mercuryg

""They do not USE GPS for primary navigation or collision avoidance; they only use it in the same manner as a human does." But they do use it, and Volvo seems to think it rather important to the concept: "This technology lets the car know about speed limits and temporary road signs and always selects the quickest, most efficient route."" So, GPS tells it how to get to where it is meant to go. How else could it know? Surely, if you tale away the GPS system, it can't navigate correctly? Or am I missing something here? Volvo, see above, says it uses GPS to select the route? ** I googled 'ford autonomous cars' - well actually I googled autonomus cats by accident and it says theirs uses a laser system (LIDAR?) and 3D maps.

Frank, mine would be called. " Smart vehicles don't limit information, choice, and available routings, they greatly expand them all." But what people need, day in, day out, is being taken from point A to point B in x minutes, in order to get to work/school/the shops when desired. I can't see an expensive, capacity-limited car taking the place of a bus any time soon (and by that I mean in my lifetime). I agree with the Uber points, but they don't really apply to buses, do they? Bus companies do tell you what is going on, and also offer you positional information (lovely phrase); I have an app on my phone that tracks buses, in real time, so I can leave the house at precisely the moment the bus reaches Guidepost roundabout and be at the stop within half a minute of it arriving to pick me up. It allows me, to my great relief, to see when a bus is late (or early) and how so, also. It is reliable and free. I guess the same would be true of the driveless cars, but I still can't see the advantage of, in the example of the X22, 18 cars on the road instead of one bus.

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.

I'm very happy with 10 on both laptop and tablet.

"Hackles, on the other hand, are up already." Do hackles go well with mayonnaise?

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!

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.

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.

Excellent, well done to them

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?!

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.

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

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.

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!

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!

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....

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

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

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,

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 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?

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.

Happy 40th me old sparring partner, hope you enjoy!

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.

Immanent... Do you need a proof reader? Affordable rates...