Baby steps towards UK autonomous driving?
Discussion
Consultation here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-a...
"The call for evidence will ask whether vehicles using this technology should be legally defined as an automated vehicle, which would mean the technology provider would be responsible for the safety of the vehicle when the system is engaged, rather than the driver."
TX.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-a...
"The call for evidence will ask whether vehicles using this technology should be legally defined as an automated vehicle, which would mean the technology provider would be responsible for the safety of the vehicle when the system is engaged, rather than the driver."
TX.
I look forward to it being an option, needs to be an option and not a mandate but given that there are millions of cars that wont be autonomous it will have to cope and cant see horses, bikes, motorbikes and pedestrians being made autonomous so wouldnt worry, I just see it as a really fancy cruise control that follows the sat nav and doesnt crash into stuff.
What polarised my opinion is someone I know commenting on Facebook a couple of years back about how they wouldn't ever trust it, this is someone who seems to have a catastrophe in her life almost weekly, some are bad luck/just life but others seem to be self inflicted On the motoring side, several speeding incidents, numerous parking disputes, road rage and two fairly bad crashes despite not doing many miles, ideal candidate.
As am I, sometimes !
What polarised my opinion is someone I know commenting on Facebook a couple of years back about how they wouldn't ever trust it, this is someone who seems to have a catastrophe in her life almost weekly, some are bad luck/just life but others seem to be self inflicted On the motoring side, several speeding incidents, numerous parking disputes, road rage and two fairly bad crashes despite not doing many miles, ideal candidate.
As am I, sometimes !
Triumph Man said:
The one positive I can think of for autonomous driving is that hopefully the days of being sat behind Mildred doing 43mph will be over, as she will be whisked along at 60 whilst she does her knitting. Hopefully.
nope - there will be settings for the passenger - and a granny button will set the speed to no more than 30mph (because... 
) so it will get worse!sadly we seem to have a government which believes that a) these systems will do what the manufacturers claim and b) that drivers will only use them in the way advised - there are several well known cases proving that neither of these facts are true... will be interesting to see the chaos that results from this - with people claiming that they can now use mobiles (in their 1986 peugeot with no autonomous modes), or who believe that they are totally in the right and hold no responsibility at all because the car was in charge and the car can't go wrong
- interesting times ahead!Joey Deacon said:
Surely this is laying the groundwork for automating trucks and essentially making another group of workers redundant due to technology?
I can honestly see trucks being autonomous on motorways, driving between main depos with people only doing the tricky driving in towns.
Until we actually have autonomous driving that works completely in context, then you will need a person in the cab 'just in case' - I don't think that the public is ready yet to be sharing motorways with 38t of unmanned machinery driving at c. 60mphI can honestly see trucks being autonomous on motorways, driving between main depos with people only doing the tricky driving in towns.
If you need someone to drive the 'tricky' bits, then they might as well be there fore the rest - if you have to have a body in the cab, it might as well be a driver
If the technology is so good that you can run lorries with no driver, why do we not legislate already to have autonomous braking controls etc. in lorries - would stop those various deaths on the motorways...
Edited by akirk on Wednesday 19th August 11:45
I have serious doubts about it working - this is a "crash for cash" scammer/compo culture wet dream. Certain people will be throwing themselves at the things, groups in more than one vehicle will be creating crash situations (then claiming the whiplash etc).
I absolutely guarantee it.
I absolutely guarantee it.
Dog Star said:
I have serious doubts about it working - this is a "crash for cash" scammer/compo culture wet dream. Certain people will be throwing themselves at the things, groups in more than one vehicle will be creating crash situations (then claiming the whiplash etc).
I absolutely guarantee it.
They can try... but the amount of data collection (logging) for autonomous vehicles will enable the situation prior to the incident to be recreated. Combine that with some of the technologies proposed such as recompute/replay to be able to determine why the software took the decisions it did and what options it had and I don't see much scope for fraud using the "crash for cash" approach.I absolutely guarantee it.
This needs a huge "when appropriate to do so" responsibility clause in the instructions, which keeps the responsibility for the safe operation of the car with the driver.
If you flick the system on during a biblical rain storm, and the automation cannot cope with the visibility and standing water, that's not the equipment providers problem.
If you have the system on, and a deer / child / cyclist / other vehicle pulls into your path, it's the driver's responsibility to be alert, aware, and react accordingly.
Without sensible and clear demarcations of responsibility, there will be owners claiming off of manufacturer's, and/or all manner of ridiculous chancers and law suits.
If you flick the system on during a biblical rain storm, and the automation cannot cope with the visibility and standing water, that's not the equipment providers problem.
If you have the system on, and a deer / child / cyclist / other vehicle pulls into your path, it's the driver's responsibility to be alert, aware, and react accordingly.
Without sensible and clear demarcations of responsibility, there will be owners claiming off of manufacturer's, and/or all manner of ridiculous chancers and law suits.
Dog Star said:
I have serious doubts about it working - this is a "crash for cash" scammer/compo culture wet dream. Certain people will be throwing themselves at the things, groups in more than one vehicle will be creating crash situations (then claiming the whiplash etc).
I absolutely guarantee it.
Even a £49.99 dashcam generally gives enough evidence in that situation, will be whole new scams dreamed up we haven't thought of by the scammers. Any opportunity to crash with one would involve piling into the side or rear so would be them at fault so prob wouldnt work the same.I absolutely guarantee it.
Would imagine as well, that this tech, once developed and mature will spot it happening and avoid it in the first place, I expect it will be pretty difficult to catch out, at least by four chaps in a rented car slamming on the brakes at roundabouts and stuff. It will be a lot better than the average human driver in this respect as it can look several cars ahead, 360 degrees, it doesnt blink, fanny with its phone, nod off, get distracted and will run at 4 ghz.
It always amuses me how we think that we are better, ok at the moment its early days but its going to make us look pretty poor in the future, like nowadays you cant outbrake ABS or catch out ESP, this will do the same when it is ready, still a while off though but its coming.
Its weird how people decide it can never work and if there is one crash its useless, there are thousands of car crashes every day
Stuzza said:
Dog Star said:
I have serious doubts about it working - this is a "crash for cash" scammer/compo culture wet dream. Certain people will be throwing themselves at the things, groups in more than one vehicle will be creating crash situations (then claiming the whiplash etc).
I absolutely guarantee it.
They can try... but the amount of data collection (logging) for autonomous vehicles will enable the situation prior to the incident to be recreated. Combine that with some of the technologies proposed such as recompute/replay to be able to determine why the software took the decisions it did and what options it had and I don't see much scope for fraud using the "crash for cash" approach.I absolutely guarantee it.
mat205125 said:
This needs a huge "when appropriate to do so" responsibility clause in the instructions, which keeps the responsibility for the safe operation of the car with the driver.
If you flick the system on during a biblical rain storm, and the automation cannot cope with the visibility and standing water, that's not the equipment providers problem.
If you have the system on, and a deer / child / cyclist / other vehicle pulls into your path, it's the driver's responsibility to be alert, aware, and react accordingly.
Without sensible and clear demarcations of responsibility, there will be owners claiming off of manufacturer's, and/or all manner of ridiculous chancers and law suits.
Go back and read the OP. This is precisely what is being determined here.If you flick the system on during a biblical rain storm, and the automation cannot cope with the visibility and standing water, that's not the equipment providers problem.
If you have the system on, and a deer / child / cyclist / other vehicle pulls into your path, it's the driver's responsibility to be alert, aware, and react accordingly.
Without sensible and clear demarcations of responsibility, there will be owners claiming off of manufacturer's, and/or all manner of ridiculous chancers and law suits.
I specified the ‘Driver Assistance Pack’ on the Merc E class I leased last year. I did so mainly for the adaptive cruise, though it does come with a raft of other stuff including active steering. It’ll accelerate, brake and steer itself very well on motorways/dual carriageways,, pretty well on A and B roads but not well at all on bendy unclassified roads. Mine nags you to put your hands back on the steering wheel after 30 or 40 seconds, but only a light touch is required to keep the system happy. It’s quite capable of braking on the approach to and navigating round a roundabout on a dual carriageway (though it can’t ‘see’ what’s coming I don’t think...or at least, I’ve not been brave enough to try...). But it does give the steering a very odd feel if you actually want to drive the car your self. You can however turn off the steering assistance while leaving active cruise on, which is my preferred set-up. I can see though how the technology is advancing rapidly, though surely the driver has to remain ultimately responsible?
It is not so much autonomous driving, as being a piece of meat in a device which is itself actually doing the driving.
If a person is not driving the vehicle, then they are not driving it, but just being conveyed in the vehicle like any of the other passengers who might happen to be in it.
If a person is not driving the vehicle, then they are not driving it, but just being conveyed in the vehicle like any of the other passengers who might happen to be in it.
I didn't even trust adaptive cruise when I had it. I would set it and would sit there with my feet hovering over the pedals tensely waiting for it to f
k up and for me to need to intervene. It was more relaxing to just drive.
The collision avoidance system also nearly gave me several heart attacks. It would "BONG" if the car in front went off at a slip road and you carried on, hump back bridges and severe dips in the road were occasionally viewed as me trying to drive head first into a wall.
k up and for me to need to intervene. It was more relaxing to just drive.The collision avoidance system also nearly gave me several heart attacks. It would "BONG" if the car in front went off at a slip road and you carried on, hump back bridges and severe dips in the road were occasionally viewed as me trying to drive head first into a wall.
akirk said:
who believe that they are totally in the right and hold no responsibility at all because the car was in charge and the car can't go wrong - interesting times ahead!
Yep. A sense of personal responsibility seems to be becoming increasingly rare in society generally, so it's not hard to imagine the fun the lawyers are going to have the first time something happens involving an autonomous car. - interesting times ahead!I am also itching to see how well autonomous vehicles cope with our appallingly dilapidated road surfaces. More and more of our roads are now impossible to drive along at anywhere near the speed limit, and in the 'correct' lane position without smashing a wheel or shredding a tyre.
Just doing a deeper dive on this, its a massive fail.
They are seeking evidence from the car industry as well as industry professionals on ALKS (Automated Lane Keeping Systems) being used on UK motorways. This call for evidence will ask if a vehicle with these systems should legally be defined as Autonomous, meaning ultimately the manufacturer is responsible for safety, rather than the driver.
If we review the call for evidence it reads: “We are seeking views to understand if ALKS technology is compliant with the definition of automation under the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018. This act requires that the vehicle be capable of safely and lawfully driving itself without being controlled and without needing to be monitored, when in automated mode.”
The issue is, ALKS systems function at Level 1 of autonomy. This level brings in some autonomy but very much relies of the driver to remain in control of the car. So immediately this call for evidence is nullified.
It’ll be very interesting to see what comes from this, but to me this initially highlights a massive lack of understanding of Autonomy in the UK government.
They are seeking evidence from the car industry as well as industry professionals on ALKS (Automated Lane Keeping Systems) being used on UK motorways. This call for evidence will ask if a vehicle with these systems should legally be defined as Autonomous, meaning ultimately the manufacturer is responsible for safety, rather than the driver.
If we review the call for evidence it reads: “We are seeking views to understand if ALKS technology is compliant with the definition of automation under the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018. This act requires that the vehicle be capable of safely and lawfully driving itself without being controlled and without needing to be monitored, when in automated mode.”
The issue is, ALKS systems function at Level 1 of autonomy. This level brings in some autonomy but very much relies of the driver to remain in control of the car. So immediately this call for evidence is nullified.
It’ll be very interesting to see what comes from this, but to me this initially highlights a massive lack of understanding of Autonomy in the UK government.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff