£100M going toward driverless research..so there is money

[Tonyf33]

Whilst I don't object to driverless vehicles in theory in some circumstances..how the hell can the chancellor be giving this much of our money away to what is still motoring when £100M would go toward infrastructure that gets people out of motors and onto bikes..it's another preverse stance by the government

[snibgo]

Why does it need any government funding?

[bovlomov]

Here is a link to a story about government funding for large food corporations.

Mondelez, which split from Kraft and owns the Cadbury’s brand, was given nearly £638,000 by Innovate UK – formerly known as the Technology Strategy Board – from 2013 to 2015 to help the multinational giant develop a process to distribute nuts and raisins more regularly in its chocolate bars.

Nestlé received more than £487,000 to invent an energy-efficient machine for making chocolate, while PepsiCo was awarded £356,000 to help develop new ways of drying potatoes and vegetables to make crisps.

Yes, there is money. Next week I'm applying for a £100,000 government research grant to help me open my beer bottles more efficiently.

Anyway, what's the difference between this state subsidy and the dreaded socialism that they claim to despise?

[reohn2]

The government is wedded and owned in part by motor vehicles,it's in it's interest to continue that relationship(whatever colour rosette is pinned on it) as it gets funded by the petrochemical industry and motor manufacturers and as it collects lots of tax revenue from the sale of both,it's a win win situation.
Let's not forget that we're all hooked on it too,as sure as a heroin addict is addicted to the drug.
It no surprise to me that the chancellor can find £100m to donate to such a good cause,whilst the NHS needs more funding,some of which is needed to treat people who've become over weight by a lack of exercise.
These are Tories,what can you expect?
And if anyone thinks it'll be different under a rosette of another colour,think again.
All the major parties have been bought by multinational business to promote whatever product it is they're pushing.

EDIT:- posting at the same time as Bovlomov,there you go.Oh the democratic process.........EEK! STOP EVERYTHING! he mentioned the 'S' word (man runs around with hands the air shouting the word 'disgusting')

[Audax67]

Anyway, what's the difference between this state subsidy and the dreaded socialism that they claim to despise?

Cash goes into different pockets, but politicians always know where to put their fingers.

WRT £100M for driverless cars: it's a boondoggle. I can't see driverless cars becoming truly practical this side of 2050*: there are too many unknowns to handle. Analogy: there are face recognition systems working in several airports. They were greatly touted a few years back and cost a bomb to develop but they're so unreliable and easy to deceive that a bod watching a screen is still the best way. Face recognition is dead easy beside driving a car.

This means that it's basically an excuse to put money where the return will be highest for the government. When cycle paths etc are put in it's the local authority that gets the kudos, but it also gets the brickbats for every minor imperfection so the return is pretty well null. Money into industry means party contributions and management posts for retired MPs: and since it's a difficult project nobody will be expecting to see any material return on it in the near (or any) future. In short, it's perfect.

A long time ago a chum told me that there are four ways of spending money:

- your own money on something for yourself: you look for a good product at a good price.
- your own money on something for someone else: you look for a good price, and the quality isn't so important.
- someone else's money on something for yourself: you look for a good product and the price isn't important.
- someone else's money on something for someone else again: price and quality aren't important.

What to governments do?

*I also predicted that the PC would never catch on but hey, it surprised IBM too.

[sprocketsanjay]

The 100M (10M of which is going to Cranfield University) is for corporations (like Cranfield) to work out how to implement and start producing this technology ; Driverless technology already exists and is nothing new but the PhD machine will be busy churning more BS papers.

The project is being touted as 'green' transport because electric cars have "zero emissions" (BS) which is essentially PR (lies) to sell this donation. This kind of thing goes on all the time. It's dressed up and bought lock stock and barrel by the corporate media and passed on verbatim.

The issue is this: environmental degradation is telling us reduce, reduce, reduce. Neoliberal economics is telling us more, more, more (infinte or year on year growth). The two are diametrically opposed. One will prevail at some point. No prizes for guessing which. The question is when.

So the driverless car which is neither green (electricity emissions are very high at power stations, requires digging up the roads all over again for exactly what? etc) nor need development (we dont have enough employment so why put bus and taxi drivers out of work?) is simply a helping hand to corporates to build and flog something else under the more more more economic model.

Lithium mining (for batteries) is immensely polluting on the environment (but happens in poor areas of Peru poisoning water supplies, is incredibly wasteful, but just brush that under the carpet under the mantra of "progress" ...) ; we dont produce enough electricity without electric cars so when we start 'being green' and driving electric we'll need more power stations the cost of which will be offloaded to the tax payer and the cost of CO2 emissions to our children. All to achieve a new set of products to flog for "more jobs and wealth" (BS)

This is the logic of driverless cars. Got it?

[pwa]

Think about it! Driverless cars mean no bad driving. No speeding. No human error. If there were an ultimate road safety programme, this would be it. Bring it on!

[Psamathe]

The 100M (10M of which is going to Cranfield University) is for corporations (like Cranfield) to work out how to implement and start producing this technology ; Driverless technology already exists and is nothing new but the PhD machine will be busy churning more BS papers.

The project is being touted as 'green' transport because electric cars have "zero emissions" (BS) which is essentially PR (lies) to sell this donation. This kind of thing goes on all the time. It's dressed up and bought lock stock and barrel by the corporate media and passed on verbatim.

The issue is this: environmental degradation is telling us reduce, reduce, reduce. Neoliberal economics is telling us more, more, more (infinte or year on year growth). The two are diametrically opposed. One will prevail at some point. No prizes for guessing which. The question is when.

So the driverless car which is neither green (electricity emissions are very high at power stations, requires digging up the roads all over again for exactly what? etc) nor need development (we dont have enough employment so why put bus and taxi drivers out of work?) is simply a helping hand to corporates to build and flog something else under the more more more economic model.

Lithium mining (for batteries) is immensely polluting on the environment (but happens in poor areas of Peru poisoning water supplies, is incredibly wasteful, but just brush that under the carpet under the mantra of "progress" ...) ; we dont produce enough electricity without electric cars so when we start 'being green' and driving electric we'll need more power stations the cost of which will be offloaded to the tax payer and the cost of CO2 emissions to our children. All to achieve a new set of products to flog for "more jobs and wealth" (BS)

This is the logic of driverless cars. Got it?

+1

The issue is this: environmental degradation is telling us reduce, reduce, reduce. Neoliberal economics is telling us more, more, more (infinte or year on year growth). The two are diametrically opposed. One will prevail at some point. No prizes for guessing which. The question is when.

Probably too late (given how shortsighted our politicians are). They seem to be particularly shortsighted with regard to Climate Change; self interest and stupidity driving us ever faster to ever increasing problems.

Ian

[pwa]

If we are looking at this from a Climate Change perspective, driverless cars will be more efficient than their human driven equivalents. Lower emissions should be a result of this sort of technology. Personally, I cannot see most of the people I know giving up their cars in favour of bikes or public transport, so I think more efficient cars are worth having. And if they make the roads safer for cyclists they will indirectly boost the appeal of cycling for many people.

[Psamathe]

If we are looking at this from a Climate Change perspective, driverless cars will be more efficient than their human driven equivalents. Lower emissions should be a result of this sort of technology. Personally, I cannot see most of the people I know giving up their cars in favour of bikes or public transport, so I think more efficient cars are worth having. And if they make the roads safer for cyclists they will indirectly boost the appeal of cycling for many people.

Maybe put the £100m into e.g. research into generation from renewable sources ? We are still investing in profitable saleable technology, etc., still investing in industry, research, very useful technology that will see significant returns whilst addressing issues that we have to address, etc.

Ian

[bovlomov]

... so I think more efficient cars are worth having. And if they make the roads safer for cyclists they will indirectly boost the appeal of cycling for many people.

Would any increases in safety and efficiency not be offset by demands for increased speed? That's usually how humans do things.

[Bicycler]

Driverless vehicles offer the potential of both faster and safer journeys.

[bovlomov]

Driverless vehicles offer the potential of both faster and safer journeys.

I can see that - but unless there is a wholesale fencing in of roads (against the current trend), driverless cars will not be operating in a separate environment. While there are pedestrians, cyclists, animals and falling trees occupying the same space, there is a limit to how safe driverless cars can be in practice. My point is, the speeds will rise (and efficiency decrease?) according to the politically acceptable levels of deaths and injuries.

[kwackers]

Would any increases in safety and efficiency not be offset by demands for increased speed? That's usually how humans do things.

People demand much higher standards of automation safety than they do of humans.
If you're human you can run into the back of a cyclist, kill them and get off scott free by claiming you didn't see them because it was too dark/the sun was shining/they had the wrong sort of hat on etc etc.
You'd never get away with that if you were a Ford robot.

So even if cars did get faster they'd still be safer. But imo decreases in journey times will come about due to more efficient use of the road system and any higher speeds will happen on trunk roads and if anything local roads will become slower - not because the cars can't drive any quicker but mainly because it makes for a much more pleasant environment and I reckon for the sake of saving a few seconds on their journey most folk would rather everyone else's car doesn't hoon around the streets just because it can.

[Bicycler]

Driverless vehicles offer the potential of both faster and safer journeys.

I can see that - but unless there is a wholesale fencing in of roads (against the current trend), driverless cars will not be operating in a separate environment. While there are pedestrians, cyclists, animals and falling trees occupying the same space, there is a limit to how safe driverless cars can be in practice. My point is, the speeds will rise (and efficiency decrease?) according to the politically acceptable levels of deaths and injuries.

and I'm saying it doesn't have to happen, nor do roads have to be fenced in. For any given scenario a driverless car has the potential to be able to travel faster and pose significantly less risk of injuring someone than a human driver. They don't get distracted, they won't be impatient, they can look in several places at once and they don't have a significant "thinking time" from observing a hazard to taking action.

There's a limit to how much speed can increase. Braking and visibility will always be limiting factors.. It will need to be able to stop within the distance it can see to be clear. Even with negligible thinking time there is still a braking distance and that limits the possible speeds.