Self-driving cars?

[APOLLO]

 

Brit15

[Canal Digger]

Even if everyone only used cycles ever (somewhat impractical!) there would still be accidents so not zero risk.

 

[rocor]

22 hours ago, EddieB said:

From the depths of daftness ("smart" motorways, anyone?) comes this news: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56906145

 

The plan is to allow "driverless" technology to be used on motorways, with vehicles limited to a top speed of 60kph (37mph).  Honestly, there's a reason why mopeds, mobility scooters etc. are banned from motorways, as having such speed-limited vehicles presents a danger to themselves and other road users.

 

How such vehicles would co-exist with lorries driven at 56mph and "normal" traffic at 70mph hardly bears thinking about.

 

The question is who is behind the lobbying for their acceptance, and who is likely to be in the money - apart from undertakers (in both senses) and lawyers?

 

Another way to read this is that the top speed on motorways is going to be limited to 60kmh.

 

Which, if the speed can be kept constant for the entire journey, probably averages out  faster than it does now.

[woodyfox]

35 minutes ago, Chrisr40 said:

For every careless motorist there is a reckless cyclist with no lights  wearing dark colours when riding at night, ignoring traffic lights, riding on the path when there is a perfectly good cycle lane, riding 2 wide on narrow roads etc. Motorists are not the only villains.

Yawn

[rocor]

1 hour ago, 30801 said:

Fully competent self driving in all situations is a long way off but automatic systems are coming thick and fast.

 

 

 

Many Human drivers can achieve a driving ability that can well be described as coming thick and fast.

 

[alastairq]

43 minutes ago, woodyfox said:

That makes no sense? 

Because the motorist knocks me off due to carelessness or recklessness then i should desist??? 

 Such a concept is exactly what far too many [for my tastes] posters have been advocating throughout this thread. Not to do with cyclists, specifically.  But I do wonder where driving standards have gone, when I read posters making adverse comments about driving , [for example]  more slowly [than they are prepared to do? ] on motorways, for example.

Using autonomous technology is cheaper and more 'effective' than raising driver  standards.  {Or, even, a driver's understanding of the Highway Code, and why such rules are created??}    

Still, I'll avoid new vehicles, and stick to 1940's technology. 

But then, I don't have absolute trust or faith in the pilot of that aircraft I might take a journey on. 

So I don't plan  on flying ever again.

[Having spent a few decades as a bus driver, I am acutely aware of the disappointing attitudes of many bus drivers towards their passengers, for example? Whose safety & welfare the bus driver is responsible for? Just like that pilot?   There are no guarantees in the passenger carrying business. One pilot getting sacked for imbibing....but how many have got away with it, I ask?  Just as an example?]

 

At least on a boat...I can swim.

 

 

 

 

 

[Reorte]

16 minutes ago, rocor said:

 

Another way to read this is that the top speed on motorways is going to be limited to 60kmh.

 

Which, if the speed can be kept constant for the entire journey, probably averages out  faster than it does now.

On very busy motorways quite possibly - I believe that's the reason for variable speed limits.

[alastairq]

17 minutes ago, rocor said:

Another way to read this is that the top speed on motorways is going to be limited to 60kmh.

 In the UK, we already have a [stealth?] speed [limit?] reduction on single carriageways.

What is the use of driving at the NSL of 60 mph, if every few seconds we come across a LGV, bus or tranny van [type] speed limited to 50?  With but a 10 mph ;legal speed advantage for overtaking?

So, effectively, we're all down to 50 mph! Very clever, raising the LGV speed limit...mobile road blocks?

[Titan]

9 minutes ago, alastairq said:

 In the UK, we already have a [stealth?] speed [limit?] reduction on single carriageways.

What is the use of driving at the NSL of 60 mph, if every few seconds we come across a LGV, bus or tranny van [type] speed limited to 50?  With but a 10 mph ;legal speed advantage for overtaking?

So, effectively, we're all down to 50 mph! Very clever, raising the LGV speed limit...mobile road blocks?

 

Don't think you thought that argument through very well. It takes under 3.7 seconds to pass an artic going at 50mph when you are doing 60mph.  

[Reorte]

1 minute ago, Titan said:

 

Don't think you thought that argument through very well. It takes under 3.7 seconds to pass an artic going at 50mph when you are doing 60mph.  

That's presumably the time actually alongside it, it needs more than that for a safe overtake and not cutting up the artic afterwards.

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, Reorte said:

If it's safety you're worried about then you shouldn't be on your bike.

That reads mightily like ‘telling’ to me, and it clearly did to others too.

 

57 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Cycling could and should be safer than it is. But it'll always pose more danger than travelling by car, whatever sorts of cars we've got.

The first sentence I agree with.
 

The second sentence I’m less sure about - on first reading it sounds right, because a car provides a big protection cage around the occupants, while the any cyclist is more or less ‘naked’, so even falling-off at walking pace, in isolation from any other vehicle, can cause injury, but it is a very absolute statement, and they have a habit of being proven wrong over time.

 

But, back to auto-driving cars. Can they ‘see’ cyclists, and do they always follow the Highway Code? I think the answers to both are “yes”, so I’d rather cycle on a road with auto-driven cars, than with people-driven cars.

 

Why? Because by far the most common ‘near hit’ when cycling is due to car drivers passing stupidly close (wing mirror brushing sleeve close), in clear contravention of the Highway Code. If I had to put a figure on it, I’d say that c1:100 overtaking moves involve passing too close, and I reckon that robots could do far better than that. My experience is that lorry drivers do follow the Highway Code, and most are actually very considerate - maybe because their livelihood depends on keeping a clean sheet.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, here is what the Highway Code says:

 

 

 

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Reorte]

5 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

That reads mightily like ‘telling’ to me, and it clearly did to others too.

 

The intention was to illustrate the contradiction rather than tell people to get off their bikes.

 

Quote

 

The second sentence I’m less sure about - on first reading it sounds right, because a car provides a big protection cage around the occupants, while the any cyclist is more or less ‘naked’, so even falling-off at walking pace, in isolation from any other vehicle, can cause injury, but it is a very absolute statement, and they have a habit of being proven wrong over time.

 

That just seems to be saying that it's impossible to say anything. It's certainly true that some serious injuries happen under those circumstances, even if it's only a small proportion of the total, it's hard to see how cycling could ever be safer in any world. But that's not really the question, it's could it be safe enough?

 

Quote

 

 

Why? Because by far the most common ‘near hit’ when cycling is due to car drivers passing stupidly close (wing mirror brushing sleeve close), in clear contravention of the Highway Code. If I had to put a figure on it, I’d say that c1:100 overtaking moves involve passing too close, and I reckon that robots could do far better than that. My experience is that lorry drivers do follow the Highway Code, and most are actually very considerate - maybe because their livelihood depends on keeping a clean sheet.

 

 

I could say that sounds like a very absolute statement too... But it doesn't sound implausible.

[Nearholmer]

It is an absolute; one born of bitter experience. I’ve had other ‘near hits’, and I’ll admit to two very scary ones caused by me when cycling, but close-passing is by far the most common.

 

Theres a revision of the Highway Code underway now, and one of the things it’s likely to include is strengthening the advice/requirements around “vulnerable road users”, because of this very problem.

[30801]

18 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

But, back to auto-driving cars. Can they ‘see’ cyclists, 

There was an article about a Google car (I think) being confused by a stationary cyclist at a junction doing a track stand. The car was programmed to assume cyclists with feet off the ground must be moving.

[Nearholmer]

I reckon it’s a really complex problem for any robot to ‘see’ cyclists on a road, and likewise to ‘see’ pedestrians, stray dogs, etc etc.

 

As human beings, we are simultaneously processing a vast array of different ‘input’, and factoring-in experience. It’s not a case of simple shape recognition, we are processing colour, movement, etc etc, plus ‘environmental probability’ (is this a place where one might expect kids to play?), precursor signals (ice cream van, ball rolling across road).

At our best, we are stunningly good at this; at our worst we are rubbish.

[alastairq]

25 minutes ago, Titan said:

Don't think you thought that argument through very well.

 Not an 'argument' at all.

 But that has been explained by  Reorte.

 

On the 'assumption' one is effecting an overtake from a position at least 2 seconds behind the artic.....and won't return to one's own side of the road until at least 2 seconds in front of the artic [to comply with all the rules regarding overtaking]......then that's an awful lot of  'clear & safe' road on the opposite side of the centre line that's needed. [Which need not be  astright bit of road, as much depends on how far ahead one can clearly 'see?']  Of course, as soon as any part of one's vehicle crosses over that center line, that immediately places one in a position of potentially having to 'give way' to oncoming road users. Something some wide-load drivers often forget?  Or drivers of 'ponderous carriages' [aka Range Rovers lookalikes?] for that matter.

 

I am ignoring the sage advice of ''Advanced Driver'' instructors , to move up to the overtake position, before moving out, having a final look, then increasing speed. 

 

But then, I apologise for a diatribe....I am 'retired' now, so no longer bother about donating advanced driver advice from a professional position.....

 

[Reorte]

14 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

It is an absolute; one born of bitter experience. I’ve had other ‘near hits’, and I’ll admit to two very scary ones caused by me when cycling, but close-passing is by far the most common.

I think we might be talking cross-purposes on that point. I'm certainly not trying to claim that near misses by stupidly close passes aren't an issue, not at all, just that I can't ever see a situation where a car isn't safer than a bike, no matter how good the car is, even if it poses zero risk to a bike. I am no more impressed with people brushing past with their wing mirror almost touching than you are, I'd like to see it treated the same way as racing past a school flat out when children are leaving.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Reorte

[Titan]

46 minutes ago, Reorte said:

That's presumably the time actually alongside it, it needs more than that for a safe overtake and not cutting up the artic afterwards.

 

It is, but overall time will vary according to the ability of the driver.  I once got stuck behind a lorry in a well loaded under powered car.  The trick was to drop back, and do all the accelerating on the left side of the road so that by the time I caught up with the lorry I was already doing 60mph and could complete the manoeuvre in the minimum amount of time. 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Titan

[alastairq]

34 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

During the final 20-odd years of my working life, this is pretty much how I would 'advise' a driver* in terms of how much room to give a vulnerable road user when passing or overtaking.  However, often there isn't sufficient road space to allow such generosity. In which case, the dictum  of the closer one is, the slower one goes' is preferable to 'whizzing past a cyclist's  kneecaps

 

* Most of  my students were existing licence holders, although I did spend a lot of time conducting licence acquisition..   

[D9020 Nimbus]

44 minutes ago, Reorte said:

That's presumably the time actually alongside it, it needs more than that for a safe overtake and not cutting up the artic afterwards.

It's not just the time itself that might be the issue, but the distance travelled.

[alastairq]

1 minute ago, Titan said:

 

It is, but actual time will vary according to the ability of the driver.  I once got stuck behind a lorry in a well loaded under powered car.  The trick was to drop back, and do all the accelerating on the left side of the road so that by the time I caught up with the lorry I was already doing 60mph and could complete the manoeuvre in the minimum amount of time. 

 Indeed...and a similar technique to 'charging the tailgate'...which can be aborted at any time.

But, the point is, one doesn't just spend 'the length of an artic' on the opposite side of the centre line. As Reorte says, the distance on the opposite side of the road is measured from the instant one's vehicle starts to cross that centre line, to the instant it has completely returned to one's own side. So the distance needed to cover[ and consequently, the time] is more like 2 to 3 times the length of that artic.   

 

All this was investigated by the Government [and DSA] back in the 1980's.

For, back then, there was serious consideration being given to raising the speed limit for LGVs  from the existing 40 mph for Rural NSLs.

 

Test vehicles varied from a Citroen 2CV, to a Porsche.

 

When effecting an overtake as Titan suggests, there was very little difference between the Porsche and the Citroen in 'time exposed'.

When effecting an overtake from a 'standing start', so to speak [from behind the moving artic, and from the same speed as the artic] there was a world of difference.

The outcome was either raising the speed limit for cars and bikes to 70 or 80 mph on single carriageways, in order to raise the LGV speed limit...or leave things as they were.

A case of 'not trusting the British motorist', I think, arose?

[Titan]

3 minutes ago, alastairq said:

 Indeed...and a similar technique to 'charging the tailgate'...which can be aborted at any time.

 

 

I like that description, it is very apt for the technique!  I did not mention that I had to do at least two aborts before I managed to time it just right.  It is quite tricky judging it so you are in the right place at the right speed and time just when the overtaking opportunity presents itself.

[alastairq]

6 minutes ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

It's not just the time itself that might be the issue, but the distance travelled.

 Agreed...which is why the 2 second rule is so effective..it's easy to work out...easier than trying to guess at a 'distance'....

 

But 'time' is vitally important to a driver in guesstimating situations.

 

When-I-worked,  being asked 'how slow', or 'how fast', was a frequent question.

To help a student understand what was needed I would refer to 'time'.....How much 'time' do you need, for example, ''to look, to act on what you see, and for the vehicle to do what you want it to do?''   So ,use  the pedals to give yourself that 'time' you require.

Which enabled the student to vary their actual speed to suit their own personal considerations.  In other words, allowed 'inexperience' to simulate 'experience'...I was not prone for strict rules..no good telling someone what they must or must not do, but helping them to make their own judgements instead. The 'rules' were the framework within which they worked.

[30801]

31 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I reckon it’s a really complex problem for any robot to ‘see’ cyclists on a road, and likewise to ‘see’ pedestrians, stray dogs, etc etc.

 

Bit of a long watch but here's a video about computer AI vision.

 

[alastairq]

2 minutes ago, Titan said:

I did not mention that I had to do at least two aborts

 Splendid that you had the confidence to abort an overtake.

 

It always amazes me how other drivers will vilify [criticise?] a drive for commencing an overtake, then aborting and pulling back in?

Yet, understanding the need to abort an action is probably more important than having the skill and guesstimation to make the overtake in the first place.

 

For years I drove a Renault 4.

Acceleration only occurred under 30 mph. The rest of the time, it merely 'increased speed'....So, one I'd got it up to that 'reasonable' speed, maintaining it involved overtaking stuff.  Without slackening off. Otherwise the whole 'increasing speed' process had to be started off all over again...

Like Citroen 2CV drivers, I think I was considered 'mad'....?

 

Overtaking a cyclist in a double decker bus, whose gearbox was 'all in' at 29 mph, meant even looking for slight dips in the road to use to improve the rate of increasing speed.

Oh how easy modern drivers have it with modern vehicles?

 

The expression, 'to travel hopefully, etc'' no longer applies.....one opens car door, sits down, issues orders, and one arrives.