We have the technology to make driverless cars a reality

[8ball]

Yep. I've seen exactly what he does. He pushes the 'close doors' button. That's it. He doesn't even have to. The button is in a locked panel, with other manual overrides.

I think the victoria line is capable of automatic running too, but don't quote me.

Why not just make the windows progressively more tinted until eventually people are used to not being able to see the driver?

Then remove driver.

Job done.

It's not like Londoners are particularly bright - they'll never notice.

 

[teuchter]

I'd guess that, as hinted at in the OP, this technology would be progressing a lot more quickly and could probably rapidly become entirely feasible if the commercial incentive was there. Unfortunately it's not because too many people enjoy driving their cars.

Of course, I would have no qualms about removing that enjoyment from some people's lives so that the rest of ours could enjoy the peace that would result. I'd even be happy to have publicly funded leisure racetracks etc. to allow folk to express their urges where they can only hurt themselves or each other.

As for the "not trusting a computer" thing - yes, all machines are fallible but I shouldn't think it's unreasonable to suggest that it is feasible to develop one significantly less fallible than a human. As the pro-speeding folk keep telling us, the majority of accidents are caused by inattention. Computers don't get bored, distracted or fall asleep.

 

[8ball]

I'd guess that, as hinted at in the OP, this technology would be progressing a lot more quickly and could probably rapidly become entirely feasible if the commercial incentive was there. Unfortunately it's not because too many people enjoy driving their cars.

It doesn't have to be an either/or thing, though.

You could make a car you could drive yourself or have driven for the computer.

Or you could do the Audi TT thing where you pretend you're driving but it's really the computer. Or any number of variations, like driving it yourself but it doesn't let you crash, or keeps an eye out for cyclists, perhaps.

 

[Cobbles]

I'd guess that, as hinted at in the OP, this technology would be progressing a lot more quickly and could probably rapidly become entirely feasible if the commercial incentive was there. Unfortunately it's not because too many people enjoy driving their cars.

Thankfully this class of person constitutes a huge majority and the Revenue sees it as an easy route to for the generation of the vast sums required to fill in the gaps in Labour's "poly lecturers managing the tea fund" level of economic management so that there will never be an incentive for any Government to cut off the flow of voter goodwill and more importantly cash.

 

[teuchter]

It doesn't have to be an either/or thing, though.

You could make a car you could drive yourself or have driven for the computer.

Or you could do the Audi TT thing where you pretend you're driving but it's really the computer. Or any number of variations, like driving it yourself but it doesn't let you crash, or keeps an eye out for cyclists, perhaps.

Yes, a vehicle that you could switch between the two modes might be better than nothing. At least people could switch to automatic when they were tired or drunk or chatting on their phone or whatever. Perhaps you'd actually find that a lot of people would have it on automatic most of the time, and be satisfied with the notion that they could have control if they wanted to.

This option doesn't really deal with the drivers who cause accidents through aggressive/stupid/showing-off type driving though.

 

[8ball]

This option doesn't really deal with the drivers who cause accidents through aggressive/stupid/showing-off type driving though.

I'm an old libertarian fuddy-duddy but I don't think denying people access to cars they drive themselves is a viable solution to this either.

Just ban all men from driving until they are 35 years old, that should sort it.

Hell, why not go the whole hog and keep men between 15 and 35 in prison. The crime rate would diminish to virtually nothing.

 

[Roadkill]

I'd guess that, as hinted at in the OP, this technology would be progressing a lot more quickly and could probably rapidly become entirely feasible if the commercial incentive was there. Unfortunately it's not because too many people enjoy driving their cars.

Of course, I would have no qualms about removing that enjoyment from some people's lives so that the rest of ours could enjoy the peace that would result. I'd even be happy to have publicly funded leisure racetracks etc. to allow folk to express their urges where they can only hurt themselves or each other.

Why are you equating enjoying driving with driving fast?

 

[rhod]

Ahhhh - the freedom of the road.

Yeah, for a start advertising like that shoud be restricted as it's misleading and only perpetuates the motoring fantasy that intoxicates so many bad drivers (with a few possible exceptions - like billboards in remote picturesque locations where you could possibly use the product in the way depicted)

Regarding the computer control, maybe it's use could be restricted to motorways? I imagine the insurance companies would be keen to offer discounts to drivers using computer control if there was a significant statistical reduction in accidents. Maybe a compromise could be if it didn't take over completely, but just slowed you down if you got too close to the vehicle in front, or deviated too much from the speed limit for a given section of road.

 

[8ball]

Why are you equating enjoying driving with driving fast?

Because driving fast is more fun, numbnut

 

[rhod]

That's a matter of opinion. Personally, I think driving fast demonstrates immaturity and lack of consideration for other peoples' safety.

If I want a "thrill" I just fire up Burnout on my ps2

 

[weltweit]

I think in my case there will still be a significant demand for me (by me) to ride my 30 year old Suzuki GS750 four cylinder superbike, with no driver aids ABS ASR or roll cage only protected by a pair of jeans, or two, jacket gloves, strong boots and a rudimentary helmet.

I have ridden it from Lands End to John O'Groats on A roads in 14.5 hours starting early one sunday morning (01:00) arriving at the top later the same day and I never came even close to seriously risking my or anybody elses life. I also did the four corners of Great Britain in 4 days and Cardiff Wales to Barcelona Spain though I did take many many days in the French massif central and the Pyrenees where the twisting B and A roads are an absolute motorcyclists paradise.

Recently I was stuck on the hard shoulder of the M11 with a family and their modern car which had blown a tyre and what should come thundering down the road towards us but my favourite motorcycle the Vincent Black Shadow, made I think in the 1930s with an almost equally old man on board in ordinary brogue shoes, a thin cotton jacket and pathetically old open face helmet, the smile on his face as he progressed down the motorway making a pleasent throbbing roar was simply not to be forgotten.

People do enjoy driving and riding things, it can be one of life's great pleasures, those people who perhaps do not understand this pleasure or perhaps do not share it should not necessarily condemn those that do. There are many machines of such elegance and style, of such breathtaking engineering (perhaps for their day) that driving or riding can be one of life's great pleasures.

Whatever happens to the future of motoring, especially with respect to driverless vehicles, I do plan to keep on driving and riding for a great part of it.

 

[8ball]

That's a matter of opinion. Personally, I think driving fast demonstrates immaturity and lack of consideration for other peoples' safety.

If I want a "thrill" I just fire up Burnout on my ps2

You're almost there.

Think about it - if driving fast wasn't more fun than driving slowly and safely, wouldn't you expect there to be a load of videogames where you drive the kids to school paying attention to speed limits, conditions, and the needs of other road users?

I agree with the lack of consideration for others' safety but denying the 'fun' element of driving fast is just self-delusion - you know this really or you wouldn't have mentioned Burnout.

 

[Roadkill]

People do enjoy driving and riding things, it can be one of life's great pleasures, those people who perhaps do not understand this pleasure or perhaps do not share it should not necessarily condemn those that do. There are many machines of such elegance and style, of such breathtaking engineering (perhaps for their day) that driving or riding can be one of life's great pleasures.

Well said.

Some years ago I had a very pleasant chat at a classic car show with an elderly couple who were very pleased to show me around their delightful little 1933 Austin Seven. They'd just got back from a long holiday, touring around rural France. They loved their little car and they loved driving it, but speed clearly wasn't their priority since an Austin Seven's maximum comfortable cruising speed is about 35-40mph!. At the same rally, there were a lot of traction engines. I can't see how speed can have been all that important to their drivers either!

The point is, people enjoy the mechanics of driving and the satisfaction to be gained from handling their machinery well. Speed is part of that enjoyment for some people, some of the time, but it's not all of it by any means. Some people do like the adrenaline buzz that they can get from driving fast, or watching others doing so - which is why motorsport is so popular - and others do not.

I think we also need to be clear what we mean by enjoying driving. IME, a fair proportion of people who say they do aren't actually all that bothered about the driving itself: what they mean is, they like the (perceived) freedom to go where and when they want that a car offers them. On the other hand, people like those mentioned above clearly enjoy the driving itself. The whole 'car culture' thing is so much more complex and multifaceted than some people like to think it is...

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

The first passenger plane to take off fly to it's destination land without a pilot stepping in did so in the 60's. Surely we can get a car to do something?

 

[Crispy]

Very different problem for cars. But yes, it's not an impossible goal.

 

[teuchter]

People do enjoy driving and riding things, it can be one of life's great pleasures, those people who perhaps do not understand this pleasure or perhaps do not share it should not necessarily condemn those that do. There are many machines of such elegance and style, of such breathtaking engineering (perhaps for their day) that driving or riding can be one of life's great pleasures.

I recognise this entirely. I also enjoy driving and riding things, whether it's cars, bikes, boats, planes or trains.

Just because it's fun doesn't mean it's fair to put others at unnecessary risk though.

And it doesn't seem unreasonable to confine the "having fun" bit of driving to certain areas. Of course whether those areas should be anywhere outside of towns, or dedicated racetracks etc., is a tricky question.

 

[rhod]

I agree with the lack of consideration for others' safety but denying the 'fun' element of driving fast is just self-delusion - you know this really or you wouldn't have mentioned Burnout.

Well, I enjoy playing Quake as well, but don't feel the urge to take a rocket launcher out with me in real life. (Although it would come in handy when that wanker in a Vectra has just cut me up on a corner )

 

[weltweit]

I recognise this entirely. I also enjoy driving and riding things, whether it's cars, bikes, boats, planes or trains.

Just because it's fun doesn't mean it's fair to put others at unnecessary risk though.

And it doesn't seem unreasonable to confine the "having fun" bit of driving to certain areas. Of course whether those areas should be anywhere outside of towns, or dedicated racetracks etc., is a tricky question.

I do agree that just because it is fun does not mean you should put others at risk.

That said, the agreement you make with risk when you ride a motorcycle is that you shoulder a significant risk yourself. You know that if you ride like a complete idiot there is a good chance you yourself will be killed or perhaps seriously maimed. I like to think of this as 'the biker's death penalty'. Have fun if you like but ride like a fool and you may well loose your life.

Of course motorcycles do not only present a risk to the rider so your point about putting others at risk is still valid. Indeed it was a police motorcyclist iirc that caused Heather Mills to lose her leg.

This shouldering of personal risk in the bikers death penalty is much less true in the car scenario.

People buying large 4x4s these days often report that their reason is because they want to feel safe and these large cars with their size and all their safety features make them feel this way, even if a 4x4 is much more likely to kill a pedestrian than an ordinary car, and a 4x4 is more likely to kill the occupants of an ordinary car in an accident. They themselves feel safer and that is what seems often to drive the purchase.

Indeed when I was a young biker we used to hate Volvo drivers. At the time Volvos were considered the safest cars on the road and we understood that because these drivers felt the safest they paid the least attention to other road users. Why should they, they were safe in their cocoon. We used to hate Volvo drivers.

For me riding a powerful motorcycle quickly is like a form of therapy, you have to devote complete mental focus and concentration to what you are doing, almost become one with the machine and immediate environment. To my mind it is better than meditation and I do think the effects are similar.

 

[cybertect]

Being able to legally drive pissed up would be great though!

Given the changes in attitudes to drink-driving that have occurred over the last thirty or forty years, I doubt that would ever happen even if robot cars were to become the norm.

It would send out all the wrong sorts of signals that it's acceptable to be behind the wheel of a car while pissed (whether or not you're actually controlling it). There would be all sorts of 'what happens if the robot breaks down or makes an incorrect decision' questions to deal with.

The DoT and Home Office would never allow it (to say nothing of groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving). It's suspect it's far more likely that we'll have in-car breathalysers that check you're under the limit before the robot-car will allow you to move off...

 

[8ball]

I know it's crossing threads a bit but I always felt it should be a condition of having a motorbike license that a person be placed on the organ donor register.

 

[moose]

It's an absolute nonsense. Can you imagine the first time a child gets killed by a driverless car? There'll be no human error to blame, and people will be baying for them to be taken off the road.

 

[roryer]

Yes, back to sensible again. Except that homeworking has a lot of downsides, which tend to be ignored. It's bad for the worker's career progression and networking, and it reduces informal skills sharing within teams. Incentivising it could be counter productive.

My personal experience is that eighteen months working from a bedroom without colleagues, human contact, strip lighting, bad coffee or pointless meetings deranges the mind and corrupts the soul.

You're not wrong, going into an office is good, but more often than not the advantages don't compensate for the travel time.

It'd certainly be possible to reduce days in the office to weekly team meetings and maybe some days when projects are coming to the crunch.

This would free us up to reduce commuting time and be more productive etc. Fewer cars on the road, less crowded trains, reduce energy use, CO2 and everything.

With this in mind and seeing as one of my colleagues is rural village based, and works quite a bit from home, and has similar complaints about lack of interaction, I thought that if we could set up a series of community based open plan offices at which desk space, access to wireless internet, telephone, franking machines, photocopiers etc. could be rented by the day /week / month / year. Then we could combine the advantages of office life, social interaction, bad coffee etc. and reduce the need to commute. I know you can rent serviced offices, but they seem to be more like broom cupboards, not open plan, and not really aimed at home workers. Do these exist already?

Different point I know, but again technology based, web and phone conferencing really is almost as good as real life meetings if everybody knows each other well, and you are able to carry on emailing etc, while sort of listening and making the occasional comment. Bloody brilliant this technology stuff.

 

[London_Calling]

The first passenger plane to take off fly to it's destination land without a pilot stepping in did so in the 60's. Surely we can get a car to do something?

But as said very early in the thread, it's not about this car going from A to B, it's about the thousands moving around it going every which way at different speeds. Repeat that for all of those car. Then for every other car in the country driving home in the Friday night rush hour, and you have a very significant data, satellite and energy issues.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

It's an absolute nonsense. Can you imagine the first time a child gets killed by a driverless car? There'll be no human error to blame, and people will be baying for them to be taken off the road.

then you'd be being sued for owning such a car or for making one...

It'd also cause the entire statue book to be rewritten with regards to liablity.

It's a pant's idea for many reasons but mainly because it'd mean that you were entirely traceable at all times as all this data would be recorded somewhere if only from gps access logs...

would you want the Govt or anyone else to know where you were at all times...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Hopefully it's not long now, and we'll be rid of these ghastly ego pumped men and it is mostly men and the ocassional stressed out Mum on the school run, in charge of killing machines charging around our towns and cities at inappropriate speeds.

Then again as this article states although we have the technology, the car companies are blocking its development due to it damaging their 'business model'. Oh the joys of capitalism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2241219,00.html

Driverless cars are not an afterthought: they would make the biggest impact on our lives of any of the current technologies: an end to 90% of vehicle accidents and deaths, the removal of parked cars from our streets, the merging of private and public transport, and the immense saving of the time now spent on congested roads.

... a General Motors spokesman saying: "The technology exists right now to move cars without a driver.

The motor companies oppose robot cars because they would completely change the market's business model. You could no longer sell the "Driving Experience", and it would blur the divide between public and private transport - it would make no difference whose robot took you to work or the pub.

The key technologies are known in British universities; and most regional groups of universities - like mine in Bradford, working with other Yorkshire universities - could put these systems together..

So why isn't this at the top of the agenda for our research councils? Well, now that universities have to respond to commercial interests, their vehicle and transport sections are dominated by the business models of the major car manufacturing and roadbuilding firms.

Driverless vehicles are about thinking outside the box; if you always ask the same people the same questions, driverless cars will remain an afterthought.

I won't be riding in any driverless cars. Haven't you seen I Robot?

 

[cybertect]

would you want the Govt or anyone else to know where you were at all times...

It's getting kind of late in the game to be asking that question.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

would you want the Govt or anyone else to know where you were at all times...

If you have a cel phone with a battery in it, they already do.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

If you have a cel phone with a battery in it, they already do.

except that they don't have access to that unless they make a request to the phone company in this country ... and even then it's only retrospectivly not what you called about only the time and date of the call, location of the phone at the time.

In the USA they can force the phone to turn on and record what you are doing... thankfully here in europe we not only have a beter phone network (3.5 g and gsm) but also our handsets don't have that capabilites although it was mooted...

 

[subversplat]

except that they don't have access to that unless they make a request to the phone company in this country ... and even then it's only retrospectivly not what you called about only the time and date of the call, location of the phone at the time.

In the USA they can force the phone to turn on and record what you are doing... thankfully here in europe we not only have a beter phone network (3.5 g and gsm) but also our handsets don't have that capabilites although it was mooted...

You can buy those sorts of phones that act as mobile spy microphones, but they're expensive. And you have to get your mark to carry it around.

 

[Tankus]

amazed by this ..a highly maneuverable quad rotor .. flying at speed through a window with 3" clearance, through thrown hoops ....catching a thrown ball in mid flight !!!

all it needs now is a small calibre recoilless weapon attached (like a gyrojet) and the jobs a good un !
http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/handguns/usa/1/1287739508.jpg