I thought this was a DIY site
 

In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:
Mulling over the driverless car mixed with conventional human operators,
I think there may need to be changes to the current highway code.

I'd have thought any driverless car would automatically have to give way
to pedestrians, cyclists etc. And once they realise that, there will be no
stopping them. ;-)

--
*i souport publik edekashun.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On Sunday, 5 April 2015 19:23:29 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/04/2015 13:29, wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 11:11:12 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 04/04/2015 21:23, wrote:
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 6:25:38 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 04/04/2015 15:53, wrote:

You are still going to face the problem they found with the concept of
small personal transport vehicles in 1967 - virtually nobody wanted to
use them. A survey found that, besides most people disliking them simply
because they were small, small vehicles were rated badly for both
comfort and safety.

Suspension & safety have come a long way since 67 of course. Computer control can be expected to much improve safety.

Large cars are still much more comfortable than small ones, even if
small cars today are probably more comfortable than many large cars of
1967.

Comfort certainly doesnt come into the decision to take public transport,

It does if you are trying to get people to use it instead of cars.

People use it en masse, despite the lesser comfort. I cant see much mileage in debating it.


I suspect that many people will be quite dubious of the safety of
fully automatic vehicles for quite a long time.

Many will. But its relatively easy to demonstrate much higher safety of computer drivers than human.

If being able to demonstrate the superiority of a system over emotional
choices, we would have an electricity supply system without wind
generators and with lots of nuclear power.

no-one has any difficulty understanding a computer driver doesnt suffer the problems of a human one.

You also have the basic
problem of people not liking them, simply because they are small.

Lots of people buy small cars, so it doesnt seem to be a big problem for most.

That rather depends upon what you class as a small car. The 1967 report
was looking at bubble car size or smaller. Today's equivalent is
probably something like the Smart car.

And why would they need to be small? Pods can be a mix of sizes.
Bear in mind that small had very different implication in 67 than today. Then it normally meant cheap, borderline and unsafe.

What has changed is that we expect more from our cars today, so while
they are much superior to the equivalent cars of 1967, they are still
cheap, poorly equipped and unsafe compared to their contemporaries.

Once again, computerised vehicles can come in all sizes and small ones can have better safety than today's human driven cars. It seems pointless to go back and forth over basic stuff.

Re the original mention of tiny karts, small size is only a downside when it meets large oncoming vehicle. This risk is removed by barriering such lanes from larger vehicles.


NT

I thought this was a DIY site
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Eh? The trains round here give as smooth a ride as any car.

Sadly, the newer the bus, the harder its suspension, and the
seats have a covering with little more resilience than sprayed
flock.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On Monday, 6 April 2015 10:16:10 UTC+1, Chris J Dixon wrote:
Sadly, the newer the bus, the harder its suspension, and the
seats have a covering with little more resilience than sprayed
flock.

OTOH the new ones rattle less than the older ones.

Owain

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On Monday, 6 April 2015 10:37:50 UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Re the original mention of tiny karts, small size is only a downside when it
meets large oncoming vehicle. This risk is removed by barriering such lanes
from larger vehicles.

So which roads are these lanes going to be on? Many of the roads around
here are barely wide enough for two vehicles.

yup, only workable where any of the following could grab a little space:
lanes wider than they need to be
more than 1 lane
pavement wider than needed
routes too narrow for cars


NT

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On 06/04/2015 00:57, wrote:
....
no-one has any difficulty understanding a computer driver doesnt suffer the problems of a human one....

You don't have much experience of real life do you?

--
Colin Bignell

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On Monday, 6 April 2015 11:13:05 UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

On Monday, 6 April 2015 10:37:50 UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Re the original mention of tiny karts, small size is only a downside when it
meets large oncoming vehicle. This risk is removed by barriering such lanes
from larger vehicles.

So which roads are these lanes going to be on? Many of the roads around
here are barely wide enough for two vehicles.

yup, only workable where any of the following could grab a little space:
lanes wider than they need to be

**** to that.

more than 1 lane

And to that also.

pavement wider than needed
routes too narrow for cars

If you're talking of the roads I was referring to, that would mean
large numbers of people would have to walk miles to any shop, would
halt most farming, and kill of many rural buses.

that makes no sense whatever

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On Monday, 6 April 2015 15:44:55 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/04/2015 00:57, wrote:
...
no-one has any difficulty understanding a computer driver doesnt suffer the problems of a human one....

You don't have much experience of real life do you?

Have fun debating that with yourself.

I thought this was a DIY site
 

In article , Tim Lamb
writes
In message ,
writes
On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 11:15:00 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/04/2015 10:23, wrote:
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 10:39:25 PM UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
wrote:

Suspension& safety have come a long way since 67 of course. Computer
control can be expected to much improve safety.

Small vehicles = small wheels. Potholes seem worse now than I recall.
I can well understand small vehicles being unpopular, particularly if
you are overweight or have luggage/children/pushchairs.

Computerised vehicles could learn where potholes are, and when its
easy enough to move over a little to avoid them, do so.

There are already cars that look at the road just ahead of their wheels
and adjust the suspension to suit as the wheel passes over that bit. Not
cheap cars though.

Hence I'm not suggesting it

If we ever have computer driven pods, I suspect a good mix of
sizes would make most sense, along with the ability for them to
connect and permit passengers to walk through from one to the next,
maybe while in motion.

I doubt that they would link physically, although they may well link
electronically, allowing them to travel much closer than if they were
driving individually.

Linking physically has some real upsides, and should be doable safely
on dual carriageways and other wide roads.

Mulling over the driverless car mixed with conventional human
operators, I think there may need to be changes to the current highway
code.

F'rinstance..... minor road crossing a major one. Two vehicles arrive
at the same time, both turning right. Humans will make eye contact and
proceed safely. Obviously, two computer controlled pods could do the
same but how do you cater for one of each? Worse still if a mixed queue
forms.


NT

You could cut across the pod knowing it would give way to you rather
than hit you.
--
hugh

I thought this was a DIY site
 

I thought this was a DIY site
 

In message , hugh
writes
If we ever have computer driven pods, I suspect a good mix of
sizes would make most sense, along with the ability for them to
connect and permit passengers to walk through from one to the
next, maybe while in motion.

I doubt that they would link physically, although they may well link
electronically, allowing them to travel much closer than if they were
driving individually.

Linking physically has some real upsides, and should be doable safely
on dual carriageways and other wide roads.

Mulling over the driverless car mixed with conventional human
operators, I think there may need to be changes to the current highway
code.

F'rinstance..... minor road crossing a major one. Two vehicles arrive
at the same time, both turning right. Humans will make eye contact and
proceed safely. Obviously, two computer controlled pods could do the
same but how do you cater for one of each? Worse still if a mixed
queue forms.


NT

You could cut across the pod knowing it would give way to you rather
than hit you.

OK for the cognoscenti but what about us geriatrics?

Rush hour driving to Watford recently, I have been reminded of the wide
range of driving skills/foolhardiness displayed across the range of
drivers encountered. A pod could readily slot onto a busy roundabout as
does the youngster in a VW GTi:-)

Apparently, Microsoft are assembling a team to progress something to do
with traffic management in Singapore.

--
Tim Lamb

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On 05/04/2015 20:42, Tim Lamb wrote:
....
Mulling over the driverless car mixed with conventional human operators,
I think there may need to be changes to the current highway code.

F'rinstance..... minor road crossing a major one. Two vehicles arrive at
the same time, both turning right. Humans will make eye contact and
proceed safely. Obviously, two computer controlled pods could do the
same but how do you cater for one of each?...

The text display on the front of the pod informs the human driver that
it is giving way.

--
Colin Bignell

I thought this was a DIY site
 

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In message , hugh
writes
If we ever have computer driven pods, I suspect a good mix of sizes
would make most sense, along with the ability for them to connect
and permit passengers to walk through from one to the next, maybe
while in motion.

I doubt that they would link physically, although they may well link
electronically, allowing them to travel much closer than if they were
driving individually.

Linking physically has some real upsides, and should be doable safely on
dual carriageways and other wide roads.

Mulling over the driverless car mixed with conventional human operators,
I think there may need to be changes to the current highway code.

F'rinstance..... minor road crossing a major one. Two vehicles arrive at
the same time, both turning right. Humans will make eye contact and
proceed safely. Obviously, two computer controlled pods could do the same
but how do you cater for one of each? Worse still if a mixed queue forms.


NT

You could cut across the pod knowing it would give way to you rather than
hit you.

OK for the cognoscenti but what about us geriatrics?

Euthanasia for you.

Rush hour driving to Watford recently, I have been reminded of the wide
range of driving skills/foolhardiness displayed across the range of
drivers encountered. A pod could readily slot onto a busy roundabout as
does the youngster in a VW GTi:-)

Apparently, Microsoft are assembling a team to progress something to do
with traffic management in Singapore.