Autonomous Cars

[Andres125sx]

Basically what I mean is even today computers can do thing no human can do

https://media.giphy.com/media/bzBghyQAuCUNi/giphy.gif
https://i.gifer.com/7Yx5.gif

Nah, destroying humans is something humans do pretty well

[zac510]

I never knew that the autonomous car had such power to emasculate someone.

[Big Tea]

I never knew that the autonomous car had such power to emasculate someone.

Just wait until cars have their own personality. Can not recall the A>C. Clark stories, but they had laws for non human intelligence. May sound cookey now, but read his 1950's books and look around. So much of it has happened.

[Just_a_fan]

Asimov's Three Laws might be a good start.

[strad]

Greg

You were driving at a speed that would not allow you to stop within your limits of vision.

That is totally wrong. I was driving at a normal speed. The same speed as other traffic around me. There was NOTHING wrong with my speed.
I don't drive in constant fear of what might happen. As far as vision it is a gentle curve that could be taken easily at 80mph instead of the posted 50mph I was doing.
If you drove like you suggest you would be the target of road rage and be causing the roads to be even more congested.
The only person that did anything wrong was the guy that ran the stop then panicked and stopped in the middle of the road.
If he had just continued it might have been close both from directions but not a near fatal situation.
Some years ago California did a study that found that if people would use their throttle more in those types of situations instead of stopping there would be fewer accidents.
If he had punched it everything could have been averted.

[Andres125sx]

Greg

You were driving at a speed that would not allow you to stop within your limits of vision.

That is totally wrong. I was driving at a normal speed. The same speed as other traffic around me. There was NOTHING wrong with my speed.

Strad, you know this is false, right? The adecuate speed is not the speed of other traffic around you, it´s the speed wich allow you to stop within your vision limits. This is not debatable, it is probably one of the most basic rules. I didn´t say anything before to avoid an absurd discussion wich was not the point of the thread, but the car in front of you made an emergency stop and you had to dodge him becasue you were not able to stop the car in time. Your fault.

Your great ability to dodge the accident does not change this fact.

[Greg Locock]

Here's the verbatim for the Advanced Driver's test in the UK:

"The driver ensures that the vehicle is always in the right place on the road, travelling at the right speed, in the right gear for the speed, and they can always stop the vehicle safely in the distance that can be seen to be clear."

It doesn't say

"The driver drives at the same speed as the clueless morons around him and relies on his car handling skillz to evade unexpected barriers to progress."

[henry]

Here's the verbatim for the Advanced Driver's test in the UK:

"The driver ensures that the vehicle is always in the right place on the road, travelling at the right speed, in the right gear for the speed, and they can always stop the vehicle safely in the distance that can be seen to be clear."

It doesn't say

"The driver drives at the same speed as the clueless morons around him and relies on his car handling skillz to evade unexpected barriers to progress."

A worthy goal, and one I try to get close to, but it’s not realistic.

To achieve this you would need to slow for every obscured side road to a pace where you could see into it, you would need to make the assumption that every time you approached a green light someone is going to jump the red. It is possible to minimise the risks but it is, IMO, not possible to eliminate them.

Edit: I’m wrong about this in so much as in the case we are discussing the road was clear and then became occupied unexpectedly. The Advanced Driver mantra doesn’t say anything about that. It should say something like “a goal of advanced driving is to minimise the instances of unexpectedness”.

[Tommy Cookers]

the rules for ship drivers require the vessel with the right of way to maintain its way
the other vessel is legally entitled to this otherwise its action to give way may fail

the road rules are (or were) based on those rules
but now are muddled by political correctness, philosophy, and psychology
people disobey rules that exist and obey rules that don't exist
that's why I suggested pages ago that an AV system will need someone to write/encode some rules ie laws

so the decades of overlapping AV and pre-AVs will create difficulties
like flying's intrusion of (design-faulty) TCAS into the ongoing domain of ATC - but a million times worse

btw fighter-type aircraft now have software taking over the flying in battle if it decides such recovery is necessary
but this sort of thing is not allowed in F1

[Big Tea]

Here's the verbatim for the Advanced Driver's test in the UK:

"The driver ensures that the vehicle is always in the right place on the road, travelling at the right speed, in the right gear for the speed, and they can always stop the vehicle safely in the distance that can be seen to be clear."

It doesn't say

"The driver drives at the same speed as the clueless morons around him and relies on his car handling skillz to evade unexpected barriers to progress."

A worthy goal, and one I try to get close to, but it’s not realistic.

To achieve this you would need to slow for every obscured side road to a pace where you could see into it, you would need to make the assumption that every time you approached a green light someone is going to jump the red. It is possible to minimise the risks but it is, IMO, not possible to eliminate them.

Edit: I’m wrong about this in so much as in the case we are discussing the road was clear and then became occupied unexpectedly. The Advanced Driver mantra doesn’t say anything about that. It should say something like “a goal of advanced driving is to minimise the instances of unexpectedness”.

What I find tends to happen if you do drive this way is some moron zooms past into 'your' gap and you end up having to slow to avoid rear-ending them when they slap the anchors on to avoid hitting the car infront.

Especially traveling on Motorways, I can never have a gap as big as i would prefer as it is seen as an overtaking opportunity and I am constantly on the peddle.

[Tommy Cookers]

What I find tends to happen if you do drive this way is some moron zooms past into 'your' gap and you end up having to slow to avoid rear-ending them when they slap the anchors on to avoid hitting the car infront.
Especially traveling on Motorways, I can never have a gap as big as i would prefer as it is seen as an overtaking opportunity and I am constantly on the peddle.

a UK 'anti-tailgating' law/campaign was introduced about 15 years ago and immediately dropped
because the cameras showed the apparent culpability of the victims (Big Tea) not the perpetrators

but now another hysterical 'anti-tailgating' campaign has just been started
in this country where more people die from suntanning than from RTAs

[Big Tea]

What I find tends to happen if you do drive this way is some moron zooms past into 'your' gap and you end up having to slow to avoid rear-ending them when they slap the anchors on to avoid hitting the car infront.
Especially traveling on Motorways, I can never have a gap as big as i would prefer as it is seen as an overtaking opportunity and I am constantly on the peddle.

a UK 'anti-tailgating' law/campaign was introduced about 15 years ago and immediately dropped
because the cameras showed the apparent culpability of the victims (Big Tea) not the perpetrators

but now another hysterical 'anti-tailgating' campaign has just been started
in this country where more people die from suntanning than from RTAs

I don't see many sunbathers on the roads here.


( )

[strad]

Your assumptions and ego are beyond belief. You know absolutely nothing about the situation or road or the conditions but jump to these conclusions. Extremely conceited and quite arrogant.

[hollus]

Let's keep it civil, everyone. Please and thank you.

[Greg Locock]

"What I find tends to happen if you do drive this way is some moron zooms past into 'your' gap and you end up having to slow to avoid rear-ending them when they slap the anchors on to avoid hitting the car in front."

Yes they do jump in. I have been on a couple of defensive driving/ skills courses and they admit that that is a problem with leaving the sort of gap the laws of physics require. 2 second gap is still recommended in Australia. I leave a 3 second gap if I don't like the conditions, or if I'm towing a decent trailer, or if the guy in front looks squiffy. Yes, it reduces my cruising speed on a busy freeway by a few kph.

In the UK they have chevrons on the road in some places. The recommendation is that you can see a couple of chevrons between you and the vehicle in front. I like the idea but of course that is a fixed distance, and the required braking distance varies with speed. I'm not wildly happy with the 2 second gap either but there's no point in making it too complicated.

I'm sorry if you're annoyed strad, but I've been on too many drives with journos or executives who think they can drive so well that they can ignore proper driving techniques. The joke at Lotus was when they borrowed a Sunbeam Lotus for a test drive as they left the gatehouse you'd hear first gear, second gear, third gear, ditch.