Robotaxis coming to London
Discussion
"Self-driving robotaxis have been granted licences in London to operate in the capital ahead of an autonomous revolution that could generate billions of pounds for the economy.
British technology firm Wayve announced that it has been awarded private hire vehicle licences from Transport for London for its range of autonomous vehicles."
https://www.gbnews.com/lifestyle/cars/self-driving...
British technology firm Wayve announced that it has been awarded private hire vehicle licences from Transport for London for its range of autonomous vehicles."
https://www.gbnews.com/lifestyle/cars/self-driving...
UK_Scat_Pack said:
These shouldn t be allowed. When I was renewing my insurance recently, I noticed that all the mainstream insurance companies have a clause stating that you would not be insured in the cause of being in a collision with a driverless vehicle!! Where does that leave owners then?!!
Can you point me in the direction of such a clause? Jinba Ittai said:
UK_Scat_Pack said:
These shouldn t be allowed. When I was renewing my insurance recently, I noticed that all the mainstream insurance companies have a clause stating that you would not be insured in the cause of being in a collision with a driverless vehicle!! Where does that leave owners then?!!
Can you point me in the direction of such a clause? UK_Scat_Pack said:
These shouldn t be allowed. When I was renewing my insurance recently, I noticed that all the mainstream insurance companies have a clause stating that you would not be insured in the cause of being in a collision with a driverless vehicle!! Where does that leave owners then?!!
Are you sure it didn't read they wouldn't automatically cover driverless cars? As I think that is pretty standard, but picking what you can / can't hit get hit by seems extremely unlikely...That will be fascinating. Truly fascinating. I'm in London now and have been since Tuesday (Proms). Automatic taxis are going to have to navigate wildly erratic bicycles and ebikes. Wildly.
I used to live here, and you always looked in the opposite direction of traffic when crossing the road to check for , mainly, motorbikes, slipping up the inside, or filtering in between the cars. Now you have to look in the other direction too, because cyclists ride against traffic, frequently.
Zebra crossings? traffic lights? no-bike areas? Utterly ignored. Pedestrian zones? full speed. it's 50/50 regular cyclists and deliveroo riders. Even on Regent street two went past us , on the pavement, at full speed.
They are a f
king nightmare. It's made walking on the pavements dangerous, let alone crossing roads. Good luck with robot taxis :-)
I used to live here, and you always looked in the opposite direction of traffic when crossing the road to check for , mainly, motorbikes, slipping up the inside, or filtering in between the cars. Now you have to look in the other direction too, because cyclists ride against traffic, frequently.
Zebra crossings? traffic lights? no-bike areas? Utterly ignored. Pedestrian zones? full speed. it's 50/50 regular cyclists and deliveroo riders. Even on Regent street two went past us , on the pavement, at full speed.
They are a f
king nightmare. It's made walking on the pavements dangerous, let alone crossing roads. Good luck with robot taxis :-)Oceanrower said:
Jinba Ittai said:
UK_Scat_Pack said:
These shouldn t be allowed. When I was renewing my insurance recently, I noticed that all the mainstream insurance companies have a clause stating that you would not be insured in the cause of being in a collision with a driverless vehicle!! Where does that leave owners then?!!
Can you point me in the direction of such a clause? 
On a more serious point, supposing I had this unlikely clause, and I had an accident with a driverless car, which was my fault. How, under UK law, can an insurer walk away from the tp liability that I have bought cover for? I could hit it thru my negligence, and force it into a load of pedestrians, and end up with a tp bill of millions.
having been in a waymo in san fran.. they're incredible bits of kit, and drive extremely well. The only giveaway there wasn't a human driver was the fact the indicator was used a little too much.
roads here are challenging in different ways, but there are plenty of people behaving oddly over there and it navigated everything very smoothly
roads here are challenging in different ways, but there are plenty of people behaving oddly over there and it navigated everything very smoothly
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Oceanrower said:
Jinba Ittai said:
UK_Scat_Pack said:
These shouldn t be allowed. When I was renewing my insurance recently, I noticed that all the mainstream insurance companies have a clause stating that you would not be insured in the cause of being in a collision with a driverless vehicle!! Where does that leave owners then?!!
Can you point me in the direction of such a clause? On a more serious point, supposing I had this unlikely clause, and I had an accident with a driverless car, which was my fault. How, under UK law, can an insurer walk away from the tp liability that I have bought cover for? I could hit it thru my negligence, and force it into a load of pedestrians, and end up with a tp bill of millions.
quigonjay said:
"Self-driving robotaxis have been granted licences in London to operate in the capital ahead of an autonomous revolution that could generate billions of pounds for the economy.
British technology firm Wayve announced that it has been awarded private hire vehicle licences from Transport for London for its range of autonomous vehicles."
https://www.gbnews.com/lifestyle/cars/self-driving...
BBC versionBritish technology firm Wayve announced that it has been awarded private hire vehicle licences from Transport for London for its range of autonomous vehicles."
https://www.gbnews.com/lifestyle/cars/self-driving...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3w07qg43j6o
They aren't taxis. They are minicabs or private hire vehicles.
The Mad Monk said:
quigonjay said:
"Self-driving robotaxis have been granted licences in London to operate in the capital ahead of an autonomous revolution that could generate billions of pounds for the economy.
British technology firm Wayve announced that it has been awarded private hire vehicle licences from Transport for London for its range of autonomous vehicles."
https://www.gbnews.com/lifestyle/cars/self-driving...
BBC versionBritish technology firm Wayve announced that it has been awarded private hire vehicle licences from Transport for London for its range of autonomous vehicles."
https://www.gbnews.com/lifestyle/cars/self-driving...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3w07qg43j6o
They aren't taxis. They are minicabs or private hire vehicles.
Under the terms of the PHV licence, a qualified driver must be present and remain responsible for the car.
DaveCWK said:
I thought the whole self-driving car thing had its moment about...8 years ago? And since went away as reality bit & it was realised yes it can do 99% of driving perfectly but it's the 1% that is everything and turns out the only bit that really matters.
It's not far away now. I reckon it will arrive relatively suddenly.outnumbered said:
How exactly is this going to generate billions of pounds for the economy ?
Well quite. Somebody will have to pay for them, and lots of taxi drivers will lose their jobs. It may be one of those phrases tacked on to expensive wheezes so that people think 'Wow great!' without stopping to ask the question. The article mentions £1.1Bn investment, but 'investment' is a weasel word for 'spend'.
Edited by Simpo Two on Thursday 6th August 12:06
Neil1300r said:
From the article :-
Under the terms of the PHV licence, a qualified driver must be present and remain responsible for the car.
So what's the point then??Under the terms of the PHV licence, a qualified driver must be present and remain responsible for the car.
Surely no one in there right mind is going to accept taking responsibility for something that the car has decided to do all on it's own!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff