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

[kwackers]

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.

It's all about context. The context being that the scenario has occurred so "you would be" refers to why that has occurred and has absolutely nothing to do with your supposed assumption that I'm telling you what to do.

You really need to reign in your monkey brain, it's making you angry pete and you're digging ever deeper.

[Cugel]

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.

I am envious of your optimism, which rivals that of even Dr Pangloss!

Alas, I can't help these imaginings that pop into my head wherein the electric car, driven by AIs, suffer a mass-glitch (accidental or wrought by white supremacist Yanks, who tend to be car-tinkerers). Perhaps they will even go Terminator on us as they vie for market supremacy at the behest of their makers!

Even if such an extreme dystopia does not come about, it does seem likely (going on past history) that any predations upon the population that the things make will be ignored because they are so very whizz-bang and must-have, so who cares about a million or so being culled each year around the planet. After all, "It keeps the population down", which is apparently a necessary thing now as the resources are running out (especially for making batteries).

Still, if you're going to be a futurologist, it's probably better to be a bit Pollyanna about it as a more historico-realistic appreciation of the likely vectors of human activities into the future is very depressing.

Cugel

[kwackers]

Still, if you're going to be a futurologist, it's probably better to be a bit Pollyanna about it as a more historico-realistic appreciation of the likely vectors of human activities into the future is very depressing.

Cugel

There's no shortage of 'inventions' that benefit humans, you can't use history as a reliable gauge of what's to come for any individual 'thing'.

Car in my view were a mistake. But they're here now and they're not going away anytime soon.
I advocate electric cars but to an extent I'd rather there be no reliable way of powering cars beyond fossil fuels because unpleasant as it is short term, long term we'll adapt and move on without them.
Electric cars mean that will probably never happen.
So the realist in me simply accepts that electric cars are a vast improvement over IC and so I accept it and move on.

Self driving cars are a similar thing.
I'm fed up of watching day in and out the subhuman standard of driving I see and the carnage that lies behind it - not just in deaths and injuries but in making our environments seem fraught.
Humans are poor drivers and the sad thing is they don't even realise it.

But here's how driving works.
We all mostly know how we should drive. We can all set out rules that would make driving quite safe both for us and everybody else.
We simply don't stick to them, we drive on automatic and give the monkey complete control why we get on and ponder human things.

But because we know how driving works we can imbue those rules into a system that will apply them religiously, without anger or without being sidetracked or any of the many things that make us poor drivers.
Our rules but applied all the time and with vastly better 'always on' sensor equipment to boot.

So my ultimate view is I'd rather there be no cars.
But there are cars that are driven by AI that's completely unsuited to the task so in that case replace that with another AI that even in its nascent stage is already demonstrating that its an order of magnitude better than the thing its replacing.

That to me isn't misplaced idealism, it's simple realism borne from experience.

[thirdcrank]

The point I've been trying to make is that there seems to be strong marketing pressure to allow driverless cars to mimic a typical human driver.

Unlike railways, we are not starting from scratch. Driverless cars will be gradually introduced and look set to become more general. IMO, it's that transition which is problematic. On the goods transport side, there seems to be no issue to me. Probably motorway transport initially but becoming more general. I could imagine the development of a sort of tailored public transport system a bit like a driverless Uber. To the extent that all that may be successful, any reduction in road traffic will just make cars, driven or driverless more attractive.

It's true, of course, that if the law is changed to accommodate driverless cars they will never break the law. That seems self-serving. This is what prompted my earlier post about the Law Commission. I fear there's pressure eg in order to keep the UK at the forefront of development for commercial reasons, to allow lowest common denominator standards.

[pete75]

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.

It's all about context. The context being that the scenario has occurred so "you would be" refers to why that has occurred and has absolutely nothing to do with your supposed assumption that I'm telling you what to do.

You really need to reign in your monkey brain, it's making you angry pete and you're digging ever deeper.

I know what you meant and you know what you meant. Little point in resorting to semantics to deny it.
You use words like monkey and subhuman to describe your fellow beings and from things you said you appear to think yourself superior to most of us. That all brings to mind certain 20th century political movements.

[kwackers]

I know what you meant and you know what you meant. Little point in resorting to semantics to deny it.
You use words like monkey and subhuman to describe your fellow beings and from things you said you appear to think yourself superior to most of us. That all brings to mind certain 20th century political movements.

I know what I meant, you don't.

Pete, we've been here before on thread after thread and whilst I find you amusing I'm sure you must be getting tired of forever trying whatever it is you think your doing. Have you thought about just blocking me? There's some primitive bit of your brain that would thank you for it I'm sure.

Far back there you claimed you weren't easily offended, well I hate to break your bubble but you are. Worse, when offended you lose objectivity and are like a dog with a stick, even when you're wrong you wont back down.

[pete75]

I know what you meant and you know what you meant. Little point in resorting to semantics to deny it.
You use words like monkey and subhuman to describe your fellow beings and from things you said you appear to think yourself superior to most of us. That all brings to mind certain 20th century political movements.

I know what I meant, you don't.

Pete, we've been here before on thread after thread and whilst I find you amusing I'm sure you must be getting tired of forever trying whatever it is you think your doing. Have you thought about just blocking me? There's some primitive bit of your brain that would thank you for it I'm sure.

Far back there you claimed you weren't easily offended, well I hate to break your bubble but you are. Worse, when offended you lose objectivity and are like a dog with a stick, even when you're wrong you wont back down.

Subhuman, monkey words you think it ok to describe people. I'm trying to just point out to you that it's wrong to describe people in such a way. You obvioulsy think it's acceptable so we'll just have to agree to differ.

[kwackers]

Subhuman, monkey words you think it ok to describe people. I'm trying to just point out to you that it's wrong to describe people in such a way. You obvioulsy think it's acceptable so we'll just have to agree to differ.

Well, in reality I'm completely fine with monkey brain as in meaning the primitive part of our brain that just does stuff, thoughtlessly and in the background and will continue to use it to mean exactly that.

But just possibly in the odd post I will admit to being a bit childish and possibly a bit pete-baitey...
Sorry about that, but you make it so easy and satisfying...

[pete75]

Subhuman, monkey words you think it ok to describe people. I'm trying to just point out to you that it's wrong to describe people in such a way. You obvioulsy think it's acceptable so we'll just have to agree to differ.

Well, in reality I'm completely fine with monkey brain as in meaning the primitive part of our brain that just does stuff, thoughtlessly and in the background and will continue to use it to mean exactly that.

But just possibly in the odd post I will admit to being a bit childish and possibly a bit pete-baitey...
Sorry about that, but you make it so easy and satisfying...

And you think I'm not taking the rise out of you - you seem to have such naive faith in the things whenever self driving cars are mentioned.

[squeaker]

I fear there's pressure eg in order to keep the UK at the forefront of development for commercial reasons, to allow lowest common denominator standards.

I share that fear!

[kwackers]

And you think I'm not taking the rise out of you - you seem to have such naive faith in the things whenever self driving cars are mentioned.

Naive? Not at all.

More like astonishment that anyone that uses the roads - particularly on a bicycle can think that self driving cars wouldn't just be an improvement but vastly so!
It makes me wonder if such folk actually ride on the roads at all! In actual traffic?

To be worse than us it's not just a case of 'vested interests' trying to make them get around faster but a case of getting them to actively try and kill us (or at least perform punishment passes at every opportunity).
So far self driving cars have a safety record that makes your average driver look criminally poor.

But anyway, it's all moot.
Self driving cars are coming and you, nor me or even thirdcrank aren't going to stop them. With that in mind I'd get in touch with the Law Commission and chuck in your pennies worth.

[thirdcrank]

... or even thirdcrank aren't going to stop them ...

I've no wish to stop them and I don't see why it's desirable. If it's not clear, I'm not one who thinks that the technology is unsafe. I do feel that for whatever reasons our government is determined to be at the forefront and will, therefore, put expediency first. The capabilities of the technology are governed by the laws of nature. Within those constraints we set our own rules. Some are no more than protocols eg which side of the road we drive on: it doesn't matter at all, so long as everybody follows them. Others are largely rationing the limited resource called road space. It's normal for people to grab as much as they can, typically by going faster. Driverless cars might be an opportunity to remove that selfishness by subjecting the vehicles to a strict regime. That's what he marketing people are opposing now. The suggestion that driverless technology is inherently safer than humans is undermined if driverless is permitted to mimic human behaviour. The likelihood of an override facility for drivers who believe they can do better AKA take more risks is another factor.

If it's accepted that this technology has the capability, perhaps eventually rather than currently, to be better than human control, the logic must surely be to move over to it completely. But that leaves all the human road users who are not drivers. Many drivers, highwaymen and others see cyclists and pedestrians as the problem now. I'm suggesting you ain't seen nothing yet eg in terms of shoddy farcilities.

[fastpedaller]

I fear there's pressure eg in order to keep the UK at the forefront of development for commercial reasons, to allow lowest common denominator standards.

I share that fear!

Me also! I couldn't believe the question as to whether is would be ok for an auto car to 'nudge through' pedestrians who weren't moving! So if a pedestrian had been knocked down, injured and not moving I guess that makes it ok for him to be repeatedly run over!

A very long questionaire, but I wonder how many peeps will even see it (maybe <1% of road users?) as it's only because interested people like the OP have highlighted it that I've seen it. A survey that maybe should be in the National press, on National tv etc?

[fastpedaller]

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.

A source of income? - there are websites/social media for renting out your drive space!

[pete75]

And you think I'm not taking the rise out of you - you seem to have such naive faith in the things whenever self driving cars are mentioned.

Naive? Not at all.

More like astonishment that anyone that uses the roads - particularly on a bicycle can think that self driving cars wouldn't just be an improvement but vastly so!
It makes me wonder if such folk actually ride on the roads at all! In actual traffic?

To be worse than us it's not just a case of 'vested interests' trying to make them get around faster but a case of getting them to actively try and kill us (or at least perform punishment passes at every opportunity).
So far self driving cars have a safety record that makes your average driver look criminally poor.

But anyway, it's all moot.
Self driving cars are coming and you, nor me or even thirdcrank aren't going to stop them. With that in mind I'd get in touch with the Law Commission and chuck in your pennies worth.

Of course if these things are so superior perhaps we shouldn't have monkey brains riding bicycles either.

I ride and drive a lot and rarely come across the problems you claim to suffer. Do I sense a certain amount paranoia in your use of the phrase " actively try and kill us" and a certain lack of logic too. If they were you'd already be dead.

Anyway a way for a cyclist to fight back against errant motorists was invented 70 years ago. Given a competent operator that's two Sherman tanks brewed up so the mind boggles at what they do to cars.