Audi self driving flying car.
You had me after self-driving Audi.
Please do not allow manual override.
Flying is a bonus.
Another day, another self-flying car pipe dream surfaces
Audi and Airbus are pondering a self-driving car that can also fly, according to the latest Ripley* statement from a hype-filled sector. The "entirely electric, fully automatic concept" of a "horizontal and vertical mobility" vehicle is just a pipe dream for now, though it might pave the way for a tangible product much, much …
-
-
-
Monday 19th March 2018 16:45 GMT K
Re: That's all we need
There is never any justifiable reason to overtake/undertake on the left (For non-UK readers, swap Left with Right!).. it's stupid, dangerous and more likely to get you kill.
Likewise, If some person is sitting in the outside lane, doing 50Mph and they can move over, then flash them... If they don't move over, then report them to the police for dangerous or hazardous driving.
-
Monday 19th March 2018 16:59 GMT MK_E
Re: That's all we need
You shouldn't ever pass somebody on the inside.
This is because it shouldn't be possible to pass somebody on the inside.
If it is possible for you to pull over to the inside lane, pass the vehicle that is currently occupying the outside lane, and return to the outside lane, without cutting into their braking distance or placing the inside lane's traffic within your braking distance, then whatever vehicle you are passing is in the wrong lane.
If it is ever physically possible for someone to safely pass YOU on the inside, pull the hell over until you're actually ready to pass.
-
Tuesday 20th March 2018 16:18 GMT Santa from Exeter
Re: That's all we need
Whilst you are technically correct I have lost count of the number of times that I pass CLOC* members in the outside lane of a motorway whilst doing 70MPH, only to have an Audi undertake both of us at 90+ in the inside lane.
*Centre Lane Owners Club, according to a Motorway Copper I know :-)
-
Tuesday 20th March 2018 11:44 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: That's all we need
If they don't move over, then report them to the police for dangerous or hazardous driving.
I must admire the charming naïvety of that line - as if they would do anything with it. Unless reducing bad lane discipline gives them government points they'll more or less politely take your details and ignore whatever you reported before you have even left the station or put the phone down. I'm not saying they would not WANT to follow up, but it appears we want these people to do everything on 1/10th of the budget they need to do their job and something has to give.
Nowadays it appears more effective if you post any dashcam footage online as that causes embarrassment by both police and lane hogger. Not that I like it, but if your aim is to make at least something happen, that seems to be the way now.
-
Tuesday 20th March 2018 11:56 GMT CrazyOldCatMan
Re: That's all we need
There is never any justifiable reason to overtake/undertake on the left
..unless you are on a motorbike and filtering[1] between two lines of cars. Yes, it's dangerous. Yes, I've had morons in cars get so enraged at the prospect that they've moved over to try to block me[2] but, in general, it's one of the major advantages of being on a bike in traffic.
Sadly, I can't ride a bike any more because of arthritis - not unless I spend lots of money on the brake and clutch levers.
[1] Lane-splitting in the US. Here, it's entirely legal and allowed in the Hoghway[3] Code. And the majority of people are not bothered (and a minority - including me - having been on the other side of things, make space for the bike to pass easily)
[2] What the idiots don't understand is that, if they've moved over to try and block me, is that there's a much wider gap that they have left on the other side. And, given that a bike is much more manouverable than a car, it just means that I'll cross behind them and pass on the open side. With a jaunty wave :-)
[3] Entirely amusing mis-speelink. So left untouched..
-
-
Monday 19th March 2018 18:00 GMT Steve Knox
Re: That's all we need
"before overtaking on the left"
If you were driving on the left, instead of hogging an outside lane, then perhaps this wouldn't happen?
You're assuming OP wasn't driving on the left already.
Here in the States, the analogue is Massachusetts drivers -- they'll pass you on the right -- while you're changing a tire...
-
Monday 19th March 2018 21:55 GMT Anonymous Coward
Hate the idiots who sit in the passing lane
I pass many cars for every one that passes me, but I never stay in the passing lane when the "slow" lane is clear. That's actually illegal in most US states, and IMHO should be illegal everywhere.
Between lazy fools who like to stay in the passing lane because they can't be bothered to watch for cars coming down ramps that will require them to move over, and the self appointed speed enforcers who think driving the speed limit gives them the right to squat in the passing lane indefinitely, there are way too damn many people who think they drive safely but do not.
-
-
-
Monday 19th March 2018 15:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Audi overtaking on the left?
You must have been behind me as I travelled east along the A12 last friday morning. There was plenty of room to overtake on the right but no... We were just passing a junction and the Audi swung into the sliproad and went past me on the left. At the same time he flashed his lights, sounded his horn and gave me the finger. All because I was driving at 60mph and not 100mph.
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 20th March 2018 01:49 GMT Teiwaz
Re: Jack the ripper was the lock ness monster. Fact.
I get to reference one of my favourite films and I get a downvote, Who knew?
Someone mentioned funny, entertaining or relevant.
Otherwise the 'librarians' hanging around will make their own entertainment with whatever's handy, like spelling errors.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 20th March 2018 00:57 GMT Fruit and Nutcase
Re: Magical screen
Vulture Central may have equaled Vulture South for featuring a story with 49inch screen, but Vulture South managed to get one in...
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/05/samsung_chg90_49_inch_monitor_review/
-
-
Monday 19th March 2018 15:44 GMT steelpillow
Earliest flying car
Well, Popular mechanics can't be believed. Henson and Stringfellow's Aerial Steam Carriage was not a f lying car but a fixed-wing aeroplane, it had no road capability. The earliest I know of is that of Gustave Whitehead, born Gustav Weisskopf, who is best known for his supporters' claim that he flew before the Wright brothers, around 1901. The contentious machine was actually a flying car with folding wings and Whitehead drove it to its intended takeoff site. What happened next depends on whose side you are on...
-
-
Monday 19th March 2018 16:26 GMT Mark 85
Re: Obstacles
Reminds of the amphibious cars they used to sell decades ago. Minor things like doors created problems for the car part (no doors) and doors would cause problems for the boat part (leaks). Propulsion was a mechanical nightmare. I saw one as a kid and watched it slowly sink in the lake and wondered why would anyone try to combine two vehicles into one?
-
Monday 19th March 2018 17:26 GMT WolfFan
Re: Obstacles
Amphibious trucks and four-wheel-drive vehicles have a specific military use: logistical support over both water and land. They're not so good at assaulting across water, as they lack armor and serious weapons, but once a beachhead is secure, they can move supplies and personnel over water and inland quite efficiently. Amphibious trucks also have specific civilian uses: number one is tourism in certain precise situations. There are amphibious trucks set up as passenger vehicles providing tours of places like the Everglades in Florida and sections of Chesapeake Bay in Maryland and Delaware. Number two is operating as ferries in more remote areas, where the military nature of the truck part becomes very useful. (many such ferries are descendants of the US Army's DUKW 6x6 amphibious truck, which saw duty in Europe starting in June 1944 and later in the Pacific and then in Korea and Vietnam.) Because of the heavy-duty truck systems, they can and will operate on very poor road surfaces. Number three is operating as emergency rescue vehicles for coastal, riverine, and such duties. Those vehicles can get to places where neither boats nor ordinary land vehicles, except for hovercraft, which are much more expensive, can go. Number four is as a vehicle for use in hunting in remote areas. They are expensive, but, like the rescue vehicles, can get into places that boats and ordinary land vehicles cannot.
-
-
Tuesday 20th March 2018 18:13 GMT WolfFan
Re: Obstacles
many such ferries are descendants of the US Army's DUKW 6x6 amphibious truck
And still as crap as they were first time round, to judge by serious and sometimes fatal incidents in Philadelphia, Arkansas, Seattle, Ontario, Liverpool and London.
In large part that is because the drivers of those things tend to behave as if it were a car on land, when it is a truck and if you don't treat it as a truck, there will be tears. On the water it's a boat with very low freeboard and a very low speed.
Military amphibious truck drivers get trained in first how to drive a truck and then how to drive a slow, small, boat with limited freeboard. If amphibious trucks are operated correctly, they are (relatively) safe. If they are treated as a car which floats, they are accidents waiting to happen. They have high centers of gravity when on land, which means they will roll. Fatalities have occurred when some amphibious trucks rolled. Fatalities have occurred when some amphibious trucks were used in heavy surf. Problems have occurred when amphibious trucks were used in the wrong conditions, such as when the ground is too muddy and soft for their wheels to gain traction, but isn't fluid enough to allow the vehicle to be used as a boat. Indirect fatalities have occurred, mostly due to the vehicle's operators doing something else stupid after being stupid enough to take the truck into conditions where it got stuck.
-
-
-
-
Monday 19th March 2018 17:52 GMT TrumpSlurp the Troll
Re: Obstacles
With you all the way on that.
Trying to picture a Microlight with full crash protection to Euro NCAP 5* rating.
Wings? Will it fit in a Lidl parking space?
I really am struggling to visualise a vehicle with the footprint of, say, an Audi A4 which can safely take off and land and also achieve 50 mpg or better on a long run.
Looks like you need the functionality of a helicopter without that big whirly thing that can hurt people extending beyond the vehicle footprint and a failsafe landing system good when the power train has an issue.
I seem to think that the regular servicing requirements for flying things are more onerous than for driving things as well.
-
-
-
Monday 19th March 2018 16:35 GMT Simon Harris
The London one is closed, apparently while they "actively search for a new location". You'll have to go to another country now, or Blackpool (which some may consider to be another country) if you want to find a Ripley's.
-
-
Monday 19th March 2018 16:57 GMT Kaltern
Sigh.
How long is it going to be before these 'manufacturers' realise that 100% self driving/flying vehicles are simply NOT going to happen any time soon? It almost seems to me that these guys are playing a 'me too' PR game, somehow believing they're going to be left out of some juicy profiteering.
Level 5 self-driving automobility is nothing more than a pipedream. The only way it could ever work is if every single vehicle on the road was also automated, and linked to the same network. And even then, they just cannot work reliably in urban settings, as has been shown countless times. Roads would need to be 100% pedestrian free, and only 4+ wheeled vehicles need apply.
This is all happening far too soon. Pushing tech that isn't ready is simply going to cause more problems that it might have solved. Come back when every vehicle on the road is electric, and all self-driving system developers are co-operating with each other.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
