EV cars, would you, wouldn't you?

[ORD]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I am really sanguine about all of this. If it was thought palatable to force black boxes on people, it would have been done by now.

As to autonomous cars, I will be dead before they are the norm (and I am a youngster). Can you imagine the uproar of forcing poor people off the roads by mandating new and expensive tech? Not a chance.

Another consideration is this - if you are right about how cautious an autonomous car would be, they would be simply to damn slow to be a practical alternative on our congested roads. 15mph in town and 40mph out of town would bring things to a standstill pretty quickly.

[otolith]

I think it is likely that autonomous cars could be trusted to use higher speeds than current speed limits permit humans to do - because they will *always* slow down when they need to.

[ORD]

otolith said:

I think it is likely that autonomous cars could be trusted to use higher speeds than current speed limits permit humans to do - because they will *always* slow down when they need to.

Maybe on motorways (as long as no non-autonomous cars were around). But, in town, not a chance. A car driving at 30mph on a street with pedestrians on the pavement? Nah. London would come to a standstill once the cars had to adopt a policy of zero risk of killing a pedestrian. If not that, what? You could not have a car do the calculation that we all do - "If someone drunk falls into the road and I run them over, that's not really my fault".

[AnotherClarkey]

ORD said:

Maybe on motorways (as long as no non-autonomous cars were around). But, in town, not a chance. A car driving at 30mph on a street with pedestrians on the pavement? Nah. London would come to a standstill once the cars had to adopt a policy of zero risk of killing a pedestrian. If not that, what? You could not have a car do the calculation that we all do - "If someone drunk falls into the road and I run them over, that's not really my fault".

I have never done that calculation and not even bothered trying to stop though. Why is it any different for an automated car? Someone drunk falls into the road, the car does an emergency stop/avoidance manoeuvre, hits them - it still isn't the automated car's fault any more than it would be yours (although it may well react quicker than you could).

[otolith]

ORD said:

otolith said:

I think it is likely that autonomous cars could be trusted to use higher speeds than current speed limits permit humans to do - because they will *always* slow down when they need to.

Maybe on motorways (as long as no non-autonomous cars were around). But, in town, not a chance. A car driving at 30mph on a street with pedestrians on the pavement? Nah. London would come to a standstill once the cars had to adopt a policy of zero risk of killing a pedestrian. If not that, what? You could not have a car do the calculation that we all do - "If someone drunk falls into the road and I run them over, that's not really my fault".

Do you ever calculate that it is perfectly safe to exceed the speed limit? Are you ever right? If it's safe for you, it's safer for a machine.

[Guvernator]

I've come to the conclusion that driving for pleasure on public roads is rapidly becoming untenable anyway unless you live in the sticks or are really prepared to go out of your way and this will only get worse. It's not too far a step to imagine a time when it won't be possible at all due to increasing traffic, cameras or a little black box. Once autonomous EV cars become the norm that will be the final nail in the coffin IMO.

Hopefully they won't ban track-days either so us driving enthusiast Luddites will have somewhere to get our fix. I foresee having to have a dedicated track car in my future if I want to continue to enjoy my passion for cars or I'll do what a lot of people do and just give up, enjoy it while you can folks!

[ORD]

AnotherClarkey said:

ORD said:

Maybe on motorways (as long as no non-autonomous cars were around). But, in town, not a chance. A car driving at 30mph on a street with pedestrians on the pavement? Nah. London would come to a standstill once the cars had to adopt a policy of zero risk of killing a pedestrian. If not that, what? You could not have a car do the calculation that we all do - "If someone drunk falls into the road and I run them over, that's not really my fault".

I have never done that calculation and not even bothered trying to stop though. Why is it any different for an automated car? Someone drunk falls into the road, the car does an emergency stop/avoidance manoeuvre, hits them - it still isn't the automated car's fault any more than it would be yours (although it may well react quicker than you could).

I'll give you an example. I was driving in a 30mph limit at 20mph. Some kids ran out into the road for no obvious reason. I could not see them until they were in front of me. I didnt hit them, but I would have done if i had been travelling at 30mph. Conclusion: 30mph on that road might lead to running people over. An EV would not be able to exceed 20mph on that road.

The difference between me and an EV is that a soft-headed animal with a sense of ethics. I will weigh up the risk of killing someone by accident and tolerate a risk of that (e.g. I drive at 70mph on the motorway even though this means that if someone jumps out of the back of a van in front of me, my car will hit them and they will die). I do not think programming cars in advance to take risks of killing people will be swallowed. The best example is town driving. Children do run out and get run over, and we tolerate that risk; I dont think a company could programme a car on that basis.

[otolith]

ORD said:

I'll give you an example. I was driving in a 30mph limit at 20mph. Some kids ran out into the road for no obvious reason. I could not see them until they were in front of me. I didnt hit them, but I would have done if i had been travelling at 30mph. Conclusion: 30mph on that road might lead to running people over. An EV would not be able to exceed 20mph on that road.

In that situation, is it not better that everyone can stop in the distance they can see?

If you have a situation where you have very quiet cars which don't emit anything and never drive faster than it is safe to do, why would you impose any kind of arbitrary limit on their speed?

[ORD]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Nobody gets my point.

Car travelling along road. Pedestrian standing on the pavement. Pedestrian steps out (as he might) 3 feet in front of the car. The car hits him and leaves him crippled or dead.

We all take this risk every day. I would not want to be in charge of programming cars to discount this risk and so drive at the speed that would lead to a fatal accident if the unlikely (but possible) thing were to occur. What is the "safe" speed in a town? 10mph, 15 maybe? It certainly isnt 30mph.

[Devil2575]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Maybe.

To be honest though, aside from a few enthusiasts by the time it happens future generations will be far more used to the idea.

Look back 100 years to how people lived and it is a lot different now, how many of us look back at those times and wish we still did things the way they did?

[feef]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

See point 4 on the Oatmeal's visit to the Google cars

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car

[Devil2575]

ORD said:

I am really sanguine about all of this. If it was thought palatable to force black boxes on people, it would have been done by now.

As to autonomous cars, I will be dead before they are the norm (and I am a youngster). Can you imagine the uproar of forcing poor people off the roads by mandating new and expensive tech? Not a chance.

Another consideration is this - if you are right about how cautious an autonomous car would be, they would be simply to damn slow to be a practical alternative on our congested roads. 15mph in town and 40mph out of town would bring things to a standstill pretty quickly.

I agree about insurance black boxes. I doubt very much they will ever become mandatory.

However I suspect autonomous cars could end up being quicker. Trains are to a large degree autonomous these days, despite the very well paid man sitting up front. They certainly don't really need a driver as such. They also run a lot faster than cars do. Once you eliminate the risk of someone doing something stupid you can allow cars to speed up. The best way to run cars on a motorway assuming there are no hold ups is all at a constant high speed.

[Devil2575]

ORD said:

Nobody gets my point.

Car travelling along road. Pedestrian standing on the pavement. Pedestrian steps out (as he might) 3 feet in front of the car. The car hits him and leaves him crippled or dead.

We all take this risk every day. I would not want to be in charge of programming cars to discount this risk and so drive at the speed that would lead to a fatal accident if the unlikely (but possible) thing were to occur. What is the "safe" speed in a town? 10mph, 15 maybe? It certainly isnt 30mph.

I actually think you're wide of the mark with this one.

We all drive in this situation every day and as such are very close to the consequences of "what if they step out", yet that doesn't stop us doing it.
What makes you think that someone designing a system in front of a computer to do the same thing autonomously is going to feel any different to you?

Besides, as someone else has already said, it will have the net effect of reducing fatalities anyway.

[London424]

ORD said:

I am really sanguine about all of this. If it was thought palatable to force black boxes on people, it would have been done by now.

As to autonomous cars, I will be dead before they are the norm (and I am a youngster). Can you imagine the uproar of forcing poor people off the roads by mandating new and expensive tech? Not a chance.

Another consideration is this - if you are right about how cautious an autonomous car would be, they would be simply to damn slow to be a practical alternative on our congested roads. 15mph in town and 40mph out of town would bring things to a standstill pretty quickly.

I find pronouncements like this interesting. I've no clue how old you are but if you look back on the technology that used to be the norm when you were born vs what we have now and then extrapolate things forward I don't find it beyond the realm of reason that autonomous cars are going to be here sooner rather than later.

[liner33]

Devil2575 said:

I actually think you're wide of the mark with this one.

We all drive in this situation every day and as such are very close to the consequences of "what if they step out", yet that doesn't stop us doing it.
What makes you think that someone designing a system in front of a computer to do the same thing autonomously is going to feel any different to you?

Besides, as someone else has already said, it will have the net effect of reducing fatalities anyway.

and no doubt increasing traffic flow resulting in less time lost in jams , we have all been in ones that are caused wholly due to human stupidity

[ORD]

Devil2575 said:

ORD said:

Nobody gets my point.

Car travelling along road. Pedestrian standing on the pavement. Pedestrian steps out (as he might) 3 feet in front of the car. The car hits him and leaves him crippled or dead.

We all take this risk every day. I would not want to be in charge of programming cars to discount this risk and so drive at the speed that would lead to a fatal accident if the unlikely (but possible) thing were to occur. What is the "safe" speed in a town? 10mph, 15 maybe? It certainly isnt 30mph.

I actually think you're wide of the mark with this one.

We all drive in this situation every day and as such are very close to the consequences of "what if they step out", yet that doesn't stop us doing it.
What makes you think that someone designing a system in front of a computer to do the same thing autonomously is going to feel any different to you?

Besides, as someone else has already said, it will have the net effect of reducing fatalities anyway.

Because there is a massive difference between risks that we all quietly run and programming a computer to take the risk of killing people for the benefit of increased speed.

The Google article confirms my instinct on this - autonomous cars will drive very slowly indeed around pedestrians.

I also think the idea that they will blast up and down motorways is hopelessly optimistic. Unless and until human-driven cars are banned, speed limits are only going one way; and, even after that, why have cars go at speeds that definitely lead to fatalities if something goes wrong? Wont happen.

[otolith]

How do you defend speed limits when it gets to the point that hardly anyone is being hurt on the roads?

[liner33]

otolith said:

How do you defend speed limits when it gets to the point that hardly anyone is being hurt on the roads?

Speed limits will be redundant anyhow , they could peg every ones car back further on a road with issues anyhow

[ORD]

otolith said:

How do you defend speed limits when it gets to the point that hardly anyone is being hurt on the roads?

Just like they do now - assume that faster would mean more accidents and slower will mean fewer. The numbers would be different but the specious reasoning would be the same.

[J4CKO]

ORD said:

Children do run out and get run over, and we tolerate that risk; I dont think a company could programme a car on that basis.

VW would