Car buyers should have 'long, hard think' about diesel

[dod]

I don't think there's much doubt autonomous systems will be part of the future. I'll be kinda sad about that but I'm starting to see a future where we don't bother owning a car. We simply hire one on specific purposes, or even by the journey. For example for my daily commute all I need is a small city car. If that came to pick me up at a specific time I pay for that journey, if it includes car sharing the cost goes down.
Need a bigger car at the weekend, just specify what you're looking for and it drives itself to you and you send it back to base when you're finished with it.

 

[nilagin]

I don't think there's much doubt autonomous systems will be part of the future. I'll be kinda sad about that but I'm starting to see a future where we don't bother owning a car. We simply hire one on specific purposes, or even by the journey. For example for my daily commute all I need is a small city car. If that came to pick me up at a specific time I pay for that journey, if it includes car sharing the cost goes down.
Need a bigger car at the weekend, just specify what you're looking for and it drives itself to you and you send it back to base when you're finished with it.

I for one am not looking forward to autonomous cars. At the moment any autonomy still requires the driver to be ready to take over the controls and it looks like that will be the legislation for a long time to come as no one is going to want to take the responsibility if anything goes wrong.
Autonomy just breeds laziness and drivers will pay less and less attention.
To an extent early warning systems are a good thing, but it isn't necessary to have the car do so much for you.
I mean lane centering or lane keep assist, what the he'll are you doing behind the wheel if you can't even do the basics. If you are able bodied and haven't got the capability and concentration to keep a car between two lines, you don't deserve a licence and shouldn't be allowed behind the steering wheel of a car when it is stationary, let alone on the road.

As for car sharing etc. that'll be a big no from me too. I prefer being behind the wheel of my own car.

 

[dod]

I for one am not looking forward to autonomous cars. At the moment any autonomy still requires the driver to be ready to take over the controls and it looks like that will be the legislation for a long time to come as no one is going to want to take the responsibility if anything goes wrong.
Autonomy just breeds laziness and drivers will pay less and less attention.
To an extent early warning systems are a good thing, but it isn't necessary to have the car do so much for you.
I mean lane centering or lane keep assist, what the he'll are you doing behind the wheel if you can't even do the basics. If you are able bodied and haven't got the capability and concentration to keep a car between two lines, you don't deserve a licence and shouldn't be allowed behind the steering wheel of a car when it is stationary, let alone on the road.

As for car sharing etc. that'll be a big no from me too. I prefer being behind the wheel of my own car.

On a personal level I agree, it's not something I'm keen on. However, I can see it coming.
Environmental issues, H&S issues (accident prevention) , improved methods of communications, VR developments, better infrastructure will all reduce the need for a car until eventually the economics for the majority will mean it's not worth having one. At the moment while there are some issues on charging and range the main reason most people aren't going for one is the economics, they're bloody expensive, especially the desirable ones.
It'll be a totally different personal and business model.

 

[nilagin]

Turning CO2 into fuel.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....vard-find-way-to-convert-co2-to-gasoline.html

 

[wyx087]

I mean lane centering or lane keep assist, what the he'll are you doing behind the wheel if you can't even do the basics. If you are able bodied and haven't got the capability and concentration to keep a car between two lines, you don't deserve a licence and shouldn't be allowed behind the steering wheel of a car when it is stationary, let alone on the road.

By your same logic, we don't need power assisted steering or brake servo. If you are able bodied and haven't got the capability to operate a car, you don't deserve a license.

Technology advances through the ages have brought numerous benefits. Power steering and parking sensors allowed much easier parking. Brake servo, blind spot warning, AEB, better crumble zones, air bags and a large host of other technology have reduced accidents and saved lives.

Cars with driver aid features being used (such as ACC with lane centering) are already shown to reduce rate of accidents. When autonomous system are ready, it would be foolish to drive manually and make human errors. Human errors are causes of vast majority of accidents in most accidents (not just cars): http://www.hse.gov.uk/humanfactors/topics/humanfail.htm

 

[nilagin]

By your same logic, we don't need power assisted steering or brake servo. If you are able bodied and haven't got the capability to operate a car, you don't deserve a license.

That isn't even close to the same logic.
Power steering became a necessity as car tyres became wider making cars harder to manoeuvre at slower speeds. Brake servos became the norm as vehicles became more powerful and meant they could still stop with the same ease without having to fit much larger brakes.
Nothing has happened to make keeping a car in lane any harder.
As I said before, it is unlikely that cars will become fully autonomous without a driver ready to take control. It will be bad enough having a person who has become complacent ready to take over the wheel, but it is going to be even worse when you get a driver behind the wheel who has never had to do most things for themselves. Driving a car yourself actually helps retain thinking and reaction times, because for the most part it keeps the mind and body alert, remove all that with a car that does it all for you is likely to just dull those senses.

As for airbags, there was a program on the TV several years ago, about improvements in car and road safety and it was said that since airbags were enforced, there had been a notable increase in accidents. Airbags had just improved survival rate in the really bad crashes though. It was said there would have been far fewer accidents if the airbag was removed and replaced by a spike in the centre or the steering wheel as people would drive much more carefully and take less chances.

 

[MatBin]

As for airbags, there was a program on the TV several years ago, about improvements in car and road safety and it was said that since airbags were enforced, there had been a notable increase in accidents. Airbags had just improved survival rate in the really bad crashes though. It was said there would have been far fewer accidents if the airbag was removed and replaced by a spike in the centre or the steering wheel as people would drive much more carefully and take less chances.

Same thing happened when compulsory crash helmets became the law for motorcyclists. I know for a short while after I got a full face lid my riding became a little "wilder", not that one example should be taken as a reliable statistic, obviously

 

[wyx087]

As I said before, it is unlikely that cars will become fully autonomous without a driver ready to take control. It will be bad enough having a person who has become complacent ready to take over the wheel, but it is going to be even worse when you get a driver behind the wheel who has never had to do most things for themselves. Driving a car yourself actually helps retain thinking and reaction times, because for the most part it keeps the mind and body alert, remove all that with a car that does it all for you is likely to just dull those senses.

This bit is true and I totally agree with you. Level 3 autonomy, as experts put it (https://www.synopsys.com/automotive/autonomous-driving-levels.html) is perhaps your source of concern. Where the car is in control but human must take over at moment's notice. I'm hopeful we'll skip this step, or have a much better HMI to reduce risks (as dod have alluded to with AR/VR development)

This is a really good read on how systems to supplant human expertise is also decreasing human abilities and causing problems when the autonomous systems gives up. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/crash-how-computers-are-setting-us-up-disaster

But I don't agree with your previous sentiment, that we should shun active protective systems for warning-only systems, for your reason that humans are bad at concentrating, "it dulls your senses", etc.

The potential to reduce accidents thanks to active safety feature such as AEB is the reason why they are being mandated. Extend this further to always active assistive features (AEB only activates at last second and only lessens impact), then we should see a decrease in human-error based accidents.

In another words, if there are technology that can save lives and reduce accidents from human errors, why aren't we using it? To argue against a technology that can save lives would be like arguing against airbags and seatbelt........

 

[nilagin]

This bit is true and I totally agree with you. Level 3 autonomy, as experts put it (https://www.synopsys.com/automotive/autonomous-driving-levels.html) is perhaps your source of concern. Where the car is in control but human must take over at moment's notice. I'm hopeful we'll skip this step, or have a much better HMI to reduce risks (as dod have alluded to with AR/VR development)

This is a really good read on how systems to supplant human expertise is also decreasing human abilities and causing problems when the autonomous systems gives up. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/crash-how-computers-are-setting-us-up-disaster

But I don't agree with your previous sentiment, that we should shun active protective systems for warning-only systems, for your reason that humans are bad at concentrating, "it dulls your senses", etc.

The potential to reduce accidents thanks to active safety feature such as AEB is the reason why they are being mandated. Extend this further to always active assistive features (AEB only activates at last second and only lessens impact), then we should see a decrease in human-error based accidents.

In another words, if there are technology that can save lives and reduce accidents from human errors, why aren't we using it? To argue against a technology that can save lives would be like arguing against airbags and seatbelt........

I've worked in engineering for almost 40 years and seen just as many automated safety system failures as I have failures due to human error. Automation isn't infallible.
As I said before it is bad enough relying on people being ready to take control of an autonomous car who are already becoming complacent due to current automated systems, but eventually you will have motorists "ready" to do the same who have had very little or no prior experience of driving a car without such features and not being able to respond quickly or correctly to an automated failure.

 

[ancient_mariner]

But I don't agree with your previous sentiment, that we should shun active protective systems for warning-only systems, for your reason that humans are bad at concentrating, "it dulls your senses", etc.

Probably shun is the wrong word, but it's long been recognised in road design that it is necessary for the driver to have to take an active part in guiding their vehicle in order to remain alert. This has often been cited as the reason motorways have bends, rather than being perfectly straight for long distances. A semi-autonomous system that required driver intervention only at the time of stress and danger would be very dangerous indeed.

 

[Nod]

arguing against airbags and seatbelt........

There have been studies showing that safety devices can increase the number of accidents - they just reduce the damage done to occupants when crashes happen. IIRC it was Ralph Nader who said that to cut the number of accidents a sharp spike should be fitted to the middle of the steering wheel and be aimed at the driver's heart.

To add to Matt's observation about motorcycle helmets, I know that I ride much slower when I choose to ride bareheaded - not to mention that I can hear everything better and don't have my peripheral vision blocked.

 

[wyx087]

As I said before it is bad enough relying on people being ready to take control of an autonomous car who are already becoming complacent due to current automated systems, but eventually you will have motorists "ready" to do the same who have had very little or no prior experience of driving a car without such features and not being able to respond quickly or correctly to an automated failure.

A semi-autonomous system that required driver intervention only at the time of stress and danger would be very dangerous indeed.

Your concerns are all valid but assumes that autonomous cars are based on Level 3 autonomous vehicle, where vehicle is mostly in control but can hand back control at anytime with very little warning.

Currently, we have Level 2's such as Tesla Autopilot (car try to take care of meaningless small adjustments to speed and direction, but you are in control 100% of the time), we also have Level 5's like the Heathrow T5 pods (full autonomous). The gap in the middle is the problem. There may be new technological advances to mitigate your valid concerns, we may skip to Level 4/5 directly. As it stands now, Level 3 isn't allowed on the road for this very reason: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/...jam-pilot-self-driving-automation-not-for-us/

There have been studies showing that safety devices can increase the number of accidents - they just reduce the damage done to occupants when crashes happen.

For this reason, we have airbags and seatbelt in every car as compulsory equipment: it saves lives.

But in tomorrow's world, what happens when technology reaches the point, where it can both save lives and reduce accidents? Is there any reason not to adopt it?

Similarly, in today's world, any reason not to install dashcams?

 

[Nod]

But in tomorrow's world, what happens when technology reaches the point, where it can both save lives and reduce accidents?

Taken to a possible conclusion, there is no real NEED for personal transportation. Most office work could be done at home, as could schooling. Public transport could be used to take factory workers to and from what work can't be done by robots as well as tradespersons.

Like Neil, I hope that autonomy and public transport doesn't take over, especially if it gets mixed with human controlled vehicles.

 

[nilagin]

For this reason, we have airbags and seatbelt in every car as compulsory equipment: it saves lives.

But in tomorrow's world, what happens when technology reaches the point, where it can both save lives and reduce accidents? Is there any reason not to adopt it?

Similarly, in today's world, any reason not to install dashcams?

But you're missing the point accidents have become more prolific because people feel safer in their cars. Airbags and seatbelts only reduce deaths they don't prevent all of them. Some of the cases will be caused by someone doing something daft because they feel isolated and safe and have no concept of what can happen.
When I was a kid I can remember my dad's car not having seatbelts. Then it became law that cars must have front seatbelts and my dad fitted some, but they didn't have to be worn. Having to wear seatbelts only came about in the 80's after I had passed my own driving test. Airbags only became law around 93 Having driven without seatbelts and airbags, you learn to adapt and drive with a bit more of a concept of how vulnerable you actually are, I daresay you aren't old enough to have experienced this and feeling safe in your car you have less concept of how vulnerable you still are.

Dashcams only show who is to blame for an accident, they don't actively make the roads any safer.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Currently, we have Level 2's such as Tesla Autopilot (car try to take care of meaningless small adjustments to speed and direction, but you are in control 100% of the time), we also have Level 5's like the Heathrow T5 pods (full autonomous). The gap in the middle is the problem. There may be new technological advances to mitigate your valid concerns, we may skip to Level 4/5 directly. As it stands now, Level 3 isn't allowed on the road for this very reason: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/...jam-pilot-self-driving-automation-not-for-us/

TBH I think even level 2 is too much - it's those small adjustments in speed and position that keep a driver alert, and without which attention wanders.

 

[wyx087]

But you're missing the point accidents have become more prolific because people feel safer in their cars. Airbags and seatbelts only reduce deaths they don't prevent all of them. Some of the cases will be caused by someone doing something daft because they feel isolated and safe and have no concept of what can happen.

Dashcams only show who is to blame for an accident, they don't actively make the roads any safer.

People cause accidents because they felt safer. But this does not make any valid argument against use of seatbelt/airbag. It only speaks volume about people's nature to be irresponsible. I can only hope the latter is the point you are trying to make.

Seatbelt/airbags saves lives, hence it was made compulsory. With safer cars, come daft people. Now, what if we have the technology to remove accidents caused by those people who felt safe and did something daft?

Now, I'm sure you'll point out daft people who were involved in Tesla Autopilot accidents. But Autopilot never claimed to be autonomous driving feature, it's a clear case of human operating error. So I would reply: (they are ass-hats)

Dashcam is a "new" piece of technology that has been around for at least a decade. Insurance company and police only now starting to catch on to this source of evidence. No one said it will make roads any safer, but it is able to be used as evidence in the event of accidents. So it has clear benefits. Then why did it take so long to have dashcam recognised by police/insurance company? Why isn't everyone installing them? Why aren't they made compulsory as car equipment?

TBH I think even level 2 is too much - it's those small adjustments in speed and position that keep a driver alert, and without which attention wanders.

Unfortunately small adjustment in speed is one of main cause for phantom congestions on the motorway. This is clearly proven with a simple experiment:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suugn-p5C1M


I drive up and down the motorway every work day. There's so many drivers who would speed up and slow down randomly. Or slow down for speed cameras. You can clearly see the beginning of phantom congestion: car slows down slightly for speed camera, following cars hit their brake and by 5th/6th car, it has slowed down so much, it's driving slower than me with cruise control in the slower lane. If everyone had used cruise control at the same speed, there would be a lot less traffic jams.

With adaptive cruise control, by taking minor speed adjustment out of the equation, it takes a lot of strain out of driving. I usually set ACC at speed that won't trigger speed cameras and never look at the speedo again. Whereas without CC set, I'd constantly be looking at the speed to make sure I'm not speeding and try to keep a constant speed. This is why I think if I can monitor the car, I would arrive at destination fresher and safer, able to carefully monitor all cars around me rather than constantly doing minor adjustments, something a computer can do much better.

 

[Jelster]

I have no real interest in a car that drives itself. Even with all the jerks that are on the road today, I enjoy driving. If I need to get from A to B without driving myself, I'll order a cab.

I'm really not looking forward to when you can't buy a care with an ICE, maybe then I will feel a little different.

 

[nilagin]

Now, I'm sure you'll point out daft people who were involved in Tesla Autopilot accidents. But Autopilot never claimed to be autonomous driving feature, it's a clear case of human operating error. So I would reply: (they are ass-hats)

Dashcam is a "new" piece of technology that has been around for at least a decade. Insurance company and police only now starting to catch on to this source of evidence. No one said it will make roads any safer, but it is able to be used as evidence in the event of accidents. So it has clear benefits. Then why did it take so long to have dashcam recognised by police/insurance company? Why isn't everyone installing them? Why aren't they made compulsory as car equipment?

The ass hat would be the person who decided to call Tesla's driver assistance set up. Autopilot. The name itself suggests it can drive the car for you and hence why people fall foul of trying to allow it to do so.
Dashcams have been around more like 20yrs rather than 10yrs and I would say been recognised by insurers etc. for most of that time. I don't see any reason for them to be standard equipment on a car . If you want one buy one. I have had one for around 2yrs. Other than putting it in the windscreen once, it now sits in the centre console.


For me there is no strain in driving, I enjoy the experience. I use Cruise Control just as a means to maintain speed but have no need for Adaptive Cruise Control, I have a thumb or right foot for that, I watch the road ahead and around me and react to those conditions long before ACC will react to another vehicle.

 

[Mr Bump]

I love Cruise control my Citroen has it and makes 30mph zones a pleasure I just set it to 29 and let the car do its thing. generally the car in front is exceeding the limit so I don't catch up with anything. I just pause/unpause it from my steering wheel.

 

[nilagin]

Don't know if we will see it in Europe, but the All Electric F150 pick up truck is on It's way.

View: https://youtu.be/bXFHgoon7lg

And there was Musk was bragging that the Tesla pickup would be capable of towing 300k lbs.

 

[wyx087]

The ass hat would be the person who decided to call Tesla's driver assistance set up. Autopilot. The name itself suggests it can drive the car for you and hence why people fall foul of trying to allow it to do so.

Tesla Autopilot actually does more than plane autopilot. In fact, plane autopilot is akin to standard cruise control + steering lock: you set direction and speed.

In fact, plane autopilot is stated "Autopilots do not replace human operators, but instead they assist them in controlling the aircraft." Perfect description of a Level 2 system, such as Tesla Autopilot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot

Plane autopilot even goes on to say "This allows them to focus on broader aspects of operations such as monitoring the trajectory, weather and systems." Such as a driver should do when using a Level 2 system: better focus on monitoring the system and the environment.

 

[nilagin]

This allows them to focus on broader aspects of operations such as monitoring the trajectory, weather and systems." Such as a driver should do when using a Level 2 system: better focus on monitoring the system and the environment.

You should be doing all that and more without the car having to do stuff for you. You should be reacting to not just your immediate surroundings, but those further up the road, as well as behind, monitoring how the other cars are behaving. You soon learn to second guess most situations and prepare yourself to act accordingly.
As I said before, having everything done for you just breeds laziness and people become unable to react in an emergency should they need to.

 

[PaulF]

Tesla Autopilot actually does more than plane autopilot. In fact, plane autopilot is akin to standard cruise control + steering lock: you set direction and speed.

You really should learn how to use Google before making silly statements.

Autopilot on planes does an awful lot more than a set direction and speed, for some years now a plane on autopilot can land itself for instance, although the function is rarely used.
More often used is the ability for autopilot to be engaged shortly after take off up until the point the plane is positioned for landing, all pre-programmed by the pilot.

Just a couple of links:
https://scandinaviantraveler.com/en/aviation/how-much-does-the-autopilot-actually-fly
https://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/26/autopilot-what-the-system-can-and-cant-do.html

 

[MatBin]

You should be doing all that and more without the car having to do stuff for you. You should be reacting to not just your immediate surroundings, but those further up the road, as well as behind, monitoring how the other cars are behaving. You soon learn to second guess most situations and prepare yourself to act accordingly.
As I said before, having everything done for you just breeds laziness and people become unable to react in an emergency should they need to.

I agree to a point, sadly though we have too many people who cannot drive properly, we all see it every day (oddly though none of us are guilty of it ).
I am looking forward to more automation, perhaps it will stop idiot drivers, perhaps it will stop people doing 29 or 39 or 55 in 30,40,60mph roads and infuriating the rest of us who are happy in the right conditions to actually do the speed limit whilst keeping a safe distance based on many years of un-automated driving (or riding).
Perhaps it will stop idiots crashing into each other on a summer's day and causing traffic chaos. I can see lots of benefits, sadly one down side is we wont have as many donor parts which have been consistently getting less and less available due to greater survival rates.
Will it stop W***ers parking in the zig-zags at a crossing and claiming it's ok (read allowable) because they are picking-up a fare? So many benefits I can see.

Downside is of course we'll all have to follow one and other and not be able to overtake etc and be so policed we'll not want to drive - a Govt plan perhaps?

 

[ancient_mariner]

Unfortunately small adjustment in speed is one of main cause for phantom congestions on the motorway. This is clearly proven with a simple experiment:

The experiment shows a congested road, so that is to be expected. And this is completely different to the topic in question regarding driver alertness.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

Lowering the speeds increases the vehicle occupancy - ie more vehicles for a given length of road, as the vehicles can travel closer together. This is the whole premise behind the variable speed limits, and motorway ramp traffic light systems. Unfortunately the sheer number of vehicles on today's roads often overwhelms this.

When traffic lights were first installed on a Motorway ramp (back in 1986 at J10 Walsall, M6), the average speed at peak times increased from 17mph to 35mph, nowadays you'd be lucky to be doing 10mph on that stretch of motorway at peak times!!!

 

[wyx087]

You really should learn how to use Google before making silly statements.

Autopilot on planes does an awful lot more than a set direction and speed, for some years now a plane on autopilot can land itself for instance, although the function is rarely used.
More often used is the ability for autopilot to be engaged shortly after take off up until the point the plane is positioned for landing, all pre-programmed by the pilot.

Just a couple of links:
https://scandinaviantraveler.com/en/aviation/how-much-does-the-autopilot-actually-fly
https://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/26/autopilot-what-the-system-can-and-cant-do.html

That simplified statement you've picked out doesn't really distract from my point, to quote CNBC article:

Aviation regulations vary between countries, but in the U.S., at least two crew members must remain in the cockpit at all times. From a flying perspective, the pilot or the co-pilot must remain at the controls to keep an eye on the computer to make sure everything is running smoothly.

That looks like a good description of autonomous vehicle Level 2 may be even Level 3 system. Which is exactly Tesla Autopilot.

The point about plane autopilot doing less is still true. Plane autopilot does not monitor air traffic, does not monitor weather condition, it only follows a set route programmed by the pilot. If you program a fixed route into your car without having the car react to traffic, you'd crash!

As I said before, having everything done for you just breeds laziness and people become unable to react in an emergency should they need to.

I agree the hand-over is critical will be source of many accidents.
But when there are technology that can drive better than humans, a lot less accidents and car death rate is lower as a result, is there any reason NOT to adopt this?

Is there any reason NOT to have a computer watching 360 all around you and able to have the car jump out of the way to prevent a side swipe? eg. https://electrek.co/2019/05/28/tesla-autopilot-save-crash-unknowingly-dashcam/
Or radar can see through cars, reacting earlier than you ever can:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Kti-9qsLpc

The experiment shows a congested road, so that is to be expected. And this is completely different to the topic in question regarding driver alertness.

The experiment did not start with a congested road, it started with a free flowing, but dense traffic.
Have a read on phantom congestions: https://www.livescience.com/61862-why-phantom-traffic-jams-happen.html

phantom traffic jams are an emergent property of the flow of vehicles down a highway. A phantom jam begins when a car in dense traffic slows down even slightly, which causes the car behind that vehicle to slow even more — and the slowing action spreads backward through the lane of traffic like a wave, getting worse the farther it spreads.

If there are existing technology that can reduce unnecessary braking, phantom traffic jams can be mitigated.

 

[nilagin]

The Tesla that "saw" through the car in front was poorly positioned on the road. I sit to one side in the lane (impossible with lane centering) so I can observe what the traffic in front is doing, I also observe car shadows on the road again letting me know what vehicles in front of me are doing.

The Tesla that thought his Autopilot had malfunctioned was obviously not paying attention to the other traffic otherwise he would have seen it. Which proves my point, the technology has made him lazy.

 

[Nod]

THIS is clever. Not quite perpetual motion but bloody clever!

I would think that a well trained driver would be able to achieve better economy going uphill than the celebrity they got to do the test run.

 

[PaulF]

Sorry, you said:

Tesla Autopilot actually does more than plane autopilot. In fact, plane autopilot is akin to standard cruise control + steering lock: you set direction and speed.
.

Which is complete rubbish.

That simplified statement you've picked out doesn't really distract from my point, to quote CNBC article:

That looks like a good description of autonomous vehicle Level 2 may be even Level 3 system. Which is exactly Tesla Autopilot.

The point about plane autopilot doing less is still true. Plane autopilot does not monitor air traffic, does not monitor weather condition, it only follows a set route programmed by the pilot. If you program a fixed route into your car without having the car react to traffic, you'd crash!
.

My point was that you once again posted complete nonsense as fact, you even typed 'In fact' before the nonsense!
No amount of wriggling with Level 2 or Level 3 system smoke screen escapes the fact that a planes autopilot in no way can be described as similar to standard cruise control with a steering lock in place.

Standard cruise control - maintains a steady speed only, unless travelling downhill where it may go faster. Only Cruise control with braking (as a minimum spec) will not go faster than the set speed.
Steering lock - will hold a straight course I guess but nothing uses that as far as I am aware, unless boats do?

Plane autopilot - changes altitude, changes speed, changes direction, follows a flight plan, will land a plane on the correct runway in dense fog, need I go on.

"If you program a fixed route into your car without having the car react to traffic, you'd crash!" - Search google for ACAS, you may be enlightened!

 

[ancient_mariner]

If there are existing technology that can reduce unnecessary braking, phantom traffic jams can be mitigated.

I understand about phantom congestion. However partial automation that *may* require driver intervention is dangerous because an inactive driver will not be able to interpret a situation adequately in the time required to prevent an accident, while to one who has been forced to continuously monitor road conditions will already be manoeuvering their vehicle to avoid danger. The only suitable levels of automation for safe driving are those that provide minimal assistance like cruise control, or those that provide complete automation at all times.

 

[dod]

The only suitable levels of automation for safe driving are those that provide minimal assistance like cruise control, or those that provide complete automation at all times.

I'd agree with that and I'd be very surprised if it doesn't end up as the latter

 

[wyx087]

Sorry, you said:

Which is complete rubbish.

My point was that you once again posted complete nonsense as fact, you even typed 'In fact' before the nonsense!
No amount of wriggling with Level 2 or Level 3 system smoke screen escapes the fact that a planes autopilot in no way can be described as similar to standard cruise control with a steering lock in place.

Standard cruise control - maintains a steady speed only, unless travelling downhill where it may go faster. Only Cruise control with braking (as a minimum spec) will not go faster than the set speed.
Steering lock - will hold a straight course I guess but nothing uses that as far as I am aware, unless boats do?

Plane autopilot - changes altitude, changes speed, changes direction, follows a flight plan, will land a plane on the correct runway in dense fog, need I go on.

"If you program a fixed route into your car without having the car react to traffic, you'd crash!" - Search google for ACAS, you may be enlightened!

Plane autopilot started no more complicated than standard cruise control with steering lock in car's term. Only modern autopilot have your list of capabilities. But up to now, is there commercial plane autopilot that operate without human pilot monitoring?

There is no smoke screen, only your inability to understand comparison. The accusation was that Autopilot name suggests full autonomous vehicle. Does the plane inspired name suggest autopilot is full autonomous vehicle despite commercial plane autopilot does not fly the plane 100% autonomously?

I'm sorry, but you must do your research before lecturing others. ACAS = Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ACAS
Do tell me, is ACAS part of autopilot, or is it a separate system? Which car system is more similar to the ACAS, AEB or ACC? Are planes able to rely on ACAS in addition to Autopilot to navigate dense airspace completely autonomously, or is a pilot still required?

If the answer to above is that passenger plane autopilot doesn't need a pilot to monitor at the controls. If passenger airplane are allowed to fly 100% autonomously without a pilot at the controls, and the system is called autopilot. I will admit I am talking rubbish.

THIS is clever. Not quite perpetual motion but bloody clever!

I would think that a well trained driver would be able to achieve better economy going uphill than the celebrity they got to do the test run.

Very clever. No more burning the kinetic energy as heat.

Great to have such technology in my EV, which also helps generate less brake dust.

 

[nilagin]

I'm sorry, but you must do your research before lecturing others. ACAS = Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ACAS
Do tell me, is ACAS part of autopilot, or is it a separate system? Which car system is more similar to the ACAS, AEB or ACC?

Perhaps you would also like to do your research before lecturing others.
ACC = Automatic Climate Control established in 1964 and predates Adaptive Cruise Control by 35yrs.

 

[wyx087]

Warsaw is ordering 130 electric bus: https://electrek.co/2019/07/23/warsaw-articulated-electric-buses/
Bus would be the perfect electric vehicle:
- it drives a set route, so the battery can be suitably sized.
- it is usually in slow stop/start traffic, so electric drivetrain is perfect
- it is usually in city centre, so zero tailpipe emission is more desirable
- it operates near pedestrian and bus riders, so zero tailpipe emission is more desirable
- it could become grid service batteries when the busses are parked, bringing more money per vehicle

Then I wanted to post an article I saw on mobile on London air quality, unfortunately couldn't find it.

But search came up President of AA talk about EV's: https://www.standard.co.uk/futurelo...edmund-king-president-of-the-aa-a4195271.html
Where Mr King talks about much of what I've been saying for the last 1.5 years through this thread:

“What I would say is that two car households without a doubt the second car could be electric with no negatives at all, as long as you’ve got somewhere to charge it. For a first car it could also be a possibility depending on how far you drive.
“Some people are put off getting an electric car because once a year they go to the Lake District, for example, but if you actually worked out the costs you used you could actually hire a petrol car and still save money having an EV and not pay for the congestion charge, vehicle excise duty and petrol costs. Buy the car for the majority of journeys you want, not the one-off journeys where it is pretty easy to hire a car or go to a car club, particularly in London.”

He also provides balanced views on EV ownership:
- Running cost
- Tax
- Vehicle reliability (AA breakdown callout for EV "tend to be" simple things)
- Insurance

 

[nilagin]

But search came up President of AA talk about EV's: https://www.standard.co.uk/futurelo...edmund-king-president-of-the-aa-a4195271.html
Where Mr King talks about much of what I've been saying for the last 1.5 years through this thread:

He also provides balanced views on EV ownership:
- Running cost
- Tax
- Vehicle reliability (AA breakdown callout for EV "tend to be" simple things)
- Insurance

That article lost all credibility when it listed spark plugs as moving parts.

 

[MatBin]

He also provides balanced views on EV ownership:
- Running cost
- Tax
- Vehicle reliability (AA breakdown callout for EV "tend to be" simple things)
- Insurance

Apart from
Running costs - stating residual values will come down is going to put up total ownership costs, saying a Leaf could be had for £14 after 3 years looks like fairly heavy depreciation to me.
Tax - road tax is more expensive once you break the barrier (£40K isn't it)
Reliability - with such a small percentage of cars being EV is the sample big enough and if it's just based on an average 5 miles driven per journey is this representative of those that do more miles
Insurance - he thinks it will come down in price, well I might think it will go up, just an opinion and not a fact, could go either way depending on claims records.

His whole article was London based, ok it was a London paper but why do people who live in London always assume what's right for them is right for the rest of the country?

I thought that for someone in charge of the AA he had little or no idea about car ownership, but the the AA is just a business now and not what it set out to be at the beginning.

 

[wyx087]

That article lost all credibility when it listed spark plugs as moving parts.

Did he though?

The other advantage actually that most people don’t realise is that electric vehicles have about 1,500 fewer moving parts. Basically, you don’t have gears and spark plugs and things, and therefore there is less to go wrong in terms of the engine.

I understood the latter sentence as spark plug is one of the things that could go wrong in ICE but not present in EV drivetrain.

Apart from
Running costs - stating residual values will come down is going to put up total ownership costs, saying a Leaf could be had for £14 after 3 years looks like fairly heavy depreciation to me.
Tax - road tax is more expensive once you break the barrier (£40K isn't it)
Reliability - with such a small percentage of cars being EV is the sample big enough and if it's just based on an average 5 miles driven per journey is this representative of those that do more miles
Insurance - he thinks it will come down in price, well I might think it will go up, just an opinion and not a fact, could go either way depending on claims records.

Running cost - The quoted example where Leaf £14k for 2016 model, or £29k for 2019 model. 3 years about half depreciation, looks on par with other cars.
Tax - apart from Tesla, majority EV models are under the tax bracket. Your argument only stands if this tax only gets applied to EV.
Reliability - I agree. There is also a case to argue that EV are relatively new, so callouts could be less serious issues.
Insurance - no one said his opinion is a fact........ but he has a point, EV is a relative unknown so insurance companies decided to charge more to mitigate their risks.

His point about buying a suitable car for your daily journey isn't just for London though. Would you buy a sports car like TVR's as your only car because you enjoy driving it to Spain once a year, if you live on a farm with muddy track? No, you'd buy a suitable SUV. He's making the same argument, buy the car that suits your normal journey rather than for once a year trips.

 

[PaulF]

Plane autopilot started no more complicated than standard cruise control with steering lock in car's term. Only modern autopilot have your list of capabilities. But up to now, is there commercial plane autopilot that operate without human pilot monitoring?

There is no smoke screen, only your inability to understand comparison. The accusation was that Autopilot name suggests full autonomous vehicle. Does the plane inspired name suggest autopilot is full autonomous vehicle despite commercial plane autopilot does not fly the plane 100% autonomously?

I'm sorry, but you must do your research before lecturing others. ACAS = Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ACAS
Do tell me, is ACAS part of autopilot, or is it a separate system? Which car system is more similar to the ACAS, AEB or ACC? Are planes able to rely on ACAS in addition to Autopilot to navigate dense airspace completely autonomously, or is a pilot still required?

If the answer to above is that passenger plane autopilot doesn't need a pilot to monitor at the controls. If passenger airplane are allowed to fly 100% autonomously without a pilot at the controls, and the system is called autopilot. I will admit I am talking rubbish.


Very clever. No more burning the kinetic energy as heat.

Great to have such technology in my EV, which also helps generate less brake dust.

I do apologise, I gave you more credit and assumed you were able to search google for the plane related ACAS, I now know better if you are just trying to poke me into a side discussion to divert attention away from your original nonsense, sorry, not playing that game.
Which car system is more similar to the ACAS, AEB or ACC? Neither, please work out why for yourself, I'm sure you are capable.

I do however know for a fact that in the UK you are not allowed to fly civilian planes without a pilot on board, if that helps you out, why should cars be different? Don't say because cars can and planes cannot because you would be incorrect.

 

[nilagin]

Did he though?

I understood the latter sentence as spark plug is one of the things that could go wrong in ICE but not present in EV drivetrain.

Yes he did, he states there are 1500 moving parts in an ICE. Then goes onto listing parts which includes spark plugs gears and things.
Spark plugs rarely go wrong and if they do it is because they haven't been replaced on time. A ten minute job to replace on most cars.