Self driving cars (and cyclists).

[kwackers]

A novelty all round but for how long?

Self driving code is structured.
The basic level is anti-collision. That can't be avoided.

What can change is the level above it which determines how to avoid being in a potential collision in the first place. It's always going to be better to back off slightly than to go at full whack.
There's no difference really between self driving and people driving - other than temperament.

[meic]

There's an assumption that there's a speed increase available by ignoring peds and cyclists.

In this particular example there was a speed loss due to paying attention to pedestrians, so it would be an exercise of extreme semantics to claim this had not demonstrated an assumption of "speed increase available by ignoring peds" as being true.

[kwackers]

There's an assumption that there's a speed increase available by ignoring peds and cyclists.

In this particular example there was a speed loss due to paying attention to pedestrians, so it would be an exercise of extreme semantics to claim this had not demonstrated an assumption of "speed increase available by ignoring peds" as being true.

And a queue further down the road. Junctions to navigate etc etc.

You don't need much increase in danger to negate any (debatable) time saving. These are exactly the same rules humans could use but chose not to, hence the crashes, queues and deaths and for no appreciable time saving to boot.
Having cars ignore them too makes absolutely no sense.

[thirdcrank]

kwackers

I defer to your greater knowledge of technology than mine (and that's without any intention of damning with faint praise, because you don't need to know much to know more than I do ) but I fear you are being uncharacteristically naïve about how this will be allowed to operate in real life, rather than the spin garbage.

IIRC, in an earlier thread on this subject, there was reference to the promoters of one of these systems lobbying over not being required to adhere strictly to speed limits, but rather to be able to go with the flow (my wording.) Take the example of overtaking cyclists, it's pretty obvious to me that a rider who chose to ride generally in a primary position could drastically slow a would-be overtaker. Incidentally, the knowledge that the overtaker would wait for a truly safe place would tend to embolden timid riders. Pedestrians who knew that they risked nothing by walking out into traffic might do so for all sorts of reasons. Utopia for many campaigners but it's hard to see it being allowed.

I imagine some "common sense" speaking politician being interviewed about this Two Jags being interviewed by John Snow is my mental image but it could be many others. "Come on , John. You're a serious interviewer, so what are you on about? Do you really expect that this cutting edge technology should be programmed to give priority to carts and horses, and even cyclists? " Etc.

A lot of this technology is already there, especially on expensive cars: just check the "driver assist" options available on many Audis. But they are only options and even when fitted, their use is also optional.

Back to the joggers. What if the car had given them a toot in the vid? An unwanted sign of appreciation of their rears? Or a polite version of what could just as easily be a prolonged blast had they looked like getting in the road? Just like now, in fact.

[kwackers]

<snip>

It's nothing to do with the technology, we can step away from that quite easily.

All we're talking about is risk. Does bad driving have greater risk than good driving?
Is the quality of driving currently good or bad?

Given the posts on here I think we can take it as red that the standard of driving isn't that great and that bad driving represents a greater risk than good driving.
So what can you do to improve the current standards of driving such that there is no appreciable delay?

It seems to me you can do an awful lot. Most of the bad driving I experience has absolutely nothing to do with gaining time and is mostly to do with driver attitude and general ineptitude.

So even if fixing that was the best you could hope for it'd be massively better than the current system - imo.
(Perhaps drivers around you are technically very good...)

As for driver aids, I could be wrong but I don't think you can turn off collision avoidance - why would you want to? Unless you're suggesting motorists (and robots) can save a few seconds by simply running over people...

[djnotts]

All got me to thinking about how many will there be when....one seemingly soundly based forecast is 10m cars worldwide with "self driving features" (i.e. not ones where "driver" can simply curl up on the rear seats) by 2020. Crude extrapolation of this equals 375,000 in UK. I'll certainly not be driving in 2020 (I do not believe any one should drive after 70 without a rigorous test) and very probably no longer able to cycle.

So I shan't overly bother about it!

[AlaninWales]

<snip>

It's nothing to do with the technology, we can step away from that quite easily.

All we're talking about is risk. Does bad driving have greater risk than good driving?
Is the quality of driving currently good or bad?

Given the posts on here I think we can take it as red that the standard of driving isn't that great and that bad driving represents a greater risk than good driving.
So what can you do to improve the current standards of driving such that there is no appreciable delay?

It seems to me you can do an awful lot. Most of the bad driving I experience has absolutely nothing to do with gaining time and is mostly to do with driver attitude and general ineptitude.

So even if fixing that was the best you could hope for it'd be massively better than the current system - imo.
(Perhaps drivers around you are technically very good...)

As for driver aids, I could be wrong but I don't think you can turn off collision avoidance - why would you want to? Unless you're suggesting motorists (and robots) can save a few seconds by simply running over people...

Quite, and it will be designed by system designers: The same people who introduced lower speed limits on managed motorways during busy periods, because this results in an overall decrease in journey times as well increased safety: The sort of thing that the speedster who will not slow when passing pedestrians just doesn't get.

[thirdcrank]

kwackers

I can see you are convinced but you don't convince me and your belief in some sort of logic - other than political expediency - driving transport policy just reinforces my feeling that you are being naïve.

I've already said that it's difficult to predict the future but I'll suggest an increase in pedestrian barriers in many urban areas and more separate provision for cyclists AKA shabby shared-use farcilities on existing pavements, behind those barriers. Unpredictable (ie vulnerable) users will be the fly in the ointment, as they are now, and few politicians will change.

The tendency for people to drive to a gym to ride an exercise bike will continue. Which reminds me that even without pedestrians and cyclists ie on motorways, sheer overcrowding often brings things to a halt.
============================================================
On the subject of smart motorways, I for one certainly get the logic of slower but maintained speed being faster overall than continuous acceleration and sharp braking , but any safety benefit of the system as it is operated is a by-product: the cameras seem to be generally turned off completely when lower speeds are not necessary to maximise capacity.

[meic]

The sort of thing that the speedster who will not slow when passing pedestrians just doesn't get.

I slow down for pedestrians and I dont get it either. Yes reducing speed on motorways can help speed up traffic flow because it reduces stop/start style driving. Slowing for pedestrians on a separate path introduces stop/start driving. Those of us with good anticipation can minimise the effects, getting by with reducing the throttle a bit instead of braking because we were too close. Yet it still ever so slightly increases the journey time over that of a road with an empty pavement alongside.

[AlaninWales]

The sort of thing that the speedster who will not slow when passing pedestrians just doesn't get.

I slow down for pedestrians and I dont get it either. Yes reducing speed on motorways can help speed up traffic flow because it reduces stop/start style driving. Slowing for pedestrians on a separate path introduces stop/start driving. Those of us with good anticipation can minimise the effects, getting by with reducing the throttle a bit instead of braking because we were too close. Yet it still ever so slightly increases the journey time over that of a road with an empty pavement alongside.

Because there are traffic lights and queues ahead anyway. If people stopped rushing to them and drove more steadilly (i.e. didn't push past the cyclist to get to the traffic jam, didn't blast past the kids on the pavement outside the school - oh whoops! A bit of a delay there now) the overall system (of a crowded town would flow more smoothly, with reduced 'incidents' and their resulting delays, more predictability and yes, over a long period more quickly. In the same way that a journey down the motorway, cutting in and out of traffic at maximum 'me' speed can often be quicker, but it is the 'incidents' that sometimes result which slow the system down.

[meic]

Because there are traffic lights and queues ahead anyway.

Not always. I bet there is only the one temporary traffic light and no queues between our houses right now and that could be something like twelve or twenty miles.

Even where there are queues and traffic lights, arriving at them sooner may mean getting through them sooner, with traffic lights it may be not getting caught at all.

There are times when any loss due to slowing down passing a ped makes no difference at all but sometimes and not even that rare occasions it will cause a delay to the overall journey time.
This isnt some sort of moral issue just the simple fact that you have traveled a little less distance in the same time. At the next T junction gains could be all lost by waiting for gap or it may mean getting in a gap you would have otherwise missed and being 2 minutes ahead. Having slowed down for the ped is exceeding unlikely to make you arrive sooner. Not like how slowing down for a hazard that blocks your path can make you faster overall.

[AlaninWales]

Because there are traffic lights and queues ahead anyway.

Not always. I bet there is only the one temporary traffic light and no queues between our houses right now and that could be something like twelve or twenty miles.

Even where there are queues and traffic lights, arriving at them sooner may mean getting through them sooner, with traffic lights it may be not getting caught at all.

There are times when any loss due to slowing down passing a ped makes no difference at all but sometimes and not even that rare occasions it will cause a delay to the overall journey time.
This isnt some sort of moral issue just the simple fact that you have traveled a little less distance in the same time. At the next T junction gains could be all lost by waiting for gap or it may mean getting in a gap you would have otherwise missed and being 2 minutes ahead. Having slowed down for the ped is exceeding unlikely to make you arrive sooner. Not like how slowing down for a hazard that blocks your path can make you faster overall.

That's because you live in a low density area, where slowing for a pedestrian or cyclist will not increase your journey time significantly because you can make up the 'lost' time easily in a motor vehicle but failing to slow for a pedestrian or cyclist will not decrease your journey time either. In such circumstances, slowing is merely polite consideration for their safety.
In high density urban areas I can assure you that what I posted is entirely true, which is why cycling 15 or so miles across London was quicker (when I lived there) than driving. Cars overtaking me on any of my commutes in those days would usually either turn off or stop in traffic within seven seconds of pushing past.

[meic]

where slowing for a pedestrian or cyclist will not increase your journey time significantly because you can make up the 'lost' time easily in a motor vehicle

Two points here, I never claimed it would be significant, just that it did increase the the journey time.
How can I make up lost time, even if I felt a need to do so, which I dont because journeys are not planned without allowances for such?
I dont wish to accelerate uneconomically from the next stop line or break the speed limit, I am already making optimum progress and wouldnt wish to change that specifically because of any particular delay, just inorder to be where I would have been if they didnt exist.

[kwackers]

kwackers

I defer to your greater knowledge of technology than mine (and that's without any intention of damning with faint praise, because you don't need to know much to know more than I do ) but I fear you are being uncharacteristically naïve about how this will be allowed to operate in real life, rather than the spin garbage.

As I said it's got very little to do with the actual technology. I think we can take it as read that ultimately the cars can be as good as we want them to be.

I must admit to being slightly confused by your position. I like your posts, you post in a way I find informative and that makes me think but here I feel you seem a bit 'muddied'. If I was to guess it's almost as if you simply don't like/trust the technology and fear the worst and with that comes the 'reasons' that it may all go pear shaped.

For me it's possible to ignore the technology other than from a personal interest point of view and concentrate on what we want from a driver.

I ask myself the following question which is the crux of the entire matter:
Would we accept the same standard of driving from a 'robot' as we currently do from your average driver?

The answer to that imo has to be 'no'. Overtaking too close, lane hogging, cutting up other vehicles, dangerous overtakes, rlj'ing, mobile phone use etc etc and that's all long before we allow for the emotional responses people suffer from when driving.
At this point I'd consider the benefits to be significant. If you don't think that's true I'd be interested in why.

Then of course there's the issue of liability.
The insurers are (quite rightly) demanding that the car keeps a record of driving right up to the point of the accident. In the event of the car doing something wrong that means the manufacturers are going to have to self-insure, with all the legal to-ing and fro-ing that will incur. I can't imagine that's going to go down well neither for the owner or for the manufacturer, nor will it if the owner has claims on their insurance from when the car was supposedly driving itself 'safely'.

And who is going to buy a car that has more accidents than another model when it's supposedly driving you about? It only takes a few before you can't give the car away - ask Samsung about their Note 7 (or Ford about the Pinto).
Social media hysteria is a manufacturers worse nightmare.

Then it seems to me we're entering a different place when it comes to ksi's. Barely a week goes by without there being another petition to increase sentences for poor drivers and sentences do seem to be going up - people are beginning to care.
When the number of deaths drops to just a handful every one of them is going to be major news along with the finger pointing and blaming, particularly when a 'robot' is driving.

I appreciate that there are always unintended consequences, but I doubt such a consequence will be that road safety doesn't improve - and by a lot.

FWIW, I'd put money on it that we're on the cusp of an increase in safety that we've not seen for the longest time. Anti-collision systems are coming of age and becoming standard fitment. Chances are in 5 years time you won't be able to buy a car that didn't have it fitted.
The only problem for the robots is that's going to present an artificial baseline of safety that's significantly better than what we currently have thus raising the bar for 'them'.

[Vorpal]

There was a Norwegian article about driverless cars interacting with cyclists published yesterday. One of their sources was a Guardian article from last month https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017 ... s-vehicles

I thought it was quite interesting. I'm not convinced that the predictions are accurate, but the recognition rate for cyclists seems to be based on data.