Autonomous Vehicles

All very important on motorways during rush hour...

Wait...!

As already mentioned that acceleration, deceleration and corner speed could still be used on empty minor roads, just not busy motorways. Coincidentally that’s generally the situation now. Go figure...;)

I think thats almost right, lets face it lots of self diagnosed "good" or Very good" drivers test their acceleration and deceleration frequently on motorways, especially when there is traffic control in force where seemingly its life or death to accelerate as hard as possible whenever there is a gap in front. ;) The world could end, someone else may manage to get in the gap.
 
In a straight line without much to go wrong, it's a merit. But anywhere else, I'll stick to "manual" driving thanks.

Ok, glad your starting to see sense ;) I really didn't like the sound of your dangerous driving plan

Realistically the earliest I see any viable progression is 10 years off, minimum, from when the first mainstream cars are launched.
And then its only for main roads that may be worth some infrastructure investment to suit whatever is needed at that point. IE road sensors or whatever

It will take some time for critical mass to form so there will be plenty of time to see parts of the tech becoming main stream and being refined over time.

If RTIs do start to drop significantly I can see the government starting to legislate in favour of AV, but as said there is a vast difference between road train AV type scenarios on main arterial routes and AV on B roads with no road markings, mud all over them, far higher natural hazards (cows, deer etc), so they will only be able to go so far as the tech allows.

Allowing AV to go faster than normal cars would help adoption, and mean its easier to make an AV lane where normal cars aren't allowed, ie the right most lane on motorways ;)
 
All very important on motorways during rush hour...

Wait...!

As already mentioned that acceleration, deceleration and corner speed could still be used on empty minor roads, just not busy motorways. Coincidentally that’s generally the situation now. Go figure...;)

There are other places in the country other than London, you are just clutching at straws now. If you seriously think that car companies are going to create one equal car and everyone else will be happy to buy that you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
 
Hi everyone.

This is my first post on your very informative thread about the world of autonomous vehicles, so I thought I would introduce myself and how I think about things.

Most of my posts on Overclockers have been about mobile phones and accessories and anyone who cares to look at my posts will find I have a positive view of what Google has been able to achieve in software, esp with the Android operating system and more recently with hardware on a number of devices. For example, I have owned both Nexus and Pixel phones and accessories such as Google Home, Chromebooks, Google WiFi and Nest thermostat and CO detector. I believe that their relatively new approach with consumer hardware is important to display their software prowess.

Whether you agree with me or not about Google's successes and failures I look at the way the so called "smart money" sees them. They are the second most valuable company in the world after Apple based on market capitalisation. As far as this thread is concerned, Google through its Waymo unit have been testing autonomous vehicles since 2009 and arguably are leaders in this space. So with that intro, I hope you might appreciate both my views and opinions as a tech generalist (I am a businessman, not a technologist and not employed in technology). I have read a number of the posts and in principle, find the comments by adam the cool dude and Mercenary Keyboard Warrior and others to be more in line with my thinking. I see a logical extension of my mobile phone posting to this thread as in many ways (tongue in cheek), I see autonomous vehicles as mobile phones on wheels.

So I look at the issue of autonomous vehicles from a generalist's point of view. I ask myself first, what are the problems with the current approach: so called "auto 1.0". I believe there are four problems: 1. Underutilised. Your car is one of the most under-utilsed, polluting, time-consuming and dangerous machines on Planet Earth. According to studies I have read, your car is in operation on average for approximately 1 hour per day. 2. Polluting. The world's light vehicles travel in total 10 trillion miles per year with an average fuel economy of 20 miles per gallon, consuming 0.5 trillion gallons of petrochemical in the internal combustion engine. Light vehicles account for approx 45% of global oil demand, or approx 70 gallons of refined product consumed per person on earth annually. 3. Time consuming. Cars travel at an average speed of 25 mph implying 400 billion hours of time (calculated as 10 trillion miles divided by 25 mph) drivers spend operating the vehicle and doing little else. You can also add the 200 billion hours passengers spend in their unconnected car. Hence an businessman could compute that the value of this precious time could be worth many trillions of dollars/pounds/euros. 4. Dangerous. According to the World Health Organisation, approx 1.3 million people die every year in traffic related accidents or approx 3,500 per day. This figure omits the significantly greater number of serious and/or incapacitating injuries suffered by vehicle occupants and pedestrians, representing one of the greatest health hazards we have today.

As a businessman who uses technology extensively, I believe that each of the four problems I mentioned can be addressed through technology which exists today and at a relatively low cost. The businessman in me sees the global auto market (one of the world's largest industries) in economic terms and from the perspective of all the inputs that are required to deliver 10 trillion miles travelled every year (1 billion cars travelling 10,000 miles per car). The global addressable market for mobility represents a huge business opportunity as measured by the contribution this industry makes to the world's GDP.

So from my 10,000 foot view looking down on the real world I think:

1. Sharing expensive assets (the car you purchase is often the second most expensive asset you buy) increases their utilisation. Adding automation further increases its utilisation, replacing the human with a system that can work harder, more consistently, predictably, reliably and safely. I see the cost of automotive transport in this new world decreasing significantly over the next decade.
2. The leading players in automotive today, the manufacturers will need to adapt: develop new skills in consumer electronics, software and data analytics or become severely marginalised in what will become a utility business as the business model shifts the value from the hardware to the software to deliver the mobility, the content consumed during the journey and the data produced from the experience of the passengers and from the journey itself.
3. New players will emerge adding competition. Perhaps some new players can offer the transportation at cost or at a loss for the opportunity to monetise the content/data. Great news for consumers.
4. Public-private partnerships seem likely to develop at a local level. Severe traffic and environmental tipping points make this more urgent in some local places---China, India come to mind.

Some regions of the world seem more likely to move more quickly to shared mobility and autonomous driving than others. For example, Europe and the UK have more advanced public transport models than other regions such as the US, Canada, China, India, etc. Strong barriers to change still exist in many forms. Car ownership is still viewed as a status symbol in many regions making for social resistance to change. Public policy is stronger in some regions than others. Lobbying power of the incumbents (auto workers, car dealers, etc) tends to slow down change. An interesting demographic: aging populations set up an interesting dynamic for autonomous vehicles. Many other examples can be cited.

How close are we to achieving fully autonomous shared mobility? Probably years away but closer than many think. Two interesting Google/Waymo announcements I have noticed recently:

1. Waymo has begun testing their fully self driving vehicles on public roads in Arizona without a driver in the front seat.

https://medium.com/waymo/with-waymo...-transform-the-way-we-get-around-75e9622e829a

2. Google's Sidewalk Labs and the city of Toronto recently announced plans for Sidewalk Labs to help create an internet city on the Eastern Waterfront of Toronto, which would include self driving vehicles.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/17/16488942/alphabet-sidewalk-labs-toronto-quayside

Bottom line: change is coming.

Hope this post helps stimulate further discussion.
 
Interesting views
One of the biggest issues that causes people to prefer cars over other transport IMHO is that is "their space", they aren't sat next to someone who could be, smelly, obnoxious, dangerous, ill etc etc
This will I am convinced always lead to a demand for personal travelling space, you can also then decide on your balance between luxury/performance and cost. Maybe performance will die off, its certainly far easier to limit in the future with a big tech change coming. Imagine when you fully transition from driver to passenger, you literally could have beer fridge in your "pod", out of the office into your pod, crack a cold one open for the journey home ;)

I am utterly convinced change is coming, the disruptor companies eg Tesla, and in future probably Dyson for example actually have an advantage. They start with a clean sheet. we have hybrids at work from Merc, BMW and Toyota. All struggle today to get away from trying to build a 3 box car with one chunk dedicated to the power source. This limits them and places a brake on what they can achieve. BMW being the only one really to have started with a clean sheet (the i's) but at the end of the day they aren't really their mainstream offerings. They will change I have no doubt, but for me if they leave that too late they will have let in some permanent competitors, if they react quickly they stand more chance of keeping their dominant market positions. See also comments about trucks and volvo etc, exactly the same, if you allow competing tech to do too well when its clearly the way forward you lose your dominance.

A very high proportion of the travelling comes in areas well suited to AV, either cities/large towns or major arteries. Slightly different key points to address, high speed/low speed, lots of obstacles/few obstacles etc etc

But there remains then maybe 10-20% of miles travelled that are far more tricky as they bring the bad points from all environments into the mix. Going more and more automated is possible, but the big gains I see coming for full blown AV and thats far harder to see. Eg I drive on high speed fairly narrow, unlit roads, with oncoming traffic that at night makes it very difficult to see a decent distance ahead, natural hazards (deer and phesants mainly), then some man made hazards, narrow (single file) bridges and mud etc from farmers. So its hard to get to fully automated vehicles when plenty of people need the ability to drive in far more challenging scenarios.
The worst part of my journey is interesting. Its just coming out of a village, up hill. There is a high volume of farm traffic that uses this part of the road, for about 3/4 a mile until they turn off. They bring significant mud onto the road at that point, and at night after a period of dry but previously wet weather the road is coated in a fairly significant layer of mud. Other than the contour of the road vs the bank there is no discernable difference to the surface. In the day with full spectrum light its more obvious, I wonder how AV will manage this, I am sure it will be solved, but its not going to be a priority and in order to fully transition we need everything, not 98%.
 
We won't ever get 100% AV because theres places where it just won't work. Like private roads/off-road and places that aren't mapped on GPS very well, or those that don't conform to the standard road setup. Also bad weather conditions.
 
We won't ever get 100% AV because theres places where it just won't work. Like private roads/off-road and places that aren't mapped on GPS very well. It would suck if you pulled up to your long driveway and it refused to go down it :p

More likely in those situations you would override the Av to some sort of manual off road setting, or they don't have to function purely off map, for example if you have a private drive you could probably use the cars sensors to map your drive to a resolution that would be completely adequate to be able to drive up and down it each day. It may take say 15 minutes the day you drive the car home for the first time, scan 30 feet, drive 30 feet, scan 30 feet etc save map to your car.
You pull into a new place, say a new theme park, its not in your maps, you scan a 3d barcode, or say to car "download uberpark map", 15 seconds later whilst your still paying at the kiosk your update is complete and the car now knows how to navigate that private land.

There will have to be quite an update process available, just think what its like when you use an out of date satnav. My other halfs BMW (2016 plate) for example keeps telling her to get back on the highway at a roundabout that had significant changes near MK since her version was installed.
IMO it will have to be legislated that updates should be free to apply, or if chargeable a free version can be used from elsewhere. Car cos go beyond taking the **** for a map update now which is why the vast majority of sat navs inbuilt are out of date.
 
That would be an absolute ballache of a system to maintain.

Why?

Private drive how often would you need to do that, thats even assuming there isnt enough processing power to do it "live" anyway, which in reality there probably would be.
Private land, few secs to get a map.

I guess because I worked partly in software dev, project delivery etc all my life (in in finance but working in areas where I do dev work etc) pretty much I don't see the hurdles in things like this.

Must be a horrible place when all you can see is negative, if everyone was like that we would still be in caves. "Oooo a mud hut, no way a hurricane may come along and destroy it, much safer in my cave" "2 storey buildings, no way. much safer at ground level" "more than 1 gear, no way, that will never catch on far too complicated, stick with one gear for your horseless carriage" ;)
 
lol 100% av is coming, you dont need everything mapped, they have enough sensors on them. Same with wetaher conditions, constructions, unusal roads. Tesla computer learnign is specifically capturing that data and learning at the moment. Several people have analysed what teh car is sending back to tesla, and in the last few months its been capturing photos/videos and labelling them construction/confusing lane etc.

I think people will be surprised by how quick people get used to new technology, you just have to look at studies done on cars like Tesla, people go from unsure, to trying to turn autopilot back on when the car is saying it cant do it, in days.

I also think people will be surprised how fast and how many people will gladly give up owning a car and all the ball ache that comes with it(obviously not everyone, but that's not the point).
I would happily give up car ownership for a self-driving uber experience as long as its cost effective. Seeing as cars spend what 95% of the time not moving, then I cant see how it wouldn't be cost-effective.
 
Last edited:
This thread clearly shows the difference between people who think the status quo is maintainable long into the future (which it isnt), and those that can see that change is necessary and not beyond the wit of man. :)
 
This thread clearly shows the difference between people who think the status quo is maintainable long into the future (which it isnt), and those that can see that change is necessary and not beyond the wit of man. :)

TBH my real opinion is that people do get it, but its not what they want so they look for excuses why something won't work in the hope that it won't happen after all
In minor decisions in their private little bubble that approach works, but for big things in the real world everyone else moves on, and they end up having to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.

Comments like "it wont work" with no reasoning, "communist state" because their preferred choice may be taken away are give away signs.
 
I see at lot optermists in hope. Too many how often will you need to do that? and that rarely happens to me! situations. That's all before we start to look at the cost to build the infrastructures and time frames to deliver and support the idea. Not to mention rank a national driverless car project on the nations list of importance.
 
Why is it not maintainable?

Do you even have to ask?!

You're happy with your drive times?
You're happy with the number of people killed on the roads each year?
You're happy with the number of people injured on the roads each year?
You're happy with being delayed for hours on end on the motorway due to accidents caused by human error?
You're happy with the cost of motoring?
You're happy with the pollution caused by vehicles?
You're happy that older or disabled people do not have independent mobility?
You're happy with drunk drivers on the road?

Just a few examples.

And dont forget - the majority of the above will get much worse in the in future unless we do something about it.
 
It won't solve all the safety issues, just replace them with new ones.

It certainly won't make it any cheaper, they will make sure of that. In fact it might get more expensive. Look how people who have no choice but to use trains get shafted every year, there's no alternative to many so they can charge what they like.
 
Do you even have to ask?!

You're happy with your drive times?
You're happy with the number of people killed on the roads each year?
You're happy with the number of people injured on the roads each year?
You're happy with being delayed for hours on end on the motorway due to accidents caused by human error?
You're happy with the cost of motoring?
You're happy with the pollution caused by vehicles?
You're happy that older or disabled people do not have independent mobility?
You're happy with drunk drivers on the road?

Just a few examples.

And dont forget - the majority of the above will get much worse in the in future unless we do something about it.

This has been the same for the past 100 years. Why is it such a problem now? All those things have gotten better over time so again why is it not sustainable if we can sustain it now and everything is getting better?

Cost of motoring is not going to get any cheaper with Autonomous cars either. Government will not allow it to happen. My current cost of motoring is more taxation than anything else. Infact my VED is more expensive than insurance now.

Pollution doesn't even have anything too do with autonomous cars either!
 
Why is it not maintainable?

Thats an interesting question.
I think in theory we could aim to carry on as we are now if we wanted to, but at the impact of development beyond a certain point.

One of the issues is productivity. Its a current buzz topic as ours continues to stay static, give or take. Most productivity is gained by doing things better, so for example automating a process.
Private driving would see little gain, but for example take car transportation. My new car is winding its way across europe as we speak, one driver with a truck full of cars. The car transporter changed over time to get more productivity out of the driver, by working out ways to get more cars on the vehicle, thats pretty much done now, not really any option to improve. But lets go 20 years into the future, lets say road trains are at an early stage, so a driver drives 1 arctic and its followed by one other, thats got no driver. You just doubled his productivity.
 
Back
Top Bottom