Law Commissions open consultation into new rules for UK’s self-driving future

[pete75]

That's exactly what's happened in the Terminator movies - get rid of the "monkey brains" and replace them all with the machines you think are oh so superior.

Err, the Terminator movies were about creating war machines.
In fact the reason they took over is because the technology worked brilliantly, not because it was a bit crap.

Yes that was my point - if you think teh machines are so superior to our "monkey brains" then why don't you want them to take over everything? The war machines were only created because mankind was trying to stop machines from taking over.

BTW do you ever call your fellow humans a monkey to their face or just when you're in keyboard warrior mode.

All the time. I'm sure you think I'm a keyboard warrior but no, I'm more than happy to say stuff like that to their faces - but tbh most of the people I speak to would agree with me, most folk realise that the majority of the automation inside their heads is primitive monkey think rather than considered reasoning.

Perhaps you don't really follow.
When folk are driving almost everything they do happens due to primitive processes inside their skull at a level that predates humanity.
You can call it the Neanderthal brain if you like (although Neanderthals weren't actually primitive and in fact had bigger brains), or we could scoot down the line to the first mammals but then calling it "first mammal" brain doesn't have a good ring to it plus we don't know what the first mammal was or even how it thought.

So imo Monkey brain is a good substitute that most folk understand - and its not just me, you'll find a whole host of popular science books that use similar references, memes and in fact more stuff than I could be bothered linking too.

So not just a keyboard warrior but into pop psychology as well. I know exactly what you're trying to say but in reality things aren't that simplistic. Most of the time when people are driving they think about what they're doing not drive on automation. If what you say was correct I doubt anyone would bother with keeping to speed limits for instance - monkeys aren't known for self control.

A bit of advice if you're ever in a place like Brixton in LOndon or Chapeltown in Leeds don't go calling the inhabitants monkeys - well noy out loud anyway. It wouldn't turn out well for you.

[kwackers]

Here we must recognise our very different perspectives of the same thing. Personally I see lots of evidence that manufacturers manipulate consumers to want what they make (it's called advertising) rather than the other way 'round.

But in either case, whoever demands and brings about these damaging technologies, they do get brought about. Why do you think that self-driving cars or any other new individual transport technology (the BBC's Horizon is promising flying cars once more) will somehow be immune from the lethal traditions of the human-driven oil-fired car, where, "Do what thou want or what thou canst get away with (plenty)" seems to be the whole of the law?

Ah, you think that safety will be improved by new regulators such as those in the aero sphere. Alas, regulators are on the kill-list of every neo-lib manufacturer and their tame politicians. I fear it'll be much of the same as with oil-fired cars or even worse. It certainly seems a distinct possibility that the current anti-cycling zeitgeist will be ramped up more and more until we are forbidden, banned or shunted off to 500 miles of defunt railway line with a bit of gravel tossed on it, so that self-driving cars will be able to do what they want.

Cugel

You call them "damaging technologies" - in what way do you think they're damaging?
Surely you can't possibly claim that the current crop of monkey brains doing the driving are better?

You also seem to think that regulation is on the wane - whilst simultaneously assuming it's also on the rise.
Regulation for motor vehicles is becoming more and more stringent. (A few police to actually enforce it wouldn't be a bad idea of course).

That self driving cars will be better driven than human driven cars is a given - even if its only because it could hardly be worse.
Day in, day out I have to put up with the monkeys endangering my life - and on another thread you're advocating mirrors precisely because you don't trust what those behind you are doing.

Even if we assume thirdcranks worst nightmare of self driving cars blatantly ignoring the highway code and hooning around our streets at 50mph in a 30 they'll still be safer than your average monkey because if nothing else they'll actually leave some space and give themselves a safety margin.
And that's such a big "if" because there's no way they'll ever be given carte blanche to hoon around local roads.

With companies in the firing line for the behaviour of their vehicles they'll have no option but to make them obey the law. The idea that marketing people will push governments to change road rules to ban cyclists from normal roads is frankly laughable, if that power existed we'd have been off them years ago and that's despite sharing the road with badly driven vehicles that are seemingly incapable of making allowances for bicycles or even seeing them most of the time.

Thirdcrank is of the opinion that self driving cars will tailgate cars travelling above the speed limit because the consumer won't accept any less. But since this behaviour will affect all of a companies cars and since they'll be responsible I seriously doubt that will happen.
On top of this when I started driving you'd never find anyone travelling at the speed limit, 40-50mph was absolutely the usual for a 30. These days I'd say half the cars on the road are at within speed limit (20's excepted for some reason), peoples tolerance for speeding is a lot less now than it was.
And then what about people who are outraged that their vehicle travels at over the speed limit? The Daily Mail will have a field day with that. Folk buying a car and it breaking the law! Outrageous.
Perhaps there'll be a button that says "Ignore Speed Limits" - because nobody would find that outrageous at all.

Obviously I accept this forum is a mile away from the sorts of folk who'll actually still be around to use this tech when it finally appears.
I suspect the average age is at or near retirement and conservative attitudes to change abound and those that still ride their bikes on the road do so at times and places of their own choosing so have very little real experience of what the average monkey is up to out there.

As for flying cars - please. Great science fiction story and always has been.
Having said that the tech that gives you drones does scale up and so I'd expect to see automated short hop drone style transport, but it'll only be replacing helicopters and wont be piloted by Joe Public - most of whom stand no chance of getting a pilots license.

[fastpedaller]

As for flying cars - please. Great science fiction story and always has been.

I was approached by an agency (about 4 years ago IIRC) with a view to being put forward for a contract to be involved with the design/development of a flying car at a company in Croatia I declined to have anything to do with it (salary would have been good, but I suspect It would never have materialised)

[pete75]

Who are you to decide what's better for me or anyone else?

I don't. When and where did I do that?

Might come as a shock to you but I'm just presenting my opinion here, I have no powers that you don't have - even when I override my monkey brain with my giant intellect.

Yes - you said "You'd be stopped because it's better for you" - a statement not an opinion.

Giant intellect - so you're conceited too

[kwackers]

One of my points is that the marketing people will work to avoid that, by ensuring they remain an attractive means of personal transport.

Or perhaps they'll just lose their jobs like taxi drivers?

Here's the thing. Most folk I know these days with cars don't actually like them, they simply like the convenience.
They find parking a chore, leaving it at work a chore, the expense of parking, worrying that it might get damaged when they leave it somewhere or stolen etc etc.
Some are reticent to use it simply because when they return to their house their parking space has gone! In fact they time what they want to do so that they can get back when the road is quiet!

I'm lucky, my drive will hold somewhere between 12 & 20 cars depending on size - which makes me feel guilty because we only have one and all around me folk complain day in, day out they've nowhere to park.

But if I could whiz out my phone, call a car and 5 minutes later one rolls up with no fuss then my current car would be my last.
And there's no amount of marketing someone could do that would persuade me otherwise.

I'm also lucky in that by the time I think it'll be necessary for me to consider giving up my car and relying on public transport I reckon that era will have arrived!

[kwackers]

Yes - you said "You'd be stopped because it's better for you" - a statement not an opinion.

Giant intellect - so you're conceited too

I did say that - because I was referring to the reason it happened not because I did it...

There's a reason I'm conceited which isn't too hard to find.

[pete75]

As for flying cars - please. Great science fiction story and always has been.

I was approached by an agency (about 4 years ago IIRC) with a view to being put forward for a contract to be involved with the design/development of a flying car at a company in Croatia I declined to have anything to do with it (salary would have been good, but I suspect It would never have materialised)

How did you mange to resist saying "I suspect it would never have got off the ground"...
As I recall there were flying cars over 50 years ago

[youtube]XbZNxyXUBZs[/youtube]

[pete75]

Yes - you said "You'd be stopped because it's better for you" - a statement not an opinion.

Giant intellect - so you're conceited too

I did say that - because I was referring to the reason it happened not because I did it...

There's a reason I'm conceited which isn't too hard to find.

Yes but it hasn't happened has it so that statement is purely based on your view that it would be better for us.

Yes it's not hard to find - self delusion. That's the usual reason behind conceit.

[kwackers]

Yes but it hasn't happened has it so that statement is purely based on your view that it would be better for us.

Yes it's not hard to find - self delusion. That's the usual reason behind conceit.

Yes, my view! That's the point...

You said "Who are you to decide what's better for me or anyone else?" except that I dont, I simply expressed an opinion - my view which you apparently agree with whilst disagreeing...

I don't need self delusion, I just need to observe the other monkeys.

[fastpedaller]

As for flying cars - please. Great science fiction story and always has been.

I was approached by an agency (about 4 years ago IIRC) with a view to being put forward for a contract to be involved with the design/development of a flying car at a company in Croatia I declined to have anything to do with it (salary would have been good, but I suspect It would never have materialised)

How did you mange to resist saying "I suspect it would never have got off the ground"...
As I recall there were flying cars over 50 years ago

Indeed - James May had a flight in one, shown on TV a couple of years ago. The big problem (surely?) would be the very great risk of carnage if anyone other than trained pilots took to the sky.

[Barks]

The big problem (surely?) would be the very great risk of carnage if anyone other than trained pilots took to the sky.

Surely automated air vehicles would take the human factor out of the equation - ah that happens already, commercial planes are quite capable of flying themselves with out any internal ( i.e. pilots) humans in control and supervised externally by air traffic control.

Everyone get real here, the technology exists to deliver automated transport solutions that are far more safe and reliable than human controlled versions. Transport is the capability and it can be delivered in so many ways but the least effective aspect is the unreliable human who might be put in control of the machine. Don’t like that, well than stay at home and rot or perhaps walk and cycle more to maintain your health. If you want to go further or faster than walking or cycling allow then get iinto a vehicle that does the hard work for you be that plane, train, or personal powered transport device but do not expect to have direct control over it. You are not reliable enough to ensure the safety of others. Want to drive fast in the empty road, then get off the public funded highway and pay handsomely for the privilege - I just want to get from A to B on a daily basis without being scared witless, injured or worse and I have far more confidence in that being achieved by automation than by relying on human instincts and capability (sadly).

[Barks]

And all those taxi drivers and truck drivers out there, find something else to do, you are useless (as a corporate body) at delivering a safe product.

[pete75]

I don't need self delusion, I just need to observe the other monkeys.

Ah so smug as well....

[pete75]

The big problem (surely?) would be the very great risk of carnage if anyone other than trained pilots took to the sky.

Surely automated air vehicles would take the human factor out of the equation - ah that happens already, commercial planes are quite capable of flying themselves with out any internal ( i.e. pilots) humans in control and supervised externally by air traffic control.

Everyone get real here, the technology exists to deliver automated transport solutions that are far more safe and reliable than human controlled versions. Transport is the capability and it can be delivered in so many ways but the least effective aspect is the unreliable human who might be put in control of the machine. Don’t like that, well than stay at home and rot or perhaps walk and cycle more to maintain your health. If you want to go further or faster than walking or cycling allow then get iinto a vehicle that does the hard work for you be that plane, train, or personal powered transport device but do not expect to have direct control over it. You are not reliable enough to ensure the safety of others. Want to drive fast in the empty road, then get off the public funded highway and pay handsomely for the privilege - I just want to get from A to B on a daily basis without being scared witless, injured or worse and I have far more confidence in that being achieved by automation than by relying on human instincts and capability (sadly).

Similar blind faith in technology held that the Titanic was unsinkable. At the very least there will be software bugs and just wait until hackers start modifying their cars with very unpredictable results not to mention hackers gaining control of and manipulating other people's cars. https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-r ... p-highway/

[pete75]

Yes but it hasn't happened has it so that statement is purely based on your view that it would be better for us.

Yes it's not hard to find - self delusion. That's the usual reason behind conceit.

Yes, my view! That's the point...

You said "Who are you to decide what's better for me or anyone else?" except that I dont, I simply expressed an opinion - my view which you apparently agree with whilst disagreeing...

I don't need self delusion, I just need to observe the other monkeys.

Using the words "You would be" is hardly expressing an opinion , it's a statement that we'd have to follow your view over what is best for us. Not surprising really - your last sentence indicates a level of smug arrogance absent in most people.