The Queens Speech

[moe19]

Space ports and Driver-less cars??!!

we cant even build a third runway at Heathrow

What have these folk been smoking.

 

[mercuryg]

To be fair, I haven't heard her speech, but while space ports are a little off beat, driverless cars already exist. They can't, of course, co-exist on roads with regular cars, so will never be the norm.

[threegee]

16 hours ago, mercuryg said:

... They can't, of course, co-exist on roads with regular cars, so will never be the norm.

"of course"? Why the of course?

The thing which is conspicuous by its absence is the much vaunted Sovereignty Bill. Another of Duplicitous Dave's shoot-from-the-hip promises ditched at the first hurdle. Why? Because it will clash with the diktats of our new rulers in Brussels - OF COURSE!  

[mercuryg]

Because a driverless car cannot predict the actions of a driver, who may make a mistake, for example. It can only be pre-programmed to take a set route. Until an absolutely failsafe system can be devised, it will also be uninsurable.

 

[webtrekker]

29 minutes ago, mercuryg said:

Because a driverless car cannot predict the actions of a driver, who may make a mistake, for example. It can only be pre-programmed to take a set route. Until an absolutely failsafe system can be devised, it will also be uninsurable.

 

 

Also, the car obviously uses collision avoidance algorithms, but what happens in the following scenario? ...

 

Some kids run out in front of the car. The algorithm instantly decides it's too late to avoid a collision by braking alone and needs to swerve to avoid the children. Trouble is, swerving to the right would pile the car into a central reservation, putting its passengers in real danger of injury or death, while swerving to the left will hit a woman walking with a pushchair and 3 kids.

What would the algorithm decide?

On the other hand, what would you decide if you were the driver? I reckon I'd go right.

 

[moe19]

1 hour ago, threegee said:

 

The thing which is conspicuous by its absence is the much vaunted Sovereignty Bill. Another of Duplicitous Dave's shoot-from-the-hip promises ditched at the first hurdle. 

Dave's driver-less car only makes U turns and seems to often get stuck in reverse gear.

[threegee]

1 hour ago, mercuryg said:

Because a driverless car cannot predict the actions of a driver, who may make a mistake, for example. It can only be pre-programmed to take a set route. Until an absolutely failsafe system can be devised, it will also be uninsurable.

Neither can a human.  A cast iron case for banning motor cars I think - people get killed!

Oh, and you forgot to mention that they frighten the horses, and that people will black-out in them.

Everything is insurable - at a price. I'd imagine that if regular insurers aren't interested Google will throw the odd billion at the sector and show them how to make money.

[mercuryg]

Not really my point, though (and they do frighten the horses! Terrible things! 

The insurance problem is a clear legal one; if a driverless car causes an accident, who is at fault?

[webtrekker]

23 minutes ago, mercuryg said:

Not really my point, though (and they do frighten the horses! Terrible things! 

The insurance problem is a clear legal one; if a driverless car causes an accident, who is at fault?

 

It'll be an 'Act of God' most probably. 'God' being Google, of course, as we all know! (*** Bows down to the Big G***).

[threegee]

29 minutes ago, mercuryg said:

Not really my point, though (and they do frighten the horses! Terrible things! 

The insurance problem is a clear legal one; if a driverless car causes an accident, who is at fault?

If a tile falls off your roof and kills someone then who is at fault?  In fact with all the instrumentation and video there will be little argument as to culpability, so the lawyers might be a bit poorer - is that a bad thing?

[threegee]

Quote

Tory rebels, made up of eurosceptic MPs, have tabled an amendment to yesterday’s Queen’s Speech that would require the Commons to “respectfully regret that a Bill to protect the National Health Service from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership was not included in the Gracious Speech”.

The amendment has also been signed by Labour MPs and the SNP’s Chris Stephens.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn today confirmed his MPs would be backing the amendment when the Commons votes on the Queen's Speech.

It means, with the support of Tory eurosceptics, the Prime Minister would see his Commons majority vanish.

Totally brilliant!  Dave has been asking for this for a long time.

[mercuryg]

32 minutes ago, threegee said:

If a tile falls off your roof and kills someone then who is at fault?  In fact with all the instrumentation and video there will be little argument as to culpability, so the lawyers might be a bit poorer - is that a bad thing?

Lawyers being poorer is no bad thing! A car is different to a tile. I'm responsible for the upkeep of my tiles, but this is not a maintenance issue. I'm not driving the car, it's driving itself. I have no control. It's a legal nightmare. 

[threegee]

19 minutes ago, mercuryg said:

Lawyers being poorer is no bad thing! A car is different to a tile. I'm responsible for the upkeep of my tiles, but this is not a maintenance issue. I'm not driving the car, it's driving itself. I have no control. It's a legal nightmare. 

Not exclusively you're not!  How do you know a tiler has fixed them all properly? Supposing someone doing other work on your roof damaged them unbeknown to you - or a neighbour, or a criminal?  Maybe a bit of an aircraft fell on your roof and dislodged them?  Freak weather conditions; even a manufacturing defect in the tiles themselves; or the fixings...

The real world is complex and driver-less cars don't add too much to that, and in other ways greatly simplify things. The real legal test is can lawyers make money.  If they can't then there will be insuperable obstacles placed, but the driver-less car is just another welcome income source to them. They didn't kill aviation - simply ensured that taken in the round no one else ever makes any money out of it!  I could provide you with a link to an impeccable source to confirm this truism?   

[stevenmcvey963]

10 hours ago, threegee said:

If a tile falls off your roof and kills someone then who is at fault?  In fact with all the instrumentation and video there will be little argument as to culpability, so the lawyers might be a bit poorer - is that a bad thing?

depends if you're anywhere near the roof at the time the tile falls,just ask Ben Hur he had an awful time with it

[mercuryg]

1 hour ago, threegee said:

Not exclusively you're not!  How do you know a tiler has fixed them all properly? Supposing someone doing other work on your roof damaged them unbeknown to you - or a neighbour, or a criminal?  Maybe a bit of an aircraft fell on your roof and dislodged them?  Freak weather conditions; even a manufacturing defect in the tiles themselves; or the fixings...

The real world is complex and driver-less cars don't add too much to that, and in other ways greatly simplify things. The real legal test is can lawyers make money.  If they can't then there will be insuperable obstacles placed, but the driver-less car is just another welcome income source to them. They didn't kill aviation - simply ensured that taken in the round no one else ever makes any money out of it!  I could provide you with a link to an impeccable source to confirm this truism?   

all good points, but the fact remains a driver-less car is still driver-less, so i'm not in control. It's quite simple: I'm a passenger. That's why they are uninsurable. It's also, when you consider it, a silly idea. Get the bus,

 

[threegee]

10 minutes ago, mercuryg said:

all good points, but the fact remains a driver-less car is still driver-less, so i'm not in control. It's quite simple: I'm a passenger. That's why they are uninsurable. It's also, when you consider it, a silly idea. Get the bus,

Game, set, and match! (If only I followed tennis, and knew quite what that meant. )
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/91c4ef40-1d0b-11e6-b286-cddde55ca122.html#axzz497iAhbpg

[mercuryg]

You've linked me to a subscription portal for the financial times. This is why I hate links!

[mercuryg]

Oh, and it means, you won the game, set, and match. Tennis is a strange game.

[mercuryg]

And I don't think so anyway: this little snippet from the Association of British Insurers: "

Potential transfer of risk

As vehicles become increasingly connected with other vehicles – and as the control input transfers from human to computer, it is possible that liability will follow that transfer of risk. There is therefore the potential for the vehicle manufacturer to become liable for an accident, as opposed to the driver, if the driver is unable to override the system.

 

Mmm, I can really see Toyota, Ford, Renault, etc being happy about that....

[threegee]

3 hours ago, mercuryg said:

You've linked me to a subscription portal for the financial times. This is why I hate links!

Sorry:

Quote

Insurance industry welcomes proposals for driverless cars cover

...

Growing use of automation is expected to have a huge impact on the insurance industry.

Research from Swiss Re and Here, a mapping company, suggests that widespread use of automation — from collision warning systems to blind spot information — could halve accidents on motorways and cut incidents on other roads by 28 per cent. That, they say, could wipe $20bn off car insurance premiums globally over the next five years.

However Moody’s, which thinks that a majority of cars could be self-driving by 2045, warned this week that autonomous vehicles may be more expensive to replace, which could push up premiums.

Experiments with the technology are already under way. Earlier this year the British government announced a total of £20m of funding for eight projects to develop autonomous vehicles. And last month Volvo said it would start trials of autonomous vehicles in the UK next year.

Greedy beggars the FT - nothing but money, money, money!

Quote

Oh, and it means, you won the game, set, and match. Tennis is a strange game.

What's a set, and what's the difference between a game and a match? 

[mercuryg]

That's a rather contradictory article; on the one hand saying the industry welcomes them, on the other saying they could push up premiums...ah, of course, I get it!

"What's a set, and what's the difference between a game and a match? "

Well, a match consists of five (or three if you're a lass) sets; each set is sort of first to win six games. Most sets wins the match! 

 

[threegee]

3 hours ago, mercuryg said:

That's a rather contradictory article; on the one hand saying the industry welcomes them, on the other saying they could push up premiums...ah, of course, I get it!

"What's a set, and what's the difference between a game and a match? "

Well, a match consists of five (or three if you're a lass) sets; each set is sort of first to win six games. Most sets wins the match! 

Not really; it's saying the sub-systems very necessary for DCs will reduce accidents and so reduce premiums. Those don't necessarily even need to be deployed IN cars, and are going into smart-cars first.  Fully autonomous cars themselves will be notionally more expensive, thus cost more to insure. There's a phased approach. This link will make things clearer:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/features/how-long-until-we-have-fully-driverless-cars/

Tennis sounds "sexist": I'm beginning to like it!

[mercuryg]

that's a massively optimistic article! I remember not long ago, by now we'd all be driving electric and all the oil would be gone!

[threegee]

6 minutes ago, mercuryg said:

that's a massively optimistic article! I remember not long ago, by now we'd all be driving electric and all the oil would be gone!

You'd need to provide me with a link to that!

Tesla have vastly more orders than they can handle, and their stuff is hardly cheap. Show me a Detroit metal basher who is in that happy situation.  Follow the money - the Chinese and Koreans are!

[webtrekker]

Well, you're all getting your knicks in a knot over nothing.

Google, as always, have it sorted - 

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/05/19/google-patents-sticky-cars-to-save-pedestrians-hit-by-driverless/

Sorry about the link merc, but I think you'll enjoy Google's slution!