Why driverless car's are a LONG way off.
Discussion
Johnnytheboy said:
technodup said:
Government has reduced smoking by about 3/4 by increasing the price and highlighting the dangers. Likewise seat belts, drink driving and now speeding. 'Normal' driving will come under the same pressure. People will do as they're told. Those who don't are punished by law.
Very true, we'll probably taxed into the damn things. You can bet that track days will become much more popular and abundent if taxes on driving on public roads become prohibitive.
rxe said:
otolith said:
I'm not really convinced that random posters on PH can think of problems that engineers employed building these systems cannot.
I also suspect that the things amateurs think are difficult probably aren't the problematic areas.
The problems I've mentioned are real ones that are being worked on by Google. They're hoping to get them fixed by 2020, and they will probably achieve it. The point is that anyone thinking this stuff is a few years away is delusional.I also suspect that the things amateurs think are difficult probably aren't the problematic areas.
How many system on military hardware go 'wrong', when £Billions is spent on producing them and testing? I've worked on such system, and the amount of proving, testing, and the quality of the workmanship is something I will never believe will be used on a commercial product. I can remember a case when military electrical component cost10x’s the cost of it’s commercial counterpart, all due the increased quality and inspection it entailed.
otolith said:
Depends what you think a few years is - 2020 is the very near future. I think adoption of entirely autonomous cars is going to take longer than that. We already have cars with varying autonomous capabilities - active cruise, summon, autopilot, self-parking. Those capabilities are going to get more widespread, better, and able to cope with more and more driving. I don't think we will have fully autonomous (i.e. no driving seat) vehicles until we have for some time had cars which in practice are capable of autonomous operation most of the time. I'd be thinking more like 10-20 years.
Im 30, and i'm not having the joys of motoring through my 40s and 50s taken away from me so I can sit in a f
king google pod.otolith said:
The person liable is the one choosing to use the vehicle on the road. Same as they are liable if a mechanical failure causes the unattended car to roll down a hill and take out a bus queue.
Exactly. Which means you can't get in it drunk or decide to work on your tablet 'cos you will have to keep an eye out for potential trouble to protect your no claims bonus soyou might as well drive a normal car.What's more in a normal car you have your hands/feet on the controls anyway so you can react faster. Which ought to reduce the chance of an accident and thus your premium.
Driverless cars are a (very) LONG way off.
AH33 said:
We'll end up with a lot of uninsured/untaxed drivers then. Me included, if they make it prohibitively expensive.
Wrong way around. They'll be making it attractive and normal cars less attractive. DoubleTime said:
If you google how long it has taken for something pretty simplistic like electronic signatures to be fully legislated, I'd hazard a guess that we will see fully automated electric cars in 2110, maybe.
Follow the money. The only reason things don't get done quickly is if there's not much money in it. Driverless cars is potentially billions and billions of dollars, and lots of stakeholders have an interest it getting it done. I expect the legislation to be ready before the cars. Cars without rules means no sales, no profits, no taxes.technodup said:
AH33 said:
We'll end up with a lot of uninsured/untaxed drivers then. Me included, if they make it prohibitively expensive.
Wrong way around. They'll be making it attractive and normal cars less attractive. I'm still convinced we will be considered in charge of our driverless cars so will still have to be with it/trained/ etc. to drive them, and I think this will deter a lot of people.
So tax on conventional cars will increase, with the money perhaps ploughed in to some scrappage scheme?
Johnnytheboy said:
I'm still convinced we will be considered in charge of our driverless cars
Can I ask - is this forever? That you are convinced that we can never achieve the degree of quality and trust in the technology and that a person will always, de facto, be considered to be more reliable? That the legal and regulatory world can never achieve the level of maturity required to put a framework around strict liability of a set of hardware and software?Or again, are we just talking about time here?
deckster said:
That the legal and regulatory world can never achieve the level of maturity required to put a framework around strict liability of a set of hardware and software?
That.Maybe I'm getting too cynical in my old age, but I can't imagine a situation where the manufacturer would allow themselves to be liable if you have an accident, sorry, collision.
I suppose if I was being optimistic, I'd think that the burden of insurance cost would simply be transferred from the driver to the maker in that scenario, but I just can't see it.
Bordtea said:
I'm not convinced the taxi industry would love driverless cars. Conversely, I can see them killing off taxis.
The people who own and run taxi companies would in SOME ways like to remove drivers as they are the unpredictable/unmanageable part of the business- the actual "taxi service" part of your business would improve immeasurably - much as trucks and buses would.HOWEVER - many people who run taxi companies make more money from leasing cars to their drivers than they do from the taxi work those cars undertake. Many taxi company owners are really financiers/leasing agencies first and taxi proprietors second. They run taxis to ensure they have a ready supply of people wanting to finance vehicles - a ready supply of people who'll pay a fee to have a taxi meter/work given to them and who'll pay a percentage of what they earn on top of that!!
Taking taxi drivers out of that loop would simplify their business but also remove the profitable bits which are, basically, finance costs/interest.
Johnnytheboy said:
Maybe I'm getting too cynical in my old age, but I can't imagine a situation where the manufacturer would allow themselves to be liable if you have an accident, sorry, collision.
I suppose if I was being optimistic, I'd think that the burden of insurance cost would simply be transferred from the driver to the maker in that scenario, but I just can't see it.
I think insurance would remain as-it-is now (because it doesn't just cover damage to cars, it covers damage to people AND loss of the car to theft/fire etc. etc. too)I suppose if I was being optimistic, I'd think that the burden of insurance cost would simply be transferred from the driver to the maker in that scenario, but I just can't see it.
When cars have no controls at all (e.g. the Google car and not the Tesla) then 'accidents' will result in people staring at data and determining where the problem arose. If it was a fault in one of the cars (e.g. dodgy sensor/camera or software issue) or a maintenance issue (e.g. the owner's fault) then that insurer would be paying up.
Actuarial data would still work - if Ford make better AI than Vauxhall than Fords would be cheaper to insure and more would sell perhaps?
We're looking FAR into the future - past the point people are happy to sit in a box which drives them around with maybe a 'STOP' button and nothing else tho - for all we know, the entire concept of insurance or even money won't exist by then anyway ;0
AH33 said:
otolith said:
Depends what you think a few years is - 2020 is the very near future. I think adoption of entirely autonomous cars is going to take longer than that. We already have cars with varying autonomous capabilities - active cruise, summon, autopilot, self-parking. Those capabilities are going to get more widespread, better, and able to cope with more and more driving. I don't think we will have fully autonomous (i.e. no driving seat) vehicles until we have for some time had cars which in practice are capable of autonomous operation most of the time. I'd be thinking more like 10-20 years.
Im 30, and i'm not having the joys of motoring through my 40s and 50s taken away from me so I can sit in a fking google pod.Once the things are established, and it's become clear that they are massively cutting road death and injury, it's going to become a harder and harder argument to make that fun is worth the carnage. I think that's a long way down the line, though.
EnglishTony said:
otolith said:
The person liable is the one choosing to use the vehicle on the road. Same as they are liable if a mechanical failure causes the unattended car to roll down a hill and take out a bus queue.
Exactly. Which means you can't get in it drunk or decide to work on your tablet 'cos you will have to keep an eye out for potential trouble to protect your no claims bonus soyou might as well drive a normal car.What's more in a normal car you have your hands/feet on the controls anyway so you can react faster. Which ought to reduce the chance of an accident and thus your premium.
Driverless cars are a (very) LONG way off.
Johnnytheboy said:
deckster said:
That the legal and regulatory world can never achieve the level of maturity required to put a framework around strict liability of a set of hardware and software?
Maybe I'm getting too cynical in my old age, but I can't imagine a situation where the manufacturer would allow themselves to be liable if you have an accident, sorry, collision. If I were to speculate, I would imagine that it would go something like:
(1) There is a certain minimum specification and capability that a vehicle will need to demonstrate to be allowed on the road. Manufacturers will have to build to this specification to have their vehicles sold at all. This is pretty much the situation now - just extended to driverless functions.
(2) The actuaries will come up with a risk model based around these specifications. Expected number of accidents, injuries, deaths - essentially, how much each vehicle would expect to pay out per year. Again, this isn't so far from where we are now, the prime difference being that the number of variables will be much smaller as we don't need to account for age, experience, previous driving history etc.
(3) Each vehicle will then have a certain insurance premium attached to it in some way, either on a per-usage basis, or built into the purchase price, or bought as a personal policy. Something at any rate that means that whoever is in the car, there will be an appropriate level of insurance cover.
(4) When an accident happens, liability is decided much as it is now with the exception that the vehicle user is not necessarily personally responsible for anything. A few possibilities:
- The vehicle user has contributed in some way - overridden the controls, modified the vehicle, failed to maintain it correctly. User is liable and has to pay, or has insurance to pay out for them. Just like now.
- The third party is liable - pedestrian stepped out, other vehicle user is liable. Again, as now
- Nobody is liable. It's just one of those things (unforseeable weather conditions, meteorite strike). Comprehensive insurance pays out, 3rd party doesn't. Just like now.
- The manufacturer is shown to actually not be in accordance to the appropriate specification. Manufacturer pays out. This is the only one that is new - although theoretically this could actually happen now, although it's rare. The class action against Ford for supplying substandard tyres in the US springs to mind.
It'll take a little while to work out (1) and (2), but it will happen.
otolith said:
Once the things are established, and it's become clear that they are massively cutting road death and injury, it's going to become a harder and harder argument to make that fun is worth the carnage. I think that's a long way down the line, though.
Yup, will be ages but there's precedent for this stuff already.Govts start with situations it's hard to argue against/people no-one wants to defend. So they ban drugs, then greatly limit/heavily tax cigarettes, next they'll go after drinkers and then drivers and so on...
In the US there's a guy in-jail right now for refusing to provide a password for an external HDD he owns. The FBI believe he's a trader of child porn but found none anywhere else so they assume it's on that drive and they're betting no-one will stand-up for him (likely) but if it works, you can bet they'll use similar tactics on 'lesser' crimes...
Only a matter of time...
otolith said:
You aren't going to be able to drive unfit until the cars can no longer be driven manually. At that point, there will be no controls to put your hands or feet on and nothing to keep your eye out for. It will be like sitting in the back of a car that you own and insure but employ a chauffeur to drive.
And how long will it take to remove normal cars from the road? Assuming that you can find a Govt. brave enough? Decades is the answer.
In the mean time those of us with office based jobs and the desire to avoid having to drive to work will use the much-cheaper-than-a-driverless-car option of video conferencing.
Which we already have up and running.
EnglishTony said:
And how long will it take to remove normal cars from the road? Assuming that you can find a Govt. brave enough?
Brave enough in what sense?The sense that they'll be doing it in the face of public disapproval? By the time we get to that stage the only opposition will be PH dinosaurs and the wee AA mouthpiece guy who pops up on the odd news report. "But, but, but..."
The rest of us will be enjoying carefree (car free?) travel. I just hope we get there before I die.
The public's love for driving is massively overestimated on here.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff