UK to allow driverless cars from January.

ShootersHillGuru

Ilovelondontown said:

Can’t understand for 1 minute why any government would allow this, the revenue lost from vehicle sales fuel road tax inevitable unemployment!!!

You can’t block progress. I agree the transition from driver cars v driverless will be difficult and probably slow but once the balance is tipped which it undoubtedly will then just like anything it will become the norm. I travel regularly between West Yorkshire and London and I’d like nothing more than to be able to be a passenger and be able to read a book, do some paperwork or just look out the window. Driving isn’t a lot of fun these days. I think we might well see that the transition is driven by commercial vehicles. White vans and light goods. We’ll see soon enough.

stevexreeve

Off_it said:

What is the everyday benefit of allowing driverless cars?

I get that the technology exists to do it, but just because you can do something doesn't automatically mean that you should or must do it.

What's the everyday benefit of not allowing it?

Who cares anyway?

VanbrughHill

WSS said:

Starinnaddick said:

American firm Waymo have been given the green light  to run driverless cars in London in 2026 including Lewisham and Greenwich areas. 

Had a great experience with them in San Francisco. Literally no different to ordering an Uber. More available if anything over there.

Only challenge is parking as they will find somewhere "safe" to park before stopping so you can end up a bit away from your destination.

Did you end up back where you were picked up from? 😂

Off_it

stevexreeve said:

Off_it said:

What is the everyday benefit of allowing driverless cars?

I get that the technology exists to do it, but just because you can do something doesn't automatically mean that you should or must do it.

What's the everyday benefit of not allowing it?

Who cares anyway?

Well if you don't care mate then that's up to you. It's a view you're perfectly entitled to, as blinkered as some may think it is.

I mean, you could say "who cares anyway?" about anything if you wanted to. 

Stu_of_Kunming

stevexreeve said:

Off_it said:

What is the everyday benefit of allowing driverless cars?

I get that the technology exists to do it, but just because you can do something doesn't automatically mean that you should or must do it.

What's the everyday benefit of not allowing it?

Who cares anyway?

Depends how you feel about another nail in the coffin of the working class. 

stevexreeve

Apologies to all for the 'who cares' comment! Complete and utter foul play!

I must have been in awful mood but that's no kind of excuse at all.

Sorry!

What I should have said is that you normally need a good reason to ban things. (Like certain foods for instance).

You don't usually have to actually find benefits for allowing something.

ShootersHillGuru

stevexreeve said:

Apologies to all for the 'who cares' comment! Complete and utter foul play!

I must have been in awful mood but that's no kind of excuse at all.

Sorry!

What I should have said is that you normally need a good reason to ban things. (Like certain foods for instance).

You don't usually have to actually find benefits for allowing something.

The huge benefit to driverless car and vans and Lorries will come with fewer accidents, injuries and fatalities. The big question is quite how all this translates into jobs. 

Off_it

ShootersHillGuru said:

stevexreeve said:

Apologies to all for the 'who cares' comment! Complete and utter foul play!

I must have been in awful mood but that's no kind of excuse at all.

Sorry!

What I should have said is that you normally need a good reason to ban things. (Like certain foods for instance).

You don't usually have to actually find benefits for allowing something.

The huge benefit to driverless car and vans and Lorries will come with fewer accidents, injuries and fatalities. The big question is quite how all this translates into jobs. 

Will it definitely automatically lead to fewer accidents, injuries and fatalities? Maybe if we switched entirely to driverless overnight, but I can imagine there being chaos until that point. More chaos than the "crap" drivers we have on the road currently, who knows.

But one thing is for certain is that it will lead to job losses from day one.

My question is around whether we as a society, collectively, are happy with that trade off? At the moment the argument seems to be being driven (excuse the pun) by the tech firms offering up a way for corporations to make even more money, and we are just going along with that.

I'm not saying ban it, not at all. Just that it would be nice if there was a pause before we rush headlong into something that - couple with the potential for uses of AI, etc - could perhaps fundamentally change the job landscape indefinitely. Just a pause to say, "where are the jobs of the future and where will taxes be generated to support the population?"

Off_it

stevexreeve said:

Apologies to all for the 'who cares' comment! Complete and utter foul play!

I must have been in awful mood but that's no kind of excuse at all.

Sorry!

What I should have said is that you normally need a good reason to ban things. (Like certain foods for instance).

You don't usually have to actually find benefits for allowing something.

No worries mate. And, as above, I'm not talking about banning anything, just making informed joined up decisions about it's use and application.

Carter

And this is just it

The job market isn't exactly bouncing presently and growth is something all of us need to be concerned about, or the lack of it 

Maybe if some big infrastructure projects were undertaken and managed properly having a decent road network for starters, we could be pushing ahead with this and it wouldn't kill us economically 

fenlandaddick

I can't wait to see them negotiate the single track narrow roads of Cornwall with no white lines and very few passing places, or the single track Highland Roads with fairly regular passing places and blind crests and blind corners

😂

Arthur_Trudgill

Something as constrained and relatively well defined as the DLR still needs human conductors about, so I think it may be a while before car driving is completely automated.

fenlandaddick

I think in a city or on a motorway or dual carriageway or major A road they will be fine. Anything other than that in the UK and the will not function very well. Some B roads and minor roads ok, but once into real rural Britain not a chance.

Considering most of the UK is not urban I think their use will be quite limited.

Hex

We have to look beyond today’s cars being automated to find their way along today’s roads by ‘looking through the windscreen’.  Cars will talk to nearby cars and have a picture of what is where.  This will be in coordination with a super version of the national road network (GIS) and GPS.  It will also make road (and car park) pricing a piece of cake.

Kap10

valleynick66 said:

I assume what will evolve will be traffic free roads in city centres aside from the autonomous cars. In other words remove the human element. 

Of course what to do with rogue cyclists who don’t obey the Highway Code will still be a challenge. 

Cars fitted with AK47s should sort it

Carter

Hex said:

We have to look beyond today’s cars being automated to find their way along today’s roads by ‘looking through the windscreen’.  Cars will talk to nearby cars and have a picture of what is where.  This will be in coordination with a super version of the national road network (GIS) and GPS.  It will also make road (and car park) pricing a piece of cake.

See, I hate the sound of all that. It might appeal to the side of me that detests interference with my life. It will start as a cool novelty then before we know what's happened it will be automated vehicles only, someone central can control them and essentially then control where you can and cannot go and once all vehicles are automated the price will get jacked right up same as always happens. No thanks. 

If roads were maintained, improved and driving standards policed properly and parking wasn't so prohibitive we would have far fewer problems with transport. 

ShootersHillGuru

fenlandaddick said:

I can't wait to see them negotiate the single track narrow roads of Cornwall with no white lines and very few passing places, or the single track Highland Roads with fairly regular passing places and blind crests and blind corners

😂

Off_it said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

stevexreeve said:

Apologies to all for the 'who cares' comment! Complete and utter foul play!

I must have been in awful mood but that's no kind of excuse at all.

Sorry!

What I should have said is that you normally need a good reason to ban things. (Like certain foods for instance).

You don't usually have to actually find benefits for allowing something.

The huge benefit to driverless car and vans and Lorries will come with fewer accidents, injuries and fatalities. The big question is quite how all this translates into jobs. 

Will it definitely automatically lead to fewer accidents, injuries and fatalities? Maybe if we switched entirely to driverless overnight, but I can imagine there being chaos until that point. More chaos than the "crap" drivers we have on the road currently, who knows.

But one thing is for certain is that it will lead to job losses from day one.

My question is around whether we as a society, collectively, are happy with that trade off? At the moment the argument seems to be being driven (excuse the pun) by the tech firms offering up a way for corporations to make even more money, and we are just going along with that.

I'm not saying ban it, not at all. Just that it would be nice if there was a pause before we rush headlong into something that - couple with the potential for uses of AI, etc - could perhaps fundamentally change the job landscape indefinitely. Just a pause to say, "where are the jobs of the future and where will taxes be generated to support the population?"

Progress and transition is painful. The industrial revolution changed everything for everyone but we got on and over it. The internal combustion engine eliminated horse and carts if not overnight then pretty quickly. Whole rafts of jobs were lost and or transitioned. AI will do exactly the same. There is in my opinion no societal trade off. It’s happening whether we like it or not. Lots of things have changed since I was a lad. High streets are dying and people shop differently now. Everything changes.

ShootersHillGuru

Arthur_Trudgill said:

Something as constrained and relatively well defined as the DLR still needs human conductors about, so I think it may be a while before car driving is completely automated.

There is a human presence but it’s not required for the safe running of the DLR. It was to reassure the public in its early days and also negotiated with the Trade Unions who rightly felt it was better to have a staff presence on the trains for something as new as driverless trains. 

Off_it

ShootersHillGuru said:

fenlandaddick said:

I can't wait to see them negotiate the single track narrow roads of Cornwall with no white lines and very few passing places, or the single track Highland Roads with fairly regular passing places and blind crests and blind corners

😂

Off_it said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

stevexreeve said:

Apologies to all for the 'who cares' comment! Complete and utter foul play!

I must have been in awful mood but that's no kind of excuse at all.

Sorry!

What I should have said is that you normally need a good reason to ban things. (Like certain foods for instance).

You don't usually have to actually find benefits for allowing something.

The huge benefit to driverless car and vans and Lorries will come with fewer accidents, injuries and fatalities. The big question is quite how all this translates into jobs. 

Will it definitely automatically lead to fewer accidents, injuries and fatalities? Maybe if we switched entirely to driverless overnight, but I can imagine there being chaos until that point. More chaos than the "crap" drivers we have on the road currently, who knows.

But one thing is for certain is that it will lead to job losses from day one.

My question is around whether we as a society, collectively, are happy with that trade off? At the moment the argument seems to be being driven (excuse the pun) by the tech firms offering up a way for corporations to make even more money, and we are just going along with that.

I'm not saying ban it, not at all. Just that it would be nice if there was a pause before we rush headlong into something that - couple with the potential for uses of AI, etc - could perhaps fundamentally change the job landscape indefinitely. Just a pause to say, "where are the jobs of the future and where will taxes be generated to support the population?"

Progress and transition is painful. The industrial revolution changed everything for everyone but we got on and over it. The internal combustion engine eliminated horse and carts if not overnight then pretty quickly. Whole rafts of jobs were lost and or transitioned. AI will do exactly the same. There is in my opinion no societal trade off. It’s happening whether we like it or not. Lots of things have changed since I was a lad. High streets are dying and people shop differently now. Everything changes.

Sigh. I just knew someone would bring up the industrial revolution, or some such. Which ignores the fact that there's something like an extra 7 billion people on the planet now. 

Not much point in me engaging any further really then. So long.

R0TW

ShootersHillGuru said:

Arthur_Trudgill said:

Something as constrained and relatively well defined as the DLR still needs human conductors about, so I think it may be a while before car driving is completely automated.

There is a human presence but it’s not required for the safe running of the DLR. It was to reassure the public in its early days and also negotiated with the Trade Unions who rightly felt it was better to have a staff presence on the trains for something as new as driverless trains. 

That is incorrect. What about when they get word of trespass etc?

Arthur_Trudgill

ShootersHillGuru said:

Arthur_Trudgill said:

Something as constrained and relatively well defined as the DLR still needs human conductors about, so I think it may be a while before car driving is completely automated.

There is a human presence but it’s not required for the safe running of the DLR. It was to reassure the public in its early days and also negotiated with the Trade Unions who rightly felt it was better to have a staff presence on the trains for something as new as driverless trains. 

TBF, technology is improving all the time, but at least on my daily commute, a conductor is almost always there: checking oyster cards, sometimes waiting for someone running to catch the train, making sure no alcohol is drunk in the carriages, and even resetting the controls when once I had to press the alarm because someone was having a seizure.

I know the actual train is driverless but it seems to me that humans are still needed even for trains, which I assume are more predictable than road traffic.

My point really is that transport in general is a bit too complicated for current technology.

But if AI/technology can one day give us efficient, comfortable, affordable and environmentally friendly ways to travel, then I don't see a problem.

stevexreeve

R0TW said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Arthur_Trudgill said:

Something as constrained and relatively well defined as the DLR still needs human conductors about, so I think it may be a while before car driving is completely automated.

There is a human presence but it’s not required for the safe running of the DLR. It was to reassure the public in its early days and also negotiated with the Trade Unions who rightly felt it was better to have a staff presence on the trains for something as new as driverless trains. 

That is incorrect. What about when they get word of trespass etc?

Driverless DLR and cars are surely completely different things.

The trains are controlled by a central computer and have no sensors or "intelligence" on board. If there is a trespasser reported to the central computer it stops all trains nearby.

Driverless cars are more or less in charge of everything.  In future we may get driverless only motorways where the car passes control to a central system  which knows the position of every single car and adjusts all the speeds accordingly. 

ShootersHillGuru

Off_it said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

fenlandaddick said:

I can't wait to see them negotiate the single track narrow roads of Cornwall with no white lines and very few passing places, or the single track Highland Roads with fairly regular passing places and blind crests and blind corners

😂

Off_it said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

stevexreeve said:

Apologies to all for the 'who cares' comment! Complete and utter foul play!

I must have been in awful mood but that's no kind of excuse at all.

Sorry!

What I should have said is that you normally need a good reason to ban things. (Like certain foods for instance).

You don't usually have to actually find benefits for allowing something.

The huge benefit to driverless car and vans and Lorries will come with fewer accidents, injuries and fatalities. The big question is quite how all this translates into jobs. 

Will it definitely automatically lead to fewer accidents, injuries and fatalities? Maybe if we switched entirely to driverless overnight, but I can imagine there being chaos until that point. More chaos than the "crap" drivers we have on the road currently, who knows.

But one thing is for certain is that it will lead to job losses from day one.

My question is around whether we as a society, collectively, are happy with that trade off? At the moment the argument seems to be being driven (excuse the pun) by the tech firms offering up a way for corporations to make even more money, and we are just going along with that.

I'm not saying ban it, not at all. Just that it would be nice if there was a pause before we rush headlong into something that - couple with the potential for uses of AI, etc - could perhaps fundamentally change the job landscape indefinitely. Just a pause to say, "where are the jobs of the future and where will taxes be generated to support the population?"

Progress and transition is painful. The industrial revolution changed everything for everyone but we got on and over it. The internal combustion engine eliminated horse and carts if not overnight then pretty quickly. Whole rafts of jobs were lost and or transitioned. AI will do exactly the same. There is in my opinion no societal trade off. It’s happening whether we like it or not. Lots of things have changed since I was a lad. High streets are dying and people shop differently now. Everything changes.

Sigh. I just knew someone would bring up the industrial revolution, or some such. Which ignores the fact that there's something like an extra 7 billion people on the planet now. 

Not much point in me engaging any further really then. So long.

Life for every generation is different from the previous. Sometimes it’s subtle and sometimes it’s cataclysmic. Ignoring that to fit with your argument then bailing out is well….up to you.

ShootersHillGuru

stevexreeve said:

R0TW said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Arthur_Trudgill said:

Something as constrained and relatively well defined as the DLR still needs human conductors about, so I think it may be a while before car driving is completely automated.

There is a human presence but it’s not required for the safe running of the DLR. It was to reassure the public in its early days and also negotiated with the Trade Unions who rightly felt it was better to have a staff presence on the trains for something as new as driverless trains. 

That is incorrect. What about when they get word of trespass etc?

Driverless DLR and cars are surely completely different things.

The trains are controlled by a central computer and have no sensors or "intelligence" on board. If there is a trespasser reported to the central computer it stops all trains nearby.

Driverless cars are more or less in charge of everything.  In future we may get driverless only motorways where the car passes control to a central system  which knows the position of every single car and adjusts all the speeds accordingly. 

Driverless cars are not ultimately going to be restricted to just motorways. The intention is for them to become the norm and I’m sure they will. The technology needed might as yet not be 100% and there will be challenges but eventually and I couldn’t even guess the timescale it will become the norm. Of course there are going to be both known and unknown consequences but just like with other massive cultural and technological change they will be overcome. 

Hex

Arthur_Trudgill said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Arthur_Trudgill said:

Something as constrained and relatively well defined as the DLR still needs human conductors about, so I think it may be a while before car driving is completely automated.

There is a human presence but it’s not required for the safe running of the DLR. It was to reassure the public in its early days and also negotiated with the Trade Unions who rightly felt it was better to have a staff presence on the trains for something as new as driverless trains. 

TBF, technology is improving all the time, but at least on my daily commute, a conductor is almost always there: checking oyster cards, sometimes waiting for someone running to catch the train, making sure no alcohol is drunk in the carriages, and even resetting the controls when once I had to press the alarm because someone was having a seizure.

I know the actual train is driverless but it seems to me that humans are still needed even for trains, which I assume are more predictable than road traffic.

My point really is that transport in general is a bit too complicated for current technology.

But if AI/technology can one day give us efficient, comfortable, affordable and environmentally friendly ways to travel, then I don't see a problem.

On the contrary, the tech is available but the will and money are not.  Eg our train control system using blocks is hugely inefficient but changing to a much better technology is going to take forever (if you’re as old as me).  

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ9DwbIEHWI

Hex

stevexreeve said:

R0TW said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Arthur_Trudgill said:

Something as constrained and relatively well defined as the DLR still needs human conductors about, so I think it may be a while before car driving is completely automated.

There is a human presence but it’s not required for the safe running of the DLR. It was to reassure the public in its early days and also negotiated with the Trade Unions who rightly felt it was better to have a staff presence on the trains for something as new as driverless trains. 

That is incorrect. What about when they get word of trespass etc?

Driverless DLR and cars are surely completely different things.

The trains are controlled by a central computer and have no sensors or "intelligence" on board. If there is a trespasser reported to the central computer it stops all trains nearby.

Driverless cars are more or less in charge of everything.  In future we may get driverless only motorways where the car passes control to a central system  which knows the position of every single car and adjusts all the speeds accordingly. 

I don’t think that a vast central control system would be viable.  Putting collision avoidance into every car is much more achievable and is more likely to be flexible enough to handle local ‘unexpected’ events.

cantersaddick

ShootersHillGuru said:

stevexreeve said:

R0TW said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Arthur_Trudgill said:

Something as constrained and relatively well defined as the DLR still needs human conductors about, so I think it may be a while before car driving is completely automated.

There is a human presence but it’s not required for the safe running of the DLR. It was to reassure the public in its early days and also negotiated with the Trade Unions who rightly felt it was better to have a staff presence on the trains for something as new as driverless trains. 

That is incorrect. What about when they get word of trespass etc?

Driverless DLR and cars are surely completely different things.

The trains are controlled by a central computer and have no sensors or "intelligence" on board. If there is a trespasser reported to the central computer it stops all trains nearby.

Driverless cars are more or less in charge of everything.  In future we may get driverless only motorways where the car passes control to a central system  which knows the position of every single car and adjusts all the speeds accordingly. 

Driverless cars are not ultimately going to be restricted to just motorways. The intention is for them to become the norm and I’m sure they will. The technology needed might as yet not be 100% and there will be challenges but eventually and I couldn’t even guess the timescale it will become the norm. Of course there are going to be both known and unknown consequences but just like with other massive cultural and technological change they will be overcome. 

I think the key with this, AI, the green transition and any other major economic or social transition is for the government to commit to an ethical transition and to put detail in writing for what that looks like. For example things like funded retraining for those whose jobs are affected (those in the oil and gas industry to work in green energy isn't thay big a jump) or to guarantee a safety net for those affected to allow time for a transition etc. With AI something about taxing its future use to generate cash if it replaces work en mass. With some commitments like that I think attitudes to transitions like these would be more positive.