Unlike
driver-less trains, motor transport doesn’t travel between just two fixed
points on tracks, but by infinitely variable journeys, with opposing
traffic or slower and stationary traffic on the track and a track shared
by people and animals too.
Of course it is possible, with sensors, to
provide a certain degree of mechanical reaction to other bodies so that in
test areas very impressive and ‘exciting’ results can be achieved. However
we are deceiving ourselves if we believe that any sensor can see detail a
mile ahead and to either side, or the child at the corner of a building.
To be able to see approaching vehicles across a couple of fields and begin
to react is a long way off if at all possible.
If we are talking about ‘the future’, before we entertain any development like this, we must first identify who or what we don’t need on our roads. We should already be doing this for current road safety but it will be absolutely essential for automated systems for efficiency, safety, and economics. There would be no sense programming automated systems to run at speeds based on unnecessary built in hazards such as cyclists and horse riders.
There
are already contradictions in what a safe passing distance is and the
Highway Code advice is clearly wrong and flawed. See how I have addressed
the issue at: http://bit.ly/1f9RWmm whilst the cyclists themselves want
drivers to drive with tape measures it seems. So how is an automated system to be
programmed in all aspects and by whom? Their driving expertise will be
what? Surely we will not be doing this with the usual rag bag of vested interest amateurs or anti driver anti capitalist greens posing as road safety charities are we?
But
again we are supposed to be considering the future. There are now just two
types of road user that society must have to sustain: Walkers and drivers.
Isn’t it long overdue that all current policy must be based around that
and that, moving forward, an automated system will not be hampered with
old policy as today’s drivers are? Well read this piece here. Pedestrians & cyclists to be kings of the road.
With a population mass of 60 million and 33 million drivers based on road
transport, how on earth can such a conversion be achieved safely at the same
time? How can all these individual journeys, some last minute change of mind
journeys within a journey, be programmed? Can we be sure that automated
road transport is not just for the domain of the small Gotham like populations of the
fanciful comic books when we would need a mass cull with populations moved back
to central areas and zones for it to be viable at all?
Trends
in vehicle ownership were established in the 50s when populations were
encouraged to live further from their work and their families by
successive governments and that is irreversible. Even retail business is
now based on bulk buying with massive out of town retail areas and car
parks. The ability to buy collect and transport large or bulk items is
central. DIY where so much that used to be done by tradesmen is now done
by anyone and the ability to carry loads is very much a part of it. How do we reverse all that?
So before driver-less cars become a
mass market I would suggest a mass cull and centralising the remaining
population, Gotham City style, would have happened before they can be adopted world wide on a mass basis. How are we
to impose them ‘universally’ on third world economies and countries?
In view of that, it's about time the population and the media started to ask serious questions about driver-less motor transport before, just like wind turbines, the greens saddle us with another anti people economic disaster from which, at the same time, someone else makes a lot of money.
The same unholy alliance of capitalists feeding anti capitalist spokesmen and charities of the anthropogenic climate change movement is also established in the anti people, anti driver, road safety movement too. Yes of course they are excited about controlling us all with driver-less cars. We mustn't just tamely let this happen. Our lives depend on it. .See Proles can Walk & cycle instead.
The Google car has done over 700k miles in self-drive mode without a causing a crash. You are right the lives of walkers and cyclists are very much in the hands of the driver. I prefer the reactions of a machine to those of a distracted driver.
ReplyDeleteFor those people that enjoy driving and can demonstrate a good standard of driving within the rules of the highway code then a self-drive car is probably not their thing. For others, it will be a personal choice or something that will be forced upon them.
If you fancy reading a book, going out and getting drunk, or maybe just even sleeping, then self-drive might be for you. What will be more interesting is people owning these cars, driving to work, then sending them out for the day to work as taxis.
There are already estimates that indicate once self drive cars arrive, personal sales of cars will drop to 10% of their current level. The need to own a car, when you can call one up through your phone as and when you need one is going to be a massive change. Even the idea of finding somebody locally going to the same destination and sharing the lift will become a reality.
You will have a lot of electric powered personal public transport vehicles and it will make a huge change to the world we live in.
In a similar way when Apple introduced the iPhone and the world of phones changed forever, the self-drive car will bring a massive change to the car industry. You can keep using your Nokia 3210, but I'm going to use the iPhone.
Oh yes I do acknowledge that we can easily develop and demo vehicles that can do impressive tricks. After all most of our passenger plane can fly themselves and take off and land too. We also have driverless trains too. But both have one thing in common. They are in dedicated lanes and space and are not literally sharing space with opposing traffic and also people and animals. Planes and trains depend on optimum speed. So too does road transport. We are impeding road transport far too much already by allowing 'sharing' with users that society doesn't need, too low and inappropriate limits, and because of anti driver ideology. All that must be written out of automatic programming. Why not? Why shouldn't we all drive like class 1 police advanced drivers do? Why programme driverless cars for lower less efficient standards? Should we base them on the ladies of BRAKE or Rod King of 20's Plenty? Not to pass a group of cyclists at all?
ReplyDeleteWhat we mustn't do is just listen to the promoters of these things but lift ourselves out of their village. I do the same about Road Safety Industry propaganda too. Why just hear the views of the vested interests?