Should non-autonomous vehicles be banned from motorways?
Discussion
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. 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.
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.
I think people are too much mixing up "transport" with "driving". There is no driving pleasure in taking an enthusiast car on a long motorway journey. None. Is it A to B. Doing that more safely, more economically, and more quickly - people will overcome their nervousness around it and get onboard because it makes sense. Just like people did with mass air transport (to my earlier point - when did you last see a nervous flyer?!).
More efficient transport does not mean we cannot still drive. Or race. Inevitably, as an interest it will become less popular, and inevitably in 30-50 years driving yourself will be more of a niche interest. But it won't go away, and I doubt anyone will stop you if you want to drive. If anything, may even *promote* track driving and racing as one of the last places you can genuinely have fun. The rest of the demographic who might otherwise have been into driving will just move onto meeting Linda Luzadi in a VR headset or something...
I recently swapped a magnificent Clio 182 Trophy for an R129 SL500, and sold a more magnificent BMW 1M and bought a Ford C Max. Because I get my "driving" kicks from racecars now, on the road it's mostly "transport" and boring motorway driving I need cars for. I'd trade the C Max for an autonomous pod in seconds! And to points made earlier - I think autonomous and non-autonomous cars can co-exist on the motorway via dedicated lanes only for cars that meet the standards and can cooperate together. As people sit in traffic whilst the self-driven cars whizz by with people reading magazines in the back, it'll just accelerate the shift and manufacturer investment. The level of new-car demand that would generate because of the obvious consumer appeal will just accelerate things. Not now, but within 30 years definitely.
TypeRTim said:
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.
Enthusiasts will continue to buy manual cars, and race them, and go to shows etc. Its no different to the horse. All we will see is a more obvious split between cars bought for fun, and cars bought for pleasure.
otolith said:
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.
Thatching - still a profession, and a coveted one at that for anyone who lives in a country cottage with a thatched roofThe 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.
Horse Shoeing - Still a job as people still ride horses for sport, pleasure, recreation and occupation
Hand Made pottery - still happens in large numbers
Forging Swords - I'll admit that this one is a little lower, but that job is handled by blacksmiths which still exist.
Ban manually driven cars and there will be literally NO NEED for a taxi driver as their job would be illegal!
Yes, the vast majority buy dreary cars because they don't care. I'm not one of them. I have a sports car. It is my only car and I use it for all my driving needs as I can't afford to keep a stable of cars. I regularly take it over 100 miles on the motorway and A-roads as well as for small local trips to the shops. If I had kids, i would use it for the school run too.
The problem is, once you start automating where do you draw the line? At some point it will be made mandatory that all cars have autonomous functions much like they are trying to make it mandatory that they don't have an ICE and much like they phased in the catalytic converter and DPFs. Once it is mandatory they have autonomous functionality they will start rolling out autonomous only zones, much like they are with Zero emissions zones. Then it will become mandatory that all vehicles operate autonomously on the public highway.
An interesting aside, WHEN this happens (sad face) what will happen to the car insurance industry? As surely all accidents will then be the fault of the vehicle's programming rather than individual error. There will be no concept of individual liability any more so you will no longer need a car insurance policy. How are they going to recoup that MASSIVE shortfall?
Those jobs still exist, but not as mainstream occupations. There will still be a few people making a living driving cars for a very long time, even if it's just racing drivers and track instructors, but jobs like taxi drivers and HGV or delivery drivers - maybe not. Do I mourn that? No, not really. I don't think doing a non-job that doesn't need a person to do it anymore is a fruitful use of a human life. Society is going to have to adapt to automation in a whole range of spheres, not just driving jobs. It's a much bigger picture.
I think eventually manually driven cars will disappear from the scene, possibly with the help of legislation, possibly not. I think it will eventually be seen as scarcely believable that we once used to accept thousands of deaths a year on the roads (millions worldwide) and just shrug it off as unavoidable, even resist change that would reduce it. But I don't think that will happen any time soon, we're going to see manually driven cars around for some time to come. We may see them increasingly excluded from some areas, though. I doubt they will be areas you would drive for fun.
Insurance - if I said you had to insure your dog for third party risks, would you be concerned that the dog himself or the breeder might be to blame and how would we sort the liability out, or would you just buy a policy that says they'll pay up if your dog bites someone? I think people tie themselves up unnecessarily on the insurance question. You have to insure a vehicle you wish to use on the road for the third party risks it creates. It doesn't matter whether it is you, your partner, or a faulty handbrake mechanism which is at fault, you must ensure that third parties can be compensated for damage done as a result of using your car on the road. I don't see any difference with an autonomous car. It may be that if your car hurts someone and the insurer thinks the manufacturer was liable, they will pay out to the third party and then chase the manufacturer, but that's not your problem.
The big impact on insurance will be that teenagers will be able to insure fully autonomous cars for less than low risk middle aged people who want to drive themselves. And they won't need a licence. And they will be able to get pissed and be driven home. That, I think, will be the death of manually driven cars, you will get a generation who don't need to jump through the hoops in order to have independent mobility and simply won't see that a manually driven car is remotely worthwhile.
I think eventually manually driven cars will disappear from the scene, possibly with the help of legislation, possibly not. I think it will eventually be seen as scarcely believable that we once used to accept thousands of deaths a year on the roads (millions worldwide) and just shrug it off as unavoidable, even resist change that would reduce it. But I don't think that will happen any time soon, we're going to see manually driven cars around for some time to come. We may see them increasingly excluded from some areas, though. I doubt they will be areas you would drive for fun.
Insurance - if I said you had to insure your dog for third party risks, would you be concerned that the dog himself or the breeder might be to blame and how would we sort the liability out, or would you just buy a policy that says they'll pay up if your dog bites someone? I think people tie themselves up unnecessarily on the insurance question. You have to insure a vehicle you wish to use on the road for the third party risks it creates. It doesn't matter whether it is you, your partner, or a faulty handbrake mechanism which is at fault, you must ensure that third parties can be compensated for damage done as a result of using your car on the road. I don't see any difference with an autonomous car. It may be that if your car hurts someone and the insurer thinks the manufacturer was liable, they will pay out to the third party and then chase the manufacturer, but that's not your problem.
The big impact on insurance will be that teenagers will be able to insure fully autonomous cars for less than low risk middle aged people who want to drive themselves. And they won't need a licence. And they will be able to get pissed and be driven home. That, I think, will be the death of manually driven cars, you will get a generation who don't need to jump through the hoops in order to have independent mobility and simply won't see that a manually driven car is remotely worthwhile.
otolith said:
Those jobs still exist, but not as mainstream occupations. There will still be a few people making a living driving cars for a very long time, even if it's just racing drivers and track instructors, but jobs like taxi drivers and HGV or delivery drivers - maybe not. Do I mourn that? No, not really. I don't think doing a non-job that doesn't need a person to do it anymore is a fruitful use of a human life. Society is going to have to adapt to automation in a whole range of spheres, not just driving jobs. It's a much bigger picture.
I think eventually manually driven cars will disappear from the scene, possibly with the help of legislation, possibly not. I think it will eventually be seen as scarcely believable that we once used to accept thousands of deaths a year on the roads (millions worldwide) and just shrug it off as unavoidable, even resist change that would reduce it. But I don't think that will happen any time soon, we're going to see manually driven cars around for some time to come. We may see them increasingly excluded from some areas, though. I doubt they will be areas you would drive for fun.
Insurance - if I said you had to insure your dog for third party risks, would you be concerned that the dog himself or the breeder might be to blame and how would we sort the liability out, or would you just buy a policy that says they'll pay up if your dog bites someone? I think people tie themselves up unnecessarily on the insurance question. You have to insure a vehicle you wish to use on the road for the third party risks it creates. It doesn't matter whether it is you, your partner, or a faulty handbrake mechanism which is at fault, you must ensure that third parties can be compensated for damage done as a result of using your car on the road. I don't see any difference with an autonomous car. It may be that if your car hurts someone and the insurer thinks the manufacturer was liable, they will pay out to the third party and then chase the manufacturer, but that's not your problem.
The big impact on insurance will be that teenagers will be able to insure fully autonomous cars for less than low risk middle aged people who want to drive themselves. And they won't need a licence. And they will be able to get pissed and be driven home. That, I think, will be the death of manually driven cars, you will get a generation who don't need to jump through the hoops in order to have independent mobility and simply won't see that a manually driven car is remotely worthwhile.
I drive everywhere for enjoyment, I just enjoy the act of driving. No matter how irritating it can get, I still enjoy it immensely! And I won't replace a car that works perfectly well and I enjoy using. I don't think the governments of the world would make every single car on the road now illegal either. The environmental impact of disposing of all of that metal would be ridiculous.I think eventually manually driven cars will disappear from the scene, possibly with the help of legislation, possibly not. I think it will eventually be seen as scarcely believable that we once used to accept thousands of deaths a year on the roads (millions worldwide) and just shrug it off as unavoidable, even resist change that would reduce it. But I don't think that will happen any time soon, we're going to see manually driven cars around for some time to come. We may see them increasingly excluded from some areas, though. I doubt they will be areas you would drive for fun.
Insurance - if I said you had to insure your dog for third party risks, would you be concerned that the dog himself or the breeder might be to blame and how would we sort the liability out, or would you just buy a policy that says they'll pay up if your dog bites someone? I think people tie themselves up unnecessarily on the insurance question. You have to insure a vehicle you wish to use on the road for the third party risks it creates. It doesn't matter whether it is you, your partner, or a faulty handbrake mechanism which is at fault, you must ensure that third parties can be compensated for damage done as a result of using your car on the road. I don't see any difference with an autonomous car. It may be that if your car hurts someone and the insurer thinks the manufacturer was liable, they will pay out to the third party and then chase the manufacturer, but that's not your problem.
The big impact on insurance will be that teenagers will be able to insure fully autonomous cars for less than low risk middle aged people who want to drive themselves. And they won't need a licence. And they will be able to get pissed and be driven home. That, I think, will be the death of manually driven cars, you will get a generation who don't need to jump through the hoops in order to have independent mobility and simply won't see that a manually driven car is remotely worthwhile.
With insurance, you don't insure your car here so your point is moot. You actively take out an individual liability policy on yourself as the driver rather than the car as an object. Otherwise every Focus RS insurance premium would be the same, regardless of driver, as you are insuring against damage caused by the object rather than by the user in charge of the object.
Volvo have recently said they would pay out for any accidents caused by one of their cars running autonomously (if found to be have been used correctly). I guess that rather answers my point in that the insurance industry would have a massive upheaval which inevitably would lose more jobs.
If manually driven cars, don't become outlawed then all of this arguing/discussion is pretty pointless anyway as I would drive my car and get enjoyment out of it and you would be driven by yours and have a nap.
If however, cars driven by a humans directly get outlawed completely (or even partially from certain areas), which I see as an inevitable outcome with this eventually, then a lot of people of my and older generations will have an issue.
otolith said:
I think eventually manually driven cars will disappear from the scene, possibly with the help of legislation, possibly not. I think it will eventually be seen as scarcely believable that we once used to accept thousands of deaths a year on the roads (millions worldwide) and just shrug it off as unavoidable, even resist change that would reduce it. But I don't think that will happen any time soon, we're going to see manually driven cars around for some time to come. We may see them increasingly excluded from some areas, though. I doubt they will be areas you would drive for fun.
Millions of deaths? Apparently the odds of a deadly fall involving bed, chair or other furniture is 1 in 4,238 so 1.76m over the whole planet. When will Google start to deal with that I ask you 
TX.
TypeRTim said:
With insurance, you don't insure your car here so your point is moot. You actively take out an individual liability policy on yourself as the driver rather than the car as an object. Otherwise every Focus RS insurance premium would be the same, regardless of driver, as you are insuring against damage caused by the object rather than by the user in charge of the object.
The point is that your insurance covers the liability to third parties caused by your choice to use that car on the road. Your premium will be risk priced largely on the drivers, but the insurance will still pay out if your handbrake fails and the car rolls down a hill and takes out a bus queue. You, as the registered keeper, will need to insure an autonomous car against third party risks. You will be able to do that. It will, once the insurers have data, be very inexpensive. If it hits someone and it can be shown that your vehicle was at fault, your insurance will pay up. Everyone is happy. This is a civil issue, not a criminal one. It's not as complicated as you want it to be.anonymous said:
[redacted]
Hey! I'm all for the demise of the insurance industry let me tell you! Bunch of crooks that they are!Personally, so long as driving manually still remains a choice and I dont have to have a blackbox fitted I will be fine.
The black box isn't for safety, its for data.Pure and simple. Data that they can sell to marketers and use for data-mining. If it was for safety far more parameters would be measured and monitored than are being. Ones like whether your lights are on when its dark outside. Since these LED running lights and perma-backlit instruments came in to fashion the amount of cars driving around at night with only the DRLs active is scary! Or whether you spend 80% of your time looking at a phone on your lap rather than the road in front. Another frequent occurrence that you can get away with while still being called a safe driver by these black boxes.
Terminator X said:
otolith said:
I think eventually manually driven cars will disappear from the scene, possibly with the help of legislation, possibly not. I think it will eventually be seen as scarcely believable that we once used to accept thousands of deaths a year on the roads (millions worldwide) and just shrug it off as unavoidable, even resist change that would reduce it. But I don't think that will happen any time soon, we're going to see manually driven cars around for some time to come. We may see them increasingly excluded from some areas, though. I doubt they will be areas you would drive for fun.
Millions of deaths? Apparently the odds of a deadly fall involving bed, chair or other furniture is 1 in 4,238 so 1.76m over the whole planet. When will Google start to deal with that I ask you 
Injuries kill about 5 million people a year, of which about 1.3 million are road deaths. WHO doesn't give separate breakdown for furniture related injuries, though I would have thought that were it of a similar order of magnitude it would be mentioned. In any case, if someone came up with an idea for improving furniture so that it didn't kill people, would you be against it?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The point of the article was that you can't have a transitional period without hiccups - only when everything is totally automated will the human element be truly out of the equation. In the meantime, there will be problems along the way, as illustrated in the excellent Guardian article.
TypeRTim said:
Maybe the lesson here is that investment should be made in our rail network to make it a more viable alternative for more people?
Only if you're going from city to city, or other densely populated area. That's all that trains can do. The network is running to capacity a lot of the time and forget about extending it- just look at how drawn out getting started on HS2 has been. The concept of people travelling around independently has been enshrined since we first jumped on a horse. Why are we seeking to go backwards and forego the immense personal and economic benefits of personal transport ?
JD2329 said:
TypeRTim said:
Maybe the lesson here is that investment should be made in our rail network to make it a more viable alternative for more people?
Only if you're going from city to city, or other densely populated area. That's all that trains can do. The network is running to capacity a lot of the time and forget about extending it- just look at how drawn out getting started on HS2 has been. The concept of people travelling around independently has been enshrined since we first jumped on a horse. Why are we seeking to go backwards and forego the immense personal and economic benefits of personal transport ?
If I travel to work by train I have to go into london, then back out. That costs a fortune and only covers part of my journey. I still need to run a car to get me to the station.
Even when I worked in london i could get a coach which was much cheaper than the train. Its was also modern, clean, airconditioned and I was guarenteed a seat. Other coach companies directly compete, and the drivers have never gone on strike. It picks up from all the local main roads, and drops off at points all through london. Best of all is that they require no taxpayers money to operate.
98elise said:
Totally agree. Rail only works if you live in one big city and need to go to another.
If I travel to work by train I have to go into london, then back out. That costs a fortune and only covers part of my journey. I still need to run a car to get me to the station.
Even when I worked in london i could get a coach which was much cheaper than the train. Its was also modern, clean, airconditioned and I was guarenteed a seat. Other coach companies directly compete, and the drivers have never gone on strike. It picks up from all the local main roads, and drops off at points all through london. Best of all is that they require no taxpayers money to operate.
You say "only works if you live in one big city and need to go to another" as if thousands upon thousands of people daily don't use it for exactly that.If I travel to work by train I have to go into london, then back out. That costs a fortune and only covers part of my journey. I still need to run a car to get me to the station.
Even when I worked in london i could get a coach which was much cheaper than the train. Its was also modern, clean, airconditioned and I was guarenteed a seat. Other coach companies directly compete, and the drivers have never gone on strike. It picks up from all the local main roads, and drops off at points all through london. Best of all is that they require no taxpayers money to operate.
There's no perfect transport solution, but why not make it better for the majority? Our city rail links need a major revamp, but obviously that's costly
rampageturke said:
98elise said:
Totally agree. Rail only works if you live in one big city and need to go to another.
If I travel to work by train I have to go into london, then back out. That costs a fortune and only covers part of my journey. I still need to run a car to get me to the station.
Even when I worked in london i could get a coach which was much cheaper than the train. Its was also modern, clean, airconditioned and I was guarenteed a seat. Other coach companies directly compete, and the drivers have never gone on strike. It picks up from all the local main roads, and drops off at points all through london. Best of all is that they require no taxpayers money to operate.
You say "only works if you live in one big city and need to go to another" as if thousands upon thousands of people daily don't use it for exactly that.If I travel to work by train I have to go into london, then back out. That costs a fortune and only covers part of my journey. I still need to run a car to get me to the station.
Even when I worked in london i could get a coach which was much cheaper than the train. Its was also modern, clean, airconditioned and I was guarenteed a seat. Other coach companies directly compete, and the drivers have never gone on strike. It picks up from all the local main roads, and drops off at points all through london. Best of all is that they require no taxpayers money to operate.
There's no perfect transport solution, but why not make it better for the majority? Our city rail links need a major revamp, but obviously that's costly
Dave Hedgehog said:
flying a plane automatically is extremely simple, there are very few variables, there are near infinite variables for a car to deal with, pots holes full of water, ice, startled animals sprinting across a road, drunk killer clowns etc. etc. etc.
I dunno, a plane has to deal with cross winds, turbulence, weather, avoidance systems, etc etc and automated landings are far from a simple achievement.The main thing that will stop automated cars being the norm for a long time are mostly social (people's trust etc) and sheer volume (ie how do you phase the millions of cars on the road out to replace them with automated ones when some can barely afford to pay their road tax as is..
antacid said:
The main thing that will stop automated cars being the norm for a long time are mostly social (people's trust etc) and sheer volume (ie how do you phase the millions of cars on the road out to replace them with automated ones when some can barely afford to pay their road tax as is..
The solution is not that difficult.There is a very high percentage of
Cue a sudden appearance of bland, low-cost, identical automated people-movers! (We could even call them
motco said:
Read this right through (long but very worthwhile) and decide whether autonomous vehicles should be banned altogether.
This is one of the main reasons I do something many consider very strange. When it snows on the road, I turn off any electronic assistance in the car that I can to give as much feel and control to me. That way I know how my inputs are being translated and that I can't just use the same inputs as I do in the dry. My fiancé has no clue about feel of the car's behaviour through the controls and has only just started to realise what i mean when I talk about it after driving my Type-R more. So many people drive in a cossetted, assisted bubble that they don't know what to do in atypical conditions such as snow now. Let alone if they get used to automation and suddenly have to take over due to a sensor failure!
Blakewater said:
Pothole said:
A program on mine has crashed between this and my last post.
Think how much your laptop costs compared to how much an aircraft costs, or the systems used by air traffic control. There isn't really a comparison. Hospitals and transport systems, everything in our lives including what is often keeping us alive, relies on computers that are very reliable. It's perfectly possible to create an automated running system on the roads but it will require more expensively built computer systems than just plugging it into your laptop and hoping for the best. Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff