Destroying the city to save the robocar Behind the mostly fake "battle" about driverless cars (conventional versus autonomous is the one that captures all the headlines), there are several much more important scraps. One is over the future of the city: will a city be built around machines or people? How much will pedestrians have to sacrifice for the driverless car to …
"The automated bicycle."
Thanks, I'm now looking forward to an evening when I'm thrown over the handlebars when a plastic bag gets mistaken for a small child by the cheap as chips LIDAR sensor which was covered with mud during my off road commute earlier in the day.
I'm curious - if wholly autonomous cars were available today, priced competitively with *manual* cars - would you actually buy one? I know I just don't want one myself.
Obvously there's a place for public transport, freight and maybe the taxi - but your own car?
Thumbs up for "Yes" I want a wholly autonomous car.
Thumbs down for "No" I prefer to drive myself.
"I'm curious - if wholly autonomous cars were available today, priced competitively with *manual* cars - would you actually buy one?"
If it had a way to manually override auto-mode, yes. If it was in permanent auto-mode probably not, at least until they were commonly available for 5-10 years without significant isues
I used to enjoy driving. Now, with traffic levels and increasingly effective automated road policing, I can't be bothered any more. I prefer the train if I don't have things to carry. I would love to have a car that allowed me to sit back and do something other than look out for roadsigns or BMW 'drivers'. I'd also like it to carry my luggage, find somewhere to park after dropping me off, and come back to collect me when I wanted it.
Two wheelers are the fly in the ointment of this whole automated car nonsense. For automated cars to work properly and not constantly be gamed by human drivers then all manually driven cars would have to be banned from the roads. And given the chances of an automated motorbike or bicycle being developed are close to zero (and who would want to ride one anyway?) they'd have to be banned from the roads too. And good luck with any government that tried that!
Fully automated cars are not for our benefit - they're just a wet dream of governments who want more control over their citizens movements, and silicon valley bros who want to cash in their shares in 20 years time and retire as billionaires. Hopefully neither will get their way. If someone can't drive for whatever reason there are already good alternatives - public transport or taxis. We don't need - and I suspect most drivers don't want - fully automated vehicles with no option of manual control.
For automated cars to work properly and not constantly be gamed by human drivers then all manually driven cars would have to be banned from the roads.
This is the big problem that all the autonomous car advocates forget: for a significant number of us, a roar vehicle that can't be manually driven and/or can't tow (and park) a trailer is completely and utterly useless. Examples:
Even if trailers are not involved, there are everyday uses of road vehicles where their use becomes impossible if they can't be manually driven:
...and there are doubtless many other cases where the ability to drive a road vehicle manually is a necessity.
"Your points have reminded me that autonomous vehicles might spell doom for towed caravans. Hmmmmm. I'm conflicted here ….."
It's not just caravans but any trailer. I rent a trailer from time to time to pick up large items I've purchased that won't fit in the boot. It's cheaper than hiring some bloke with a van and I don't always have to bug my mates that have a pickup.
I agree with most of your points though not with emergency services. As part of the autonomous world all vehicles on the route could be automatically pulled over and a clear lane from station to incident and then to the hospital all enabled by the AI. Other traffic would be diverted to reduce resultant congestion and reduce delays.
Perhaps emergency vehicles would also have a special mode allowing them to break the standard rules.
All well and good but unnecessary if we all used autonomous vehicles as there should be no incidents on the road.
@Martin Gregorie - "Emergency services will be unable to operate if all road-using vehicles are forced to become autonomous."
Fireman: "Take us to Mega-Shopping Centre, Townsville, maximum speed!"
Fire Engine: "A fire has been reported at your destination, for your safety and convenience you are being re-routed. New destination Maxi-Shopping Centre, Citiesville"
"Even if trailers are not involved, there are everyday uses of road vehicles where their use becomes impossible if they can't be manually driven:"
Martin brings up a great point. If you are going to an event at a large arena/playing field, the parking and access to the front of the facility is not always the same. You could be going to a boot sale being held where there is a big car park and it's occupying the back corner of the lot.
There are lots of situations where being able to manually drive a car will be required. Most especially so after a disaster or major storm when road are blocked. It's doesn't even have to be a major event, just a downed power line or some construction might lead to needing to do some creative navigation.
@boltar - "given the chances of an automated motorbike or bicycle being developed are close to zero"
Meet Yamaha Motobot, not just an automated motorbike it can actually race:
https://youtu.be/Djzjrc5FIIk
Its not fast enough to beat the GOAT but not many are.
"Meet Yamaha Motobot, not just an automated motorbike it can actually race:"
Its got stabilisers. Doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. Then put a 100kg biker on top who moves around and see how well it manages. Also bikers have to be able to read the road and obsctructions and muck on it far better than a car driver. What chance would a computer have of spotting some oil or mud on the road ahead?
> For automated cars to work properly and not constantly be gamed by human drivers then all manually driven cars would have to be banned from the roads.
I disagree. There's absolutely no reason to ban all manually driven cars for the simple reason that 'gaming' will only be a minority - just as people who undertake, jump queues and force their way in at the front etc (i.e. 'game' human driven vehicles already) are a minority currently. If it became a major problem then there will be plenty of video evidence available to be used in support of prosecutions.
When the first cars came out, people said they'd never be practical because they keep getting punctures from the nails lost from horseshoes scattered all over the roads.
As to banning manual cars from the roads, that will happen automatically and all players, for or against, will ban themselves. How?
The insurance industry will eventually make premiums for manual cars prohibitively expensive. And the 'manual' car holdouts will dump their cars in droves.
"The insurance industry will eventually make premiums for manual cars prohibitively expensive"
Why?
The cost of insurance is meant to cover the cost of covering the risks involved, plus overheads, plus some sort of profit margin. None of these costs suddenly becomes higher due to the introduction of self-driving cars. In fact, if self driving cars really did turn out to be safer than human driven vehicles it would lead to the roads becoming a lower risk environment - average insurance costs for human driven vehicles might even be expected to fall.
"The cost of insurance is meant to cover the cost of covering the risks involved, plus overheads, plus some sort of profit margin."
Originally yes. Now that equation has been skewed so far to the right that its pretty much ALL about profit. Need an example? Loyal customers of insurance companies who don't have any accidents still getting screwed with an inflation busting premium rise year after year.
"In fact, if self driving cars really did turn out to be safer than human driven vehicles it would lead to the roads becoming a lower risk environment - average insurance costs for human driven vehicles might even be expected to fall"
That's not how insurance works. If self driving cars turn out to be safer than human driven ones, premiums for self-driving will fall and those for human-driven will rise. Higher risk categories have to pay higher premiums. The only exceptions are legal-equality-mandated. For example even though female drivers are statistically lower risk than male drivers*, it is not allowed** to charge premium differences based on gender.
* This doesn't mean they are better drivers, for example they could have more low-cost accidents like small bumps and scrapes while one guy totalling their car from reckless overspeeding bumps up the male average
**Now, in the EU at least? It used to be common practice
Because in a world of mostly automated cars the vast majority of the accidents will be judged the fault of the manual driver (remember the data will be logged to prove this). The cost of insuring the automated car will be lower (as they should be safer due to less driver errror) and many of the current low risk (high profit) drivers will switch to automated cars. Therefore the manual cars will be more complex/specialised for the insurance industry, probably be driven by people who are higher risk takers (they've rejected the safer option), and are more prepared to pay for the privilege (they obviously love driving enough to value it higher).
At first the difference may not be substantial - except due to subsidies from the automated car manufacturers to pursuade people to buy the car, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if they offered to self insure them for free/part of the rental cost. Over time the number of manual drivers will decrease (why pay expensive driving lesson fees) which means the size of the pool decreases meaning higher overheads and more conservative pricing models.
"For automated cars to work properly and not constantly be gamed by human drivers then all manually driven cars would have to be banned from the roads."
Nonsense. A safe automated car has to have an appropriate set of algorithms for extreme situations... Like a 'run down any pedestrian in the way and leave the area' button to prevent carjacking. You just authorize the car to do what a human driver would, if reacting appropriately. Then it is up to the would-be carjackers to forget about their guns and get out of the way.
I had a thought that started out silly - "ha, no you want automated Segways"
Then got serious.
Automated wheelchairs. Person who can't control a chair but could control an adapted app could set a destination, "Take me to Argos / the pharmacy / Waypoint 3/ somewhere accessible for lunch". Chair has all the automated car mcguffery but can also go in pedestrian areas and can use your big company AI to take the client where they need to go.
Could update 'things' in shops too, "Mr Smith will arrive in 5min, he'll need some help to pack his prescription", "here is Mr Smith food order".
One of my less stupid ideas I think.
"Could update 'things' in shops too, "Mr Smith will arrive in 5min, he'll need some help to pack his prescription", "here is Mr Smith food order."
...thus eliminating all the tedious chatting, relaxing and making friends that people were previously forced to do while waiting for elevators
This post has been deleted by its author
"Let's start with San Francisco. Once that's done everywhere else will seem easy by comparison."
Only if you live in another perpetually warm climate - average LOW in January is about 7 degrees... well above freezing. Four or five months of ice and snow, with 14 or 15 hours of darkness in the winter time add a bunch of additional challenges.
AC - I was talking about "easy" in terms of leveling the ground so there are no hills to make biking easier, not talking about the weather.
I agree bad weather is a problem for biking, though once in a while I'll see people riding their bikes to work in the snow with the air temperature below zero (Fahrenheit!) so it can be done. It just shouldn't.
> Bikes are not a solution because it is cold or rainy enough of the time. We don't all live in fucking LA.
Poor weather is a barrier to cycle adoption, true, but it can be engineered around. For starters:
- better clothing. Also, heating elements on handlebars if bike already has a battery.
- an enclosed fairing. The extra weight and wind resistance can be mitigated with an electric motor.
- urban design. Main cycle routes could be covered.
The other carriers to cycling are:
-safety concerns. Can be mitigated by better urban design, car design, driver and cyclist education.
- hygiene. People don't want to be sweaty at work. Some workplaces have a shower.
- theft of bicycle. Some countries insist that workplaces allow worker's bikes to be securely parked.
If people had wanted to come in to work wearing lycra, cold and wet and needing a shower and change of clothes, they probably already would.
Guess what? Most people like washing and getting dressed at home, and they don't like getting up earlier for the glorious benefits of cycling. Many cyclists only prefer to do it in their commute for part of the year, but we all need to go to work all year round.
@Tom 38, come to the city center in Amsterdam or Utrecht for instance on a Tuesday morning and count the amount of people on a bike wearing lycra. You MIGHT count one or two bike couriers or amateur race cyclists, but most will just be dressed in normal clothes. Take it easy on a bike and you don't even have to be sweaty either. I cycle to work (20 minutes to get there, 20 minutes back in the afternoon) regularly. I've never had to shower when I get there. I MIGHT when I get back because that's when I get my heart-rate up and push myself a bit, since I am going home anyway).
"Take it easy on a bike and you don't even have to be sweaty either."
When the summer daytime temperature is on the high side of thirty degrees, and the humidex can approach 40, just sitting out on a bike is enough to produce major sweating, even before you try to go anywhere. There is a reason virtually every car sold in some areas has air conditioning.
Shockingly, it is possible to cycle in normal clothes, and not shower at the other end, because you don't get sweaty. The reason for this is that most urban journeys are 3miles or less, over which distance a cycle is entire comfortable.
Unfortunately, in many cities, there is no space for cycling, and the experience is miserable of the cars. Provide the space, the number of cyclists go up. The lycra clad, helmeted, cyclists, high-energy lasers for headlights is a product of car-centric city planning. We don't need their numbers to go up. It's everybody else.
I am going to guess you live in the UK or perhaps an area of Europe or the US with a similar climate, where it never gets particularly hot and if it does get close to hot it isn't very humid. Most of the US gets very hot and humid at times during the summer, with heat indexes reaching over 100F on some days. You can't bike three miles or even one mile without getting very sweaty unless it is downhill all the way. Some days you would be drenched in sweat just walking a few hundred feet to your car.
I ride my bike all the time and there are plenty of days in June, July and August when I'm already pretty sweaty when I reach the city limits which are about two miles from where I live. And this is in the midwest where while it gets as hot and humid as it does anywhere in the south it does it for a far fewer number of days per year (and over a longer portion of the year than just June - August) In Florida the number of days per year I'd have to deal with these conditions would be at least 10x higher.
"Poor weather is a barrier to cycle adoption, true, but it can be engineered around. For starters:"
- an enclosed fairing.
Ok, we'll put a box round the whole thing, that should keep the rain out.
- urban design.
Have roads go where people want to go
-safety concerns.
Bikes tend to fall over when stopped, and perform badly in crashes, let's add some more wheels
- hygiene. People don't want to be sweaty at work.
Well, the motor should take care of the sweat, and the 'fairing' will take care of the rain/snow/sleet we get on a typical June day.
- theft of bicycle.
Well, the enclosed fairing could have some kind of lock to keep thieves away from the interior.
Hey, we just re-invented the car!
> Poor weather is a barrier to cycle adoption, true, but it can be engineered around.
You've never lived in a cold, snowy city, have you?
I live in the northeastern U.S. in a city of 100,000. We get a lot of snow -- there's about a foot of it on the ground right now, thanks to last week's thaw which reduced the snow cover. The current temperature is 13 degrees F -- it was colder yesterday. Most of our roads have packed snow on them and there are many icy spots. If it warms up a bit, some of the snow and ice will turn to slush, thanks to the road salt that the city applies. Have you ever ridden a bicycle when temperatures are below freezing and the streets are a mix of snow and ice and salty slush?
Nevertheless, there are still a few maniac winter bicyclists out there, including a few of my friends (I'm a warm-weather cyclist myself). But they ride fat-tire bikes with studded tires, and they generally spend hundreds of dollars on specialized winter clothing. There's no way that any significant percentage of people would ride a bicycle in the winter in a place like this, even if it was motorized with a fairing and heated bars. (We call those "motorcycles;" they're common here in the summer, but not in the winter.) And there are lots of places like this.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
