"Driverless cars are expected to lead to a dramatic reduction in accidents, cutting insurance premiums by up to 80pc in 25 years’ time. They could also shift liability for accidents from drivers to vehicle manufacturers, meaning a complete restructuring of how the industry operates."
tinyurl.com/hrlw6nn (link to Telegraph)
No doubt there will be other changes: programmed to obey all speed limits so speeding becomes a thing of the past?
|
|
...VWs will only obey speed limits whilst undergoing official testing, after that..........
|
>> "Driverless cars are expected to lead to a dramatic reduction in accidents"
Impact is probably a poor choice of word, then ;-)
>> No doubt there will be other changes: programmed to obey all speed limits so speeding
>> becomes a thing of the past?
In light of the opening statement of this post, surely limits can be increased at will if this technology can almost eradicate accidents.
|
Don't think we have to wait 25 years for it to become mainstream. It will happen much sooner.
Tesla auto pilot, Mercedes S class etc. are perfectly capable of driving of its own - especially on motorways.
I think all cars will have manual override options. It will be fun when insurers argue who caused the collision - the driver or the car.
I predict there would be some chips available in Ebay which will officially shift the responsibility to the car whether or not driver was to blame :o)
|
Forget who's to blame for a crash and worry about when a driverless car wants to sacrifice you in favour of someone else.
Imagine a scenario where the car is in a situation where a crash will happen regardless, for example, 5 kids running out in to the road without any breaking distance left for the car.
If the car decides that it could save the kids by driving in to a wall and there is only one passenger on board then you may well be sacrificed in favour of the kids.
Clearly a long way off (I hope) but a possible outcome.
|
>> then you may well be sacrificed
>> in favour of the kids.
>>
If such cars are already operational, and just awaiting regulatory permission for public testing, then the manufacturers must have already considered questions like this.
What does a driverless car do if someone steps out in front of it with no hope of stopping?
Does it
a) pointlessly jam its brakes on anyway
b) carry on regardless, calculating that as the person will be dead anyway there is no point in doing anything
c) do a quick scan and then swerve violently off the road in the hope of a slightly less disastrous outcome?
|
>> If such cars are already operational, and just awaiting regulatory permission for
>> public testing, then the manufacturers must have already considered questions
>> this.
These aren't difficult questions.
In your specific example, the ultimate goal for the engineers is for the car to predict the movement of the children and begin braking / avoiding action early on. Your modern car already does this; the V60 can detect someone stepping off a pavement without looking and intervene.
The "should it crash into a wall and kill you" scenario would never happen, because you're not going to die if you hit a brick wall at 30 mph. Country lane where the car rockets up behind a bike and doesn't detect it until the last minute because of no lights / blind corner? It'll run it over, like you or I would. Probably less likely though due to LIDAR and infra-red imaging.
The "avoid the kids and crash into oncoming lorry" is a laughable situation. The car would brake to its maximum capability but it wouldn't leave the lane to deliberately crash into something else. The edges of the road have to be - must be - seen as "no go" areas under any circumstances.
Besides, it would appear that in order to have a driverless car the manufacturer is going to have to underwrite the insurance during autonomous driving.
Personally, I can't wait - the next V60 will be capable of autonomous driving at motorway speeds, with or without lane markings. I suspect the biggest problem will be when people start reading the paper instead of supervising the car. I can tell if someone is trying to filter into my lane but won't let them in until they indicate but the car can't figure that out.
|
In a completely automated motoring world there would be no need for speed limits at all. All vehicles would drive as fast as the circumstances allowed, and as they would be communicating with their fellows close by there would be no need for any gaps - a stream of traffic could all travel at 100 mph with no gaps, acting as one road train.
But there would be a long overlap period when the new automated cars would have to co-exist with older manual cars, so would not be able to assume perfect responses from other cars. An automated car passing another automated car waiting at a side road would be able to press on at full speed knowing the other wouldn't pull out. But if it had to allow for the other possibly acting irrationally or dangerously, then there could be interesting situations.
The new insurance rules would have to be able to cope with numerous such hybrid situations.
What about non-automated road users? Would the automatic cars be able to cope with pedestrians, cyclists, children, horses, stray cows, etc? Or would they all be banned from the roads?
|
|
Aren't these all the kind of decisions human beings are called upon to make daily, both on behalf of themselves and of others? Don't we already delegate such decisions to another authority when we are a passenger in any kind of human-driven vehicle?
|
>> Aren't these all the kind of decisions human beings are called upon to make daily,
>> both on behalf of themselves and of others?
Yes but automated decision making for many of these situations is, while not impossible, liable to err on the balance of safety, slowing progress to a crawl in many situations
|
Driverless cars can only work in a controlled environment where only driverless cars are allowed. Any other environment allows for individual decisions to be made by other vehicles or, even worse, other road users such as pedestrians / animals / cyclists (in no particular order) who could all do things which cannot be anticipated or built in to decision software in the automated vehicle.
The way ahead for driverless vehicles, IMHO, involves separation into driverless only lanes or even driverless only roads where 90%+ of the technology is available or close to available already.
|
"The total road length in Great Britain in 2012 was estimated to be 245.4 thousand miles, an increase of 2.0 thousand miles (0.8%) over 10 years.
Minor roads made up 87% of total road length, with motorways and ‘A’ roads accounting for 1% and 12% respectively.
Despite accounting for only 13% of road length in 2012, major roads (motorways and ‘A’ roads) accounted for 65% of road traffic."
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/road-lengths-in-great-britain-2012
I cannot see driverless cars working well on single track roads with passing places - which I use weekly . I suspect some form of manual input might be needed.
|
|
These press releases and discussions always focus on driverless cars, what about HGVs, PSVs, emergency vehicles, oversize loads etc. etc. - are they all to be driverless? Can't see a mix of human piloted and autonomous vehicles ending well - and an overnight switch is financially and logistically impossible IMHO. I'll put it on the same 'maybe tomorrow' list as my personal jetpack and flying car....
|
Drivers will have to cough up for 2 insurances - one if hit by human driven cars and another for driverless cars only.
Insurers will win under any circumstances.
|
...you can bet your bottom dollar the car won't sort its own insurance out.....
;-)
|
|
Thought the idea of driverless cars was that there wouldn't be any impact(s)...?
|
>> Thought the idea of driverless cars was that there wouldn't be any impact(s)...?
>>
Simply not possible, unless they only drive everywhere at 5mph. Even then impacts with pedestrians and wildlife would still happen.
|
People who haven't should read my piece on driverless cars published in New Left Review years ago. The editor, who likes cars, described it a bit flatteringly as 'masterly', albeit in an ironic NLR voice...
After thinking about them long and hard and doing some research, my opinion is that they have such limited abilities that they are pretty crap. They could easilyl cause more crashes than they prevent.
They will be able to do some things - follow a pre-driven route for example - but they won't be able to think or make quick decisions and modify them on the hoof as it were. They won't be able to cope with heavy urban traffic outside dual carriageways. Their effect will be to slow everything down to a tiresome crawl, with much shunting and frequent sudden halts.
Can't wait. 'Automations, and, er, jubilations...' etc. etc. I can hear good old Cliff - who doesn't mind a nice flash snorting monster himself - now.
|
So 20th century AC...
It's estimated that human error causes 90% of accidents. Computers can make quicker decisions than humans and be more reliable and predictable with it. I understand that the latest Volvos can manage themselves quite happily in traffic, managing the speed, steering and braking themselves - see www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJ274CHOv1k
|
Pshaw, AC. There's videos all over the web of this stuff happening right now, including non motorway driving. Tesla have it happening on motorways right now, and improve it all the time with software updates. Only a couple of weeks ago some Tesla owners woke up to discover a new "summon" option on their phone apps, which gets the car to you if it's no more than 85 feet away (so out of the garage or from over the street, effectively), and Musk talks of being able to "summon" your car from New York to Los Angeles within a couple years. Add two for good measure but still not far off.
Here's a video of an autonomous Nissan Leaf, for example.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9XyP0WpVEc
Ok, it's effectively an ad, but no reason to think it's staged.
As to the future, this really is all on the horizon, and not just for top end vehicles.
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-07/renault-nissan-to-offer-10-vehicles-with-autonomous-drive
Take away the ad-man's puff and double the time they predict, and you'll still see mass market cars in ordinary traffic driving themselves within the decade.
|
"Besides, it would appear that in order to have a driverless car the manufacturer is going to have to underwrite the insurance during autonomous driving."
Why this won't happen on a large scale in one sentence.
|
I built a meccano model about 50 years ago that could do that. A light sensor knew when it was getting close to an obstacle and it stopped or turned away.
99% of motoring situations are easy, but the crucial test will be how it handles the others.
What will it do if there is a police road closure and all the traffic has to do a 3-point turn and find another route? How will it tell the policeman where it wants to go?
What if a cow strays out on the road - does it know to reverse a bit, cautiously, or will it drive past and get a hoof in the window?
What if something falls in the road off a lorry ahead - will it judge whether to brake sharply or swerve?
Can it tell if a police car is trying to flag it down?
How does it check the depth of the sheet of water across the road - does it have an assistant with gum boots, or does it just drive in until it gets stuck?
What will it do if a drunken hooligan starts hammering on the roof and a starts swinging a bottle - put its foot down and get away, or stop and wait to get vandalised?
These may not be everyday occurences, but they happen. And the first time there is a tragic incident involving an autonomous car the DM-style bad PR will kill the whole public acceptance.
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Thu 21 Jan 16 at 11:24
|
>>
>> These may not be everyday occurences, but they happen. And the first time there is
>> a tragic incident involving an autonomous car the DM-style bad PR will kill the whole
>> public acceptance.
>>
I think you've summed that up well Cliff. Thinking about it this morning I reckon human beings manage around 99.99% of vehicle (not just car) journeys without incident. An autonomous vehicle has to do better than that, or the manufacturer will be sued off the planet.
The SW (specified and written by human beings at the end of the day) has to cope with all the scenarios you've listed and millions more. every time. without fail.
|
|
It doesn't. It has to have a manual over-ride button, and an attentive, licensed human being in the car. Like wot Fursty Ferret's cigar tube full of farts does.
|
>> 99% of motoring situations are easy, but the crucial test will be how it handles the others.
Autonomous cars can focus on those easy 99% tasks for the time being. For the rest it should just display the following message on screen
I give up because situation too complex for my machine brain to handle. Please take command and re-engage auto pilot when you think it is appropriate to do so.
Problem solved.
|
>> >> 99% of motoring situations are easy, but the crucial test will be how it
>> handles the others.
>>
>> Autonomous cars can focus on those easy 99% tasks for the time being. For the
>> rest it should just display the following message on screen
>>
>> I give up because situation too complex for my machine brain to handle. Please take
>> command and re-engage auto pilot when you think it is appropriate to do so.
>>
>> Problem solved.
>>
Worst case scenario you've got a split second to take over control, assess the situation, and take action.
So I may as well just drive the thing anyway, because you never know when that split second is going to occur.
|
>> People who haven't should read my piece on driverless cars published in New Left Review
>> years ago.
If you post a link, I'll read it.
|
>> If you post a link, I'll read it.
...after you've paid £3 (or £40 per year)...
|
Oh. And I thought AC was a Comrade.
Damned capitalist running dog.
|
>> Oh. And I thought AC was a Comrade.
>>
>> Damned capitalist running dog.
>>
He's got it sewn up. You can do a world-wide search for "Prototype Boulevard" but all the links come back to "Pay £40 to subscribe or cough up £3 for a copy".
|
Tsk. No one gives me an money. It must go to the NLR website or whoever runs it.
I'll try to post it or a link here later today.
|
I just googled, found the first link and read the article, no problem at all.
|
|
I assume anyone interested can find the piece in the way Crankcase did, so I don't need to post it here after all?
|
|
I am evidently not as capable as CC. It would be nice if you could put a link to the article up though, I'm quite interested. I have found an article on NLR which mentions driverless cars once, but I can't imagine that's the article under discussion, and I can see another one which requires payment before reading, so perhaps it's not that one either, therefore it would be helpful if you could provide the link, AC or CC, to remove any doubt.
|
I omitted to mention the link, as of course your real (I assume) name is all over it. I guess you don't mind that.
As to the piece, I'm sure you weren't looking for feedback, but I'll give a little anyway - jolly well written, jolly articulate, well researched, repeated a couple of canards and inevitably things have moved on since then. A Useful Contribution.
Hope that doesn't sound flip - I was actually impressed, and I hope that doesn't sound patronising.
|
There appeared to be a paywall but the google cache version worked for me:
goo.gl/Llu111
Thanks AC.
|
|
Thank you. Splendid article.
|
Glad you liked it, and nice of you to say so.
Just in case you're interested, there's an earlier piece on the automobile in NLR 15, May/June 2002. Should have been entitled 'An Object of Desire' but there was editorial interference. 'Vehicle of Desire' seemed silly to me.
|
|
Remember, these pieces weren't written for car people like us here, but for a highly literate 'intellectual' NLR readership. That's why they seem to bang on about the obvious.
|
Closer:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35539028
I'd still rather be in a driverless Volvo, has to be said.
|
Impact of driverless cars. - tyrednemotional
