Uber taxis

[deltic]

Perhaps we ought to stop being reeled in by Google's plan for world domination for a moment and ponder some rather more domestic issues - what if a sizeable majority of the public don't want to live in a nightmarish world where people aren't allowed to drive cars any more? Being able to go outside, get into your chosen vehicle and head off, somewhere, anywhere, is one of the greatest freedoms we have. Being at the helm as you enjoy the open road, the combination of escapism and stimulation as you control that machine, is something being conveniently overlooked as Google continually force their business plan down everyone's throats. Contrary to their Orwellian ideas, driving is not the terrible chore that the dictators from Silicone Valley or wherever would like everybody to be forced into thinking that it is. What about the millions of people employed solely to drive assorted vehicles, will Google fund their Jobseekers Giro payments once it has them all out of a job?

And how about the trillions that would need to be spent on infrastructure to make it work? Will our government, who can't afford to fill in potholes, be funding that then? Or will Google kindly offer to pay for it all, in the process essentially taking the nation's road network into single private ownership... Do we honestly think that's what the public want?

Don't fall for the hype, for the excitable press releases and the pictures of cars overburdened with cumbersome and dubious technology.... The notion of a driverless highway will remain the stuff of sci-fi for generations to come. And thank the lord for that.

Government wont stop you driving but the price of your insurance policy might!

Every new technology means people lose jobs but in the end more jobs are created. If we took that approach to live we would still be using candles and horse and carts.

Not sure any new investment is needed on the road network - the technology is in the car paid for by the user. Road pricing will also come in relatively shortly as we increasingly de-carbonised road transport.

But I agree driverless cars are more than 20 years away before they are widespread.

Going back to Uber I noticed a lot of uber cars parked up in central Manchester waiting for jobs. That seems to be a major problem in a number of locations now - minicabs parked up all over the place and moving on when traffic wardens appear.

 

[BestWestern]

Government wont stop you driving but the price of your insurance policy might!

Every new technology means people lose jobs but in the end more jobs are created. If we took that approach to live we would still be using candles and horse and carts.

Not sure any new investment is needed on the road network - the technology is in the car paid for by the user. Road pricing will also come in relatively shortly as we increasingly de-carbonised road transport.

But I agree driverless cars are more than 20 years away before they are widespread.

Going back to Uber I noticed a lot of uber cars parked up in central Manchester waiting for jobs. That seems to be a major problem in a number of locations now - minicabs parked up all over the place and moving on when traffic wardens appear.

And ironically, insurance is probably another major stumbling block for driverless technology. I very much doubt any mainstream company would touch it with a bargepole, frankly. Perhaps Google could offer their own, it would add nicely to their total domination of society!

I think there would, in practise, be massive investment needed in the roads. No doubt the flat, wide, grid squares of California are easy territory, but they are a world away from the congested, twisting, hazard-ridden highways of the UK. There would need to be all manner of automated directional and guidance systems in place for the cars to have a hope in hell of getting anywhere safely.

 

[jon0844]

Proper driverless technology where you could have every car in constant communication with everything else, thus allowing speeds to increase, will almost certainly require all normal drivers to get off the roads.

It will also make you have to consider the risks with pedestrians, animals and other 'foreign objects'. I'd think you'd be looking at protecting roads much like motorways, which sort of buggers up city centres.

Now, an intelligent car on its own can of course be very safe, but given the potential risks I do believe you'll be seeing cars creeping along and struggling to cope with driving down a narrow road on a housing estate with cars parked all along, with the need to pull in at the next gap and wait, and how to manage things when the car in front does something silly - and your driverless car now has to reverse, or perhaps do something like mount the kerb, to let someone pass.

I have no doubt a load of sensors can make a car totally aware of risks and simply stop, but have no idea how things are progressing to a point where it can drive like a human. While humans clearly make mistakes all the time, causing accidents, there are clearly also many occasions where a human prevents one.

Just like a pilot that saves a plane after the computers have long given up.

 

[miami]

Proper driverless technology where you could have every car in constant communication with everything else, thus allowing speeds to increase, will almost certainly require all normal drivers to get off the roads.

It will also make you have to consider the risks with pedestrians, animals and other 'foreign objects'. I'd think you'd be looking at protecting roads much like motorways, which sort of buggers up city centres.

Now, an intelligent car on its own can of course be very safe, but given the potential risks I do believe you'll be seeing cars creeping along and struggling to cope with driving down a narrow road on a housing estate with cars parked all along, with the need to pull in at the next gap and wait, and how to manage things when the car in front does something silly - and your driverless car now has to reverse, or perhaps do something like mount the kerb, to let someone pass.

I have no doubt a load of sensors can make a car totally aware of risks and simply stop, but have no idea how things are progressing to a point where it can drive like a human. While humans clearly make mistakes all the time, causing accidents, there are clearly also many occasions where a human prevents one.

Just like a pilot that saves a plane after the computers have long given up.

There was a minor shunt on the princess parkway yesterday, with 2 lanes and then hatching. The shunt was in the right hand lane, so traffic there went round to the right.

I wonder how a driverless car would have coped.

I wonder how they cope if there's a problem and you need to drive on to the pavement (slowly, carefully, but illegally) to get past.

I'm really looking forward to see how they cope in Cairo traffic.

However all these obstacles will be overcome, be it in 5 years or 25 years. Every time a scenario is encountered and a solution is created that solution is available to every car on the road.

Drivers and private cars won't be banned, however it's likely that fewer cars will be sold as families go down to one car, or even no cars. If you drop the price of a taxi to petrol + high milage car deprecation, you'll probably drop your 10 mile commute to about £6 return (30p/mile), which will be far cheaper than even the marginal cost of driving and parking for many people, and certainly cheaper than the added tax and insurance and capital cost for a second car just for that commute.

I suspect the first driverless public road vehicles we see will be trucks that drive the motorways, normal truck driver drives from Carrington to Knutsford, drops the truck off, and crosses the bridge to pick a new one up to drive back to Carrington. Original truck drives automatically to Clackett lane, then a southern driver picks it up for the final run to Bigin Hill (or wherever)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Going back to Uber I noticed a lot of uber cars parked up in central Manchester waiting for jobs. That seems to be a major problem in a number of locations now - minicabs parked up all over the place and moving on when traffic wardens appear.

Where do streetcars minicabs park up while waiting for a ride? Or Manchester cars? Or is it that more people are using Uber instead of driving due to a combination of availability, reliability, cost, and ease of use.

 

[radamfi]

If driverless cars can work over 99% of the time without human interaction, then if there is an particular incident that requires a human to take over, then the car could be driven remotely from an office somewhere for a short time until the car can take over again. That would enable driverless cars to be implemented sooner, rather than waiting until they are 100% infallible.

Driverless taxis would be great in overcoming social exclusion, particularly in rural areas, as non-car owners would no longer have to wait for infrequent buses or pay for expensive human driven taxis.

 

[jon0844]

I am not sure that the benefits are really there. Call up a driverless taxi, it arrives and is dirty. What then? Go on your app to reject it and ask for another?

And all these empty vehicles driving around waiting to be summoned?

Sure we can and probably will get them, just like driverless trains will eventually be the norm, and we might get over our fear of having a plane take off, fly, and land without anyone at the controls (and accept that sometimes there will be incidents that we can argue a human couldn't have handled any better).

But the tech being tested right now is still allowing for cars to 'see' cyclists, people in the dark, to keep people in lane, see the road when reversing/turning, to see when a driver is tired and loads of other aids that make things safer (or, you might argue, makes people more complacent).

However, look at the auto pilot feature Tesla enabled and warned people NOT to take their hands off the wheel. Cue loads of people doing just that, and uploading their somewhat reckless examples to YouTube. Now Elon Musk has admitted maybe that wasn't such a great idea.

I am all for loads of safety aids in cars, and would sooner see the money spent to make such items standard on ALL cars, not just high-end, high-spec models.

Personally, while my son may grow up thinking differently, I think that my enjoyment for driving will mean I'll want to be in control for many more years yet - even if my car can assist me.

 

[radamfi]

I am not sure that the benefits are really there. Call up a driverless taxi, it arrives and is dirty. What then? Go on your app to reject it and ask for another?

The car would probably be able to figure out if it is dirty by itself, and if it is, it would drive itself to the depot for cleaning.

And all these empty vehicles driving around waiting to be summoned?

They could arrange themselves intelligently so that when someone requests a vehicle, there would always be one nearby. They would not need to aimlessly roam around the streets like London taxis, wasting valuable road space. If private car ownership became negligible because of people using driverless taxis, then finding space to park the vehicles would not be an issue.

I think that my enjoyment for driving will mean I'll want to be in control for many more years yet - even if my car can assist me.

There would probably be a demand for private racing circuits across the country where people could indulge in their passion for driving without putting public safety at risk.

 

[BestWestern]

If driverless cars can work over 99% of the time without human interaction, then if there is an particular incident that requires a human to take over, then the car could be driven remotely from an office somewhere for a short time until the car can take over again. That would enable driverless cars to be implemented sooner, rather than waiting until they are 100% infallible.

Driverless taxis would be great in overcoming social exclusion, particularly in rural areas, as non-car owners would no longer have to wait for infrequent buses or pay for expensive human driven taxis.

That is utterly unworkable! Who is going to staff and pay for these offices full of remote drivers?! The only human driving would have to be from somebody in the car, in which case when you consider all the issues around insurance, licensing and so on, welcome back to square one!

Leave the roads as they are; driverless is neither practical nor faintly necessary.

As an associated aside, there are two videos which often crop up from Youtube or wherever. One shows a Volvo fitted with collision avoidance technology intended to allow it to stop itself in a manner far superior to its driver. It piles straight into the back of the articulated lorry it is supposed to brake and avoid, and this is on a press demonstration. The second shows an executive saloon; it's either a BMW or another Volvo, fitted with similar pedestrian avoidance kit. A chap stands in front while it approaches him, and it duly runs him over.

It's okay; I'll do the driving ta...

 

[radamfi]

That is utterly unworkable! Who is going to staff and pay for these offices full of remote drivers?! The only human driving would have to be from somebody in the car, in which case when you consider all the issues around insurance, licensing and so on, welcome back to square one!

As I suggested, this would only be done if the cars can do the vast majority of the driving themselves. Obviously anyone who can drive could do this job and the cost would be borne by the taxi company.

What's wrong with driving the car from outside the car if they can see whatever someone sat inside of the car can see? Especially if they have the standard anti-crash safety systems that are becoming normal on today's cars? Again, I reiterate that this would only be done for a tiny proportion of miles driven so there would probably be only a few of these people needed in each town. Certainly a lot fewer than the number of taxi drivers we have today. If a lot of people are needed, that would defeat the whole point of driverless cars.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Leave the roads as they are; driverless is neither practical nor faintly necessary.

Is it not worth saving people (especially vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists) from death and injury?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it not worth saving people (especially vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists) from death and injury?

That can to some extent be done with safety devices, as distinct from full driverless operation. For instance, on a dry road certain modern VWs have all-round parking sensors which are used to automatically apply the brakes such that they are incapable of colliding with a stationary object under (I think) 20mph. Add to that parking sensors in and of themselves, lane departure warnings, adaptive (braking controlled) cruise control etc, and you get much of the safety gain without taking away the control.

I'm also less than convinced that cars of any kind are the future of city transport, as you're still driving around the big chunk of heavy metal with one person in it. Driverless trains, trams etc are perhaps of more merit (and are much simpler to implement - indeed they already exist) and may well be more of a benefit in our towns and cities. It might similarly, for example, be viable to provide more frequent branch-line services if they do not require staff, or if the only staff member needed is the guard a la DLR. Personal transport is quite possibly much more viable as the bicycle, or the electrically-assisted bicycle.

The one possible exception is the motorway where the situation is vastly simplified and a "driverless only" lane with reduced spacings would be viable. But you're *still* shifting big heavy metal boxes with one person in each, and so unless we go fully for nuclear or renewable energy it's still less carbon-efficient than them all being in a coach or train.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

ISure we can and probably will get them, just like driverless trains will eventually be the norm, and we might get over our fear of having a plane take off, fly, and land without anyone at the controls (and accept that sometimes there will be incidents that we can argue a human couldn't have handled any better).

Or are we genuinely better with machine and human working together? I believe the captain of the Airbus A320 that ditched in the Hudson River waxed lyrical about the Airbus control philosophy and how it helped him out - all he needed to do to get the most lift the aircraft could safely provide (as a big glider) was to pull all the way back on the stick, and thus only had to worry about left and right. I think he was quoted as saying he couldn't have done it in the much more manually-controlled Boeing 737, where it would have been too easy to stall it.

While (despite recent unfortunate incidents) flying is very safe, and I am happy getting into any aircraft operated by a reputable airline, I think I do overall prefer the Airbus philosophy - and I think cars will get more like that. Imagine, for instance, a car where you could turn the wheel to full lock, and it would give you the maximum swerve it could without loss of control while automatically braking to stop you whacking into the tree you were about to hit because you swerved to avoid a small child? It's only one step further than ABS, and as most drivers aren't as skilled as racing drivers, it would probably save lives.

 

[radamfi]

I'm also less than convinced that cars of any kind are the future of city transport, as you're still driving around the big chunk of heavy metal with one person in it.

That would be my principal reservation with driverless cars as well. If we have driverless buses/trams running every few minutes on main corridors, they could be fed by driverless taxis from people's front door to those routes at the nearest stop, and driverless taxis would join into the end of these routes from outlying villages.

There is also the possibility of people choosing to cycle who are currently scared from doing so, if they know they cannot be injured by motor vehicles.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is also the possibility of people choosing to cycle who are currently scared from doing so, if they know they cannot be injured by motor vehicles.

I maintain the view that the best way to provide safe-feeling cycle routes is to segregate them from large heavy vehicles on the Dutch model, whether the latter happen to be driven manually or automated.

 

[radamfi]

I maintain the view that the best way to provide safe-feeling cycle routes is to segregate them from large heavy vehicles on the Dutch model, whether the latter happen to be driven manually or automated.

I would agree segregation is highly preferable, but it would be interesting to see if cycling does increase without segregation in a totally driverless motor vehicle scenario. The Dutch model does allow mixed cycling on roads that have low amounts of traffic, primarily where cars only use that road to get to their homes. These typically have a 30 km/h limit and there are also "bicycle streets" which are officially normal roads but are painted red to look like cycle paths and the cars are considered to be "guests".

 

[WestCoast]

Sorry to bring the thread up but I've been using Uber quite a lot recently in Birmingham and have been quite impressed. I know this won't apply to most cities, but Uber drivers here generally seem of a higher standard (as they get rated after every trip) than the local private hire companies who I've always found down right dodgy!

 

[fowler9]

Some drivers will struggle to get used to the speed limit and other laws when vehicles programmed to obey the law drive them around. Oddly enough that may actually speed things up.

 

[BestWestern]

Sorry to bring the thread up but I've been using Uber quite a lot recently in Birmingham and have been quite impressed. I know this won't apply to most cities, but Uber drivers here generally seem of a higher standard (as they get rated after every trip) than the local private hire companies who I've always found down right dodgy!

I've also used the service, and I have to say it is impressive, overall.

Won't be using any driverless taxis though!

 

[Deerfold]

I've also used the service, and I have to say it is impressive, overall.

Won't be using any driverless taxis though!

Not even if they have lower accident rates than traditional taxis?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not even if they have lower accident rates than traditional taxis?

Quite. I have seen some quite atrocious driving from taxi drivers, both black cab and private hire, on far too many occasions. I can't help but think I would feel safer in an automatically driven vehicle.

 

[Mojo]

The number of PHVs, and the standard of driving of such vehicles, that I have witnessed on London's roads in the past fortnight, has been absolutely shocking. I regularly drive along the North Circular Road and have not seen a single one of them in the inside lane; they are all cruising along in the middle lane even at 4.45am when there is nothing on the inside lane!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The number of PHVs, and the standard of driving of such vehicles, that I have witnessed on London's roads in the past fortnight, has been absolutely shocking. I regularly drive along the North Circular Road and have not seen a single one of them in the inside lane; they are all cruising along in the middle lane even at 4.45am when there is nothing on the inside lane!

To be fair, this particular issue is not exclusive to PHVs. In Milton Keynes it seems to be usual to drive in the right hand lane if you're turning right at the next roundabout, regardless of speed. This needs the Police to do some cracking down; it could be DWDCAA if not a more specific offence.

 

[BestWestern]

So where are all the press reports of serious RTCs involving these looney cab drivers!?

Be an awfully long time before a driverless one rolls up, so I see no point in getting too uptight about it!

 

[Bletchleyite]

So where are all the press reports of serious RTCs involving these looney cab drivers!?

As most taxi journeys occur on 30mph roads in cities (actually, probably 20mph now in London), the accidents are no doubt low-speed damage-only ones, these are so common they aren't news. That doesn't make the standards of driving you see from such drivers on a daily basis in any way acceptable.

 

[BestWestern]

As most taxi journeys occur on 30mph roads in cities (actually, probably 20mph now in London), the accidents are no doubt low-speed damage-only ones, these are so common they aren't news. That doesn't make the standards of driving you see from such drivers on a daily basis in any way acceptable.

No, but it does rather make the 'dangerous driving' hysteria look a little silly though, don't you think?

Should I be terrified that every time I board a double decker bus it's going to collide with a low bridge?! Or that every time a train I'm on approaches a farm crossing somebody is going to drive a tractor/lorry/vanload of immigrant fruit pickers across it?

Driverless cars are a long, long way off. Thank god. In the meantime, chill out!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Should I be terrified that every time I board a double decker bus it's going to collide with a low bridge?! Or that every time a train I'm on approaches a farm crossing somebody is going to drive a tractor/lorry/vanload of immigrant fruit pickers across it?

No, but I certainly find that more often than not there is something lacking in the quality of the driving of private-hire cars I use. While such concerns happen in only a minority of bus journeys, and as yet not ever on a train journey.

 

[miami]

No, but it does rather make the 'dangerous driving' hysteria look a little silly though, don't you think?

Should I be terrified that every time I board a double decker bus it's going to collide with a low bridge?! Or that every time a train I'm on approaches a farm crossing somebody is going to drive a tractor/lorry/vanload of immigrant fruit pickers across it?

Both of these are far more likely than some things the "public is terrified of".

Road deaths have been dropping for 40 years, and have halved in the last 15.

 

[BestWestern]

Both of these are far more likely than some things the "public is terrified of".

Road deaths have been dropping for 40 years, and have halved in the last 15.

That would be down to cars being far, far safer than they were even a few years ago, as well as certain cultural changes such as drink driving becoming socially unacceptable.

I agree with your first sentence!

 

[rjholt]

Have used Uber a few times now. Always nice cars and cheap fare. I have no idea how the drivers are making money though which concerns me as to the sustainability of it.

 

[miami]

Victory for common sense!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35361153

London's transport authority has rejected proposals that would have severely restricted Uber and other app-focused car pick-up services.
The California-based private-hire company had urged its users to oppose suggestions that had included a ban on apps being able to show where their nearby available vehicles were.
The idea had been put forward following complaints from black-cab drivers about "unfair competition".
Uber has celebrated the "victory".
However, the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association (LTDA) said there had been a "missed opportunity".
Other rejected measures included:
a minimum five-minute delay between pick-up confirmations being sent out and drivers being able to collect their passengers
a requirement that private-hire companies let customers pre-book cars up to seven days in advance
a limitation that drivers be registered to only a single operator at a time
Uber's drivers may still be inconvenienced by a new proposal.
The Mayor, Boris Johnson, has asked Transport for London (TfL) to investigate whether all private-hire drivers should lose their exemption from the city's congestion-charge scheme.
.....
Some of (black cab drivers) are organising a crowdfunding campaign to pay for a legal case that they hope will result in Uber's London licence being withdrawn.
The effort has raised just over £48,000 of its £600,000 target so far.

 

[NY Yankee]

The London Transport system is the best in the world. Nevertheless, it has a few flaws. The system shuts down at night and many of the stations are not wheelchair accessible (though the TFL is fixing that situation). Uber is ideal for people who want a prearranged ride, rather than to wait for a black cab. It is also convenient for Londoners with disabilities.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/uber/11942331/Uber-launches-service-for-disabled-passengers-in-London.html

Furthermore, I believe in free enterprise. The more competition there is, the more options Londoners have.

 

[deltic]

The London Transport system is the best in the world. Nevertheless, it has a few flaws. The system shuts down at night and many of the stations are not wheelchair accessible (though the TFL is fixing that situation). Uber is ideal for people who want a prearranged ride, rather than to wait for a black cab. It is also convenient for Londoners with disabilities.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/uber/11942331/Uber-launches-service-for-disabled-passengers-in-London.html

Furthermore, I believe in free enterprise. The more competition there is, the more options Londoners have.

Not sure I agree it is the best in the world but it is certainly one of the best. Its bus network is one of the most extensive in the world and operates 24hrs a day so its not true to say London's network closes down at night.

I also agree with competition but there is a danger of one product with a different set of regulations (minicabs/Uber) undermining another form of transport (black cabs) which means some people lose out. The example of disabled passengers is the main example. Uber having 100 minicab drivers who can deal with certain disabilities pales into insignificance to the 20,000+ black cabs that are fully accessible. The loss of black cabs would significantly reduce the options available to many disabled passengers.

My view is that minicab operators should have at least 25% of their fleet fully accessible and drivers should do a very basic knowledge and customer care test and that the outdated knowledge test for black cab drivers should be radically scaled back to provide more of a level playing field.

I see that the price of New York City taxi medallions has fallen significantly due to competition from Uber. I have never understood why the Land of the Free as so many anti-competitive rules and regulations.