Motorists doubtful over driverless car technology, survey finds

Do you guys really believe that once the roads are full of automated cars you'll be allowed to cycle on them without special transponders, laser rangefinding systems and speed limiters? Careful what you wish for...

Have you seen how much the vehicles in the US desert challenge cost? Let's just say, you don't build one for less than $2 million. And there's so much technology in there, the price isn't going to come down so much.

Hmm, lot of interesting stuff there, thanks for replying. The Darpa Grand Challenge in the USA (and by extension, the Google self-drive project) does seem to have overcome many of these. Clearly, the forward-scanning radar is an obvious requirement, since without it all you've got is a GPS connected to automated steering/pedals/gears. My thinking is more about the kind of object recognition software that needs to be inherent in the sensors. Traffic lights - (unless they broadcast a new data signal to indicate the light colour for each lane/direction), a cyclist, a cyclist with their arm out and moving across lanes, temporary roadworks with a man stood in the middle with a red/green stop/go lollipop. Roundabouts - object detection from the side, cars coming from the right but that change from a lane where they don't conflict with my use of the roundabout, to a lane where if I move out there will be a collision... ad infinitum.

Some cars have adaptive cruise control; that means that while maintaining a given speed, a forward-facing radar (with a display that shows a range of about 100m) will slow the vehicle if, for example, a car moves into my lane ahead of me. Obviously this cannot anticipate events, but this drawback is taken to the extreme. For example, if the car in the adjacent lane begins to indicate an intention to move into my lane, it doesn't take a genius to realise what is going to happen next. Yet the radar cannot see this, and waits until the car completes the move before slowing down. Similarly, it might be, to a human, patently obvious that someone is about to run out in front of a car, but a human driver can take pro-active measures, whereas the car is purely reactive.

That said, if they can crack this stuff, then in theory I think it would be great.

To take this a step further, one of my problems with the concept of flying cars is that drivers today have enough problems working in two dimensions, so introducing a third would seem barmy. However, 100 metres up, many of these hazards disappear, and automated flight planning and collision avoidance systems would take care of much of the rest - maybe that's a better idea...

I wouldn't trust any vehicle to drive itself quite honestly. Human intervention is paramount imo.

"Drive to the shops? Why would you drive to the shops?"

exactly -and why not get junior a car to take him to school why mum gets taken in her car to the spa before work rather than doing the school run, oh and a car to take the older daughter to meet her friends at the shopping mall - no more dad's taxi

so in affluent areas possibly many more vehicles - so though cars "flow" (hurrah) congestion/energy consumption may not reduce. Of course taxes/road pricing could deal with this but this would punish the less well off getting to their inconviently located employment and not affect those that can pay with no impact on behaviour - suppose could insist that cars pick up extra passengers from "car share stops" since car knows where it is going and the technology exists to match destinations
...oh hang on that sounds like a private motorist funded public transport system - better start again

Quote:

Professor Garel Rhys, who heads up Cardiff University’s Centre for Automotive Industry Research has said because the majority of road traffic incidents are due to, self-driving cars would lead to roads becoming safer.

Majority of incidents are due to … what? Human error, I assume.

I would expect most people to be very sceptical that autonomous cars would be safe, but this scepticism will vanish once production standard cars are demonstrated.

I've actually been behind the wheel of a driverless car that the TRL put together a couple of years back. If you ask me, it was dangerous.

Two thirds of motorists say they’re unsure about the merits of driverless cars, while four in ten state that they would never even consider driving one

That's ok, they're, er, driverless.

In fact, my commute is too far to ride - I want a self-driving van with the back converted into a turbo-training suite for optimal use of the driving time!

Are you kidding? I most definitely have more faith in a computer than in some moron who dropped out of high school and is talking on their cell while trying to overtake me on a country road. How on earth would driverless cars not be safer?

I really, really can't wait until drivers are taken out of the loop. It will mark a step change in road safety. Once they start to appear on the road in any numbers I expect the accident/collision statistics show will soon show how safe they are (or how dangerous human drivers are depending on your view).

Once the stats show that you're 10, 20, 50, whatever times more likely to cause an accident if you drive yourself, then legislation and insurance will soon get rid of the human menace!

I only wish those who think that helmets/hi-viz are the answer would put their time and effort into driverless cars.

"92 per cent of people like the fact that with driverless car technology, the car behind would not be allowed to drive too close to you."

And what do most people do themselves...?

Basically +1 for Mr Will's post. This survey basically shows just why they should come sooner rather than later.

I quite like driving, but anyone who would rather manually drive the daily commute/to the shops etc rather than let a computer take over while you relax and read a book/chat with the family must be friggin nuts.

Fact is though, journey times would only improve markedly once automated vehicles were mandatory - any less than that and the necessary margin for error (and litigation-happy society) would mean that the computers would be ever-cautious.

78% of respondents would prefer to drive themselves.
92% of respondents would prefer everyone else to hand control to the computer.

Once again this study has proved that 90% of the population rate their driving ability as "Above Average"...

Me? I can't wait - bring on the Robots!

A driverless car would also potentially remove the fun of telling other road users half-remembered and downright false bits of the Highway Code

The Google car (an automated self-driving Toyota Prius) has had well over 100,000 miles on the clock, driving the congested streets of the cities of California. The only accident it has ever had was when a human was driving it and not the computer...

I suspect people don't like the idea of not being in control and not having the option to speed...