ICE cars given 5 year reprieve

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Once the big boys like VAG, FORD and the German big three start producing better cars than Musk at lower prices (lets face it quality wise Lada could do better) then I think Tesla will fade away.....too badly built and unreliable and too expensive to compete. I bet Musk cant believe how long its taking everyone else to catch up.....me too to be honest!
Not sure that it will be major American and European manufacturers, the Chinese brands are by far the biggest threat to all western car manufacturers, Tesla included.

You can already see the European manufacturers taking defensive positions at the more expensive end of the market, and reducing or exiting less expensive segments.

Mercedes is a good example. Their Smart brand is now a JV with Geely (if you can’t beat ‘em…). Their smaller models are reducing, and the rest are shifting up market.

This allows those manufacturers to literally capitalise upon their brand identity which is the Western manufacturers main advantage (for now) over the new Chinese brands.

That’s changing though as the domestic Chinese brands grow and develop, and they acquire well established and trusted western brands like Volvo and Lotus.

At the less expensive end of the market, lower prices will largely push the remaining Eiuropean brands out or up, the Chinese manufacturers can do low cost very well.

Car purchases are heavily influenced by image, and so it’s easy to say that the Chinese manufacturers will never catch on in image conscious markets like the UK.

Personal tech purchases are similarly influenced by image, and hence the seemingly unstoppable popularity of Apple and insensitivity to price of Apple customers.

But they’re all made in China, where factories can achieve the required cost and quality, so the most personal and image conscious purchase is already “Chinese”.

Buy an established western brand, and sell cars at lower prices but at a similar quality, and they’ll sell in increasing numbers. It’s happening already, time will soon tell.

Car buyers are image conscious, but most are only image conscious when “posh” cars are affordable by buying a slightly old posh car, rather than a newer less-posh car.

However the majority of new cars are bought by fleets, and fleet buyers and fleet drivers buy on cost before brand., as evidenced by the rise of the fleet EV.

The first Chinese manufacturer to make a credible 3-series and Model-3 alternative, will work for fleets will become a force to be reckoned with in a short period.
 
Obviously those systems, usually from Valeo, are vital for self-driving. It's 17 years now since MB launched night vision in the S class. Fascinating to see, but as Clarkson pointed out, really only useful to watch dogging. You don't drive by looking downwards towards a TV screen, or by looking sideways at the central console of a Tesla Y.

Obviously we all believe self-driving will come and be successful.

My point was that Tesla haven't achieved it yet, despite announcing it years ago and invoicing suckers for it last decade.

No child running across a road is going to be saved by the screen display in your colleague's Tesla Y. It might, one day, when the technology advances significantly further. (And further enough not to be activated by a pheasant flying too slowly out of a car's way)

Whenever you poke self-driving and ADAS (automotive driving assistance), you'll find Valeo underneath. Vehicle designers and assemblers don't create the products that they assemble, nor even the robots that assemble their vehicles for them.

Tesla may be "ahead of the pack" but, as you've demonstrated, Brits are looking to Korea, China, Japan, and even poor old Europe for cars closer to their needs.
Detecting pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles accurately is not for the driver’s benefit - it’s for the car’s benefit - so that active safety systems prevent the accident before it happens. Humans can’t react quickly enough to be effective.
 
Detecting pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles accurately is not for the driver’s benefit - it’s for the car’s benefit - so that active safety systems prevent the accident before it happens. Humans can’t react quickly enough to be effective.
For sure. I was just querying the expansive claims about the active safety systems being installed by the likes of Valeo in the world’s motor cars.

They’re progressing, but not quite as fast as some claim
 
From today's Telegraph:
Screenshot 2023-10-03 at 23.51.22.png

A driverless taxi in San Francisco left a woman screaming in pain after she was trapped under it moments after being hit by a human driver.

The pedestrian was struck in a hit and run collision that threw her into the path of a driverless vehicle that then ran her over, stopping on top of her leg and remaining there until she was rescued by police, a witness told the San Francisco Chronicle.

The woman was admitted to hospital and is in a critical condition after the incident, which required the stationary car to be lifted off the ground, San Francisco’s fire department said. She had been walking through moving traffic at a green light in the city’s downtown.

The case is among the most serious accidents involving driverless cars in San Francisco since two companies, Waymo and Cruise, were granted licences to provide 24/7 robotaxi services to the general public in August.

Witnesses said the car, operated by Cruise, ran the pedestrian over before stopping with its rear axle and tyre on her leg and turning on its hazard lights before the car was shut off remotely. The initial driver who hit the woman fled the scene.

‘The initial impact was severe’​

Cruise said that the car, which did not have passengers in it, remained in place at the request of the police and that it had braked rapidly to minimise the impact of the crash.
A spokesman said: “At approximately 9:30 pm on Oct 2, a human-driven vehicle struck a pedestrian while travelling in the lane immediately to the left of a Cruise AV [autonomous vehicle]. The initial impact was severe and launched the pedestrian directly in front of the AV. The AV then braked aggressively to minimise the impact.
“The driver of the other vehicle fled the scene, and at the request of the police, the AV was kept in place. Our heartfelt concern and focus is the wellbeing of the person who was injured and we are actively working with police to help identify the responsible driver.”
 
All that said, initial problems are always sorted out.

On September 15th, 1830 the MP for Liverpool and former Cabinet minister, William Huskisson, alighted from his carriage on the steam locomotive Northumbrian and became the first person ever to die in a railway accident.

Huskisson was attending the opening of the Manchester and Liverpool railway, along with a number of other dignitaries, and while his train was stopped for water, Huskisson decided to go to greet the Duke of Wellington, who was riding in another part of the train. As he clambered up into the duke’s carriage Huskisson lost his balance and fell into the path of Stephenson’s Rocket, which was proceeding down the adjacent track. It ran over Huskisson’s leg causing severe bleeding and he was placed back on the Northumbrian and driven by George Stephenson himself, to hospital in Eccles, where he died later that day. He was 60 years old.

Screenshot 2023-10-03 at 23.54.52.png
 
From today's Telegraph:
View attachment 147754

A driverless taxi in San Francisco left a woman screaming in pain after she was trapped under it moments after being hit by a human driver.

The pedestrian was struck in a hit and run collision that threw her into the path of a driverless vehicle that then ran her over, stopping on top of her leg and remaining there until she was rescued by police, a witness told the San Francisco Chronicle.

The woman was admitted to hospital and is in a critical condition after the incident, which required the stationary car to be lifted off the ground, San Francisco’s fire department said. She had been walking through moving traffic at a green light in the city’s downtown.

The case is among the most serious accidents involving driverless cars in San Francisco since two companies, Waymo and Cruise, were granted licences to provide 24/7 robotaxi services to the general public in August.

Witnesses said the car, operated by Cruise, ran the pedestrian over before stopping with its rear axle and tyre on her leg and turning on its hazard lights before the car was shut off remotely. The initial driver who hit the woman fled the scene.

‘The initial impact was severe’​

Cruise said that the car, which did not have passengers in it, remained in place at the request of the police and that it had braked rapidly to minimise the impact of the crash.
A spokesman said: “At approximately 9:30 pm on Oct 2, a human-driven vehicle struck a pedestrian while travelling in the lane immediately to the left of a Cruise AV [autonomous vehicle]. The initial impact was severe and launched the pedestrian directly in front of the AV. The AV then braked aggressively to minimise the impact.
“The driver of the other vehicle fled the scene, and at the request of the police, the AV was kept in place. Our heartfelt concern and focus is the wellbeing of the person who was injured and we are actively working with police to help identify the responsible driver.”
The headline does allow the the reader to jump to the wrong conclusion and when you read the full story then it could easy to jump to the opposite conclusion, and that the outcome could have been much worse had it not been an autonomous vehicle.

I speak with some experience. I was sat at a beach cafe when a woman in a car drove into and over a dog. Hearing it’s yelp she reversed back of them dog. Hearing it yelp again she put it back into first and went up on to the dog for third time.

The car’s wheel was on top of the tog’s leg when the car finally stopped. Helped by another we lifted the car up by its wheel arches and the dog managed to scramble out. The woman was beside herself in panic and thought it was child she had hit.
 
The headline does allow the the reader to jump to the wrong conclusion and when you read the full story then it could easy to jump to the opposite conclusion, and that the outcome could have been much worse had it not been an autonomous vehicle....

Fair point, however the fact that the car was autonomous is irrelevant here, because any car with pedestrian collision avoidance system would have braked automatically in exactly the same way, and minimised the damage to the pedestrian. These systems are available on all modern cars, including ICE.

The only relevant fact here is that once the autonomous vehicle stopped, its wheel remained on top of the pedestrian's leg. Presumably if this was a car with a human driver (including a Tesla driven in FSD mode), the driver would have jumped right back into the car and drive it off the pedestrian's leg, something that did not happen in this case.

EDIT: is this actually the correct thing to do in such cases? Any paramedics here? Or would the car be lifted anyway rather than driven off the person's leg?
 
Fair point, however the fact that the car was autonomous is irrelevant here, any car with pedestrian collision avoidance system would have brakes automatically just the same and minimise the damage to the pedestrian. These systems are available on all modern cars, including ICE.

The only relevant fact here is that once the autonomous vehicle stopped, its wheel remained on top of the pedestrian's leg. Presumably if this was a car with a human driver (including a Tesla driven in FSD mode), the driver would havr jumped right back into the car and drive it off the pedestrian's leg.
As per my real life example - albeit with a dog - that didn’t happen with a human driver. When you’re actually in the situation, moving the car may or may not be the right thing to do.
 
So the headline should have said:

'Breaking news: autonomous vehicle behaved just like a human-driven vehicle would' :D
 
So the headline should have said:

'Breaking news: autonomous vehicle behaved just like a human-driven vehicle would' :D
I would say it outperformed the human. Unfortunately the woman drove over the top of the poor dog in two directions before stopping on top of the dog on her third pass. It sounds ridiculous now but she was ina blind panic, she thought she had run over a child.

She never did thank any of the people who rushed to help her and the dog but that’s perhaps understandable as she was in a state of shock. What was most strange is that the she actually ran away at first, not that she could go far because she worked in the beach cafe where it happened.

Another strange thing is that the owners of the dog didn’t say thank you. I kid you not, they didn't move from their seat at the bar of the beach cafe. They didn't check their dog or say thank you to the people who helped their dog, or the many concerned onlookers who told them. Apparently regulars.

Back to topic.
 
Fair point, however the fact that the car was autonomous is irrelevant here, because any car with pedestrian collision avoidance system would have braked automatically in exactly the same way, and minimised the damage to the pedestrian. These systems are available on all modern cars, including ICE.

The only relevant fact here is that once the autonomous vehicle stopped, its wheel remained on top of the pedestrian's leg. Presumably if this was a car with a human driver (including a Tesla driven in FSD mode), the driver would have jumped right back into the car and drive it off the pedestrian's leg, something that did not happen in this case.

EDIT: is this actually the correct thing to do in such cases? Any paramedics here? Or would the car be lifted anyway rather than driven off the person's leg?
one technique likely to be used depending on circumstances would be raising the car with an inflatable bag and then supporting it on blocks-its likely the autonomous vehicle was deliberately imobilised to prevent further lateral movement to protect the victim and rescue personel freeing her - its also possible that the weight of the vehicle may have been compressing the victims damaged leg blood vessels preventing her from bleeding out and decompressing her leg before emergency circulatory support was in place could be an additional risk factor?
 
Last edited:
Exactly, I didn't embellish the original story but it is as complicated as Bobby and Markjay have picked up

As the technologists repeatedly point out, the tech will often take the "right" decision, but the big issue remains "do we condone, or trust, the tech?" Robot driving will treat school areas with respect and be cautious about moving around - far more so that humans - but will trust it, and will we accept it doing things like sticking to the speed limit, slowing even further etc. etc.

We know that a quarter of the deaths on our roads are caused by under 25's driving tiny mileages without experience or caution. Do we do anything to reduce those 400 deaths a year? Not really, we just let it carry on happening. A clear example where even the dumbest robocar who earn its keep.
 
I was reading a report that if we replaced airline pilots with AI plane crashes would reduce by about 88%.....the amount currently attributed to pilot error!!! Even allowing for a few software issues related crashes (hopefully any plane AI system would be failsafe anyway!) they would still do far better than any pilot.......the problem with that?....well according to the same report about 95% of passengers would not get on a pilot-less plane in the first place!!! Of course apart from take off and landing pilots don't do much anyway....autopilot does the rest.
 
I was reading a report that if we replaced airline pilots with AI plane crashes would reduce by about 88%.....the amount currently attributed to pilot error!!! Even allowing for a few software issues related crashes (hopefully any plane AI system would be failsafe anyway!) they would still do far better than any pilot.......the problem with that?....well according to the same report about 95% of passengers would not get on a pilot-less plane in the first place!!! Of course apart from take off and landing pilots don't do much anyway....autopilot does the rest.

The issue is public perception.

The public will accept a crash resulting from human error ("everyone makes mistakes"), but they will not accept a crash resulting from a software glitch in a pilotless plane or driverless car.

It's just how things are.
 
Has no one noticed this one?:


"The bus company emphasised that the 13-tonne vehicle was electric, discounting earlier reports that it also ran on methane gas. Fire brigade commander Mauro Longo told Il Gazzettino website that the bus's batteries caught fire and made the task of clearing the bus a complex operation."

90
 
I was reading a report that if we replaced airline pilots with AI plane crashes would reduce by about 88%.....the amount currently attributed to pilot error!!! Even allowing for a few software issues related crashes (hopefully any plane AI system would be failsafe anyway!) they would still do far better than any pilot.......the problem with that?....well according to the same report about 95% of passengers would not get on a pilot-less plane in the first place!!! Of course apart from take off and landing pilots don't do much anyway....autopilot does the rest.

I would most definitely not get on a pilotless plane at the moment or likely in my lifetime. If AI can't yet fully manage cars, it's orders of magnitude away from being able to fly a plane in all circumstances as a well as a skilled pilot. It can and does assist the pilot if the software is correctly designed. Automation has made flying very much safer but AI cannot at this point completely replace a pilot. It's true that Pilots don't do much except take off and land but it's a very highly skilled and complex job to an extent that vastly exceeds the typical passengers understanding. Any comparison between the skills needed to fly a plane or drive a car is deeply insulting to the pilot.

Automated flying is a nice idea but a dilemma. The vast majority of plane crashes are pilot error or the interaction between the pilot and the automation. Assuming they are competent, Pilots generally make mistakes though mental overload and automation should be able to help with that although it has often been the cause of it. For example the 737 max had software that under the wrong circumstances was designed to fly the plane into the ground. It's worth noting that the airlines with well trained and skilled pilots didn't ever fly a 737 max into the ground, they were able to overcome the automation and disconnect it. it was the lesser airlines with less able pilots that resulted in the crashes. Those pilots could fly a plane OK but weren't able to cope with the unexpected, neither would AI be able to at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Hi , what issues will arise when let's say 50% of the cars are driverless and 50% are piloted by us mortal humans.

I don't think it will be good reading but I do hope I am wrong.
 
Hi , what issues will arise when let's say 50% of the cars are driverless and 50% are piloted by us mortal humans.

I don't think it will be good reading but I do hope I am wrong.

I suspect that there will be zero crashes between driverless cars and other driverless cars.

A small percentage of crashes will be between driverless cars and human driven cars.

And the vast majority of crashes will be between human driven cars and other human driven cars.
 
Has no one noticed this one?:


"The bus company emphasised that the 13-tonne vehicle was electric, discounting earlier reports that it also ran on methane gas. Fire brigade commander Mauro Longo told Il Gazzettino website that the bus's batteries caught fire and made the task of clearing the bus a complex operation."

90

Shocker, absolute shocker.

"Once emergency workers arrived, they spent hours dousing the flames and helping the injured.
The fire was so intense that DNA samples will need to be used to identify some of the dead."


From this follow up article about the rescuers

Venice bus crash: The heroes who pulled survivors from burning wreck
 
Last edited:
I suspect that there will be zero crashes between driverless cars and other driverless cars.

We have fully autonomous vehicles in work , in an ideal they avoid each other as they all know where they are individually and collectively through the network and through numerous sensors located on the vehicles which should ensure no contact with each other / machinery / humans / forklifts.

Unfortunately we dont live in an ideal world and sensors go out of calibration , the radars break , there are "blips" on the comms network and the result of this is low speed collisions (around 6 mph) which cause mainly superficial damage , however if you were to multiply their speed X10 then we would have serious problems.

Will a full (expensive) safety system check be part of the MOT for autonomous / semi autonomous vehicles in the future , i would like to think so.

K
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom