Should non-autonomous vehicles be banned from motorways?

[Terminator X]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Yep going real bad here in the UK:

"There were 1,730 reported road deaths in 2015, a decrease of 3% compared with 2014. This is the second lowest annual total on record after 2013. There were 45 per cent fewer fatalities in 2015 than a decade earlier in 2006."

TX.

[heebeegeetee]

Terminator X said:

Yep going real bad here in the UK:

"There were 1,730 reported road deaths in 2015, a decrease of 3% compared with 2014. This is the second lowest annual total on record after 2013. There were 45 per cent fewer fatalities in 2015 than a decade earlier in 2006."

TX.

But there are still tens of thousands injured and hurt each year.

I think that with all the bad stuff that motoring brings, be they fatalities, injuries, congestion, delays, pollution and so on, we'll still have all of that with autonomous cars but we'll have a lot less, and I think that's the point.

I'm not sure how much of the good stuff will remain though.

[Terminator X]

98elise said:

Autonomous cars would mean I could do something else on the commute, and likely to be much quicker.

As the linked article above, how would you react to a "bing" from the computer handing over control yet you're in the middle of the x word?

TX.

[Kawasicki]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

1000 drivers crash while driving poorly. 10 are seriously injured, 5 die.

100 passengers in autonomous vehicles have a crash through no faiult of their own. 6 are seriously injured, 4 die.

Autonomous solution is better because less people are injured or die. The problem for me is that you change from a system where you suffer the consequences of your own mistakes, to one where you are at the mercy of chance.

I like paying attention to save my skin.

[Blue Oval84]

browngt3 said:

Blue Oval84 said:

If PH is still around in 20 years I'd very much like to bump this thread and see who ends up being right, I doubt it will be the Luddites

Quite happy to be a Luddite on this topic. Hell my cars even have manual gearboxes!

Well, I'm sure there'll be a large overlap period where you can drive up and down the country changing gear yourself, I'll be asleep/reading/watching a film and wake up refreshed at my destination a few hours later :P

[Frik]

It won't happen nearly as quickly as some of the doom-mongers on here are suggesting. There is the very difficult question of liability. Aircraft have autopilot but the ultimate responsibility of flying the plane falls to the pilots. This will have to be the same for "autonomous" cars. Someone has to have responsibility. The problem is, humans are brilliant at getting distracted when they're bored.

[Kawasicki]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

[/

The collective good will win, I understand why. But with that comes the loss of personal responsibility and an even stronger nanny state mindset.

[98elise]

Terminator X said:

98elise said:

Autonomous cars would mean I could do something else on the commute, and likely to be much quicker.

As the linked article above, how would you react to a "bing" from the computer handing over control yet you're in the middle of the x word?

TX.

It depends entirely on the level of autonomy. SAE Level 4 and 5 would not need you ready to take over. Level 3 would be fine for me as my commute is 95% motorways. I have a tesla on order which is Level 1, possibly 2. I'm hoping Autopilot 2 is a big leap forward as I've ordered a Tesla. Details should be released soon.

[Mr Snrub]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I don't think people will be as keen when they realise the loss of freedom and amount of unemployment it will cause

[otolith]

Loss of freedom?

[Terminator X]

^^ Surely you jest? Taxi drivers, busses, lorries, cars themselves as who will buy them when you just call one up on an app ...

TX.

[dobly]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Together with so many others here, you have completely missed the point.

The article is not deriding technology. It is decrying complacency, laziness, excessive trust in software systems and the inability to reset to deal with the situation as it is in front of you, rather than what you think it should be as it is computerised.

[heebeegeetee]

dobly said:

Together with so many others here, you have completely missed the point.

The article is not deriding technology. It is decrying complacency, laziness, excessive trust in software systems and the inability to reset to deal with the situation as it is in front of you, rather than what you think it should be as it is computerised.

Whilst acknowledging the technology makes life much, much safer?

[Mr Snrub]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

If the government can control traffic flow then it will come with restrictions. If a motorway is decided to be too busy, or you've exceeded your CO2 quota for the week you won't be allowed on. You don't have to think the government are actually a race of lizard men to be concerned about the implications of them knowing where all drivers are at all times either.

Also, raising concerns or doubts about the implications of new technology does not make you a luddite. My Dad has books from his childhood saying that by the time he was an adult he'd be driving an electric bubble car because the oil would have run out and have no need to perform housework because the family robot would do it all. Those who doubted that would happen would doubtless have been mocked in the same way.

[otolith]

dobly said:

Together with so many others here, you have completely missed the point.

The article is not deriding technology. It is decrying complacency, laziness, excessive trust in software systems and the inability to reset to deal with the situation as it is in front of you, rather than what you think it should be as it is computerised.

I daresay that if you made modern children clean the machines of a cotton mill while it was still working, their lack of skills would lead to even more of them getting mangled than during the Industrial Revolution. Likewise, if you put the average suburbanite on a horse, they'd be at serious risk of losing control or falling off.

There is an issue with incompletely automated systems, but that's going to be transitional until they are good enough that the human will never have to take over (and in many cases, perhaps eventually all, he won't have a steering wheel or pedals or even necessarily be facing the direction of travel).

I don't think freeing people from drudge work is a bad thing.

[TypeRTim]

otolith said:

I don't think freeing people from drudge work is a bad thing.

But for a lot of people, it isn't drudge work at all. For some it is genuinely their livelihood too. Forcing people to change their habits and stop them from doing something they enjoy doing is never a good thing in my book, even in the name of progress!

Also, entire car brands could fold away and fail in this automated world. What is the point of a caterham or a lotus or any performance car for that matter if there is literally no way of the driver engaging with it and experiencing it/enjoying it? Especially if all speed limits are rigourously enforced through automation and they stick at today's human levels.

Remove the emotional side of driving through enforced automation and the differentiators between cars become the technology and layout inside the car, not the driving experience as there won't be one. Any brand that sells its vehicles based on the emotional connection forged through driving is at risk of being made irrelevant.

[AH33]

TLDR - No. Autonomous cars should be banned now before this crap gets out of hand. Thankfully, it'll only take a couple of accidents for everyone to agree.

[otolith]

TypeRTim said:

But for a lot of people, it isn't drudge work at all. For some it is genuinely their livelihood too. Forcing people to change their habits and stop them from doing something they enjoy doing is never a good thing in my book, even in the name of progress!

Also, entire car brands could fold away and fail in this automated world. What is the point of a caterham or a lotus or any performance car for that matter if there is literally no way of the driver engaging with it and experiencing it/enjoying it? Especially if all speed limits are rigourously enforced through automation and they stick at today's human levels.

Remove the emotional side of driving through enforced automation and the differentiators between cars become the technology and layout inside the car, not the driving experience as there won't be one. Any brand that sells its vehicles based on the emotional connection forged through driving is at risk of being made irrelevant.

Driving as a job - yeah, days are numbered as a mainstream occupation. File with thatching, hand weaving, horse shoeing, hand making pottery, forging swords. To try to turn it back is - literally - Luddite. They made the same objections to the automation of mills 200 years ago.

The vast majority of people buy dreary, boring cars and use them to execute dreary, boring journeys. I think there will be toy cars for enthusiasts until they are banned on the road (and then there will still be track cars). Elises and Caterhams are terrible cars to do boring journeys in, they're not being bought for the suburban school run, the commute in standing traffic or for pounding the sequence of 50mph speed restrictions we seem to call motorways these days. I've got two sports cars and a big, comfortable estate car for the practical stuff, and if the estate could drive itself while I sat in the back, that would be just fine.

And I wouldn't support the OP's suggestion of banning manually driven cars from motorways, I don't think it will be necessary to do so.

[Mr Snrub]

otolith said:

TypeRTim said:

But for a lot of people, it isn't drudge work at all. For some it is genuinely their livelihood too. Forcing people to change their habits and stop them from doing something they enjoy doing is never a good thing in my book, even in the name of progress!

Also, entire car brands could fold away and fail in this automated world. What is the point of a caterham or a lotus or any performance car for that matter if there is literally no way of the driver engaging with it and experiencing it/enjoying it? Especially if all speed limits are rigourously enforced through automation and they stick at today's human levels.

Remove the emotional side of driving through enforced automation and the differentiators between cars become the technology and layout inside the car, not the driving experience as there won't be one. Any brand that sells its vehicles based on the emotional connection forged through driving is at risk of being made irrelevant.

Driving as a job - yeah, days are numbered as a mainstream occupation. File with thatching, hand weaving, horse shoeing, hand making pottery, forging swords. To try to turn it back is - literally - Luddite. They made the same objections to the automation of mills 200 years ago.

The vast majority of people buy dreary, boring cars and use them to execute dreary, boring journeys. I think there will be toy cars for enthusiasts until they are banned on the road (and then there will still be track cars). Elises and Caterhams are terrible cars to do boring journeys in, they're not being bought for the suburban school run, the commute in standing traffic or for pounding the sequence of 50mph speed restrictions we seem to call motorways these days. I've got two sports cars and a big, comfortable estate car for the practical stuff, and if the estate could drive itself while I sat in the back, that would be just fine.

And I wouldn't support the OP's suggestion of banning manually driven cars from motorways, I don't think it will be necessary to do so.

Would your job be impacted by automation? I'm assuming not as you wouldn't be so enthusiastic if it was. It's not just the person behind the wheel either - if automated cars became the norm it wouldn't just be taxi drivers on the dole, it would be the people who answer the phones, do the payroll, service the cars, run the snack bars the drivers frequent who would all be out of a job. Would be no need for car salesmen, driving instructors, traffic wardens, takeaway delivery drivers, bodyshops, car wash operators and so on. That's potentially millions of people out of work and society needing to pick up the bill to retrain them or pay their benefits.

Another point to consider would be the unions. Look what's happening on Southern right now when they're trying to remove the Conductor. If for example TFL announced automated buses would be coming in a few years so most of the workforce would be laid off the strikes would bring the capital to a halt.

[mgv8]

"In 1900 more than 300,000 horses were needed to keep the city on the move, hauling everything from private carriages and cabs to buses, trams and delivery vans. "

Things are changing, and how fast will be intresting. The mix of electric and auto would mean even owning a car would not be needed (most pay on loan any way). Set pickup for work time and location then let the car come to you. Once you are at work or where ever you are going the car goes off to its next job or to charge its self up. Uber will be direct rival of Ford.
Owning and driving a car will be like owning and driving a classic car is now. Limited in many ways and only for the keen.
With the need for public transport to backup the car is the big thing holding this back, as cars taking you to a train hub would be a good model.
The question of what happens to car makers like Lotus is the same as what happend to the people who looked after the horses in 1800, change a lot or go under!

From: http://www.20thcenturylondon.org.uk/horse-transpor...