Driverless Cars and The Law

Driverless Cars and The Law

Author
Discussion

turbobloke

Original Poster:

103,742 posts

259 months

Thursday 14th August 2014
quotequote all
Mr Taxpayer said:
Einion Yrth said:
Mr Taxpayer said:
Who says you're getting windows? Why not have a large HD TV screen and a HD camera outside? You can play GTA/Call of Duty on your way to work or the shops and just select the outside feed if you want to spot totty on the pavement.
I suspect that that would result in appalling motion sickness.
No more than having your eyes shut.
Still not good...asking the driver of a driverless car to stop to let you throw up outside the car may prove to be challenging (!)

Mr Taxpayer

438 posts

119 months

Thursday 14th August 2014
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Mr Taxpayer said:
Einion Yrth said:
Mr Taxpayer said:
Who says you're getting windows? Why not have a large HD TV screen and a HD camera outside? You can play GTA/Call of Duty on your way to work or the shops and just select the outside feed if you want to spot totty on the pavement.
I suspect that that would result in appalling motion sickness.
No more than having your eyes shut.
Still not good...asking the driver of a driverless car to stop to let you throw up outside the car may prove to be challenging (!)
Lol!

My intent was to show that windows are a not an absolute requirement on an autonomous car as they are on a man-drive car. A colleague in a bus manufacturing company told me they could reduce doule-decker bus emissions by 10% if they replaced the big glass windows with airliner-style perspex portholes.

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Thursday 14th August 2014
quotequote all
If you had a screen instead of a window, you could display something other than what's outside - drive through London while looking at a recreation of the Cotswolds!

s3fella

10,524 posts

186 months

Thursday 14th August 2014
quotequote all
Why not test these things in Africa and other developing world nations, where there are higher populations that cannot drive...!?


oh, yes, because they wouldn't want them and have no cash to piss into the wind!

mph1977

12,467 posts

167 months

Thursday 14th August 2014
quotequote all
nipsips said:
I suppose its similar to the automated trains on the London Underground. Still have a driver on hand poised over the controller waiting for something to happen. End of the day its his train and he is responsible for it and its actions. I presume the car driving automation will be the same.
trhe DLR however is totally automated , 'train operators' on the effectively automated tube lines exist becasue the lines and services existed before the auomted train control ... much as 'secondmen ' remained in the cab of locos on the main line railway long after the ending of steam ( where the secondman was the 'fireman' and responsible for coal and water use) and the removal of guards from freight

turbobloke

Original Poster:

103,742 posts

259 months

Thursday 21st August 2014
quotequote all
Speeding will be allowed - for safety reasons.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-273...

HertsBiker

6,300 posts

270 months

Thursday 21st August 2014
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Speeding will be allowed - for safety reasons.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-273...
Who gets the points....?!!


turbobloke

Original Poster:

103,742 posts

259 months

Thursday 21st August 2014
quotequote all
They're not that NIPpy...

The idea of allowing a driverless car to exceed speed limits for safety reasons doesn't sit well with the camera partnership messages on speeding, and as it's an absolute offence in the UK then surely the law would need to be changed to introduce another exemption.

lbc

3,212 posts

216 months

Thursday 21st August 2014
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
The idea of allowing a driverless car to exceed speed limits for safety reasons doesn't sit well with the camera partnership messages on speeding, and as it's an absolute offence in the UK then surely the law would need to be changed to introduce another exemption.
The existing 10% +9mph for speed awareness courses, covers this more or less.

But how does a driverless car go on a speeding awareness course?

ging84

8,829 posts

145 months

Thursday 21st August 2014
quotequote all
lbc said:
The existing 10% +9mph for speed awareness courses, covers this more or less.

But how does a driverless car go on a speeding awareness course?
Just gets uploaded
it's mostly irrelevant data with a new instruction to keep it within 5%+2 of the speed limit
if it's late i will be refused entry, if it makes it on time still has to stay in the room right to the end, and it can't even eat the biscuits

98elise

26,376 posts

160 months

Friday 22nd August 2014
quotequote all
otolith said:
Mr Taxpayer said:
otolith said:
I think it will very quickly become the case that fully autonomous cars are *much* cheaper to insure than manual ones. Especially for high risk drivers.
Very few people will actually 'own' autonomous cars. The most likely arrangement is that you'll part own one or buy time in one. Even if you do own, the drivers' experience will be irellevant since they aren't driving. Why do they even need a licence? Or be old enough to need a licence?
I think people will still want personal transport, whether it drives itself or not. We already have self-driving cars we don't own, we call them "taxis"!

The driving experience will no longer matter, but arguably it doesn't now. Most mainstream cars are utterly turgid to drive. What will matter will be how flash it looks, how comfortable it is, how well equipped it is.
I dislike taxi's and I to use them a lot. I hate making small talk with a person I don't know.

If self driving cars were common then I would see no need for a daily drive. Why limit yourself to one car when you just book the car you need via your phone. It pulls up when you need it, then buggers off somewhere else when you don't. No maintenance, cleaning, garage space etc. More room and money for a fun car, perfect.

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Friday 22nd August 2014
quotequote all
Lots of people do rely on taxis now and have no car of their own. I don't really see why the presence or absence of a driver would alter that either way, for most people. Maybe a bit cheaper I suppose. The big problem will remain having to wait for one to turn up, especially at peak times.

speedking31

3,543 posts

135 months

Tuesday 26th August 2014
quotequote all
98elise said:
If self driving cars were common then I would see no need for a daily drive. Why limit yourself to one car when you just book the car you need via your phone. It pulls up when you need it, then buggers off somewhere else when you don't. No maintenance, cleaning, garage space etc. More room and money for a fun car, perfect.
But you're paying someone else to do the maintenance, cleaning, garaging, delivery mileage, etc. which is always going to be more expensive than doing it yourself.

The potential saving is in the vehicle being used during the day when you just have it in a car park. That is offset by the inconvenience of having to wait every time you want to go anywhere.

Would be weird going to work in a brand new car and coming home in one that had covered 200,000 miles!

turbobloke

Original Poster:

103,742 posts

259 months

Tuesday 26th August 2014
quotequote all
speedking31 said:
98elise said:
If self driving cars were common then I would see no need for a daily drive. Why limit yourself to one car when you just book the car you need via your phone. It pulls up when you need it, then buggers off somewhere else when you don't. No maintenance, cleaning, garage space etc. More room and money for a fun car, perfect.
But you're paying someone else to do the maintenance, cleaning, garaging, delivery mileage, etc. which is always going to be more expensive than doing it yourself.

The potential saving is in the vehicle being used during the day when you just have it in a car park. That is offset by the inconvenience of having to wait every time you want to go anywhere.

Would be weird going to work in a brand new car and coming home in one that had covered 200,000 miles!
There's also an analogous point to be considered in that satisfactory nutrition could be achieved via pills and fluids, but the quality of life loss involved in going without the appearance, smells, textures and tastes of food in all its glory would be significant. As a comparison this might seem some way removed from driving as a form of transit, and driving for pleasure which TPTB would more easily legislate away, but it remains true that many people still derive pleasure from choosing, buying, owning and driving their own car. There are also health benefits from driving your own car compared to public transport forms of transit, both psychological and physical as revealed by the study which showed that drivers have better general health and less depression than people who use public transport, where degrees of choice and autonomy are missing (Ellaway et al, Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow). If cars are being viewed erroneously as mere transit devices, the degree to which legislators will be prepared to account for quallity of life and health factors remains to be seen.

Mr Taxpayer

438 posts

119 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
speedking31 said:
98elise said:
If self driving cars were common then I would see no need for a daily drive. Why limit yourself to one car when you just book the car you need via your phone. It pulls up when you need it, then buggers off somewhere else when you don't. No maintenance, cleaning, garage space etc. More room and money for a fun car, perfect.
But you're paying someone else to do the maintenance, cleaning, garaging, delivery mileage, etc. which is always going to be more expensive than doing it yourself.

The potential saving is in the vehicle being used during the day when you just have it in a car park. That is offset by the inconvenience of having to wait every time you want to go anywhere.

Would be weird going to work in a brand new car and coming home in one that had covered 200,000 miles!
There's also an analogous point to be considered in that satisfactory nutrition could be achieved via pills and fluids, but the quality of life loss involved in going without the appearance, smells, textures and tastes of food in all its glory would be significant. As a comparison this might seem some way removed from driving as a form of transit, and driving for pleasure which TPTB would more easily legislate away, but it remains true that many people still derive pleasure from choosing, buying, owning and driving their own car. There are also health benefits from driving your own car compared to public transport forms of transit, both psychological and physical as revealed by the study which showed that drivers have better general health and less depression than people who use public transport, where degrees of choice and autonomy are missing (Ellaway et al, Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow). If cars are being viewed erroneously as mere transit devices, the degree to which legislators will be prepared to account for quallity of life and health factors remains to be seen.
The report sounds interesting. Can you be sure it has addressed or allowed for the fact that public transport users occupy the poorer echelons of society? It widely documented that obesity, diabetes, and many other chronic conditions present more often in the poor. IIRC there is a street in Glasgow, at one of which is the 'nice' bit and the other has one of the very poor parts; life expectancy drops 20 years in the space of a mile. It drops 5 years if you walk south over Westmisnter Bridge.
What about the health effects of being relieved of the stress of the daily commute and/or school run, which is the main factor in most peoples choice of automobile?

turbobloke

Original Poster:

103,742 posts

259 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
Mr Taxpayer said:
turbobloke said:
speedking31 said:
98elise said:
If self driving cars were common then I would see no need for a daily drive. Why limit yourself to one car when you just book the car you need via your phone. It pulls up when you need it, then buggers off somewhere else when you don't. No maintenance, cleaning, garage space etc. More room and money for a fun car, perfect.
But you're paying someone else to do the maintenance, cleaning, garaging, delivery mileage, etc. which is always going to be more expensive than doing it yourself.

The potential saving is in the vehicle being used during the day when you just have it in a car park. That is offset by the inconvenience of having to wait every time you want to go anywhere.

Would be weird going to work in a brand new car and coming home in one that had covered 200,000 miles!
There's also an analogous point to be considered in that satisfactory nutrition could be achieved via pills and fluids, but the quality of life loss involved in going without the appearance, smells, textures and tastes of food in all its glory would be significant. As a comparison this might seem some way removed from driving as a form of transit, and driving for pleasure which TPTB would more easily legislate away, but it remains true that many people still derive pleasure from choosing, buying, owning and driving their own car. There are also health benefits from driving your own car compared to public transport forms of transit, both psychological and physical as revealed by the study which showed that drivers have better general health and less depression than people who use public transport, where degrees of choice and autonomy are missing (Ellaway et al, Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow). If cars are being viewed erroneously as mere transit devices, the degree to which legislators will be prepared to account for quallity of life and health factors remains to be seen.
The report sounds interesting. Can you be sure it has addressed or allowed for the fact that public transport users occupy the poorer echelons of society?
Yes indeed. The result showed health and longevity benefits in the raw data which remained after the researchers corrected for social factors.

Ellaway said:
This has been explained away by saying that car owners come from a higher social class and have bigger incomes, which are connected to better health. [But] after eliminating the effects of age, social class and income, we found drivers to have better general health and less depression than people who used public transport.

Mr Taxpayer said:
What about the health effects of being relieved of the stress of the daily commute and/or school run, which is the main factor in most peoples choice of automobile?
Those events may well be stressful but if it's generally taking place in a car as opposed to public transport then it's already covered in the above research.

Mr Taxpayer

438 posts

119 months

Thursday 28th August 2014
quotequote all
ging84 said:
lbc said:
The existing 10% +9mph for speed awareness courses, covers this more or less.

But how does a driverless car go on a speeding awareness course?
Just gets uploaded
it's mostly irrelevant data with a new instruction to keep it within 5%+2 of the speed limit
if it's late i will be refused entry, if it makes it on time still has to stay in the room right to the end, and it can't even eat the biscuits
The average speed of autonomous cars could be higher than human-drive cars. The reaction times of the autonomous car mean that 2m gaps are perfectly safe at 70mph. You can virtually eliminate the 'thinking' distance element of the stopping distance tables that were worked out in the 50's, which are woefully pessimistic as has been shown by many empiracal tests on modern cars. At 30mph stopping distance is 23m, 9m of thinking and 14m of braking, lets call that a 23m safety margin. An autonomous car that has virtually no thinking distance (OK, lets be hyper pessimistic and make it 1m) could travel at just under 40mph and maintain the same safety margin; 24m is the braking distance at 40mph so the two combined is 25m. So an autonomous car could travel at 38mph with the same level of safety as a human-drive car has at 30mph.

The reason for setting a speed limit is to ensure an adequate safety margin. If an autonomous car maintains a safety margin at a higher speed then the whole concept of 'speed limits' as an absolute needs to be reviewed.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 17th October 2014
quotequote all
Bit of a showtrial on next month

http://highwaysmagazine.co.uk/see-self-driving-car...

According to that article they seem to have Gov approval to be on the roads in 3 months time, I'd be more worried about the poor state of white lining they are supposed to follow.

turbobloke

Original Poster:

103,742 posts

259 months

Friday 17th October 2014
quotequote all
speedyguy said:
Bit of a showtrial on next month

http://highwaysmagazine.co.uk/see-self-driving-car...

According to that article they seem to have Gov approval to be on the roads in 3 months time, I'd be more worried about the poor state of white lining they are supposed to follow.
It's quite right to point out the obvious, tptb might just get the message!

In the article George Lee as national director of the RSMA said:
There is a lot of excitement about the potential for self driving cars; however, concerns persist that current infrastructure failings are potentially a limiting factor to implementation across the entire road network

speedking31

3,543 posts

135 months

Friday 17th October 2014
quotequote all
Mr Taxpayer said:
<SNIP> The reason for setting a speed limit is to ensure an adequate safety margin. If an autonomous car maintains a safety margin at a higher speed then the whole concept of 'speed limits' as an absolute needs to be reviewed.
Ditto traffic lights could be done away with. Autonomous cars would slightly adjust their speed on approach and all pass through a junction like a motorcycle display team.