Speed Limit up to 80mph

[Greenback]

I think that just because a Professor considers an idea, that need not necessarily be a recommendation that it's a sensible one.

The same article contains a lot of very good reasons why it's not sensible.

Although I'd like to poitn out for the sake of balance that the idea of a driverless car does not have to mean driverless taxi's. Ther eis nor eason why driverless cars could not be owned as they are now. I'm not sure where the link between driverless cars and not having to own your own transport has originated from.

 

[Schnellzug]

The driverless cars could be monitored by CCTV and if any criminal activity was detected the doors would lock and it would drive straight to the police station.

great Scott, would they have telescreens built in so you can be entertained by the latest proprganda from the Ministry of Love while you're commuting tot he Office?

 

[Zoe]

Although I'd like to poitn out for the sake of balance that the idea of a driverless car does not have to mean driverless taxi's. Ther eis nor eason why driverless cars could not be owned as they are now. I'm not sure where the link between driverless cars and not having to own your own transport has originated from.

If you have a car at this time due to the convenience you may only use it once a week or less. It's a waste of resources to have it sitting outside not doing anything. A driverless car could be called on demand and would be a much better use of resources.

 

[Greenback]

If you have a car at this time due to the convenience you may only use it once a week or less. It's a waste of resources to have it sitting outside not doing anything. A driverless car could be called on demand and would be a much better use of resources.

How many people, realistically, have a car that is used once a week or less?

Actually, my father in law doesn't drive his car much since he suffered an injury last year but he is loath to get it rid of it, because a) it's hardly worth anything and b) it's there if he does need it for anything. I doubt he'd be any more likely to sell the car on the basis that he could order a driverless one, which, of course, he can't anyway.

And that is only one person amongst all the friends, family, workmates and neighbours I know that has a car! Everyone else uses theirs almost daily.

 

[radamfi]

I respect your view regarding the environmental issues- however most people simply pay lip service to this

Using excessive oil also has non-environmental consequences. Increased consumption means more dependence on 'that area of the map' and increased vulnerability to oil price shocks.

 

[starrymarkb]

I respect your view regarding the environmental issues- however most people simply pay lip service to this.

No Government can claim to have environmental credibility after the introduction of Air Passenger Duty which is just a stealth tax and quite a transparent one at that.

Indeed, especially now the treasury is complaining that the environmental APD revenues are falling short of expectations because people are flying less as a result of APD

 

[radamfi]

A lot of rich people in central London can afford an expensive car but choose not to have one, partly because you can always hail a cab whenever you want and there are no parking issues. This option is not available to most people because it is too expensive but driverless taxis would be much cheaper, making it within more people's reach.

If you have a taxi service that is very cheap and would always come within a few minutes then you might as well use it instead of driving yourself, avoiding parking difficulties at your destination.

 

[Greenback]

If you have a taxi service that is very cheap and would always come within a few minutes then you might as well use it instead of driving yourself, avoiding parking difficulties at your destination.

It may not be very cheap though. It depends on the cost of the technology, the cost of maintaining it, and all of the other costs of providing the service.

Yes, we know there won't be a human to pay wages to, but the other costs involved may well make up for that.

 

[jon0844]

I use taxis quite a bit, and at least 50% of them are terrible drivers and make me feel uncomfortable. These aren't black cabs by the way.

The worst by far are Addison Lee drivers who have regularly taken me to/from airports (organised by other people) and I've been quite terrified. They wander lanes while losing concentration, undertaking and speeding without looking like they're alert. The only good thing is that I've not had one use a phone without handsfree yet.

In London, most black cabs are fine, but I don't see my future involving getting rid of my own car and relying on taxis! Sorry.

Nor do I think I'll be feeling comfortable to have a driverless taxi taking me around, given the state of other drivers, or indeed the road conditions around here. Did Google put on sensors to monitor road surfaces, speed humps (not many in Nevada I expect) and so on. What about poor weather conditions? How will these driverless taxis cope with ice or an oil spill etc?

 

[EM2]

How many people, realistically, have a car that is used once a week or less?

Me.
And yes, I know at the moment it's a colossal waste of money, but it's there just in case. If I need to get to work and the trains and tubes are screwed, I've got the car. If a relative gets taken ill suddenly, I've got the car.
It's my backup, basically.
However, if Streetcar etc could get their act together and have cars in locations that were actually useful to me, I would get rid of mine, and use them.

 

[SWTCommuter]

The driverless cars could be monitored by CCTV and if any criminal activity was detected the doors would lock and it would drive straight to the police station.

Shared car use is already up-and-running in the form of car clubs. I belong to one and It is great if you want to do the long-distance part of a jouney by train and continue to the final destination by car.

It is economical if you only use a car occasionally. If you need a car for regular use or long journeys, it is cheaper and much more convenient to own one. It is a very useful system but it has many limitations compared to owning a car, which becomes your own personal space. For example:

The last user is held responsible for any damage to the car. You need to allow time to carefully check the car before using it, otherwise you may end up paying for damage caused by a previous user.

You cannot smoke in the car.

You cannot take pets in the car, in case other users are allergic to them.

You obviously cannot leave any belongings in the car between bookings. If you accidentally leave anything in the car at the end of a booking, you cannot reopen the car to retrieve it. You either have to book and pay for a new session (assuming it has not already been booked by someone else) or pay a fee for a member of the club staff come out to retrieve it.

If you are delayed and return the car late you may have to pay a penalty.

Quite reasonably, you are expected to leave the car in the same state that you found it, inside and out. If you go for a walk in the country and get mud on the carpet, then drive down a muddy lane and get more mud spattered on the outside, you will have to clean it before the end of the booking period or pay a cleaning fee.​

Some people need their car to be their own personal space. One of my colleagues drives to work and will not use public transport because he suffers from irritable bowel syndrome. Enough said.

 

[90019]

If you have a car at this time due to the convenience you may only use it once a week or less.

I have my car mostly for convenience. I use it every day.

This option is not available to most people because it is too expensive but driverless taxis would be much cheaper, making it within more people's reach.

They wouldn't be cheaper anytime in the near future, because just like normal cabs, you'd still be paying for fuel and maintainance and things like that.
However, on top of that, you'd have to pay for the depots to keep them in (rather than the driver keeping their own one at home), the increased cost of buying them in the first place with all the new technology, the increased maintainance and checks on lots more safety critical equipment on the vehicle, and the infastructure for them.

 

[michael769]

If you have a car at this time due to the convenience you may only use it once a week or less. It's a waste of resources to have it sitting outside not doing anything. A driverless car could be called on demand and would be a much better use of resources.

So having empty cars travelling about (as they go to their customer) is a good use of resources.

What about rural areas?

 

[radamfi]

They wouldn't be cheaper anytime in the near future, because just like normal cabs, you'd still be paying for fuel and maintainance and things like that.

However, on top of that, you'd have to pay for the depots to keep them in (rather than the driver keeping their own one at home), the increased cost of buying them in the first place with all the new technology, the increased maintainance and checks on lots more safety critical equipment on the vehicle, and the infastructure for them.

Obviously I'm talking about the long(ish) term, once glitches and technicalities have been ironed out. I would expect the first application of driverless vehicles would be for buses, with shared (demand responsive) taxis replacing poorly used buses. They would be particularly useful in connecting with trains late at night. Next would be buses in small towns. The depots already exist for these services.

 

[jon0844]

Driverless taxis at night would be mad. How could anyone know if someone threw up in it on the last journey? Imagine having to stand there requesting another one that could be miles away, and all the problems.

While taxi drivers can sometimes be a security problem for people, I'd still imagine myself feeling safer to have a person in the car than nobody else around as I'm waiting for this pod to arrive.

 

[Zoe]

How many people, realistically, have a car that is used once a week or less?

If you just use the car for journeys that are quite difficult to do by public transport then it won't get as much use as if you used it as your primary form of transport.

 

[90019]

Obviously I'm talking about the long(ish) term, once glitches and technicalities have been ironed out.

Even then, to have driverless taxis, you'd still have the increased costs of storage and maintainance. Essentially, you're removing one cost to replace it with a few new ones.

And what about the people who know the route but not the name/address/postcode of the destination? Or those who know the destination but not in a form a computer will recognise and who rely on some local knowledge by the driver?

 

[Greenback]

Obviously I'm talking about the long(ish) term, once glitches and technicalities have been ironed out. I would expect the first application of driverless vehicles would be for buses, with shared (demand responsive) taxis replacing poorly used buses. They would be particularly useful in connecting with trains late at night. Next would be buses in small towns. The depots already exist for these services.

I doubt there are many poorly used buses left. Many disappeared on deregulation, almost all have now disappeared because of council cuts. Even some well used routes and services have gone. Not that i think driverless buses are practical, or would be acceptable to the users.

Driverless taxis at night would be mad. How could anyone know if someone threw up in it on the last journey? Imagine having to stand there requesting another one that could be miles away, and all the problems.

While taxi drivers can sometimes be a security problem for people, I'd still imagine myself feeling safer to have a person in the car than nobody else around as I'm waiting for this pod to arrive.

Ia grre, as I feel do the majority!

If you just use the car for journeys that are quite difficult to do by public transport then it won't get as much use as if you used it as your primary form of transport.

Well, yes. But it must be a very small percentage of people that don't use their vehicle regularly. And you would still have to persuade people to sell their cars, or make it comulsory.

Whatever hapepns, it should be clear that we are a long way from a situation where shared driverless cars, or driverless taxi's replace privately owned cars as we know them. I feel as though sufficeint reasons have been cited to support that position.

 

[90019]

Not that i think driverless buses are practical, or would be acceptable to the users.

I'm curious to know how people suggesting driverless buses would stop people just getting on and not bothering to pay.

 

[radamfi]

Even then, to have driverless taxis, you'd still have the increased costs of storage and maintainance, not to mention the salaries of the people maintaining them.

And what about the people who know the route but not the name/address/postcode of the destination? Or those who know the destination but not in a form a computer will recognise and who rely on some local knowledge by the driver?

What do car clubs do about storage and maintenance? They seem to be mostly parked on the street when not in use.

I presume manned taxis and self driven private cars will still be available for those with specific requirements. However, I have little doubt there is a significant market who would be attracted to a cheaper driverless taxi service, for example people who currently have an infrequent or non-existent bus service and reluctant low mileage car drivers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I doubt there are many poorly used buses left. Many disappeared on deregulation, almost all have now disappeared because of council cuts. Even some well used routes and services have gone. Not that i think driverless buses are practical, or would be acceptable to the users

But if services can be provided cheaper then these services can return. Services in currently low/no PT use areas would start with driverless DRT. If DRT becomes too popular then a proper fixed route service could start, with DRT feeders.

I see little difference between a DOO train/tram and a driverless bus. There isn't any interaction with staff.

 

[Zoe]

I'm curious to know how people suggesting driverless buses would stop people just getting on and not bothering to pay.

You could have a barrier at the bus door that would only open if you touch your smartcard.

 

[SWTCommuter]

I'm curious to know how people suggesting driverless buses would stop people just getting on and not bothering to pay.

Would a driverless bus be unstaffed? DLR trains are driverless but they still need a staff member on board to decide when it's safe to move off and supervise passengers. If it's necessary in a controlled system like a railway, surely it would be even more necessary on the open road.

 

[Greenback]

I see little difference between a DOO train/tram and a driverless bus. There isn't any interaction with staff.

Are you comparing a system that runs on rails, and has a driver, with one that runs on an open road with a huge range of possible interaction with other users, that doesn't have a driver? Or is there a typo somewhere?

I would really love to see a driverless bus cope with city like traffic conditions including parked vehicles, delivery vans, cars, lorries, narrow streets, cyclists and pedestrians, all capable of free, random and independent movement over the road area.

I hope you will forgiv eme though if I choose to see it from a safe distance?

 

[jon0844]

You could have a barrier at the bus door that would only open if you touch your smartcard.

And to stop others sneaking on? Or do the doors close and re-open (taking time) or have a turnstile perhaps?

 

[radamfi]

Are you comparing a system that runs on rails, and has a driver, with one that runs on an open road with a huge range of possible interaction with other users, that doesn't have a driver? Or is there a typo somewhere?

I would really love to see a driverless bus cope with city like traffic conditions including parked vehicles, delivery vans, cars, lorries, narrow streets, cyclists and pedestrians, all capable of free, random and independent movement over the road area.

I hope you will forgiv eme though if I choose to see it from a safe distance?

But this whole debate assumes that driverless vehicles are proven to be safe, safer than vehicles driven by humans. Obviously until this is the case then it can't be done.

Obviously ticketless travel can be policed by random inspections as is the case today with DOO trains and buses in many parts of the world. But there may well be a more sophisticated way of charging for transport that hasn't been invented yet by the time we have driverless vehicles.

 

[Butts]

The 70mph speed limit was imposed on a temporary basis due to road safety standards of the time being pretty much non existant - and 70mph was the 'safe' top speed of the most representative car at the time (1965), the Ford Anglia.

In 2011 we shouldn't be basing our traffic laws on the capabilities of a Ford Anglia, 80mph is a step in the right direction towards common sense motoring.

If it was introduced on a temporary basis does this mean if lifted you could go straight back to unlimited - or was it legislated for to be made permanent.

 

[mumrar]

Went to France on holiday recently involving a longish drive from Calais to St Malo on relatively quiet French motorways.

On the way there, set cruise control to 70mph. On the way back, deadline to meet, set cruise control to 80mph, significant hit on the fuel economy. Just a thought.

And someone's finally on to the answer right there. The government are dressing this up as some form of time saving measure to help the gears of commerce. All it will do is decrease fuel economy, meaning more £ per mile going straight to the Chancellor.

 

[90019]

What do car clubs do about storage and maintenance? They seem to be mostly parked on the street when not in use.

They have specific parking spaces, and I believe they are brought back for maintainance when needed, but car clubs don't work on the same basis as what is being suggested.
What's being proposed here would require millions of the things to cater for demand at peak times, whereas car clubs tend to have a few hundred cars for a specific customer base.

Would a driverless bus be unstaffed? DLR trains are driverless but they still need a staff member on board to decide when it's safe to move off and supervise passengers.

If you're going to go to the bother of having a staff member on the bus, you may as well just keep the driver.
It seems completely pointless to remove the driver from the bus only to replace him with a conductor instead.

You could have a barrier at the bus door that would only open if you touch your smartcard.

What about people without smartcards?
What about when a smartcard won't work?
What about if the reader fails halfway through a journey?
What about people getting off?
What about people with luggage, if you leave a big enough gap for them, what's to stop multiple people getting on with one smartcard?
What about if you're running to catch an infrequent bus, where a driver would see you and wait, how would you get round that with a computer?

 

[Schnellzug]

What about if you're running to catch an infrequent bus, where a driver would see you and wait, how would you get round that with a computer?

We will have no waiting around for tardy passengers in the brave new World. It will teach people to be Punctual.

 

[GB]

And someone's finally on to the answer right there. The government are dressing this up as some form of time saving measure to help the gears of commerce. All it will do is decrease fuel economy, meaning more £ per mile going straight to the Chancellor.

Yes but there is no law saying you will have to drive at 80. Those who burn lots of fuel can either afford it or will soon change their driving styles.

On the point of cruise control, they are one of the worse devices for fuel economy anyway.