back to article Confirmed: Driverless cars to hit actual British roads by end of year

Driverless cars will hit the streets of Britain by the end of this year, the government has confirmed. In a briefing document titled Action for Roads, the Department for Transport confirmed that Oxford University boffins will start trials of autonomous cars later this year. The scheme to take the human element out of motoring …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

              1. Goldmember

                Re: @ Goldmember

                "Oh, I SEE."

                Clearly not. People who ignore the red light telling them not to cross the rod, would in that instant be jaywalking. That's how it works. Those people, ignoring a clear instruction designed to protect them, would be putting themselves in danger, and would therefore be idiotic.

                It really isn't that difficult. You've made a complete pig's arse of understanding a very simple concept. Even Americans can figure out what jaywalking is.

                1. Squander Two
                  FAIL

                  Re: @ Goldmember

                  > People who ignore the red light telling them not to cross the rod, would in that instant be jaywalking. That's how it works.

                  No, that is just one example from the category of jaywalking. The term refers more broadly to any illegal crossing of a road (which isn't illegal in the UK), to walking on roads where pedestrians are banned (which, apart from motorways, we don't have in the UK), and to failing to yield right of way to a driver (who don't have the right of way in the UK). Some US jurisdictions even have separate laws for jaywalking and for disobeying traffic signals, precisely because they're not the same thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#United_States

                  Even taking your own personal limited definition of jaywalking that you certainly didn't specify in the first place... OK, so I'm walking through town at four in the morning; it's deserted, quiet enough for me to hear a car coming from a quarter-mile away, and I come to some traffic lights. According to you, unless I stand and wait for two or three minutes, waiting for the green man to grant me permission to cross the safely deserted street, I'm so idiotically reckless that I should be punished as a criminal. But, if I cross the same road a few hundred yards away, where there are no lights, I'm perfectly sensible and safe.

                  And so we're back to trusting every police officer in the country to apply a money-making law selectively, only demanding money from people who they deem to deserve it because they meet Mr Goldmember's ill-defined standard of "idiocy" whilst letting the others off. My example above is fair game: I get stopped and bothered by the police during daylight hardly ever and in the small hours rather a lot -- I suspect because they're bored.

                  As for your claim that pedestrians and cars are taking turns at traffic lights, you may have noticed that, despite the fact that there are more pedestrians than cars, drivers are given a turn of two to four minutes and pedestrians are given between six and ten seconds to cross the road. Surely, if it were all about doling out road time fairly and equitably, as you imply, they'd get roughly equal shares, or at least a bit more equal than that. But of course it isn't: the system is based on the assumption that cars must never disobey a red light but pedestrians can use their judgement. Which, when you consider the completely different ways they use the roads, is quite reasonable.

                  Meanwhile, here are the stats for road deaths in the UK and USA:

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

                  As you can see, the USA, with their law which you are convinced would make our roads so much safer, has far more dangerous roads than us.

                  You're the one proposing a new law here, based on a US law that you had apparently misconstrued, to be founded in the UK on a right that you have imagined, and which the statistical evidence available says would probably have the exact opposite effect from the one you claim. And you say I can't understand simple concepts. Feh.

                  1. Intractable Potsherd

                    Re: @ Goldmember

                    I spend quite a lot of time in some countries with the jay-walking rule, and, whilst they seem completely objectionable to the British mindset*, they do seem to work. It is very funny seeing British tourists getting fined for just wandering into the road without due care and attention.

                    Which brings me to the next point - there most certainly should be an element of "due care and attention" on pedestrians, just the same as on any other other user of the roads. The loon with the headphones/mobile phone/book/newspaper/group of friends who is utterly oblivious to what s going on around her/him should be liable if an accident occurs and their behaviour contributed to it. The idiot parent sticking the pushchair into the road into the path of oncoming traffic should be prosecuted and have the child removed from them. Actions should have consequences.

                    You write "OK, so I'm walking through town at four in the morning; it's deserted, quiet enough for me to hear a car coming from a quarter-mile away, and I come to some traffic lights. According to you, unless I stand and wait for two or three minutes, waiting for the green man to grant me permission to cross the safely deserted street, I'm so idiotically reckless that I should be punished as a criminal. But, if I cross the same road a few hundred yards away, where there are no lights, I'm perfectly sensible and safe." Yes, it sounds silly, but it is what is required of a driver. Many times I've been stopped at red lights in the middle of the night, when there is no good reason (on roundabouts, for instance). We can argue the toss about what could be done about that, but the rule is "wait for the green to appear" - no excuses.

                    * The same British mindset that tends to come into play when "interpreting" all rules of the road, regardless of mode of use. Pedestrians, cyclists and drivers all tend to think "this is mine, and bugger everyone else".

                    1. Goldmember
                      Thumb Up

                      Re: @ Goldmember

                      That is a fair point. In the early hours when there's no traffic, it would indeed be sensible to cross the road whenever it becomes clear, as a sensible pedestrian can hear traffic and should be able to judge when they can safely cross the road. However, it's a very difficult task to monitor and decide when to or to not enforce anti-jaywalking rules, not to mention the cost of implementing a variable system. So I would argue it's best to err on the side of caution instead of the current free for all mentality of "let the book-reading-while-walking idiot pedestrian walk out in front of moving traffic whenever he chooses" that Squander Two seems to think is the best course of action for our roads.

                      Fines for jaywalking wouldn't be the perfect solution, but it's a solution that remedies a current, real, problem. Try driving around Manchester city centre every week day as I do, it'll be an eye opener to the stupidity of the street walking populace. Intractable Potsherd is right; there absolutely should be comeback for inattentive pedestrians who cause accidents, as we already have in place for drivers. It may sound excessive to fine someone for crossing a road when told not to at 3am, but some rules are better than no rules.

                      It also isn't accurate to construct evidence on the basis of the blanket comparison of road deaths between the UK and the US. The UK driving test has always been much more difficult to pass than most, if not all, US driving tests. That's why accidents per capita are lower here; we generally create better, more aware drivers. American people I've spoken to who have driven on British roads have commented on the condition of cars on the roads in this country, how little they see dented or otherwise damaged cars driving round compared to the US. There are also US insurers who offer a premium discount for holders of UK driving licences.

                      Additionally, those stats don't drill down into enough detail. Jaywalking doesn't apply to all roads in all states, whereas the stats on which you seem to be basing your whole argument cover ALL road deaths, regardless of circumstance. They actually don't do a thing to disprove what I'm saying.

                      1. Squander Two
                        Devil

                        Re: @ Goldmember

                        > Additionally, those stats don't drill down into enough detail. Jaywalking doesn't apply to all roads in all states, whereas the stats on which you seem to be basing your whole argument cover ALL road deaths, regardless of circumstance. They actually don't do a thing to disprove what I'm saying.

                        That's fair enough. I couldn't find stats with the necessary breakdown, but was nevertheless making the point that the jurisdiction whose road-safety law you want to import has, on the whole, more dangerous roads. I might point out, as well, that distinguishing between the British rules of the road and the British driving test as if they're unrelated is absurd: obviously the attitudes inherent in each inform the other; change one and you'll change the other. Anyway, since I'm not the one arguing for a new law, the onus isn't on me to prove my case. You say your law will make the roads safer, so go on: find better stats to prove it.

                        > the current free for all mentality of "let the book-reading-while-walking idiot pedestrian walk out in front of moving traffic whenever he chooses" that Squander Two seems to think is the best course of action for our roads.

                        You mean like when i said

                        > All road users, pedestrians included, have a responsibility to act safely

                        or

                        > anyone who steps out carelessly in front of cars and then gets hit by a driver who can't stop in time should be deemed responsible for putting themselves in a dangerous situation (no argument from me there)

                        ?

                    2. Squander Two
                      WTF?

                      Re: @ Goldmember

                      > The same British mindset that tends to come into play when "interpreting" all rules of the road, regardless of mode of use. Pedestrians, cyclists and drivers all tend to think "this is mine, and bugger everyone else".

                      British driving is far from perfect, but it's a hell of a lot less stressful and the drivers are way more considerate and courteous than in Belgium, Italy, Spain, or the Netherlands. I'd much rather drive through London than Paris or Dublin.

                      > Yes, it sounds silly, but it is what is required of a driver.

                      And why should the same thing be required of pedestrians and drivers? Drivers are moving at high speed, with slow reaction times, long stopping distances, terrible maneouverabilty, limited visibility, insulated from external sound, and (at night) their vehicles have big bright lights on them so they can be seen coming from a long way off. Pedestrians have all-round vision, can hear the traffic, are agile, can stop or change direction in a split second, and are far less visibile than cars. Plus the dangerousness of the two when they meet is decidedly one-sided. Why suppose that exactly the same rules should apply to completely different entities? May as well say that pedestrians are allowed to run along pavements, so why shouldn't drivers?

                      Lorries, horses, tractors, low-loaders, cranes, caravans, mobility scooters, buses, combine harvesters, and motorbikes all use the roads too, and all are governed by different rules. And some of them are quite similar. Whence this obsession with forcing cars and pedestrians to behave in exactly the same way?

    1. Vic

      Re: For this to work in the UK...

      > as if they have a right to walk alongside - and in front of - cars

      Other than in certain prohibited areas (such as motorways), they do indeed have that right. It's all in the Highway Code.

      If you can't deal with that happening, perhaps you'd like to reconsider the agreement you made when you accepted a driving licence...

      Vic.

  1. Nigel Brown

    @AC 10:56 I'm guessing you must have sat seething in traffic while a motorcyclist or two (legally) filtered past you, thus completing their journey in much less time than you.

    I encounter this anti-bike mentality every day, water off a ducks back old bean. Enjoy the jams.

  2. Mark Major
    Joke

    Hitting the road?

    I strongly feel these need further development before they're let loose. Call me a fusspot, finicky, health and safety bore - but, at a minimum, I think they also need to avoid hitting buildings, trees, pedestrians, cyclists, signposts, animals and other vehicles?

  3. Kubla Cant

    Random points

    If the aim is to replicate the intelligence of an average driver using AI, then they'd better hunt down some MS-DOS 8086 kit.

    Interesting that the boffins in question are at Oxford University. The traffic restrictions in central Oxford are such that they've probably never seen a car, although they may have read about them.

    Anyone who has a car with parking sensors will know that they're hopelessly pessimistic. Even if you don't practice nudge-parking, you know that you still have a few inches when the sensor is in a screaming panic. If the automatic cars are similar, there will be a lot more opportunities to shout "Get on with it! You could drive a bloody bus through that gap!"

  4. philipcj

    We already have them

    We have a very efficient method at the moment (well it would be efficient if we had enough of them going to enough places), they are called TRAINS. One professional driver, all the other people mechanically attached to each other. Why won't the manufacturers look at basic common sense rather than marketing purposes? Driverless cars will be BORING for the driver concerned (like being driven by your granddad), and probably run over every pedestrian, child, cyclist and motorcyclist in sight if in fully automatic.

    1. Squander Two
      Devil

      We already had them.

      Going back even further, why did they even bother with trains. We already had a very efficient system in place called HORSES. One professional driver, all the other people able to enjoy the view or get some kip, full automatic obstacle-avoiding intelligence, no need to drill for oil, easily recycled when they stopped working....

      But then these bloody "engineers" come along, with their "progress" and their pathetic desire to invent something new and challenging just because it offers "advantages". Feh.

      1. Charles 9

        Re: We already had them.

        The problem with trains was that they had limited flexibility. It was the track or bust. Cars can shift from side to side, allowing the use of lanes which are impractical in trains with their rails. Also, if need be, cars can go off road.

        As for the horse, I recall that they had minds of their own, really, which meant they weren't always reliable. For example, it may not be wise to drive a horse in a thunderstorm. Among the list of things that were the bane of any horse driver is the entry "Frightened Runaway Horse".

    2. Frank Bough

      Re: We already have them

      Trains are efficient? Wow. Take a look at a train at about 11am and tell me how efficient they are again.

  5. This post has been deleted by its author

  6. Waspy
    Holmes

    "...the cars will...not be fully autonomous, meaning a human can step in if it looks as if the robot driver's going to mow down pedestrians."

    Erm, I think it's the meatbag drivers who are more likely to mow down pedestrians, but you'll have spend a lot of time and money getting people used to the idea that they are no-where near as good at driving as they think they are

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Sorry but you have only got to get a bit of debris in the road and while a driver might react by slowing down then swerving around it the computer will just stop and show some alert.

      Do you really trust it to be able to move into the other lane to avoid the object? while the computer has sensors for seeing what is ahead, I'm pretty sure they won't see 800 feet into the distance.

      Have you ever taken a photo with a digital camera (eg. sunset or moon) and then sun or moon was badly exposed due to poor dynamic range? yes, the human eye is better than any camera for that. How on earth are these cars going to cope with that? what if the camera is dirty or gets damaged?

      What about snow, ice, wet conditions? will your clever computer driven car be able to cross a stream in the road safely? suppose we have floods and it isn't safe to cross how is the computer going to know that?

      Computers flying planes yes, it's easy as there's nothing much to run into in the sky as traffic control monitors the flight path (yes humans monitoring the flights, why not computers eh?).

      1. Charles 9

        You'd be surprised. If the Google cars are any consideration, they'd actually be able to identify the debris on the road (and yes, from a few hundred feet away—only way it wouldn't see it was if it was against a bump, but then YOU couldn't see it, either), size it up, assess traffic to the side in question, and maneuver as needed.

        As for dynamic range, computer sensors don't always have to use the visual light range to see. Radar wouldn't be affected by sunrises/sunsets, making them superior to the human eye.

        Inclement weather? Again, the computer can see beyond visual light and can use ways to compensate for precipitation (differing radar systems) and road cover (thermal imaging). I'm not too knowledgeable about flooded roads, but I think the car would be able to detect a sizable body of water ahead of it and assume it to be unsafe, stopping the car in the normal manner and requiring manual intervention.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Waiting to the inevitable crash, except there won't be one as the human will correct it and nobody will ever get to hear of the huge problems in the system.

    Can you imagine how the system will work? any exception or problem the code can't handle it'll be

    (catch Exception e)

    {

    car.slamTheBrakesOnNow();

    }

  8. Tsung
    Coat

    Don't Worry

    Anyone concerned about driver less cars shouldn't be. By the time they will be introduced we won't have any roads left to drive them on.

  9. Maharg

    “aimed at reducing congestion”

    Can’t quite understand this, I guess I am missing something, apart from less crashes due to human error, how can it matter who’s driving them, wont the number of cars on the road still be the same?

    Also on a side note, does this mean I can use a mobile phone, read the newspaper or fall asleep as the car is doing the driving without losing my driving licence?

    If it comes to being able to have a few pints and the car drive you hone, may I also suggest that they be fitted with breathalysers, ensuring that drunk people can’t switch it off and take over?

    1. Squander Two

      Congestion.

      I imagine the thinking is that AIs can react that much more quickly that they need less stopping distance, which would increase road capacity. A lot of congestion is also caused by people braking more than they need to in particularly heavy traffic (that's why you get those inexplicable traffic jams on motorways, where you reach the front of the jam and there was no obstruction). Course, with humans, it's good for us to brake a bit more than we need to, because we don't actually know how much we need to, because the only signal we've got are binary brakelights. With AIs communicationg with each other, they'd have far more detail regarding exactly how much the car in front is braking and therefore how much they need to. You'd be surprised at how large a difference that could make. And then you'd get efficient traffic management schemes when you plug the cars' network into traffic lights.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Congestion.

        "binary brakelights" - I always wondered why we don't have lights that indicate barking G-Force, slow pulse for light braking rising in rapidity to solid on.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    We have those now

    Many cars on the roadways are operated by braindead dweebs so this is nothing new to have a "driverless car"...

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Minimum no. of occupants legislation?

    Presumably driverless cars will have to be accompanied by legislation stating that they can't be used empty? Otherwise, sooner or later, the cost of parking in London will mean that drivers will drive in and then send the car off to circle the M25 all day, as the cheaper option.

  12. Mr Young
    WTF?

    Wait a minute!

    If we are not driving our cars it's an advert opportunity right?

    Or maybe Google could arrange some AI to do this:-

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4a2cgi0IOY

    Orbit may be worth aiming for after all;

  13. Robert Grant

    I'd just be happy if..

    ...there were some trigger I could hold that would keep the car nudging forward slowly in traffic, so I didn't have to keep working the clutch. Or even just take full control below 10mph and sound a warning once it's hit that and there's nothing in front to say I need to take over. That'd be ace.

  14. This post has been deleted by its author

  15. TReko

    Next headline

    Driverless cars to hit actual British pedestrian by end of year

    1. John H Woods Silver badge

      Re: Next headline

      Driverless cars will, of course cause accidents. But the bar has been set very low by human drivers. AI cars do not need to me very much safer before they are saving hundreds of lives per year.

      I don't care how brilliant you think you are at driving - an automatic warm-body-detected-autobrake would require no actual AI worth speaking of. But it could brake a car from 40 to 20mph in the time that a human would require to see the person, move the foot from the throttle to the brake, and begin to press on it. It would be stopping the car even before a top-gun fighter pilot could have reacted, let alone Joe Average Driver.

      I see this legislation as opening up the way for increasing automation of driving - it doesn't have to go immediately to fully driverless in all circumstances, but we need to be able to start working towards it.

      1. Intractable Potsherd

        Re: Next headline

        "... but we need to be able to start working towards it."

        Need?

        1. John H Woods Silver badge

          Re: Next headline

          "Need?"

          What I said was we need to be able to start working on it. Not that we need to be working on it, just that some of the laws forbidding automatic control of brake and steering need to be relaxed for us to make cars even safer.

  16. PeterM42
    Alert

    Ah, but.......

    ......will they be programmed to miss the potholes in Hertfordshire?

  17. Wize

    Surely there are a lot of situations that it won't handle properly.

    If faced with a queue of cars, how will it know if they are waiting for traffic lights to change round the bend or if it a line of parked cars at the side of the road?

    Temporary restrictions. Some times it is difficult enough for a human to follow these signs with partially hidden signs for diversions. An "Access to Tesco only" in the middle of your route might cause problems if you are driving from one city to another and stopping at your local Tesco on the way home. Some road work signs are even hand scrawled with spray paint.

    Can it tell the difference between a policeman waving a car round an accident and a thug waving your car into a dead end?

    Can it make the right judgement on a partially flooded road?

    And as for idiot that pull out in front of you on the motorway just as you are about to pass them. As a driver of many years I often have a sense about another driver that is going to do something stupid. Not so easy to build that intuition into a car.

    I assume there may be circumstances where it will drop to human control (eg parking in a muddy field for a festival) but since these occasions will be few and far between, the human may have forgotten how to drive the car.

    1. Squander Two

      > If faced with a queue of cars, how will it know if they are waiting for traffic lights to change round the bend or if it a line of parked cars at the side of the road?

      One idea is that the cars will talk to each other.

      > Can it tell the difference between a policeman waving a car round an accident and a thug waving your car into a dead end?

      It's worse than that. Once these cars catch on, the police will ask for and get devices to signal to them, forcing them to pull over. What happens when those devices get faked?

      > since these occasions will be few and far between, the human may have forgotten how to drive the car.

      I think this is by far the biggest problem. We have absolutely no idea how many accidents are currently avoided because drivers get loads of practice, but there's no way it's a small number.

      1. Wize

        >> If faced with a queue of cars, how will it know if they are waiting for traffic lights to change round the bend or if it a line of parked cars at the side of the road?

        >One idea is that the cars will talk to each other.

        That only works if all cars are equipped. What if those stationary cars are not?

  18. JCitizen
    Coffee/keyboard

    Been there - done that..

    In the US - Google cars racked up over 140,000 miles way back in 2010. They've done a lot more since then. I'm hoping they'll take over all the cars in congested areas, and ban cars that don't have the feature in future inner city trafic. The money they'll save from NOT having to build more multi-decker roads to relieve traffic congestion will make the tax payers happy. The extra cost in the vehicle price will be more than worth it. My truck already has computer controlled radar sensed auto parking now. All they need is an added sensor and control module package to complete the retrofit to my GM Hybrid right now - today!

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like