Except it's not driverless and will require two personnel on board

[woodenhead]

So Scotland is trying out a driverless bus, hmmmm.....

 

It still has a safety driver ready to take over should it try and jump off the Forth Bridge or head into oncoming traffic and a second person to do any tickets.  We've had one man buses for decades, so how is throwing in thousands of pounds of partial autonomy and a second person on the bus going to be more efficient.  They also never showed it on anything other than a straight road, certainly not the overtaking maneouvre the 'driver' talked about and actually no vehicles on the bridge in any direction except for the bus.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65589913

Edited May 15, 2023 by woodenhead

[russ p]

12 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

So Scotland is trying out a driverless bus, hmmmm.....

 

It still has a safety driver ready to take over should it try and jump off the Forth Bridge or head into oncoming traffic and a second person to do any tickets.  We've had one man buses for decades, so how is throwing in thousands of pounds of partial autonomy and a second person on the bus going to be more efficient.  They also never showed it on anything other than a straight road, certainly not the overtaking maneouvre the 'driver' talked about and actually no vehicles on the bridge in any direction except for the bus.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-65589913

 

Yet again technology for technologies sake,

[Reorte]

4 minutes ago, russ p said:

 

Yet again technology for technologies sake,

I completely agree, and take an extremely dim view of automating jobs that people can do unless they're very dull or dangerous, but that aside it makes sense to have a back up like that in the early days of technology, until people are satisfied with it. It's part of gradual change, which is usually the way to make changes (again putting aside the question of whether or not they should be made).

[Phil Parker]

10 minutes ago, russ p said:

Yet again technology for technologies sake,

 

No, it's a testbed. The finished product, a fully autonomous vehicle, is still many years away. This is as much a stepping stone as Trevithick's early railway locomotives. There's going to be a lot learned from this, both on the technology, and public acceptance sides.

 

Personally, I'd love a properly self-driving car. Trundling up motorways isn't my idea of fun.

[Pete the Elaner]

We have had automatic trains for years: Victoria Line & DLR have always been self-driven, as has the Central Line since the 1990s. They have never operated without a trained driver who can take over though.

[woodenhead]

It seems all autonomy requires a human to quality check it is be autonomous in the right way.

 

There's a lot of noise about Chat GPT doing customer service and quality checks - but every email it creates has to be checked by a competent person to check it's not responding with rubbish and you also have to have a quality checker for the quality check performed by the AI.

 

I guess it's like an airline pilot - the plane technically can take off, navigate and land all by itself - but no-one would set foot on one, so you still need two fully qualified pilots to sit in the cockpit and do stuff.  Of course where the problem comes is when skills become stale because you are not flying the plane as often as you should and you end up too reliant on the computer to rescue you as has happened tragically.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28002054

[woodenhead]

5 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

No, it's a testbed. The finished product, a fully autonomous vehicle, is still many years away. This is as much a stepping stone as Trevithick's early railway locomotives. There's going to be a lot learned from this, both on the technology, and public acceptance sides.

 

Personally, I'd love a properly self-driving car. Trundling up motorways isn't my idea of fun.

It might be a test bed but ultimately, will they allow a bus on the road without a competent driver, probably not.

 

Having the roads full of safe self driving cars is still way off our time driving, first you need to remove all the human driven vehicles and pedestrians because they are the enemy as far as anyone who will be able to afford an autonomous vehicle will tell you.

[spamcan61]

39 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

 

It still has a safety driver ready to take over should it try and jump off the Forth Bridge or head into oncoming traffic 

This is what grinds my gears with "autonomous" vehicles, the cop out of having a driver to take over in a difficult situation. Human brains aren't good at going from 'idle' state to  full attention panic mode quickly, so the safety driver has to pay full attention at all times, so they may as well drive.  Same with "autonomous" cars and lorries. Personally this has always looked like a technological blind alley to me, I really don't see any huge benefit (particularly from a business protective) from the seriously complex hardware and software needed for truly autonomous vehicles. No I don't like driving on long journeys either, but I can't see true autonomy going anywhere in my lifetime.

Edited May 15, 2023 by spamcan61

[Phil Parker]

25 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

It might be a test bed but ultimately, will they allow a bus on the road without a competent driver, probably not.

 

Will they let self-propelled vehicles on the road without a man with a red flag walking in front? Probably not.

 

Driving would never be allowed if it were invented today. Imagine presenting the idea that two cars, with a (legal) closing speed of 120mph would be kept apart by painting a white line down the middle of the road.

 

27 minutes ago, spamcan61 said:

Personally this has always looked like a technological blind alley to me

 

Someone once said the world needed no more than 5 computers. Now each of us owns more than that.

[Fat Controller]

43 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

It seems all autonomy requires a human to quality check it is be autonomous in the right way.

 

There's a lot of noise about Chat GPT doing customer service and quality checks - but every email it creates has to be checked by a competent person to check it's not responding with rubbish and you also have to have a quality checker for the quality check performed by the AI.

 

I guess it's like an airline pilot - the plane technically can take off, navigate and land all by itself - but no-one would set foot on one, so you still need two fully qualified pilots to sit in the cockpit and do stuff.  Of course where the problem comes is when skills become stale because you are not flying the plane as often as you should and you end up too reliant on the computer to rescue you as has happened tragically.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28002054

Wasn't this a factor in the Air France crash of a flight from Brazil?

[woodenhead]

3 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

Wasn't this a factor in the Air France crash of a flight from Brazil?

That one was different, the auto pilot disengaged due to icing in a storm and malfunctioning instrumentation, the pilots were bewildered by the amount of conflicting information before them and could not regain control.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/17/world/europe/airbus-air-france-brazil-crash.html

[Reorte]

21 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

Someone once said the world needed no more than 5 computers. Now each of us owns more than that.

Not the same as need though!

 

Personally I'd much prefer electronics to not really be much part of ordinary day-to-day life, other than for entertainment. Their real benefit has been in areas like cutting-edge science, medicine development etc. I'm increasingly sceptical about whether we actually overall benefit from most of the rest, despite the immediate superficial appeal.

[woodenhead]

22 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Will they let self-propelled vehicles on the road without a man with a red flag walking in front? Probably not.

 

Driving would never be allowed if it were invented today. Imagine presenting the idea that two cars, with a (legal) closing speed of 120mph would be kept apart by painting a white line down the middle of the road.

 

 

 

It's how you apply technology, I've been involved in automation for 20 years.

 

If you are going to have to have the driver remain in the vehicle then full autonomy seems a step too far, however, the technology could be used effectively to make the driving more safe - spotting unexpected lane drifting, seeing traffic braking ahead and slowing the vehicle, keeping the vehicle a set distance from the vehicle ahead all whilst the drive is still directing the vehicle.  A symbiotic relationship rather than the driver being a slave to the technology and waiting for it to break.

[Steamport Southport]

50 minutes ago, spamcan61 said:

This is what grinds my gears with "autonomous" vehicles, the cop out of having a driver to take over in a difficult situation. Human brains aren't good at going from 'idle' state to  full attention panic mode quickly, so the safety driver has to pay full attention at all times, so they may as well drive.  Same with "autonomous" cars and lorries. Personally this has always looked like a technological blind alley to me, I really don't see any huge benefit (particularly from a business protective) from the seriously complex hardware and software needed for truly autonomous vehicles. No I don't like driving on long journeys either, but I can't see true autonomy going anywhere in my lifetime.

 

Already happening. They reckon that taxis will be full autonomous within five years. They're already on trial in the States and I can see many cities being interested as you are taking the worse part of a taxi out of the equation which is the driver.

 

These are totally driver free. Not even someone sitting up front to look after it.

 

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/business-autonomous-vehicles/uber-launches-level-four-self-driving-taxis-las-vegas

 

https://www.hotcars.com/uber-robotaxi-launch-details/

 

 

Jason

[woodenhead]

@Steamport Southport Great if you live and play in the middle of a big city in the zones declared safe to use them.

 

And the big part is the cost and route to a profitable self driving taxi service - long way to go.

[Phil Parker]

12 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

It's how you apply technology, I've been involved in automation for 20 years.

 

Then you will have noticed technology developing then.

 

13 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

If you are going to have to have the driver remain in the vehicle then full autonomy seems a step too far,

 

Too far for now. London Underground once employed a one-legged man to ride escalators to prove that they were safe. At the moment, the technology isn't proven enough for people to be confident. We don't need to be shown escalators are safe any more, and it's likely that we won't need a safety driver in the bus in the future.

 

15 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

the technology could be used effectively to make the driving more safe - spotting unexpected lane drifting, seeing traffic braking ahead and slowing the vehicle, keeping the vehicle a set distance from the vehicle ahead all whilst the drive is still directing the vehicle. 

 

All of which exists at the moment. However, if the electronics are determining the safe position relative to other vehicles, and within the lane, all the driver does is translate the left and right instructions from the satnav into inputs on the steering wheel.

[spamcan61]

20 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Already happening. They reckon that taxis will be full autonomous within five years. They're already on trial in the States and I can see many cities being interested as you are taking the worse part of a taxi out of the equation which is the driver.

 

These are totally driver free. Not even someone sitting up front to look after it.

 

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/business-autonomous-vehicles/uber-launches-level-four-self-driving-taxis-las-vegas

 

https://www.hotcars.com/uber-robotaxi-launch-details/

 

 

Jason

It'll be interesting to see how it pans out - not being sarcastic.

[woodenhead]

3 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Then you will have noticed technology developing then.

 

All of which exists at the moment. However, if the electronics are determining the safe position relative to other vehicles, and within the lane, all the driver does is translate the left and right instructions from the satnav into inputs on the steering wheel.

I do see it developing yes and my employers aim to be the forefront of some of it.

 

I know about the tech which exists now, my wife's new car arrives next month and it will keep her in lane and subtley let her know about how she is driving.

[Steamport Southport]

19 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

@Steamport Southport Great if you live and play in the middle of a big city in the zones declared safe to use them.

 

And the big part is the cost and route to a profitable self driving taxi service - long way to go.

 

But most people do live in big cities.

 

My ex thought I was mad when I used to get a cab when going to town. "Get the bus".

 

Then I pointed out it was £2 by bus and having to wait for it and it took ages, or about £4 by taxi straight from the door to the destination. Works out even cheaper if there was more than two of you.

 

Now replace that with something that you can just order on an app and you're in business. That's the market they are after, as well as people going from venues straight to a hotel.

 

People said food deliveries would never take off. Now everyone does it!

 

 

[Reorte]

12 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I do see it developing yes and my employers aim to be the forefront of some of it.

 

I know about the tech which exists now, my wife's new car arrives next month and it will keep her in lane and subtley let her know about how she is driving.

These are all reasons I want my current car to last for as long as possible.

 

Every day the world becomes less of a place that I want to live in, and that's from the supposedly positive developments, before we even get anywhere near the ones most agree are negatives. It's all very... dehumanising.

[black and decker boy]

My car already has self driving and will auto steer, brake & accelerate appropriately.
 

I can buy an upgrade that adds self navigation and junctions etc. 

 

U.K. law allows this but says I’m the driver and must keep my hands on the wheel. I have to respond every minute or two to a vigilance reminder, if I don’t, autopilot will stop the car with hazards on and only allow manual driving for rest of journey.

 

This technology is in mainstream use (every Tesla has it fitted as standard) so the data harvest and refinement that generates is happening now. This isn’t something for another lifetime. 

[Captain Kernow]

21 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

my wife's new car arrives next month and it will keep her in lane and subtley let her know about how she is driving

But surely you don't want some faceless microchip to take that task away from you?

 

[woodenhead]

10 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

This technology is in mainstream use (every Tesla has it fitted as standard) so the data harvest and refinement that generates is happening now. This isn’t something for another lifetime. 

But it is not bulletproof which is why you don't see Tesla stating it is any better than Level 2 autonomy at present, despite what the mouthpiece may say, the company's legal people keep it more real.

 

I don't doubt that cars will be able to drive themselves, unfortunately it is some of the people inside the cars that will remain the problem.

[D9020 Nimbus]

1 hour ago, Phil Parker said:

Someone once said the world needed no more than 5 computers. Now each of us owns more than that.

Thomas Watson Jnr, IBM's boss … in 1948.

More recently, in 1977, the CEO of Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), said "nobody will ever need a computer in the home". No surprise that DEC are no longer around — they eventually ended up being subsumed into Hewlett-Packard. They did eventually make a personal computer — the DEC Rainbow. It ran MSDOS, but wasn’t IBM compatible. The OS lacked a FORMAT command — floppy disks had to be purchased from DEC themselves, already formatted. It wasn’t a success.

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

It's how you apply technology, I've been involved in automation for 20 years.

 

If you are going to have to have the driver remain in the vehicle then full autonomy seems a step too far, however, the technology could be used effectively to make the driving more safe - spotting unexpected lane drifting, seeing traffic braking ahead and slowing the vehicle, keeping the vehicle a set distance from the vehicle ahead all whilst the drive is still directing the vehicle.  A symbiotic relationship rather than the driver being a slave to the technology and waiting for it to break.

 

Spot on - the hired car that we used during a recent holiday in Australia had adaptive cruise control, which I found to be ideal.

 

Set your maximum speed, and the car adjusts its speed and braking to any vehicle in front of you in the same lane.

 

Want to overtake? Pull out into the overtaking lane and the car accelerates to the maximum preset speed.

 

Perfect for long motorway journeys.

 

CJI.