If AI can help issue automated fines to drivers I'm sure it will be a big hit in the UK. Cant wait for AI police cars. Will be amazballz.
Autonomous Vehicles
- Thread starter adam cool dude
- Start date
If AI can help issue automated fines to drivers I'm sure it will be a big hit in the UK. Cant wait for AI police cars. Will be amazballz.
Soldato
Too true, the issue isn't anything to do with Av, the issue is a failure to adapt our infrastructure to cater for things changing, such as car ownership.
The biggest difference is that with AV its completely possible to envision having mini carparks available short distances from peoples homes. You could dial your car, and as its an AV it drives itself round to you house in a few minutes.
There is no way your doing that any time soon with a driver vehicle. Solves the problem but with almost no impact on the driver.
We could build mini residents carparks now, people would complain and not use them. People are inherently lazy, my old house had all the parking behind the houses or in specific spots off the road out the front, the lazy ******* would park on the pavement outside their front doors, because parking 15 seconds away was too much to walk.
Its an option if they choose to enforce the law
TBH you should be able to drive a car without automation. I'd be careful about that righteousness level
Soldato
TBH you should be able to drive a car without automation. I'd be careful about that righteousness level
I'm struggling with the relevance here
You can drive a car without automation
You can choose to follow the laws of the road, or to break them. Breaking them tends to come with penalties if you are caught, depending on the seriousness.
Parking on pavements to some people is a no risk low impact crime, or not even considered a crime. But the law is quite clear, its just not really enforced.
Vehicles are only supposed to be on the pavement when crossing it, and at points where there is a dropped curb, they should also not block the pavement.
There is no entitlement to park on pavements, fully or partially. Everyone does it is not a defence in law
What i was initially getting at is all the things we all do that technically are illegal or SHOULD not be done, be interesting to see how the AV adapts. Flashing people out for instance, what will the car make of that, will it know what it means and pull out or sit there waiting for right of way.
A major one for me every morning is a roundabout i come to, to the right is a very busy road, to the left a road no one uses, straight across the slip way to the m60.
Now i have to push my way out to get out at all otherwise your sat there until either someone lets you out (by flashing, so the AV car might miss that) or the end of rush hour.
How on earth things are going to work when there is a mix of AV and standard cars i just cant fathom.
It just a 1-10 rating for how likely the AI is the put you in hospital.
It's all about common sense. You bought a house in a Victorian street that was planed and built to be serviced by horse and cart there times a week and know has to park 1.5 cars per household.
The levels basically define different extents of automation.
In really crude terms:
- Level 3 cars can drive on motorways and major roads. They can tackle simple manoeuvres like overtaking. They may still need to hand control over to a driver in unusual circumstances.
- Level 4 cars can handle more complex driving environments, like town centres. They still need occasional driver intervention.
- Level 5 cars are capable of full autonomy in all circumstances. A driver is no longer needed.
I'm struggling with the relevance here
You can drive a car without automation
You can choose to follow the laws of the road, or to break them. Breaking them tends to come with penalties if you are caught, depending on the seriousness.
Parking on pavements to some people is a no risk low impact crime, or not even considered a crime. But the law is quite clear, its just not really enforced.
Vehicles are only supposed to be on the pavement when crossing it, and at points where there is a dropped curb, they should also not block the pavement.
There is no entitlement to park on pavements, fully or partially. Everyone does it is not a defence in law
#227
You can't park and seem to have poor eyesight. You also seem to struggle with lanes and signs.
Again, this kind of situation is something cities will have to change. Sounds like somewhere that needs traffic signalling if cars are currently relying on goodwill gestures to ever leave a junction.
Soldato
Stop posting rubbish, post 227 doesn't say that at all.
Do find it funny you would post this when you think its ok to drive through a red light.
Maybe you should try reading the highway code
Soldato
Its only elsewhere of the signs permit it, not if its excluded.
Rule 244
You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it.
Stop posting rubbish, post 227 doesn't say that at all.
Do find it funny you would post this when you think its ok to drive through a red light.
Maybe you should try reading the highway code
Didn't say it was OK to drive through a red light
I might do to avoid a runaway AI wagon though.
Soldato
Flashing is the worst thing we do, literally doing the opposite to the highway code!
The Highway Code states: 110 - Flashing headlights. Only flash your headlights to let other road users know that you are there. Do not flash your headlights to convey any other message or intimidate other road users.
Don
Working for a haulage company and having seen some of the results of our "highly skilled HGV drivers", then I have to say I can't wait for some progress to be made with autonomous trucks.
Even automating supposedly "simple" procedures such as backing up onto a bay has the potential to save huge sums of money across the industry in reduced accidents and claims.
Even automating supposedly "simple" procedures such as backing up onto a bay has the potential to save huge sums of money across the industry in reduced accidents and claims.
Associate
I don't live anywhere near London.
Not does should not mean the same thing as must not.
It's up to individual Councils to enforce the rules and most (sadly for people in wheelchairs or with pushchairs/prams) don't bother. As motorists we need to get over the idea that we have a divine right to park a car outside our house, even when wildly inappropriate to do so.
Soldato
Huh?
So "should not" means go ahead ignore anything written afterwards? No it means not recommended, why they dont replace some of the old terminology with how its deemed to be viewed is beyond me.
To me its clear you must not in London, no exceptions, unless there are signs telling you its ok (blue car on the pavement). You should not do so elsewhere either, but there can be exceptions. Its badly written thats for sure, its a very old debate.
Some places are getting the exemption like London so its without any doubt illegal.
The one thing thats not unclear is that it is illegal to drive on the pavement, so its rather difficult to park on it without driving on it. You could get a crane of course
(so for example a policeman could watch you drive off the pavement and then "do you" for driving on the pavement)
And causing an obstruction is also illegal. Its true though there can be places where you will not fail either of those tests and there unless the council has made it illegal as such your safe.
Most side roads have fairly narrow pavements, its hard not to cause an obstruction when parking on the pavement. But to be fair the pavements are often littered with lamp posts, bt poles, wheely bins etc, cars are just adding to the mix