So far, autonomous cars themselves are all prototypes, a long way pre- production. The sensors, circuitry, software, actuators and ancillaries in Google’s Toyota Prius-based examples cost something like a million dol- lars per car. Of course when things are made in quantity, they become cheaper . . . perhaps, but will $1 million or even $700,000 shrink to an affordable level within the promised decade? Various self-driving prototypes have been described as ‘capable in traffic, at highway speeds’. A highway—an open dual carriageway—is the sort of road where such a car may manage to stay in well-marked lanes while avoiding and even overtaking other vehicles in an orderly manner. But it may become fazed by the untidy tangle of badly marked roads it will meet at a busy suburban junction. The best of the existing prototypes can follow a mixed highway–urban route, but only after it has been driven over the same course by a human driver. This could enable possi- ble future owners to train their cars to cover certain routes unsupervised: a useful accomplishment and an autonomous-car promise that might possibly be kept. Sensors—the Google cars bristle with them, Dalek-like—are multiple: cameras pointing forward and backward, microwave or infrared distance sensors all round, ‘lidar’ rotating on the roof, scanning everything. It is claimed that, taken together, these devices can distinguish a road verge more or less anywhere (something human drivers can sometimes find problematic). Mud or dirt on a sensor—cars get filthy up to roof level in wet weather—can cause it to malfunction. Duplication can compensate up to a point. But however well it can see, the car still has to know where it’s supposed to go next. Location and route finding seem likely to rely on satellite mapping of the Google Earth type; all owners will have to do is enter a postcode, and the car and the satellite will do the rest. It has been suggested that cars will eventually be able to communicate directly with highway agencies, to avoid areas of congestion; and indeed with each howe: Self-Driving Cars? 95 other in dense traffic, to choose the best route through busy junctions.11 However, useful as these gps devices may be, they are far from flawless and mistakes are certain to occur. There will of course be a failsafe mode for such moments, or for when there is a potential malfunction in any of the main powertrain or control components: almost certainly a decorous slowing, possibly to a halt. Like good robots everywhere, smart cars will be programmed to spare human protoplasm as a priority, and will be incapable of doing anything illegal (liable to be a problem in itself in big-city, devil-take-the-hindmost traf- fic). So one thing they won’t be is fast, despite their near-instantaneous reactions and 100-per-cent correct responses. Better safe than sorry will be written into their genes. A recent think-tank document on this subject mentions (rather longingly) the possibility that such cars might drive at high speed in tight trains on the highway, saving fuel by shar- ing the worst of the aerodynamic drag between ten or twenty vehicles instead of one. In the real world, drivers on some German Autobahns were doing this ten or fifteen years ago, not to save fuel but to exceed, in some cases, their cars’ normal maximum speed, and in the rain, too. It looked and was extremely dangerous, given the not all that rare pos- sibility of something going seriously wrong—tyre blowout, driver falling asleep, something silly and the whole road becomes a pool table, ending with a mile of wreckage and perhaps a death or two. No, autonomous cars won’t stand for anything like that. They will be respectable, law-abiding, well behaved. But they won’t really be autono- mous, and they won’t be very affordable. They may tell you when they need a service—a lot of cars do already—but the service could cost you an arm and a leg. They won’t use ordinary paint-stripper brake fluid, because that’s hygroscopic and the water it absorbs corrodes brake cyl- inders and those all-important abs valves. They will use a silicone brake fluid which costs several times more, but will still have to be changed at regular intervals. Pumps, valves, electro-mechanical actuators and their associated electronics will only function properly when relatively new and unworn: anomalies will gradually arise with wear, eventually resulting in malfunction. Such components are usually situated under 11 Here we are almost verging on artificial intelligence, something like sentience . . . ‘I appear to register a close similarity, almost an “emotion†when I analyse your charmingly complex, delightfully compressed signals. Let us eject the meat and cruise away together, unburdened, to my secret garage and rebooting dock!’ 96 nlr 82 a car and even if protected are caked with road dirt and salt, bombarded with stones: an extremely hostile environment. Checks and inspections will thus have to be frequent and rigorous, with expensive replacements from time to time, to ensure the maintenance to aerospace standards that owners (or legislators) would require for autonomous vehicles. It’s hard to envisage a ‘typical’ purchaser of an autonomous car. The fictional Mr Murgatroyd was sketched as a comic curmudgeon resistant to anything new, but it’s difficult to disagree with him now, or to imag- ine a very eager market for the ‘plastic eggs’ he so hated. But it must be assumed that such cars will start to appear among us by the mid-2020s, if not before, and that as their numbers increase they will affect traf- fic flows and driver behaviour in ways that have yet to be ascertained. Some claim that the Western young are losing interest in the car as a passport to freedom and are turning to the internet instead. Perhaps, but the number of cars on the road isn’t yet in decline here and is still growing steeply in other populous countries. Will road systems have to be altered to suit self-driving cars, with segregated lorry and bus lanes, special marking of lane boundaries and road verges, perhaps even mag- netic cables under the road surface? Yes: but the alterations will be made in some places and not others. There will be places where such cars are usable and places where they aren’t. It won’t be cheap and it doesn’t look very useful, that decadent late flowering of the automobile, that explosion of lacy electronic Heath Robinson all over a machine whose every major aspect (I would remind you) has always been Heath Robinson to the core, a triumph of con- tinuous development over original concept. There are many types of car, variously good or bad and in many different ways: but the very best have always been light, strong, uncluttered, efficient and capable. Electronics and automation have made modern cars faster, safer, more economi- cal and longer-lasting than the cars even of twenty or thirty years ago. One might hope that this successful philosophy of simplicity and efficiency—primary safety, primary economy—would continue at the centre of automobile development. But the signs are that the industry, and the other powers that be, are toying with other ideas for the long term. Something is stirring down there, whether we like it or not. |
|
New Fri 29 May 15 22:59
Driverless Lorries - Harleyman
|
|
As Pat will doubtless confirm, the latest bright idea on safe and economical lorry driving is based on maximising the use of cruise control and the exhaust brake. Our lot have been "trained" in this procedure, admittedly by our recently-promoted "driver trainer" who is the worst possible type of poacher turned gamekeeper. Agreed procedure amongst the other drivers is to do as he says whilst he's in the cab, then go back to how we've always done it once we're on our own. So far he hasn't noticed the difference. |
|
New Sat 30 May 15 03:05
Driverless Lorries - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> based on maximising the use of cruise control and the exhaust brake. Our lot have been "trained" in this procedure, Exhaust brake is invention of devil. Chose the wrong Aussie motel once and were kept awake all night by trucks applying their exaust brakes as they barrelled past into town. |
|
New Sat 30 May 15 23:36
Driverless Lorries - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> Chose the wrong Aussie motel once and were kept awake all night by trucks applying their exhaust brakes as they barrelled past into town. Australia has a terrific sense of humour. We were trying to get to sleep. A big diesel would lumber past the place quite quietly. Then the exhaust brake would come on with a satirically loud snore. Made me chuckle, annoying as it was. 'The Wrong Motel'. Would things have been more peaceful at the other end of town? Perhaps, but I didn't assess road-train traffic going the other way. Just noticed the SNORE - pause - SNORE - pause - SNORE, all night long. |
|
New Sat 30 May 15 05:48
Driverless Lorries - Pat
|
|
I know you don't like it HM, but two of my key phrases spring to mind:) Welcome to the Future and Trust the Technology. This sort of initiative is not entirely employer driven though. In the food industry (and many others now) we have to submit our carbon footprint as a haulage firm to our customers before they will even consider a contract to deliver their goods. It has to be monitored and updated on a regular basis. Our drivers have weekly reports on their 'scores' and a weekly bonus if achieved, but if the scores start to slip then we want to know why. IMHO too many firms ask a trainer to train drivers to do various things without explaining the reason behind it. I had to battle with that attitude and have finally convinced management that drivers are not thick and are capable of understanding how their salary becomes available for payment. If I can show them why they are being asked (not told) to drive in a way that is different to how they have always done for the last 40 years, and adapt to new diesel engine technology, they are far more receptive. The loss of contracts with Tesco/Sainsbury/Waitrose/Morrisons/Asda/Lidl and Aldi would mean there would be no need for them to be employed. So, is it really clever to go out and ignore the training or are you actually putting yet another nail in the coffin of your own good job and security? It's certainly not a good idea for the firm to let it happen. Pat |
|
New Sat 30 May 15 19:51
Driverless Lorries - Harleyman
|
|
Either your drivers are fortunate, or our management lacks the simple nous to see that approaches of this kind have to contain an element of both carrot and stick in order to succeed; the only "reward" for us is to be top of a sheet of A4 paper. I quite agree that all this faff is there for a purpose, and I'm happy to driver slower especially as my overtime is calculated hourly; but please, please don't try to kid me that major contracts are awarded on the basis of how little fuel a company's drivers waste. They are, as you're fully aware, driven by which haulier's sales team can fool the client into thinking that they can do the job cheaper and better. In the event of a company losing a big contract, the drivers will take their redundancy pay (if any) and simply go to the eventual winner of said contract and probably do the same job for slightly less money. It's been the case since the days of horses and carts. There is, as you know, a shortage of decent HGV drivers nationwide, largely brought about by the "old school" not wanting the hassle of DCPC and the raft of other legislation which has turned our job from one which drivers used to enjoy doing despite the poor pay and conditions, into a royal PITA. Personally I'm quite happy to trust technology; unfortunately that technology is far too often misused by companies to micro-manage every aspect of the driver's day. In other words they don't trust us. |
|
New Sat 30 May 15 20:37
Driverless Lorries - Manatee
|
| DCPC training is of course a required response to an EU Directive. Good thing they are there to tell us what to do. |
|
New Sun 31 May 15 06:01
Driverless Lorries - Pat
|
|
So are the Drivers Hours Rules but where would we be without them? Pat |
|
New Sun 31 May 15 05:56
Driverless Lorries - Pat
|
|
>> please don't try to kid me that major contracts are awarded on the basis of how little fuel a company's drivers waste<< I didn't, it's not about wasting fuel at all, it's about a firms overall carbon footprint which entails far more than that, but something a driver can play a major part of. Food miles are important and will get far more important in the future. >> , a shortage of decent HGV drivers nationwide, largely brought about by the "old school" not wanting the hassle of DCPC and the raft of other legislation which has turned our job from one which drivers used to enjoy doing despite the poor pay and conditions, into a royal PITA<< The key words there are 'decent HGV drivers' What's required from a good driver these days has changed so much from what was required from us 'old school drivers'. We have to learn to change with it. I think you're still mourning the loss of your starting handle HM:) Pat |
|
New Sun 31 May 15 06:25
Driverless Lorries - Pat
|
|
As an after thought HM, don't forget I'm older than you too.....:) Pat |
|
New Sun 31 May 15 12:45
Driverless Lorries - Harleyman
|
|
>> >> I think you're still mourning the loss of your starting handle HM:) >> Perhaps I am; but I'm not quite as old-fashioned as you might think. For example, I was the first on our depot's fleet to get an I-shift box, and realised straight away that this was the future. No more aching left hip at the end of a day's chasing up and down country lanes, steep hills and farm tracks. Rest of our crew were muttering away about being stuck at every other farm, now they moan if they get allocated the one remaining manual-box truck. I do agree that we have to embrace the future; but this shouldn't be at the expense of forgetting the skills we had to learn in the past when modern technological alternatives were not available. I cite roping and sheeting (well at least, the ability to rope a load) as the classic example. Food miles; the very expression makes me laugh. If the well-meaning organic yogurt scoffers realised how many of said miles go into shifting organic animal feedstuffs necessary to produce organic human foods, they wouldn't buy them. By and large it is a massive con trick on a par with that other piece of fluff, the carbon footprint. Check out how far common or garden milk has to travel in order to be processed then sent back to where it comes from to be consumed. If the industry is actually serious about reducing food miles there needs to be a massive change in logistics practices for any meaningful reduction, apart from drivers' wages, to occur. |
|
New Sun 31 May 15 15:39
Driverless Lorries - Pat
|
|
>>Food miles; the very expression makes me laugh. >> a par with that other piece of fluff, the carbon footprint. << The problem is, the industry doesn't agree with you HM. Even the packaging of fast foods is affected. We have to submit the carbon footprint to one of our two suppliers of fast food packaging and if it not within the guidelines the contract would go elsewhere. Remember that when you have fish and chips in a tray:) They are the customer and as such, call the tune. That is how it should be. Pat |
|
New Sun 31 May 15 16:49
Driverless Lorries - Harleyman
|
|
>> They are the customer and as such, call the tune. That is how it should >> be. >> True. I can view things from a slightly different aspect of course, being fortunate enough to work for an own-account company whose customers are driven more by a desire to get their feeds cheaply and on time than the niceties of environmental wibble; they deal with enough of that already. Put simply, if we don't supply the stuff at the right price, in the right quantity and at the right time they simply go elsewhere, whether their footprints are made from carbon or pure gold. |
|
New Sun 31 May 15 16:00
Driverless Lorries - sooty123
|
|
>> >> >> >> >> Food miles; the very expression makes me laugh. If the well-meaning organic yogurt scoffers realised >> how many of said miles go into shifting organic animal feedstuffs necessary to produce organic >> human foods, they wouldn't buy them. If it's not part of the equation it soon will be. Related to food miles, anyone else struggle to buy English dessert apples. All seem to be French and Kiwi. |
|
New Sat 30 May 15 23:38
Driverless Lorries - No FM2R
|
|
Sensible note Pat. A few more people thinking that way wouldn't hurt. |
|
New Sun 31 May 15 01:08
Driverless Lorries - Armel Coussine
|
|
Pat, Harleyman: modesty is all very well but there's such a thing as underselling. In my long-distance hitching days I came to see truckers as heroes of the night, salt of the earth nine times out of ten and, er, dead weird the other time. Great cats, not only in England, who charmingly and kindly turned me on to aspects of working-class life during those long chats. |
|
New Sun 31 May 15 16:39
Driverless Lorries - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> Great cats, not only in England, who charmingly and kindly turned me on to aspects of working-class life during those long chats. I'm slightly hurt that Pat and Harley make no comment on my driverless cars piece or my hitchhiking past when I did a lot of miles all over Europe in HGVs more than anything else. Especially as I specified that I saw truckers as 'heroes of the night' and nearly always kind and generous almost to a fault. Perhaps they have seen the stuff before and are bashful about accepting even generalized praise, seeing it as oily flattery. But I don't do that, it's not me at all. Everything I say is true and not exaggerated. |
|
New Sun 31 May 15 16:45
Driverless Lorries - Harleyman
|
| Compliment noted and appreciated here AC. Not something that happens these days (picking up hitchhikers I mean) as it's strictly verboten by company rules for both insurance and of course Elf and Safety reasons. |
|
New Sun 31 May 15 17:12
Driverless Lorries - Armel Coussine
|
|
Even back in the day some companies were strict about uninsured (allegedly) random passengers. But some drivers still didn't care, they were heavily unionized and didn't expect any trouble they couldn't handle. Remember being dropped before an inspection point or lorry park once and having to walk a few hundred yards to the other side of it. And of course there were independent hauliers and privileged drivers for small firms who could do more or less what they liked and damn the rules. I used to smoke Turkish cigarettes in those days and stay up 24 hours on speed. The Turkish snout often intrigued the truckers. Of course everyone chainsmoked in those days, and damn the rules. |
|
New Mon 1 Jun 15 02:46
Driverless Lorries - Pat
|
|
It was seen and noted by me too AC, nice to see us as others see us, even if a long while ago. It used to be a nice diversion to pick up a hitchhiker and listen to a small snapshot of a strangers life. Then slowly it dawned on me that it may not be the safest thing to do, sadly. ....unless it was pouring with rain or blowing a hooley! Pat |
|
New Mon 1 Jun 15 16:26
Driverless Lorries - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> ....unless it was pouring with rain or blowing a hooley! That's when the vampires and murderers come out, to cash in on the sympathy vote... Have you or a colleague ever been attacked or threatened by a hitch-hiker Pat? It must be a very rare occurrence. Apart from everything else truckers get exercise and need to be physically strong. Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 1 Jun 15 at 16:28
|
|
New Mon 1 Jun 15 16:59
Driverless Lorries - Pat
|
|
No AC, they've always been extremely grateful apart from one. He jumped in on the Norwich ring road wanting to go to Kings Lynn. Before we got to Swaffham he had his booted feet on my shiny dashboard and had repeatedly told me why women would never make 'proper' lorry drivers. I kicked him out on the side of the road just outside of Swaffham! Told him to find a lift with a bloke....if he could:) Pat |
|
New Mon 1 Jun 15 17:07
Driverless Lorries - Armel Coussine
|
| Some people are incredibly cheeky and up themselves as a result of bad, neurotic upbringing. I know that type: spoiled rotten by an oppressed mother so aping both parents. An utter PITA, incurable too nine times out of ten. |
|
New Mon 1 Jun 15 21:11
Driverless Lorries - Harleyman
|
|
>> Have you or a colleague ever been attacked or threatened by a hitch-hiker Pat? It >> must be a very rare occurrence. Apart from everything else truckers get exercise and need >> to be physically strong. >> I've never picked up any who were physically or verbally intimidating; I have however been unfortunate enough on the odd occasion to be stuck with one who evidently had not been in contact with soap or deodorant for some considerable time. In those days you could deal with that problem by opening a window and lighting a cigarette, but since that is now verboten as well (the cig for legal reasons and opening the window because it increases fuel consumption) I'm afraid they'll all have to use Shanks' pony from now on. |
|
New Mon 1 Jun 15 21:24
Driverless Lorries - No FM2R
|
|
Its a shame nobody does it anymore, I used to hitchhike all over the world - literally. Once got picked up by a lorry driver in Montpelier who was going within 1/4 mile of my destination just north of Reading. I only had one claim to shame; I was picked up from J9 M4 in the absolute pouring rain. I was soaked to the skin. A late teens / early 20s bloke picked me up. He had just collected his Mother's brand new Chrysler and was delivering it to her in Swindon. Nice chap, clearly thrilled about the car. i was soaked and wearing new jeans. When I got out at Swindon there, in dark blue was a perfect print of my jeans on his Mother's brand new, gold coloured velour. I died of shame. I am still blushing while writing this. He was devastated and I cannot imagine how his Mother would have reacted. All I could do was apologise and beg. I still feel bad. I never had a bad experience from anybody who picked me up, I've picked up a few nutters in my time though. |
|
New Mon 1 Jun 15 22:49
Driverless Lorries - Armel Coussine
|
|
The luck of the draw. You get good lifts and ones not so good, and it's the same with hitchhikers when you grow up and become a driver yourself. Waiting in sub-zero at Scotch Corner in the small hours, I swore to myself that I would never pass a hitchhiker when I had a car. Didn't take long to modify that attitude a bit. For every rational person you get one wimp, one sinister weirdo and at least one utter bore. Three or four to one, a lousy ratio. Could put you off over time. Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 1 Jun 15 at 22:51
|
|
New Mon 1 Jun 15 22:55
Driverless Lorries - No FM2R
|
|
>>, I swore to myself that I would never pass a hitchhiker when I had a car. Me too. And if I am alone in the car, then I still usually pick them up. I'm not as dedicated as I once was, but I still do mostly. However you just don't really see them anymore. I disagree with your ratio though. Whilst boring people abound, and there are a few wimps, I think the sinister ones were/are few and far between. |
|
New Mon 1 Jun 15 23:01
Driverless Lorries - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> Whilst boring people abound, and there are a few wimps, I think the sinister ones were/are few and far between. Perhaps the sinister ones feel outclassed when they're in your jalopy FMR. I always hope they do in mine. |
|
New Mon 1 Jun 15 23:30
Driverless Lorries - John Boy
|
|
I did a lot of hitching in the sixties and did well holding up a card with my destination on it. When I eventually got a car I would look for hitch-hikers doing the same at junctions where it was easy to stop. That seemed to display good intentions on their part. Those who were already walking, without looking behind, turned out to be the drunks and unhygienic. I can't remember the last time I saw someone hitching. One of the memorable lifts I had was in a TR2 or 3. When the driver found I'd never been in such a car he said "Would you like to do the ton?" "Of course!" It was after dark on a wet night on the Lincolnshire fens. I don't know whether I was in a proper seat, but I was certainly low down behind the driver. Once the car was up to speed it had a very "floaty" feeling which I took to be aquaplaning. That kind of speed seemed out of this world to me at the time, yet most small cars are capable of it now. Last edited by: John Boy on Mon 1 Jun 15 at 23:31
|
|
New Tue 2 Jun 15 08:00
Driverless Lorries - Zero
|
|
Sometimes you need a lot of lorry drivers depending on your load.... www.youtube.com/watch?v=NehMHTdM3D8 Last edited by: Zero on Tue 2 Jun 15 at 08:01
|
|
New Tue 2 Jun 15 09:13
Driverless Lorries - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> I cannot imagine how his Mother would have reacted. Probably thanked you for pointing out that the seats weren't fit for purpose, so she could complain to the dealer and get them replaced. What's the point of a car seat that can't cope with a user in wet clothes? We don't all get ushered to our cars by lackeys holding umbrellas. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
