EV cars, would you, wouldn't you?
Poll: EV cars, would you, wouldn't you?
Total Members Polled: 427
Discussion
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.
Thing is the car would already be picking up the person is starting to move backwards because of their muscle movements etc (I'd guess even at the point when a driver can't see them due to baggy clothes) and so be able to start reacting much earlier. As humans we often see what we expect, and so even if someone is moving backwards we'd just see the movement but not realise quickly they are coming towards the car and not just moving. So the car would be much slower, and then also work out that the car coming the other way is travelling at "x" miles an hour. So it would know the probability of injuries to the cars occupants is x% if it swerves and they crash, whereas if it hit the pedestrian it will be a x% for death or "x" injuries. So it would pick the best option almost instantly. Thing is you say we take this risk each day, so why is it different if it is programmed this way too?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 said:
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.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.
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.
These hyper-sophisticated systems that people are talking about will be impossibly expensive for a long time. Working out whether a pedestrian is about to move?!
A point that nobody seems to have mentioned is that driverless cars will probably still have drivers as a fallback, which removes quite a lot of the benefit!
A point that nobody seems to have mentioned is that driverless cars will probably still have drivers as a fallback, which removes quite a lot of the benefit!
ORD said:
These hyper-sophisticated systems that people are talking about will be impossibly expensive for a long time. Working out whether a pedestrian is about to move?!
A point that nobody seems to have mentioned is that driverless cars will probably still have drivers as a fallback, which removes quite a lot of the benefit!
We already have a lot of the technology and software now. Just use radar/ lasers or similar and you'll be able to see out of sight stuff going on, and based on software the computers will be able to predict what is likely to happen. You already have that in films for example, with CGI being based around realistic looking movement. Look at military stuff too - able to target a huge number of targets on a battlefield and pick the most important targets very quickly. You mention cost, but spread it over several billion cars around the globe and it could become cheap pretty quickly. It's improving the modelling by getting the software to learn with more experience for more unexpected events, and also what happens with stuff like rain which will affect your remote sensing techniques. Plus humans have to accept it is safer (and get over the mental hurdle of not being in control), as well as laws written/ updated. I could easily see this being normal by the end of the century. A point that nobody seems to have mentioned is that driverless cars will probably still have drivers as a fallback, which removes quite a lot of the benefit!
NRS said:
ORD said:
These hyper-sophisticated systems that people are talking about will be impossibly expensive for a long time. Working out whether a pedestrian is about to move?!
A point that nobody seems to have mentioned is that driverless cars will probably still have drivers as a fallback, which removes quite a lot of the benefit!
We already have a lot of the technology and software now. Just use radar/ lasers or similar and you'll be able to see out of sight stuff going on, and based on software the computers will be able to predict what is likely to happen. You already have that in films for example, with CGI being based around realistic looking movement. Look at military stuff too - able to target a huge number of targets on a battlefield and pick the most important targets very quickly. You mention cost, but spread it over several billion cars around the globe and it could become cheap pretty quickly. It's improving the modelling by getting the software to learn with more experience for more unexpected events, and also what happens with stuff like rain which will affect your remote sensing techniques. Plus humans have to accept it is safer (and get over the mental hurdle of not being in control), as well as laws written/ updated. I could easily see this being normal by the end of the century. A point that nobody seems to have mentioned is that driverless cars will probably still have drivers as a fallback, which removes quite a lot of the benefit!
But just think of the enormous expense and delay involved in retro-fitting systems to cars or, more likely, a roll out across an entire population of motorists, including motorists with very little money.
I expect that it will be hard enough to persuade a bunch of diesel lovers to go to a dealership for minor and free work to stop their cars being mobile ecological disasters! No government is going to want to force change very quickly.
I find the prospect of mandatory automated cars depressing, but the reality is that the world will be so different by the time it happens that it just isn't worth worrying about. We'll on be on hover boards or using Star Trek transporters
I am not even persuaded that automated cars will ever happen, at least not as people currently imagine it. Even 20 years is a huge time. You're off your rocker The tech is never the problem. It's roll out, infrastructure and cost to the taxpayer and the public that is the problem. 2050 would be a reasonable guess for getting a reasonable number of these cars on the roads, but it's optimistic. Isn't TFL giving taxi drivers until 2025 to stop driving around in coal-driven s
tmobiles? In the context of literally illegal air quality in our biggest city and sole economic centre, that's the pace of the change. Glacial. And nothing to do with technological availability.
The safety benefits are massively overstated. The real benefit will come if it leads to a rationalisation of personal transportation, but that requires a massive change in how we think about cars. A lot of people don't really want the government telling their car where to go and how fast to go, but that's what we are really talking about. Personal transport will be a form of public transport.
I am bored of this topic now, but it's a pleasure arguing with you, as ever
The tech is never the problem. It's roll out, infrastructure and cost to the taxpayer and the public that is the problem. 2050 would be a reasonable guess for getting a reasonable number of these cars on the roads, but it's optimistic. Isn't TFL giving taxi drivers until 2025 to stop driving around in coal-driven stmobiles? In the context of literally illegal air quality in our biggest city and sole economic centre, that's the pace of the change. Glacial. And nothing to do with technological availability. The safety benefits are massively overstated. The real benefit will come if it leads to a rationalisation of personal transportation, but that requires a massive change in how we think about cars. A lot of people don't really want the government telling their car where to go and how fast to go, but that's what we are really talking about. Personal transport will be a form of public transport.
I am bored of this topic now, but it's a pleasure arguing with you, as ever
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The two problems I can see (one of which you mentioned earlier) is public perception/ rule making and then also smaller scale stuff in the transition period which could create problems.In the transition period it could take a lot longer than expected if there is an accident as it will be blown out of all proportions. Also people like to be in control of stuff, and I think it will be difficult for a lot of people to get past that stage of struggling to get past trusting the "nothing" that is driving for them. Intermediate tech could actually make it worse - people not liking lane assist or similar as an example and so being pushed away from the idea.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I agree in some ways, but that is a bit different when it's not something they have been doing their whole life. You see it when other people are driving, with many people being very bad passengers because they have lost the control part. Not to mention it being much more obvious than a plane, since you are at the front of what is happening rather than tucked away not seeing what is going on.Interesting the debate on EV or not has descended into autonomous or not. Like you can’t have autonomous on an dino burner?
The first thing I want to say – I presume being on PH we all think we are in the top 10% of drivers. But that means 90% of people on the roads are worse drivers than us! Quick give them an autonomous car!
If you think about what a car is for it’s to get you somewhere faster than walking or a horse can get you. So you have more time to do the things in life you want to do instead of operating a vehicle machine. If you make the vehicle machine operate itself then you free up time to do other things, like facetweeting by the 90% who can’t remember they are meant to be looking where they are going.
One place where we need auto cars immediately is on the motorway. I’m doing about 15,000 a year on them and every day someone going in the same direction as everyone else manages to crash into someone. Usually near a junction, because their brain had disengaged and they forget that people slow down to let in others and / or there are cars changing lanes. About 1 in 100 they kill themselves or someone else and close the motorway. It’s one of the 90% again. So I say give the 90% full auto cars, and let the 10% take an special test to prove they have the skills needed to drive themselves. Including a go in a simulator with hazards chucked at them… prams rolling out from behind bin lorries, children chasing dogs and balls, teenagers listening to ipods unaware of their surroundings, van drivers stopping suddenly and opening their doors. Lorries having blowouts and etc etc… The worse I saw this year was on the A5 where someone obviously thought they were on a dual carriageway… and it wasn’t. 2 halves of cars separated by about 200m! Not a chance either driver survived. The latest was Monday on the M1 where an 87 year old got on the wrong direction of the M1. Another 2 fatalities. It’s these massive delays to my journeys and the causes that make me realise that autonomous will be good for the 90%.
Now - just because a car has autonomy doesn’t mean you have to use it 24x7. Want to go for a 5am drive on Sunday morning, just because you can… turn off the full auto, switch on the gear simulators … basically a fake gear level and clutch pedal that can be programmed to have the number of gears, weights and bite point and throw action of any car in history. You can drop the horse power and make the suspension go soggy, make the brakes only work if you stand on them, over or underinflate tyres to reduce the grip, add piped in noise of your favourite snot box, and off you go straight into the nearest hedge. ;-) But at least you will know it’s your lack of talent that got you there
FWIW My i3 has the Active cruise control with traffic jam assist. It’s a joy. In heinous traffic you can stick it on and though not quite fall asleep – you can shut your eyes and pretend to be to alarm other drivers ;-) You still have to keep 1 finger of each hand lightly pressed against the back of the steering wheel or it beeps and disengages, and if the traffic stops for more than 5 seconds, you need to dab the throttle to get it to pull off again. Other than that it will keep you in lane up to 35 mph (including through some tricky road works once). Shame it only works on motorways and some A Road away from civilisation. I know if I could I’d let it drive on the motorway all the time. Hopefully they'll increase the speed in the next generation.
The funniest incident I ever saw where someone had a definite lack of skill was an MGF in the wet cane it off a roundabout. Obviously no traction control as the rear ended up going faster than the front, so he lifted off. Oh dear That was mistake 1. The car gripped, was now pointing towards the grass, so it mounted the kerb and onto the verge. At which point he must have tried to steer, Oh dear, mistake 2. The car spun and now ended up going backwards, right into a conveniently located lamppost, which proceeded to reduce the luggage capacity by 50%. I just hope he wasn’t taking some eggs to cook at work, or it would have been terrible. Could have been a lot worse if the lamp post was a pedestrian.
The first thing I want to say – I presume being on PH we all think we are in the top 10% of drivers. But that means 90% of people on the roads are worse drivers than us! Quick give them an autonomous car!
If you think about what a car is for it’s to get you somewhere faster than walking or a horse can get you. So you have more time to do the things in life you want to do instead of operating a vehicle machine. If you make the vehicle machine operate itself then you free up time to do other things, like facetweeting by the 90% who can’t remember they are meant to be looking where they are going.
One place where we need auto cars immediately is on the motorway. I’m doing about 15,000 a year on them and every day someone going in the same direction as everyone else manages to crash into someone. Usually near a junction, because their brain had disengaged and they forget that people slow down to let in others and / or there are cars changing lanes. About 1 in 100 they kill themselves or someone else and close the motorway. It’s one of the 90% again. So I say give the 90% full auto cars, and let the 10% take an special test to prove they have the skills needed to drive themselves. Including a go in a simulator with hazards chucked at them… prams rolling out from behind bin lorries, children chasing dogs and balls, teenagers listening to ipods unaware of their surroundings, van drivers stopping suddenly and opening their doors. Lorries having blowouts and etc etc… The worse I saw this year was on the A5 where someone obviously thought they were on a dual carriageway… and it wasn’t. 2 halves of cars separated by about 200m! Not a chance either driver survived. The latest was Monday on the M1 where an 87 year old got on the wrong direction of the M1. Another 2 fatalities. It’s these massive delays to my journeys and the causes that make me realise that autonomous will be good for the 90%.
Now - just because a car has autonomy doesn’t mean you have to use it 24x7. Want to go for a 5am drive on Sunday morning, just because you can… turn off the full auto, switch on the gear simulators … basically a fake gear level and clutch pedal that can be programmed to have the number of gears, weights and bite point and throw action of any car in history. You can drop the horse power and make the suspension go soggy, make the brakes only work if you stand on them, over or underinflate tyres to reduce the grip, add piped in noise of your favourite snot box, and off you go straight into the nearest hedge. ;-) But at least you will know it’s your lack of talent that got you there
FWIW My i3 has the Active cruise control with traffic jam assist. It’s a joy. In heinous traffic you can stick it on and though not quite fall asleep – you can shut your eyes and pretend to be to alarm other drivers ;-) You still have to keep 1 finger of each hand lightly pressed against the back of the steering wheel or it beeps and disengages, and if the traffic stops for more than 5 seconds, you need to dab the throttle to get it to pull off again. Other than that it will keep you in lane up to 35 mph (including through some tricky road works once). Shame it only works on motorways and some A Road away from civilisation. I know if I could I’d let it drive on the motorway all the time. Hopefully they'll increase the speed in the next generation.
The funniest incident I ever saw where someone had a definite lack of skill was an MGF in the wet cane it off a roundabout. Obviously no traction control as the rear ended up going faster than the front, so he lifted off. Oh dear That was mistake 1. The car gripped, was now pointing towards the grass, so it mounted the kerb and onto the verge. At which point he must have tried to steer, Oh dear, mistake 2. The car spun and now ended up going backwards, right into a conveniently located lamppost, which proceeded to reduce the luggage capacity by 50%. I just hope he wasn’t taking some eggs to cook at work, or it would have been terrible. Could have been a lot worse if the lamp post was a pedestrian.
TransverseTight said:
The first thing I want to say – I presume being on PH we all think we are in the top 10% of drivers. But that means 90% of people on the roads are worse drivers than us! Quick give them an autonomous car!
Do posters on here really think that. I mean how would you know if you were in the top 10%?Having an interest in cars and posting on a motoring website is no indicator of this, and reading some of the scrapes people on here get themselves into I would suggest there are a lot who would easily make the bottom 10%. But there again how do you measure that?
Does the same correlation apply to Mumsnet for example. Change drivers for mothers for the pedants on here.
These sort of statements are laughable.
What would be the point in any of that? Piped noise is cringeworthy.
There will not be autonomous petrol cars. No way. It only makes any sense combined with electric drivetrains. It will also be a disaster for the car industry as cars will rapidly become commoditised. What's the point in RWD, a good chassis etc if the car drives itself? None. The only differences will be styling.
There will not be autonomous petrol cars. No way. It only makes any sense combined with electric drivetrains. It will also be a disaster for the car industry as cars will rapidly become commoditised. What's the point in RWD, a good chassis etc if the car drives itself? None. The only differences will be styling.
ORD said:
What would be the point in any of that? Piped noise is cringeworthy.
There will not be autonomous petrol cars. No way. It only makes any sense combined with electric drivetrains. It will also be a disaster for the car industry as cars will rapidly become commoditised. What's the point in RWD, a good chassis etc if the car drives itself? None. The only differences will be styling.
Why does it only make any sense combined with electric drivetrains?There will not be autonomous petrol cars. No way. It only makes any sense combined with electric drivetrains. It will also be a disaster for the car industry as cars will rapidly become commoditised. What's the point in RWD, a good chassis etc if the car drives itself? None. The only differences will be styling.
ORD said:
It will also be a disaster for the car industry as cars will rapidly become commoditised. What's the point in RWD, a good chassis etc if the car drives itself? None. The only differences will be styling.
They will simply find other ways to market them - the vast majority of cars are sold on things other than RWD, a good chassis. You can't even advertise them on their dynamic capabilities in the UK. Car advertising has bugger all to do with how they actually drive. So autonomous cars could be marketed on styling, comfort, safety, features (you can spin a whole TV advert out of a remote opening tailgate). ORD said:
What would be the point in any of that? Piped noise is cringeworthy.
There will not be autonomous petrol cars. No way. It only makes any sense combined with electric drivetrains. It will also be a disaster for the car industry as cars will rapidly become commoditised. What's the point in RWD, a good chassis etc if the car drives itself? None. The only differences will be styling.
They'd all look like a VW Camper van because you'd want to have somewhere to sleep or rest whilst the car drove you, plus you'd need entertainment and work facilities, plus maybe a toilet to save stopping at the rip off service stations as you'd not now need to take a break from the driving. It's not a pleasant future.There will not be autonomous petrol cars. No way. It only makes any sense combined with electric drivetrains. It will also be a disaster for the car industry as cars will rapidly become commoditised. What's the point in RWD, a good chassis etc if the car drives itself? None. The only differences will be styling.
Monkeylegend said:
Do posters on here really think that. I mean how would you know if you were in the top 10%?
Having an interest in cars and posting on a motoring website is no indicator of this, and reading some of the scrapes people on here get themselves into I would suggest there are a lot who would easily make the bottom 10%. But there again how do you measure that?
Does the same correlation apply to Mumsnet for example. Change drivers for mothers for the pedants on here.
These sort of statements are laughable.
It was meant to be ironic... as in the way some people go on you would think they are a retired F1 driver / Police pursuit instructor with skills above most of the other drivers on the road. Which by definition means everyone else is a liability. Having an interest in cars and posting on a motoring website is no indicator of this, and reading some of the scrapes people on here get themselves into I would suggest there are a lot who would easily make the bottom 10%. But there again how do you measure that?
Does the same correlation apply to Mumsnet for example. Change drivers for mothers for the pedants on here.
These sort of statements are laughable.
Have you ever seen a post that starts... "I'm a below average skills driver and...".
Given me an idea for a new thread though ;-)
ORD said:
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.
The Truth is neither you or I know the answer. 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.
I think you are being incredibly pressimistic though. We allow a great many activities to take place because of reliable safety systems.
Why allow trains to travel at speeds that definitely lead to fatalities if something goes wrong?
Why allow people to fly in aeroplanes when it definitely leads to fatalities if something goes wrong?
Why allow chemical plants to operate when it definitely leads to fatalities if something goes wrong?
Once you have a reliable enough safety system there is no reason why speeds couldn't be increased at least on the motorway where pedestrians are prohibited.
Monkeylegend said:
TransverseTight said:
The first thing I want to say – I presume being on PH we all think we are in the top 10% of drivers. But that means 90% of people on the roads are worse drivers than us! Quick give them an autonomous car!
Do posters on here really think that. I mean how would you know if you were in the top 10%?Having an interest in cars and posting on a motoring website is no indicator of this, and reading some of the scrapes people on here get themselves into I would suggest there are a lot who would easily make the bottom 10%. But there again how do you measure that?
Does the same correlation apply to Mumsnet for example. Change drivers for mothers for the pedants on here.
These sort of statements are laughable.
I'd imagine that the spread of driving ability on PH is pretty similar to the population as a whole.
TransverseTight said:
Monkeylegend said:
Do posters on here really think that. I mean how would you know if you were in the top 10%?
Having an interest in cars and posting on a motoring website is no indicator of this, and reading some of the scrapes people on here get themselves into I would suggest there are a lot who would easily make the bottom 10%. But there again how do you measure that?
Does the same correlation apply to Mumsnet for example. Change drivers for mothers for the pedants on here.
These sort of statements are laughable.
It was meant to be ironic... as in the way some people go on you would think they are a retired F1 driver / Police pursuit instructor with skills above most of the other drivers on the road. Which by definition means everyone else is a liability. Having an interest in cars and posting on a motoring website is no indicator of this, and reading some of the scrapes people on here get themselves into I would suggest there are a lot who would easily make the bottom 10%. But there again how do you measure that?
Does the same correlation apply to Mumsnet for example. Change drivers for mothers for the pedants on here.
These sort of statements are laughable.
Have you ever seen a post that starts... "I'm a below average skills driver and...".
Given me an idea for a new thread though ;-)
ORD said:
What would be the point in any of that? Piped noise is cringeworthy.
There will not be autonomous petrol cars. No way. It only makes any sense combined with electric drivetrains. It will also be a disaster for the car industry as cars will rapidly become commoditised. What's the point in RWD, a good chassis etc if the car drives itself? None. The only differences will be styling.
Agreed absolutely no point. But in a free market economy with 200,000,000 cars a year being sold someone is bound to do it. After all we already have piped noise and variable setting suspension. Why not add fake gear boxes and crap handling to the mix. ;-)There will not be autonomous petrol cars. No way. It only makes any sense combined with electric drivetrains. It will also be a disaster for the car industry as cars will rapidly become commoditised. What's the point in RWD, a good chassis etc if the car drives itself? None. The only differences will be styling.
In fact if you look at the size of the Telsa touch screen you could add an app that does manual ignition timing, and if you get it wrong the car goes a bit wheezy at the top end of each fake gear. That and you have to manually crank the car to get it started or the touch screen won't come on. They should also stick a clown honky horn on the side and make the wheels out of wood with solid rubber treads. Some people are just too unerstricted on how much development they allow in their cars. Automatic chokes... for wimps!
I do agree it would be better with an EV. As you can stick a 600hp EV motor in and run it with only 45hp and not suffer the fuel consupmtion issues having a big V8 would have if you tried to do that.
What's missing though is a 10kW PA system so people outside the car can listen to the sound of your fake Mazda 787B.
</sarcasm>
Devil2575 said:
Spot on.
I'd imagine that the spread of driving ability on PH is pretty similar to the population as a whole.
I imagine that the driving skills are higher but they take more risks.I'd imagine that the spread of driving ability on PH is pretty similar to the population as a whole.
Less like to be Facetweeting (good) but more likely to be trying to drift a knackered Fiesta (bad).
ORD said:
These hyper-sophisticated systems that people are talking about will be impossibly expensive for a long time. Working out whether a pedestrian is about to move?!
A point that nobody seems to have mentioned is that driverless cars will probably still have drivers as a fallback, which removes quite a lot of the benefit!
Very true. I have asked for some time if a driverless car (WTF?) which senses objects around it can, say, see the look in a kid's eye as he/she looks like she is about to run out into the road as happened to me in Nottingham this year. By the time the sensors tell the brain that there is something in the way and then the brakes are applied and work; it will be all too late i fear.A point that nobody seems to have mentioned is that driverless cars will probably still have drivers as a fallback, which removes quite a lot of the benefit!
That deer running beside the motorway, will it swerve across my path? Let's slow down and see. Sensors working once it has dashed across me will likely be too little too late.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff