Switching to driverless cars could bypass that problem and make all roads safe for cycling.

Happy for that! 🙂

I don’t count the Tesla as self drive for the point you make. I wouldn’t trust anything less then something like the google system.

There may be some debate on what Tesla is and isn’t, but from their own website…

“All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.“

…

“All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go. If you don’t say anything, the car will look at your calendar and take you there as the assumed destination or just home if nothing is on the calendar. Your Tesla will figure out the optimal route, navigate urban streets (even without lane markings), manage complex intersections with traffic lights, stop signs and roundabouts, and handle densely packed freeways with cars moving at high speed. When you arrive at your destination, simply step out at the entrance and your car will enter park seek mode, automatically search for a spot and park itself. A tap on your phone summons it back to you.“

That’s pretty advanced stuff and not something they are marketing as driver assistance.

It may not be up to the standard of Google cars, and they are constantly evolving through software updates, but I would say Tesla’s current stance very much describes a self-driving vehicle.

At least with driverless cars they’ll actually do the speed limit.

This morning following an old boy doing 35 in a 60, hard to overtake when you’ve a couple of ton of waste on the trailer…

I thought the Tesla stuff was basically beta technology and they kinda shipped it by accident? Or some such.

hard to overtake when you’ve a couple of ton of waste on the trailer…

You should’ve gone before you set off.

This morning following an old boy doing 35 in a 60, hard to overtake when you’ve a couple of ton of waste on the trailer…

Yup that can be frustrating but I’d not worry for another 15mph

Self drive cars are going to be so much safer

Perhaps eventually. Loads of different third party software running on different hardware made by different manufacturers? I’ve seen that before, it’s called Windows 95. I don’t overly fancy having to reboot my car when it’s doing 90 down the motorway, having to worry about Ford’s AI behaving predictably with Nissan’s AI in another vehicle, or find that a Peugeot driven through the tunnel from France still wants to drive on the right hand side of the road.

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

There may be some debate on what Tesla is and isn’t, but from their own website…

“All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.”

But clearly Google have a different idea on what hardware is needed for this. Unless proven otherwise, I’ll go with Googles thinking.

I thought the Tesla stuff was basically beta technology and they kinda shipped it by accident? Or some such.

Maybe it was. They roll out updates to the cars all the time, so maybe it’s no longer beta. I honestly don’t know. But if we’re arguing what is a self-driving car, then Tesla’s view on it seems pretty clear (even if it is not echoed by everyone in the industry).

Not arguing the whole Tesla vs Google car thing. I know which one I’d rather be driven by…

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

With automated cars you can test how the vehicles behave repeatedly. Google have already driven thousands (millions?) of miles. When faults occur (and they will) you’ll have much more data about what happened so preventative measures can be taken to make the vehicles even safer. You don’t have any of this with our current human driving, yet people are happy to get in a car and drive down the road at 60mph…

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

People get their cars fixed on the cheap with substandard third party parts?

Have a read of the warnings from the Tesla manual here:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/30/12073240/tesla-autopilot-warnings-fatal-crash
That’s nowhere near being a self driving car

I know which one I’d rather be driven by

The answer is not as obvious as you might think. Which one?

The answer is not as obvious as you might think. Which one?

I’m not going to pretend to know a lot about the technologies used. Personally I find it inconceivable that it can even be done. But I’m aware that Google’s stance is not one of messing about in the middle ground. Their focus is on full autonomy and I would sit in one of their cars for that reason alone.

Elon Musk on the other hand likes to sail very close to the wind.

Apparently Tesla has (or had as of last Novermber) 1.3 billion miles of sensor data with millions of additional miles added every day, compared with Google’s 2.2 million miles. That’s not autopilot miles driven, that’s apparently something like 100 million. I guess that might be moot depending on the quality or the application of the data but it’s interesting.

I can’t find the link but I believe Tesla’s self driving mode is statistically safer than the American national average based on fatalaties per mile driven.

Music, newspapers, mountain bike magazines, bicycles have moved to subscription models. No reason the car can’t too.

Apparently Tesla has (or had as of last Novermber) 1.3 billion miles of sensor data with millions of additional miles added every day, compared with Google’s 2.2 million miles.

(Without any research so I may be talking rubbish.)
That sounds like just the data from the sensors that are fitted to the car. Is the software trying to understand the data, and act on it? In real time? What would the outcome be if the car was in control?
Gathering data is easy. Understanding it and acting correctly is a whole shed load extra work.

IIRC there was an article from ZDNet /CNET that said Ford were binning any driver assist development and ploughing all the resource to full automation because of the lack of driver oversight, let’s face it we either want to drive or want to be a passenger, who would enjoy sitting in a driver’s seat not doing anything but watching the computer do it just in the offchance that something extraordinary happens?

As a commuter bike rider i would happily share the road with a waymo (Google) car as it wouldn’t attempt a punishment pass, or attempt to overtake and turn left when I’m still level, or dived into a bike lane when I’m in it to undertake a right turning car…

edhornby

As a commuter bike rider i would happily share the road with a waymo (Google) car as it wouldn’t attempt a punishment pass, or attempt to overtake and turn left when I’m still level, or dived into a bike lane when I’m in it to undertake a right turning car…

It wouldn’t until it decides you are a threat…………….

The danger is unexpected consequences.

First one I expect is that the technology works almost 99% perfectly but fails when confronted with unpredictable behaviours by non motorised road users. Rather than fix the technology the motor industry will lobby the govt to remove cyclists from the roads.

But there’s potential benefits too.

Those visually impaired drivers who currently need the assist of rumble strips to stay on the road will be safer, and doddery old fossils (as I will be shortly) will be able to continue getting themselves around safely.

a threat ?? I would love to hear the logic behind that one

1997. 2:14am Eastern time, August 29th.

jimjam

It wouldn’t until it decides you are a threat…………….

edhornby – Member

a threat ?? I would love to hear the logic behind that one

Cougar – Moderator

1997. 2:14am Eastern time, August 29th.
[/quote]

If IS continue to use vehicles as their weapon of choice, I’d imagine many governments are already thinking of removing humans from the control of vehicles asap

First one I expect is that the technology works almost 99% perfectly but fails when confronted with unpredictable behaviours by non motorised road users

Google have already demonstrated a self drive car coping with unpredictable behaviour by a cyclist.

In any case, my experience is that too many human drivers are unable to cope with predictable behaviour by non motorised road users, so I’d be willing to give self drive cars a chance instead.

The technology is moving faster than y’all think.

Accidents per mile way better than human drivers.

[video]https://youtu.be/VG68SKoG7vE[/video]

Who wants a car that you can not drive?

Cars are fun things to be driven.

The Tesla crash was partly attributable to the fact the USA doesn’t require any side under-run protection bars on articulated trailers. Considering Europe requires them on anything over 3.5t (with a few exceptions) they are a long way behind basic ‘passive’ safety features.

If the trailer had side bars, the Tesla would have recognised the hazard rather than attributing it to an overhead sign, and stopped. If it hadn’t stopped, the side bars would have allowed all the normal safety features of the car to operate (crush zones, airbags etc).

There was a similar accident a couple of years ago, this time it was a standard car with a driver in control. The truck had stalled across the road with no electric power so was unlit, the cars dipped headlights simply lit up the road beyond/under the trailer.

The future;

I don’t think it’ll be long until we see road trains of 4 or 5 Tesla’s and similar cars on the motorway, just sipping away at their batteries and just a few cm’s apart.

I reckon major junctions will develop features designed to assist autonomous cars. If they develop specific lanes, autonomous vehicles could filter through each other without traffic control, a bit like motorcycle display teams riding through each other at 90 degrees 🙂

and doddery old fossils (as I will be shortly) will be able to continue getting themselves around safely.

Just so long as you (and I) can afford it. There will of course be no public transport alternative.

Google have already demonstrated a self drive car coping with unpredictable behaviour by a cyclist.

I’m sure I recall a very recent case where an autonomous vehicle failed to recognise a cyclist. I shall have a look around for it.

slowoldman

Just so long as you (and I) can afford it. There will of course be no public transport alternative.

I think like all technology there’ll be a premium initially but it will trickle down. As for the public transport alternative or lack of, I think it’s hard to predict the impact on our traveling habits but I think it will be profound.

I think there will be self driving buses and taxis and I would hazard a guess that once fully self driving cars become the norm people will lose a lot of their attachment to their personal cars.

If your car can be off ferrying people around at night while you watch tv why not? I think car leasing and rental models change and become the norm. Maybe we’ll end up renting/hiring cars on a per journey basis directly from manufacturers…who knows.

Here’s some information about Google’s cars and cyclists:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.recode.net/platform/amp/2016/7/5/12101360/google-self-driving-car-cyclist-bike-handsignals-report

Who wants a car that you can not drive?

Cars are fun things to be driven.
For some people. Personally, I just want a car to get me somewhere to do something more interesting, with the minimum of fuss. If I can read a book or look at the view while I’m doing that, instead of driving, that’s fine by me.

I like the idea of a subscription model for ownership. You could order a wee car for work commuting during the week (or join a shared pickup with other people) and a bigger vehicle at the weekend for a family trip with bikes.

The US haulage industry have a keen interest in the technology as well, because they shift so much stuff by road, and want to save money by automating the driving. Probably tough times ahead if you are a truck driver, unfortunately.

Either way they wont sit on our drives for 90% of the time like the cars we rent now do.

This keeps being said.

But Taxi’s pre date motorcars and didn’t prevent mass ownership.

Maybe it’ll change the way people in cities get arround, but then most people in London already rely on taxis and dont own a car.

My cars full of all sorts of stuff, tools, clothes, pen/paper, money, snacks, drinks, paperwork. Leasing a car to take me to work is about as likely to be successful as saying the phone box will kill smartphone ownership.

The model (phone box or self driving car) falls down the first time you need it right this second, it smells, it’s full of teenagers or you find a used condom from the previous user.

It’s interesting about ownership. Cars are a very personal thing and we choose them based on our needs. I do circa 300 miles a week, and for roughly half of those journeys there’s a dirty bike sat right behind me. Then there’s child seats and stuff… I wouldn’t like to give up my car, in the same way I wouldn’t like to give up my bikes….

Be interesting to see how it changes the way we use transport though, as I’m sure it will. I’m looking forward to being able to go for a ride and summon a car to pick me up at the end 8)

Self-driving cars.

We don’t even have self-driving trains and trams in widespread usage in the UK yet (aside from the DLR), and they’re on bloody rails.

thisisnotaspoon

The model (phone box or self driving car) falls down the first time you need it right this second, it smells, it’s full of teenagers or you find a used condom from the previous user.

Not if the car goes back to a depot or a cleaning and charging station after each journey. As for needing a car immediately, the car hire infrastructure could be as widespread as petrol stations, maybe more so. The idea that if you suddenly feel the urge to nip down to the offie for a few cans could be superceded by the fact that there’s an autonomous car one minute away from there.

Perhaps your child takes sick so you need to get to the hospital quickly. You can take your drive there yourself but your constrained by speed limits – but the Tesla P900 will be there in five minutes and it can take you to the hospital at 250mph because it’s proven to be able to operate safely at those speeds…..perhaps.

Will driverless cars have some sort of over-ride in the event of local knowledge being relevant? As in this morning the toddler group meets in the village hall, horses use the bridleway that crosses the road just around the corner: that sort of thing? Things you might want to slow down for.

You could crowd-source that data fairly readily. Plenty of current sat-navs already do it.

slowoldman – Member

I’m sure I recall a very recent case where an autonomous vehicle failed to recognise a cyclist. I shall have a look around for it.

On thursday I had a manual vehicle fail to recognise a cyclist and so did lots of other cyclists. I appreciate this has been said already, but while the final goal is perfection, the hurdle is “better than squishy humans” and that’s a very different thing.

My cars full of all sorts of stuff, tools, clothes, pen/paper, money, snacks, drinks, paperwork. Leasing a car to take me to work is about as likely to be successful as saying the phone box will kill smartphone ownership.

But how much of that wouldn’t fit in a holdall? Every commuter that doesn’t use a car doesn’t carry around all that stuff (unless you have very big panniers)

Will driverless cars have some sort of over-ride in the event of local knowledge being relevant? As in this morning the toddler group meets in the village hall, horses use the bridleway

It would be pretty easy…for one, the car would be travelling at a speed that is safe, rather than a human rushing due to being late…so it shouldn’t need local knowledge. And if its linked to some sort of mapping database, it would be easy to add blackspots where it could reduce speed, or shortcuts that are unsuitable for through traffic. (this is where Google maps cleverness brings shortcomings…often its first choice of route will take me down back roads, single width lanes and through width restrictions, just to save five minutes over an hour on an A road route.)

The way Google is mining all our data, I suspect the driverless car might be on its way to your house before you have even asked for it…

I don’t think car ownership is going to disappear. Driverless just gives you more options about how you pay to drive. People who want to own their own car, and keep it filled with their stuff, will buy. Other people will choose to hire.

Instead of messing around removing and reinstalling seats, I’d find it convenient to order a van with “dirty” storage for an MTB trip, and then a car with child seats for a family trip.

My cars full of all sorts of stuff, tools, clothes, pen/paper, money, snacks, drinks, paperwork. Leasing a car to take me to work is about as likely to be successful as saying the phone box will kill smartphone ownership.

But how much of that wouldn’t fit in a holdall? Every commuter that doesn’t use a car doesn’t carry around all that stuff (unless you have very big panniers)[/quote]

For me. 90% of what I have in the vehicle on a daily basis wouldn’t fit in a holdall. Which is why I don’t commute by bike.

Plenty of people actually need to carry a lot stuff in their vehicle, plenty of other people can fit what they need in a bag.

Those that commute by bike are in the second group.