ADUK Archive

To become a reality from next year...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28551069

Most likely not welcome from the AD hobbyist point of view but perhaps a more realistic prospect of reducing road casualties?

Is there scope for greater speeds and consequently shorter journey times?

Personally I don't welcome them but I also believe they will do more for road safety than the AD organisations.

The Orwellian state continues to grow...!

MGF wrote:To become a reality from next year...

Some drivers are so crap, their car would be better of without them now.

MGF wrote:Personally I don't welcome them but I also believe they will do more for road safety than the AD organisations.

Only at the point the truly autonomous ones work well. In the meantime I think we'll see a rise in KSI figures as people get more and more reliant on technology that appears to work fine 99% of the time, but when it can't cope (or fails), the driver is so disengaged there's little chance of recovery.

Is there any evidence to suggest that these things could identify the range of hazards a human being is capable of?
Not just simple stop go ones but the more complex situations.

sussex2 wrote:Is there any evidence to suggest that these things could identify the range of hazards a human being is capable of?
Not just simple stop go ones but the more complex situations.

Well, the evidence is the various driverless cars working their way around the USA. And the accidents stats suggests that humans are far from infallible. You also get some interesting side effects - such as cars communicating with each other (or roadside furniture). So if there's a sudden stop on the motorway in fog, the cars behind will "know" about it before a driver could see them.

jont wrote:

sussex2 wrote:Is there any evidence to suggest that these things could identify the range of hazards a human being is capable of?
Not just simple stop go ones but the more complex situations.

Well, the evidence is the various driverless cars working their way around the USA. And the accidents stats suggests that humans are far from infallible. You also get some interesting side effects - such as cars communicating with each other (or roadside furniture). So if there's a sudden stop on the motorway in fog, the cars behind will "know" about it before a driver could see them.

I'm not suggesting humans are infallible not by any means at all.
However I seriously doubt these machines could detect the range of hazards a human can; not just the example you quote.
This as an extreme example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM

jont wrote:

MGF wrote:Personally I don't welcome them but I also believe they will do more for road safety than the AD organisations.

Only at the point the truly autonomous ones work well. In the meantime I think we'll see a rise in KSI figures as people get more and more reliant on technology that appears to work fine 99% of the time, but when it can't cope (or fails), the driver is so disengaged there's little chance of recovery.

We are already seeing this in the airline industry; perfectly recoverable situations that pilots so tuned to automation are unable to deal with.
If this level of automation is to continue it'll be along and rocky road.

sussex2 wrote:

jont wrote:

MGF wrote:Personally I don't welcome them but I also believe they will do more for road safety than the AD organisations.

Only at the point the truly autonomous ones work well. In the meantime I think we'll see a rise in KSI figures as people get more and more reliant on technology that appears to work fine 99% of the time, but when it can't cope (or fails), the driver is so disengaged there's little chance of recovery.

We are already seeing this in the airline industry; perfectly recoverable situations that pilots so tuned to automation are unable to deal with.
If this level of automation is to continue it'll be along and rocky road.

Funnily enough, I had a very similar conversation with a rellie who's an ex-RAF, now commercial, pilot.

He suggested comparing passengering in a driverless car with a late-night, city centre, minicab; which 'driver' would you trust most?

Frankly I'd walk!

sussex2 wrote:We are already seeing this in the airline industry; perfectly recoverable situations that pilots so tuned to automation are unable to deal with.
If this level of automation is to continue it'll be along and rocky road.

Well sort of...remember that although there have a small number of air accidents when the pilots have been misled by the systems or unable to cope manually, there are a great many more where the auto systems have saved the day. The air accident rate is the lowest it's ever been.

I'm in two minds about driverless cars...perhaps those people that go for one are, by definition, better off not driving and leaving the fun to us? I bet a driverless car will be 'reluctant' to go for an overtake in situations where we might...10 car overtake anyone?

Yes indeed air travel has become much more safe of late and part of this is due to automation. At least an equal part is due IMO to better training and supervision of the human machine. The modern aircraft itself is, like a modern car, much better built than those of decades ago.
I can envisage situations (probably quite a few if I put my mind to it) in which an automated car could become a hazard itself e.g. Someone mentioned the automated car 'seeing' others ahead in fog. What would the auto car then do? Stop and make a hazard of itself? Proceed with caution like a train with an amber light?
The technology is in its' infancy and to put it in perspective techno wise I can't even get a mobile phone signal in different rooms of my house
Plus and perhaps more to the point every single thing that has gone wrong with a certain car I own has been....due to technology!

sussex2 wrote: We are already seeing this in the airline industry; perfectly recoverable situations that pilots so tuned to automation are unable to deal with.

Any links to more information on this as a developing/worsening problem?

Horse wrote:

sussex2 wrote: We are already seeing this in the airline industry; perfectly recoverable situations that pilots so tuned to automation are unable to deal with.

Any links to more information on this as a developing/worsening problem?

My thinking is along the lines of the AF447 crash which is attributed by some to being at least partly due to the technology on the aircraft and the manner in which the crew used it.

The report can be found here:

http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight. ... af.447.php

sussex2 wrote:Yes indeed air travel has become much more safe of late and part of this is due to automation. At least an equal part is due IMO to better training and supervision of the human machine. The modern aircraft itself is, like a modern car, much better built than those of decades ago.
I can envisage situations (probably quite a few if I put my mind to it) in which an automated car could become a hazard itself e.g. Someone mentioned the automated car 'seeing' others ahead in fog. What would the auto car then do? Stop and make a hazard of itself? Proceed with caution like a train with an amber light?
The technology is in its' infancy and to put it in perspective techno wise I can't even get a mobile phone signal in different rooms of my house
Plus and perhaps more to the point every single thing that has gone wrong with a certain car I own has been....due to technology!

I know that a lot of my technological gadgets like to go a bit funny, and lag at times.

Makes me wonder what would happen if a car started to lag.

It'd turn left for the turning it went past 50 yards ago, and go straight into someone's house.

Yeah, I'll go for humans.

They may be crap, but at least they're predictably crap