The Queens Speech

[mercuryg]

8 hours ago, threegee said:

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!

Really? At school, thirty years ago, we were taught without any doubt that, by even before now, oil would be gone. I'm sure it wasn't just me, and no, I don't have links (which would be nonsense anyway as it wasn't true) for back then. Autonomous cars, as an everyday usage item, are a fallacy; as much as the flying ones we were told would be all the rage now back in the fifties, or the gas turbine ones of the same era. Quite simply, people like to be 'in control'; the idea of getting in a car and letting it do the job for you is something I cannot see catching on any time soon, and why would it? What advantage does it actually bring? I'll have you a good natured long time bet here; assuming we're both around in 20 years (I might make it, you never know) I'll wager you a bottle of decent wine that the number of genuinely driverless cars on the road then, in the world, remains in far less than five figures.

[mercuryg]

Oh, and I might add, Tesla is hardly representative of a mainstream auto manufacturer; in fact it's anything but. 

[threegee]

4 hours ago, mercuryg said:

Really? At school, thirty years ago, we were taught without any doubt that, by even before now, oil would be gone. I'm sure it wasn't just me, and no, I don't have links (which would be nonsense anyway as it wasn't true) for back then. Autonomous cars, as an everyday usage item, are a fallacy; as much as the flying ones we were told would be all the rage now back in the fifties, or the gas turbine ones of the same era. Quite simply, people like to be 'in control'; the idea of getting in a car and letting it do the job for you is something I cannot see catching on any time soon, and why would it? What advantage does it actually bring? I'll have you a good natured long time bet here; assuming we're both around in 20 years (I might make it, you never know) I'll wager you a bottle of decent wine that the number of genuinely driverless cars on the road then, in the world, remains in far less than five figures.

Advantages: Safety; Lower pollution; Better/dynamic community traffic management; Vastly higher vehicle utilisation; Elimination of city-center/hub car parking; True door-door journeys; No wasteful cruising for a free parking spaces; Elimination of time-wasting driver navigation errors and sub-optimal routing; (for fleet operators) increased passenger capacity, and greatly reduced per-mile cost.

I can explain to you why those predictions were silly (already touched on a bit of this earlier), and why autonomous vehicles are anything but - though it's too lengthy an ask tonight.

I think you might want to rethink the wine thing: good quality wines here come in min. 5 litre containers and can easily cost less than drinking water.

4 hours ago, mercuryg said:

Oh, and I might add, Tesla is hardly representative of a mainstream auto manufacturer; in fact it's anything but. 

My point entirely: they are fully committed to autonomous vehicle technology in all phases, whereas Detroit may need to be dragged kicking and screaming to the party.

[mercuryg]

Advantages: Safety; Reallty? In what way? You're talking about n already dangerous vehicle being controlled by computers, which we know are hardly infallible. Of course, I recognise the advantage of anti-collision systems and the like, but unless - as I inferred earlier - you have roads entirely populated by autonomous vehicles, the safety element is easy to dispute.

Lower pollution; why? they will use the same engines as current cars, unless there is a secret powerplant we don't know about. 

Better/dynamic community traffic management; again, only if the roads are populated by entirely autonomous vehicles

Vastly higher vehicle utilisation; why? They will be used for the same purpose as current cars.

Elimination of city-center/hub car parking; True door-door journeys - again, why, or how? You get in your autonomous car, it drives you to work, where does it go when you get out? Home, without anyone in it? That, of course, brings us back to the insurance problem; the manufacturers will be running scared/

No wasteful cruising for a free parking spaces; see above - it has to park somewhere.

Elimination of time-wasting driver navigation errors and sub-optimal routing; maybe, but seeing as most cars are used for the same journey over and over again (which makes a good case for the autonomous car) this is hardly a selling point.

(for fleet operators) increased passenger capacity, and greatly reduced per-mile cost.journeys; that's true, and it's with us now, as in buses.

The thing is, it's all a great idea and the technology is excellent, but a driver free car cannot be compatible with roads full of cars driven by actual people.

" can explain to you why those predictions were silly"

Of course you can, and so can I as we have the benefit of hindsight; but could you then? In 20 years time, you'll be able to explain to me why the autonomous car never caught on. But we can do that now. 

 

 

[webtrekker]

 

 

CAUTION!: LINK ALERT!

 

It's things like this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36339340 that is driving the driverless revolution.

I doubt whether Uber's paramount concern is safety.

 

[threegee]

4 hours ago, mercuryg said:

Advantages: Safety; Reallty? In what way? You're talking about n already dangerous vehicle being controlled by computers, which we know are hardly infallible. Of course, I recognise the advantage of anti-collision systems and the like, but unless - as I inferred earlier - you have roads entirely populated by autonomous vehicles, the safety element is easy to dispute.

No it's not, this is something that's easily quantifiable after the red flag carriers have been put to bed.

Lower pollution; why? they will use the same engines as current cars, unless there is a secret powerplant we don't know about. 

Because the vehicles use optimum driving strategies. They don't feel the urge to beat other people away from the lights etc. etc.  This is a fully established principal from the public transport market where automatic driver "instruction" is already common place. They also carry more useful payload, generally travel less distance per journey, and don't cruise for parking.

Better/dynamic community traffic management; again, only if the roads are populated by entirely autonomous vehicles

Not so!  This is like saying you can't use dumb mobile phones on a network with smartphones.

Vastly higher vehicle utilisation; why? They will be used for the same purpose as current cars.

Because once the passengers are dropped off they are free to pick up more.  The two-car family could become a rarity, and car sharing pools will certainly expand as they will have much more flexibility!  Delivery vehicles can operate 24/7/365 without overtime or holiday considerations, and make more economical journeys by exploiting quiet periods.

Elimination of city-center/hub car parking; True door-door journeys - again, why, or how? You get in your autonomous car, it drives you to work, where does it go when you get out? Home, without anyone in it? That, of course, brings us back to the insurance problem; the manufacturers will be running scared/

The answer is: wherever it suits you or your family and budget best.

No wasteful cruising for a free parking spaces; see above - it has to park somewhere.

The trick is to ensure it doesn't have to park, but when it does it can be sent to special out of town areas and waited in areas where no one would previously have considered locating a car park because of poor accessibility. It could even be stacked in places where human access is dangerous or undesirable.

Elimination of time-wasting driver navigation errors and sub-optimal routing; maybe, but seeing as most cars are used for the same journey over and over again (which makes a good case for the autonomous car) this is hardly a selling point.

You obviously don't know the drivers I know!  "Most" simply won't hack it as driving conditions change constantly, drivers change, and long infrequent journeys are the most wasteful.  People can drive sub-optimal routes for decades, just because that's what they KNOW.

(for fleet operators) increased passenger capacity, and greatly reduced per-mile cost.journeys; that's true, and it's with us now, as in buses.

Ah, driverless buses?    Just a minute whilst I go tap my password into the autonomous Amazon van that has just pulled up outside with my order - silly idea those drones!

The thing is, it's all a great idea and the technology is excellent, but a driver free car cannot be compatible with roads full of cars driven by actual people.

Define "compatible"?  Have you considered joining the Green Party - they do a nice line in horse and carts?

" can explain to you why those predictions were silly"

Of course you can, and so can I as we have the benefit of hindsight; but could you then? In 20 years time, you'll be able to explain to me why the autonomous car never caught on. But we can do that now. 

I won't need to!  I could explain to you in the early 1970's why flying cars wouldn't happen - it was obvious to ALL pilots.  They have a bit more chance now as telematics have caught up with expectations, but the economics still aren't there - yet.

 

[mercuryg]

Interesting responses, but I think you are still missing a large chunk of the point: people want to be in control. By and large, they're happy to drive inefficient vehicles that they have to park in inconvenient places because it's there for them, to go where they want, when they want. They don't have to wait for the number 31 autonomous car to drop off its current passengers - which is why they don't take the bus. A a concept, it's technically innovative, but until there are no more driven cars on the road, it's just another aid to congestion, and an expensive one at that. For every positive, as you post very eloquently, there are negatives to be offered. Of course that's the same with every 'new' idea, but in my broad view, the negatives in this one far outweigh the positives. The mindset, for one, is something to overcome: I. for example, am more than happy sitting in a car/bus/train being driven by someone else, but I want to know it's being driven by someone else, and not by complex electronic systems. The next generations, of course, may be more accepting of being out of control of their mode of transport.

Is the Queen, by the way, investing in a driverless Range Rover?!

 

 

 

[webtrekker]

We've been talking about driverless cars in the main here, but for the system to work properly ALL road vehicles will have to be autonomous and that raises the question of losses of tens of thousands of jobs in the transport industry.

The reason why I state ALL vehicles will need to be autonomous is the fact that, for this system to be 100% reliable, vehicles will need to be in constant communication with each other to avoid collisions and congestion. Any vehicle without this type of communication will be the weakest link in the chain and will not be allowed to travel the same roads as the autonomous vehicles.

Another point relates to so-called autonomous vehicles which still have driver controls so that a driver may be able to take control in an emergency. Well, the way I see it, there will no longer be any truly experienced drivers to do that if over 90% of their road-time is spent sitting in an autonomous vehicle doing anything but actual driving. This is borne out by the lack of skilled pilots these days due to heavy reliance on autopilot.

 

[mercuryg]

Webtrekker, this is a point I have raised many times. Driven and autonomous cars on the same road system simply cannot exist. It's something I raised, I believe, in my first comment on the subject. Until all vehicles are autonomous, the concept is pointless, although technologically interesting.

[pilgrim]

many interesting points listed above

perhaps the most important was a system mooted many years ago to prevent cars -with drivers - being to close to the car in front!!! on a lighter note re the opening of parliament we know the equerry to ER Maj that hands her the cap on maintenance -- also referred to as the bag of shite..... a bit like the speech..

[Canny lass]

The insurance problem has been solved by Volvo. Just a few months ago Volvo said that it accepts full liability for accidents in which their driverless cars are involved. They are so confident that they are 100% safe. I wish I had their optimism! I've also heard that 'pedestrian avoidance detectors' can be fitted as an optional extra!

[webtrekker]

You can imagine the carnage that could be caused by some nutter sitting on a motorway bridge with an eBay GPS spoofer! 

[Canny lass]

7 hours ago, webtrekker said:

You can imagine the carnage that could be caused by some nutter sitting on a motorway bridge with an eBay GPS spoofer! 

I can - but I'd rather not!

[threegee]

Unlike CL I can't!  What do you think would happen?

[mercuryg]

12 hours ago, Canny lass said:

The insurance problem has been solved by Volvo. Just a few months ago Volvo said that it accepts full liability for accidents in which their driverless cars are involved. They are so confident that they are 100% safe. I wish I had their optimism! I've also heard that 'pedestrian avoidance detectors' can be fitted as an optional extra!

Interesting; that's all very well and good when there's, what, 100 of them - as I believe there will be by 2017 - but what about when there's 50,000, and the likelihood of accidents - statistically - increases? Mark my words, the manufacturers won't go for it.

[Canny lass]

 

3 hours ago, threegee said:

Unlike CL I can't!  What do you think would happen?

You've obviously never worked in an A&E department.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Canny lass

[Canny lass]

2 hours ago, mercuryg said:

Interesting; that's all very well and good when there's, what, 100 of them - as I believe there will be by 2017 - but what about when there's 50,000, and the likelihood of accidents - statistically - increases? Mark my words, the manufacturers won't go for it.

I'm with you on that one, mercuryg.

[threegee]

10 minutes ago, Canny lass said:

You've obviously never worked in an A&E department.

No, but that doesn't translate into remotely the scenario that is being suggested.  Smartcars don't use GPS for primary navigation, and certainly not for collision avoidance.

[Canny lass]

4 hours ago, threegee said:

No, but that doesn't translate into remotely the scenario that is being suggested.  Smartcars don't use GPS for primary navigation, and certainly not for collision avoidance.

I wouldn't know what smart cars use. I'll get a pidgeon away to Volvo and ask them to let me in on their secrets. However, I do know what carnage looks like. I've seen the damage caused by striking workers throwing bricks off motorway bridges in Wales. Not a pretty sight.

[threegee]

The proposition is that a GPS spoofer used from a motorway bridge would cause "carnage". It would do no such thing. Smartcars use the same visual and spatial clues as human drivers, except that they react to them more reliably, and a lot faster.  The rest is just to gild the system, and because it is possible to go even further.  And further we will go as the explosion in available telemetry information is pooled to the general good.

[Canny lass]

Well, to be fair, he didn't say that the spoofer (lovely word that) was being used only that he was sitting on a motorway bridge with it. When webtrekker challenged me to imagine the carnage that might be caused I imagined it flying through the air like a brick. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[threegee]

Oh, I see. Well... in that scenario you'd probably be better off throwing large sacks of diamonds instead. The spectral properties of the gems might blind the optics, and it's highly likely that this contingency won't have been properly tested for! 

[mercuryg]

10 hours ago, threegee said:

The proposition is that a GPS spoofer used from a motorway bridge would cause "carnage". It would do no such thing. Smartcars use the same visual and spatial clues as human drivers, except that they react to them more reliably, and a lot faster.  The rest is just to gild the system, and because it is possible to go even further.  And further we will go as the explosion in available telemetry information is pooled to the general good.

They use GPS, too, or how would they know where they are going? From the Volvo website (to keep things simple; just one of several examples):

"An immensely detailed 3D digital map and a high-performance global positioning system (GPS) work together so the car lets you knows exactly where you are and what is around you. This technology lets the car know about speed limits and temporary road signs and always selects the quickest, most efficient route."

ps: on that note - about the 'quickest, most efficient route' - I drove my sister, in her car, 90 miles to hospital in Lincs/Notts last year. Mary-Lou, the sat-nav, sent me different routes, there and back. Neither was the quickest or most efficient route - I discovered that myself later on!

 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2016 by mercuryg

[webtrekker]

Ok then, maybe 'carnage' was the wrong word to use.

However, why fit high quality GPS to cars that don't need it?  My understanding is that, for an autonomous system to work, all vehicles must be singing from the same hymn sheet and that to disrupt any part of that system would throw it into confusion. 

Edited May 26, 2016 by webtrekker

[mercuryg]

3 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

Ok then, maybe 'carnage' was the wrong word to use.

However, why fit high quality GPS to cars that don't need it. My understanding is that, for an autonomous system to work, all vehicles must be singing from the same hymn sheet and that to disrupt any part of that system would throw it into confusion. 

They do need GPS, to determine where they are at any given point on a journey. The latter part of your sentence is also true; the autonomous vehicle will find it hard to cope with cars being driven by people, who are of course largely stupid and prone to being rather lax and far from uniform in their driving habits. The concept of autonomous city cars, taking us from place to place without us having to worry about driving, is an interesting one, but how is it an improvement on a 72 seat vehicle running the same predetermined route three times every hour? Or, in the case of trains, potentially many, many more.