Not to mention speed limiters.

[thirdcrank]

... It would seem plainly wrong to me to have robot drivers programmed to break the law. so speeding and running the engine whilst stopped would be eliminated? The black box would presumably be part of the control programme.
I quite see that "features" are meant to appeal to the buyer/driver, and would not be fitted to cars in order to sell them, but self-driving cars designed to break the law would surely be illegal.
Is being overtaken such a humiliation for a motorist that a swanky driver would instead choose an old car? What a dilemma.

If you check back through the stuff on here about self-drive cars, there was something about the people marketing them lobbying for them to be "allowed to keep up with the traffic" - always dressed up with safety reasons, of course, but the short version was driven by marketing.

Let's remember that speed limits are a pretty blunt instrument for trying to keep traffic to an appropriate speed. If all motor traffic was driverless, with every motor vehicle able to communicate with all the others, then, in the absence of other road users they could routinely drive much faster. The absence of other road users is the biggy. IMO, you can either concentrate on safe vehicles eg so a pedestrian looking as though they might step off the pavement brings traffic to a standstill, or you go for safe roads: roads largely reserved for autonomous vehicles and others with separate provision.

I think the marketing needs of the motor industry will prevail.

[Mike Sales]

I think the marketing needs of the motor industry will prevail.

My pessimistic side fears you may well be right. Motorists already believe they have preemptive rights to road space (I would say this belief is at the root of their attitude and behaviour) so banning cyclists would be relatively easy.
You mention pedestrians though. What do you see as their fate? Surely they cannot be banned from the streets? Unpredictable behaviour is hard to stop, children will be children. What about crossing the road, without which one cannot go far. Will it need many more fences and enforced crossing behaviour?
The implications for control of people are worrying.

[Cyril Haearn]

"The good is the enemy of the best" is hardly a cliché, any more than the failure of some targets is.
I thought that your many criticisms of the less than perfect performance of some fixes merited this. I'm sorry if you feel traduced. Even if a fix does not quickly eliminate the problem it may still improve things, but some of your criticisms seemed to me to be on such grounds.
I suppose that when you say that idler cutouts have not reduced pollution you mean that overall traffic emissions are not going down. What I meant was that I pass many parked cars, with and without drivers, with the engine running. The nearest seat to the bus stop I use in town is next to the taxi rank, so I say this with feeling. Enforcement has not deterred this.
I think that most of my suggestions are software modifications of existing devices, so will not add much weight.
Your idea that putting emphasis on speed limits misses the point is one I have come across in other places. You know the objections to it. Slower speeds make the roads less forbidding for us vulnerable road users, impact less likely and less traumatic. Speed is a good proxy for imposing danger on us and needs limiting.
I'm sorry, I'm getting weary of this and propose we agree to differ.

I saw 'the best is enemy of the good' [the best/better supplants the good] maybe Both are True
..
Running motors unnecessarily is a curse, doubtless it is convenient in the summer to run the air-Con
..
Plus One for Mike not knowing much about cars, many on these cycling fora including me know a lot about them

[thirdcrank]

... You mention pedestrians though. What do you see as their fate? Surely they cannot be banned from the streets? Unpredictable behaviour is hard to stop, children will be children. What about crossing the road, without which one cannot go far. Will it need many more fences and enforced crossing behaviour?
The implications for control of people are worrying.

This is an area where I have not much idea. Subways etc., have already been tried and have largely failed. Perhaps it will be not much different to what we have now. I suspect the only thing from the carmakers POV is that they don't want to be forced to equip cars to stop for pedestrians in every case. A warning toot, perhaps, rather than an emergency stop.

[Lance Dopestrong]

No. I mean 'as evidence accumulates'. Automation has had significant safety benefits in every other industry where it has been introduced, and it will in motor traffic, as well. There may be some aspects that are initially problematic. Most industries have had issues to resolve with the introduction of automation. The automotive industry is not likely to be different that way.

I think you might be right. As computers of all sorts find their way into vehicles, the data is slowly being used in unforeseen ways. For example, the police are now able to obtain data from the airbag ECU on many makes for car, and these gizmos log the speed the vehicle was travelling at when they activate. Cars are slowly accumulating devices that singly or collectively can act as impromptu flight recorders.

It's not a problem for me, I don't drive like a prat so I'm not worried. However, its slowly nibbling away and the bullpois fibs that many drivers trot out in their defence. "I was only doing 29 when they stepped out and I hit them." Really? Then why does the SRS data say you were doing 60 when the airbag activated? Think very carefully now if you cause a smack while driving jn a modern car and then decide to lie about it, as cars are getting increasingly better at grassing you up.

[Mike Sales]

I think you might be right. As computers of all sorts find their way into vehicles, the data is slowly being used in unforeseen ways. For example, the police are now able to obtain data from the airbag ECU on many makes for car, and these gizmos log the speed the vehicle was travelling at when they activate. Cars are slowly accumulating devices that singly or collectively can act as impromptu flight recorders.

It's not a problem for me, I don't drive like a prat so I'm not worried. However, its slowly nibbling away and the bullpois fibs that many drivers trot out in their defence. "I was only doing 29 when they stepped out and I hit them." Really? Then why does the SRS data say you were doing 60 when the airbag activated? Think very carefully now if you cause a smack while driving jn a modern car and then decide to lie about it, as cars are getting increasingly better at grassing you up.

No problem for me either, I don't drive. But to the standard motorist whinges about cyclists not having insurance or number plates and not paying "road tax", will they be adding, "and they don't have any data recorders."?

[Lance Dopestrong]

Maybe that is starting already? Riders with GPS, e bikes, even carrying a smart phone will leave a nice record of when, where etc, so the data is already there to harvest. To some small degree the Feds already do, but its not automatic or widespread.

BTW, you can forget all the guff Apple come out with in their ads about privacy. Cellebrite have no trouble cracking them for law enforcement around the World. 10 or 20 years and we won't be able to fart without some device sniffing it, even jf that device was originally intended to perform a separate fu action.

[awavey]

you dont have to disable auto stop/start at all, it just works off a KERS battery, once the charge in that battery isnt enough for the cars ECU to judge it can restart and cars starting need lots of amps and especially so in colder weather, it automatically keeps the engine running for you.

even if it decides to stop for you, most of them are programmed to restart without you touching anything after 5-10mins, or if the load on the car battery, due to lights/aircon/radio is again likely leading to not enough juice to restart.

Ive had auto stop/start technology for years on my car, it rarely kicks in to the point I forget Ive even got it, because I dont drive enough long distance miles for the KERS battery to gain enough charge long enough, its the classic lots of short mile journeys car for when Im not riding my bike, and it just makes the whole system redundant.

thats why techie solutions sound great but rarely deliver all the bells & whistles problem solving to those fundamental issues they are touted as fixing.

[Cyril Haearn]

Autostopstart is awful, one often hears motors restarting while crossing the road before the lights have changed back
The terrorists must be forced to use their handbrakes

[Vorpal]

I think you mean if evidence accumulates, not as.

No. I mean 'as evidence accumulates'. Automation has had significant safety benefits in every other industry where it has been introduced, and it will in motor traffic, as well. [...]

Sounds like you've prejudged the topic.

If so, it is a judgement based upon engineering knowledge, experience, and evidence from the introduction of automation elsewhere, including on other types of vehicles. It is not a judgement based upon nothing. It's the sort of thing I work with, though not for road vehicles, and systems safety is my profession.

[thirdcrank]

you dont have to disable auto stop/start at all, it just works off a KERS battery, once the charge in that battery isnt enough for the cars ECU to judge it can restart and cars starting need lots of amps and especially so in colder weather, it automatically keeps the engine running for you.

even if it decides to stop for you, most of them are programmed to restart without you touching anything after 5-10mins, or if the load on the car battery, due to lights/aircon/radio is again likely leading to not enough juice to restart.

Ive had auto stop/start technology for years on my car, it rarely kicks in to the point I forget Ive even got it, because I dont drive enough long distance miles for the KERS battery to gain enough charge long enough, its the classic lots of short mile journeys car for when Im not riding my bike, and it just makes the whole system redundant.

thats why techie solutions sound great but rarely deliver all the bells & whistles problem solving to those fundamental issues they are touted as fixing.

The automatic stop/start isn't restricted to vehicles with what I understand by kinetic energy recovery system (KERS) ie where the battery is recharged by engine braking although it is correct to say it doesn't stop the engine unless it thinks it will be able to re-start.. I think it's probably compulsory on new cars now. Turning it off is easy - there's a switch to do it.

(AIUI, MickF's Yaris Hybrid uses KERS.)

[Vorpal]

Hybrid buses in Norway use a system like that, at least, if they are running on diesel. I don't know if it's KERS, but the engines shut off when they are sat at traffic lights. I think it's fantastic. I don't have to breathe their exhaust when I'm sat behind them. That often happens in the town centre on my morning commute.

[Cugel]

No. I mean 'as evidence accumulates'. Automation has had significant safety benefits in every other industry where it has been introduced, and it will in motor traffic, as well. There may be some aspects that are initially problematic. Most industries have had issues to resolve with the introduction of automation. The automotive industry is not likely to be different that way.

I think you might be right. As computers of all sorts find their way into vehicles, the data is slowly being used in unforeseen ways. For example, the police are now able to obtain data from the airbag ECU on many makes for car, and these gizmos log the speed the vehicle was travelling at when they activate. Cars are slowly accumulating devices that singly or collectively can act as impromptu flight recorders.

It's not a problem for me, I don't drive like a prat so I'm not worried. However, its slowly nibbling away and the bullpois fibs that many drivers trot out in their defence. "I was only doing 29 when they stepped out and I hit them." Really? Then why does the SRS data say you were doing 60 when the airbag activated? Think very carefully now if you cause a smack while driving jn a modern car and then decide to lie about it, as cars are getting increasingly better at grassing you up.

One hopes this will occur.

When I'm feeling optimistic, I can work myself up to the belief that although it seems culturally OK for human drivers to mow down and maim thousands each year, if a robot or AI does so there will be an outcry. Humans are too good at forgiving themselves, eh?

It wouldn't be a surprise, either, if someone attempted to make, advertsie and sell an automatic bicycle. The rider puts in a destination to their smart-prattler then just pedals, with the bike doing the rest! Some fool will buy one an' all.

Cugel