At this point, I think so. My point is, to your comment about them as likely as hover boards, it's not really comparable as hover boards have never really had any scientific basis that they will be possible. Automated driving is almost inevitable as in some manner it's already here, now it just needs to get better.
Bank Holiday Horror
- Thread starter Sliver
- Start date
Being a bit vindictive but I really hope they do get the book thrown at them, while I can sympathise a bit with the sheer amount of stupidity they have to put up with around them I've had or seen way too many incidents lately with lorry drivers who have recklessly tried to make a point and significantly endangered other road users when someone has got into a bad spot usually by no fault of their own.
Aaah this old chestnut.. Saved out statement for when someone "unleashes" it again..
Re: Automation
Of course it will eventually happen which is just as assured the death of the Internal Combustion Engine. It's going to happen !
I'm 100% sure Scania420 will agree that the amount of false readings we currently get from "Lane Depart" reading the old marks from the "Lick & Stick" temporary road studs is mind boggling. The false readings for the anti-collision brakes are borderline dangerous.
They see a bend as a parked vehicle and automatically slam the brakes full on !!
They will iron out these issues but it's going to take a fair amount of time.
RIP to those "lost"
I hate the M1 and avoid it wherever possible - It's Jinxed for me !
One slight issue I have with that is that perspective is very deeply entrenched in what railways have become and there is more than one approach to future evolution of them for instance running more smaller and more efficient trains, more frequently, using a higher level of automated routing, etc. etc. which would also open up more potential for overhead transit ways, etc. that wouldn't be possible with current heavy stock. (Just as an example that there are more ways to look at it than direct evolution of the current setup rather than advocating any one approach).
EDIT: As another alternative in many cases it would be possible to "simply" overhead monorail the hard shoulder lane on vast amounts of the motorways for moving goods between cities heh.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 1,107
- Location
- Scotland
Should have use train from Nottingham to London then use Eurostar instead of far too early bus travel.. but it still danger using motorway in the early morning like fall asleep etc that cause accident. I've seen m5 that really bad with numbers of speeding during fog and heavy raining that end up 2 bad accident further up later when I left Plymouth ferries on way home to Scotland
I would imagine in the early stages, definitely. I would expect it to progress to them not being needed. That could be beyond our life time. I want to be clear, I'm not against truck drivers, I'm not saying I want this tech, it just seems a lot of people in here aren't aware how advanced it already is and I'm trying to help with that
I think the things you mention are already ironed out. In the US they have driven state to state already, the driver just getting them in and out of town.
@Outcast - regarding:
Actually from what I believe the planning for motorways was due to both the boom in requirements for moving goods domestically and the projected boom in traffic due to the steep increase in car ownership which also envisioned people commuting more with the uptake of privately owned cars - at one point in the 50s or 60s car ownership quadrupled over a fairly short space of time. The twist is that originally there was plans for urban trunk roads and ringways and similarly other high-speed complimentary routes between cities, etc. that were supposed to supplement the motorways to reduce the interaction between private and commercial traffic by having more cars on these additional routes but that didn't go ahead due to opposition - ironically from many of the same people who complain about sharing the motorway with commercial traffic.
Actually from what I believe the planning for motorways was due to both the boom in requirements for moving goods domestically and the projected boom in traffic due to the steep increase in car ownership which also envisioned people commuting more with the uptake of privately owned cars - at one point in the 50s or 60s car ownership quadrupled over a fairly short space of time. The twist is that originally there was plans for urban trunk roads and ringways and similarly other high-speed complimentary routes between cities, etc. that were supposed to supplement the motorways to reduce the interaction between private and commercial traffic by having more cars on these additional routes but that didn't go ahead due to opposition - ironically from many of the same people who complain about sharing the motorway with commercial traffic.
Yes, but the number of miles driven by them compared to the number of miles humans drive its nearly insignificant. Also do we have data for the number of times a human has had to intervene, during these test drives?
Right here in this quote. You used the word "and".
The oxford dictionary defines the word and as
One example they use is
By using the word "and"; you connected the two clauses together. This implied that both of them are linked. Therefore I am neither trolling nor am i making stuff up.
source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/and
P.S. Yes I can read simple english.
I am advocating the position that automation can not handle all situations, or will chose sub-optimal options according to human reasoning. See below
As someone has already pointed out, flying is significantly simpler to automate due to fewer variables. However consider this; travel companies run on thin margins, and there is a race to the bottom in terms of pricing (Recommend watching his videos on planes: https://www.youtube.com/user/Wendoverproductions/videos).
So these companies are looking for ways to cut costs and save money to offer cheaper tickets (or pocket more money). In the case why do they have two pilots if autopilot is so great? They currently have two pilots and from what I remember reading they also eat different meals incase of food poisoning. If autopilot is so great, surely one is enough?
Your comment is a lot better focused than my "end comment" - Do you mind if I amend it with your comment for my "Pre-Prepared statement" ?
If you want to - my post is a bit sprawling and unfocused I just happened to read up on some of it due to another thread on here recently - but it is my understanding that it is more complex than simply the motorways being designed primary due to evolving requirements for moving freight.
Yes, the figures are based on accidents per mile... so it's a little irrelevant how many miles either type has done. But, I can see from your response thinking the word AND meant that every RTA ends in a fatality (wow, really? The use of and means one will happen and the other will happen. They both will. I agree you perhaps struggle with simple English) means I will not want to read your response, so on the ignore list you go.
They are linked. Both linked to his use of the word reduced. Wow. I would agree you are trolling or struggle with English, hence the ignore.
Silver, it seems that I didn't explain myself well enough judging by the other post quoted (or maybe he just wanted to throw a backhand comment before adding me to his ignore list); So allow me to explain myself better.
The way you have worded your has caused me to interpret that the statement "save lives" is directly linked to "reduce the number of RTAs". Hence i assumed you meant that the reduction in RTA would reduce the number of road deaths. The reason I read it this way is because if you remove the part about RTAs your sentence doesn't make grammatical sense.
Example
Because of this I didn't interpret "reduce" to be linked to "save lives".
IMO the correct way to have worded your sentence would have been
In doing so you get a sentence that makes grammatical sense without the RTA part and also links "reduce" to "lives lost".
I hope that I have explained myself enough for you to understand why i interpreted your sentence the way i did.
Andy, thank you for informing me about adding me to your ignore list. This way i know that in future it is pointless responding to you.
P.S. Your still wrong. Not all miles are equal. Also when comparing accidents per mile if one side has done significantly more miles than the other it is a poor comparison.
Always makes me chuckle.