Driverless cars...

[TheFoX]

As we progress towards driverless cars, or cars that can switch between driver and driverless modes, how can we be sure that the driverless mode won't be abused.

Say, for example, that someone gets caught drinking and driving, and gets a ban. All they would have to do is switch to driverless mode and, bingo, they can bypass the ban by allowing their car to drive for them.

What about idiots who go to the pub in their car and drive home drunk, who switch the car to driverless mode as soon as they see a patrol car?

I can see situations where accidents happen, with one driver switching his car to driverless mode to try and fool the police into thinking the car caused the accident and not him.

What about insurance? You could have nine points on your license yet claim the driverless car has an impeccable record and should get reduced premiums. How would an insurer assess risk, as the driverless car is probably a safer driver than the drunk speeder that normally takes control of the car.

So, in reality, you could lose your license for twelve months yet still retain the right to drive as long as you allow the car to do the driving. In effect, being banned from driving would mean nowt.

There would need to be a logging system such as a tachograph system (digicard) as to who was driving at any given moment, otherwise the driverless car system could be abused by all sorts of idiots.

 

[PobodY]

I think that currently the person in the driver's seat is legally in charge of the vehicle (whether they're driving or not), so they would still be charged with being intoxicated in control of a vehicle because they're in control of who is currently driving.

I doubt insurance companies will reduce the premium for self-driving cars; if anything they'd just increase it for cars without the technology.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

As we progress towards driverless cars, or cars that can switch between driver and driverless modes, how can we be sure that the driverless mode won't be abused.

Say, for example, that someone gets caught drinking and driving, and gets a ban. All they would have to do is switch to driverless mode and, bingo, they can bypass the ban by allowing their car to drive for them.

What about idiots who go to the pub in their car and drive home drunk, who switch the car to driverless mode as soon as they see a patrol car?

I can see situations where accidents happen, with one driver switching his car to driverless mode to try and fool the police into thinking the car caused the accident and not him.

What about insurance? You could have nine points on your license yet claim the driverless car has an impeccable record and should get reduced premiums. How would an insurer assess risk, as the driverless car is probably a safer driver than the drunk speeder that normally takes control of the car.

So, in reality, you could lose your license for twelve months yet still retain the right to drive as long as you allow the car to do the driving. In effect, being banned from driving would mean nowt.

There would need to be a logging system such as a tachograph system (digicard) as to who was driving at any given moment, otherwise the driverless car system could be abused by all sorts of idiots.

What makes you think that automation would relieve the driver of any responsibility?

 

[neilrr]

What are we going to do with all the unemployed drivers - delivery, taxi etc - when not just their job but the entire job of 'driver' is as redundant as candle maker?

There are an awful lot of them.

 

[Yugguy]

I think wide mainstream take up of driverless is a LOT further off than people believe.

 

[John Jones Jr]

That's 'driverless'.

 

[PobodY]

Ah.. Johnny Cab!

 

[TheFoX]

Well, think on this one. Since the early 80's when computers started to become widely available to everyone, the technology has spiralled beyond belief. Our Smartphones have more processing power than minis of the 80's.

So, I can foresee driverless cars being introduced to the mainstream within the next ten years. If the car can drive itself, the person who owns the car would not even need a driving license.

After all, the current list of driver aids is bewildering, with collision detection and avoidance, intelligent headlight systems, lane assist, radar controlled cruise control and numerous other inventions and aids.

In fact, we could see a situation within a few decades where people aren't allowed to take control of the vehicle, requiring the computer system to control the vehicle regardless, ensuring a safer journey for all.

It's no use mocking this idea, or concept, because it will happen, just as computers replaced thousands of payroll clerks back in the 70's.

In fact, the technology available means we can communicate on the move. The older members of this forum will remember the old days of dialing and party lines, and no mobile phones.

So, if communications technology has changed so much, it is obvious that the same technology that isolates us from each other (we can now hold a conversation with an electronic customer service assistant) can also control our vehicles without our intervention.

Anyway, this thread isn't about the technology, but how we should see the technology implemented, and what issues are bound to crop up, especially with regards to abuse of the technology.

 

[rf065]

Driverless cars, what could go wrong?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39027477

Russ

 

[Deleted member 126969]

I reckon about half of cars on the road are already driverless......

 

[BTB 500]

Driverless cars, what could go wrong?

Driverless Roborace car crashes at speed in Buenos Aires - BBC News

Russ

Not all bad though ... one of them slowed down and swerved round a dog that ran out onto the track!

 

[BTB 500]

it will happen, just as computers replaced thousands of payroll clerks back in the 70's.

LOL that was me, implementing Unipay for factory payrolls!

 

[Deleted member 6183]

Anyway, this thread isn't about the technology, but how we should see the technology implemented, and what issues are bound to crop up, especially with regards to abuse of the technology.

Which is exactly why the driver will remain culpable.

 

[markjay]

Which is exactly why the driver will remain culpable.

The driver of the driverless car... isn't this an oxymoron?

 

[Deleted member 6183]

The driver of the driverless car... isn't this an oxymoron?

OK, driver of an automated car.

 

[grimree]

OK, driver of an automated car.

still an oxymoron - if the vehicle is automated there is no driver

 

[Deleted member 6183]

still an oxymoron - if the vehicle is automated there is no driver

Don't be silly, there will have to be a transitional period while cars and roads catch up.

On the other hand if you want a ruck I'm sure that will find one somewhere.