Jump to content

Isle of Man as testbed for driverless vehicles?


Recommended Posts

Answers to some of the silly questions:

Google's Jonnycab isn't the future of autonomous (self-driving) cars.

All car makers are working on them and have invested zillions in the tech, which is being installed in normal, everyday cars.

They have more sensors than the lunar landing module, and recognise animals, people and other cars.

They can drive and park themselves.

If you walk in front of a car driving itself, it WILL stop. Not all humans do.

90 per cent of road accidents are caused by human error. Remove the human, and 90 per cent of road accidents would be eliminated.

Computers take off, fly and land passenger aircraft all day every day. Most air accidents are caused by pilot or human error, not computer error.

All cars will be able to self-drive soon. It's up to the driver to engage that if required. Most M-way commuters require it now, but will drive themselves to the shops at the weekend. That's the whole idea.

The latest E-Class could already drive itself. It lacks only legislation for that to happen.

America has invested $4 billion in a 10-year programme to accelerate the deployment of autonomous vehicles. This is because some other countries have already begun creating legislation to allow that.

Car makers have already agreed that they will accept legal responsibility for what the car does when it is driving itself, solving the insurance issue.

The Isle of Man could pass legislation allowing self-driving cars on its roads faster than almost any other country in the world, and that might be attractive to some manufacturers whose own nations either do not wish to or cannot move so fast.

You won't spot them. It'll just be another Volvo, Mercedes or BMW. Some makers are experimenting with specific lighting configurations so you would be able to tell when their car is in autonomous mode. They are also writing algorithms which allow the car to drive more like a human than a robot, so its body-language in traffic doesn't unsettle other drivers.

This is the future of motoring, and at present there doesn't seem to be a downside.

Yes, these are generalisations. I know that if you spend long enough on the internet you will find contradictory instances, but the principles still hold true.

At present, no car maker has a computer that knows what to do at Quarterbridge. But neither do any human drivers.

Can't agree.

There's more bollocks in that post than there is in "The stinking Enigma's" wheelbarrow.

Edited by dilligaf
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Wrighty is right though and maybe Mad Max is the right vision of the future. The rest of the world will be stuck trying to escape the apocalypse by paying Google £5,000 to use a computerised car to ta

A computer will never understand the intricacies of a Manx Stand Off at the Quarterbridge Roundabout.

Answers to some of the silly questions: Google's Jonnycab isn't the future of autonomous (self-driving) cars. All car makers are working on them and have invested zillions in the tech, which is bein

Posted Images

Answers to some of the silly questions:

Google's Jonnycab isn't the future of autonomous (self-driving) cars.

All car makers are working on them and have invested zillions in the tech, which is being installed in normal, everyday cars.

They have more sensors than the lunar landing module, and recognise animals, people and other cars.

They can drive and park themselves.

If you walk in front of a car driving itself, it WILL stop. Not all humans do.

90 per cent of road accidents are caused by human error. Remove the human, and 90 per cent of road accidents would be eliminated.

Computers take off, fly and land passenger aircraft all day every day. Most air accidents are caused by pilot or human error, not computer error.

All cars will be able to self-drive soon. It's up to the driver to engage that if required. Most M-way commuters require it now, but will drive themselves to the shops at the weekend. That's the whole idea.

The latest E-Class could already drive itself. It lacks only legislation for that to happen.

America has invested $4 billion in a 10-year programme to accelerate the deployment of autonomous vehicles. This is because some other countries have already begun creating legislation to allow that.

Car makers have already agreed that they will accept legal responsibility for what the car does when it is driving itself, solving the insurance issue.

The Isle of Man could pass legislation allowing self-driving cars on its roads faster than almost any other country in the world, and that might be attractive to some manufacturers whose own nations either do not wish to or cannot move so fast.

You won't spot them. It'll just be another Volvo, Mercedes or BMW. Some makers are experimenting with specific lighting configurations so you would be able to tell when their car is in autonomous mode. They are also writing algorithms which allow the car to drive more like a human than a robot, so its body-language in traffic doesn't unsettle other drivers.

This is the future of motoring, and at present there doesn't seem to be a downside.

Yes, these are generalisations. I know that if you spend long enough on the internet you will find contradictory instances, but the principles still hold true.

At present, no car maker has a computer that knows what to do at Quarterbridge. But neither do any human drivers.

Just more than a bit worrying that we have to fly to the UK to download apps from the Google Play store onto our phones as they have no idea where the IOM is, and yet somehow we trust that Google cars will know exactly where they are and we believe they are 100% safe on Manx roads. It's a bit odd isn't it?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Answers to some of the silly questions:

Google's Jonnycab isn't the future of autonomous (self-driving) cars.

All car makers are working on them and have invested zillions in the tech, which is being installed in normal, everyday cars.

They have more sensors than the lunar landing module, and recognise animals, people and other cars.

They can drive and park themselves.

If you walk in front of a car driving itself, it WILL stop. Not all humans do.

90 per cent of road accidents are caused by human error. Remove the human, and 90 per cent of road accidents would be eliminated.

Computers take off, fly and land passenger aircraft all day every day. Most air accidents are caused by pilot or human error, not computer error.

All cars will be able to self-drive soon. It's up to the driver to engage that if required. Most M-way commuters require it now, but will drive themselves to the shops at the weekend. That's the whole idea.

The latest E-Class could already drive itself. It lacks only legislation for that to happen.

America has invested $4 billion in a 10-year programme to accelerate the deployment of autonomous vehicles. This is because some other countries have already begun creating legislation to allow that.

Car makers have already agreed that they will accept legal responsibility for what the car does when it is driving itself, solving the insurance issue.

The Isle of Man could pass legislation allowing self-driving cars on its roads faster than almost any other country in the world, and that might be attractive to some manufacturers whose own nations either do not wish to or cannot move so fast.

You won't spot them. It'll just be another Volvo, Mercedes or BMW. Some makers are experimenting with specific lighting configurations so you would be able to tell when their car is in autonomous mode. They are also writing algorithms which allow the car to drive more like a human than a robot, so its body-language in traffic doesn't unsettle other drivers.

This is the future of motoring, and at present there doesn't seem to be a downside.

Yes, these are generalisations. I know that if you spend long enough on the internet you will find contradictory instances, but the principles still hold true.

At present, no car maker has a computer that knows what to do at Quarterbridge. But neither do any human drivers.

Can't agree.

There's more bollocks in that post than there is in "The stinking Enigma's" wheelbarrow.

 

Obviously you can inform us all which parts of it are untrue?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is the future of motoring.

 

It is slightly more gimmicky than eco friendly cars which are expensive and account for fractional percentages of new car sales.

 

Also who is the target audience for driverless cars? Who would be able to afford one?

 

I would agree that some of the research and development can help make better cars for drivers though.

 

I'm not so sure the iom could be the hotbed of development but i'd be interested to know exactly what the enquiry was and at what level.

Edited by notwell
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, don't worry dilligaf. I've done the research for you:

 

 

Google's Jonnycab isn't the future of autonomous (self-driving) cars.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/520746/data-shows-googles-robot-cars-are-smoother-safer-drivers-than-you-or-i/

 

All car makers are working on them and have invested zillions in the tech, which is being installed in normal, everyday cars.

http://worldif.economist.com/article/11/what-if-autonomous-vehicles-rule-the-world-from-horseless-to-driverless

 

They have more sensors than the lunar landing module, and recognise animals, people and other cars.

http://www.national.co.uk/tech-powers-google-car/

 

They can drive and park themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIa1mWr1kNs

 

If you walk in front of a car driving itself, it WILL stop. Not all humans do.

http://inhabitat.com/volvo-unveils-new-safety-system-that-automatically-brakes-for-cyclists-and-pedestrians/

 

90 per cent of road accidents are caused by human error. Remove the human, and 90 per cent of road accidents would be eliminated.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/8702111/How-do-accidents-happen.html

 

Computers take off, fly and land passenger aircraft all day every day. Most air accidents are caused by pilot or human error, not computer error.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland

 

All cars will be able to self-drive soon. It's up to the driver to engage that if required. Most M-way commuters require it now, but will drive themselves to the shops at the weekend. That's the whole idea.

The latest E-Class could already drive itself. It lacks only legislation for that to happen.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motor-shows-detroit-motor-show/new-mercedes-e-class-edges-closer-autonomy

 

America has invested $4 billion in a 10-year programme to accelerate the deployment of autonomous vehicles. This is because some other countries have already begun creating legislation to allow that.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-administration-proposes-spending-4-billion-on-driverless-car-guidelines-1452798787

 

Car makers have already agreed that they will accept legal responsibility for what the car does when it is driving itself, solving the insurance issue.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/12/car-companies-intend-to-accept-full-liability-for-self-driving-car-accidents/

 

The Isle of Man could pass legislation allowing self-driving cars on its roads faster than almost any other country in the world, and that might be attractive to some manufacturers whose own nations either do not wish to or cannot move so fast.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/news/isle-of-man-could-become-self-driving-car-testbed-by-summer/

 

You won't spot them. It'll just be another Volvo, Mercedes or BMW. Some makers are experimenting with specific lighting configurations so you would be able to tell when their car is in autonomous mode. They are also writing algorithms which allow the car to drive more like a human than a robot, so its body-language in traffic doesn't unsettle other drivers.

http://www.wired.com/2016/02/the-case-for-making-self-driving-cars-think-like-humans/

 

This is the future of motoring, and at present there doesn't seem to be a downside.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/blogs/new-cars/why-mercedes-e-class-drivers-should-embrace-autonomy

 

Yes, these are generalisations. I know that if you spend long enough on the internet you will find contradictory instances, but the principles still hold true.

Google “autonomous” or “self driving” together with the name of any major car maker

 

At present, no car maker has a computer that knows what to do at Quarterbridge. But neither do any human drivers.

Don't need a link for this. I've sat there, watching and waiting...

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is the future of motoring.

 

It is slightly more gimmicky than eco friendly cars which are expensive and account for fractional percentages of new car sales.

 

Also who is the target audience for driverless cars? Who would be able to afford one?

 

I would agree that some of the research and development can help make better cars for drivers though.

 

I'm not so sure the iom could be the hotbed of development but i'd be interested to know exactly what the enquiry was and at what level.

It's not a gimmick. It's mainstream, and all car makers are trying to get it into production asap. It will be available in every car, and everyone who drives is the target audience. Like all car tech, it becomes available first in top of the range stuff and filters downwards. This happens faster and faster. New E Class already has everything it needs. Kia is working on it too, and that's traditionally the budget end of the market, though that is changing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Answers to some of the silly questions:

Google's Jonnycab isn't the future of autonomous (self-driving) cars.

All car makers are working on them and have invested zillions in the tech, which is being installed in normal, everyday cars.

They have more sensors than the lunar landing module, and recognise animals, people and other cars.

They can drive and park themselves.

If you walk in front of a car driving itself, it WILL stop. Not all humans do.

90 per cent of road accidents are caused by human error. Remove the human, and 90 per cent of road accidents would be eliminated.

Computers take off, fly and land passenger aircraft all day every day. Most air accidents are caused by pilot or human error, not computer error.

All cars will be able to self-drive soon. It's up to the driver to engage that if required. Most M-way commuters require it now, but will drive themselves to the shops at the weekend. That's the whole idea.

The latest E-Class could already drive itself. It lacks only legislation for that to happen.

America has invested $4 billion in a 10-year programme to accelerate the deployment of autonomous vehicles. This is because some other countries have already begun creating legislation to allow that.

Car makers have already agreed that they will accept legal responsibility for what the car does when it is driving itself, solving the insurance issue.

The Isle of Man could pass legislation allowing self-driving cars on its roads faster than almost any other country in the world, and that might be attractive to some manufacturers whose own nations either do not wish to or cannot move so fast.

You won't spot them. It'll just be another Volvo, Mercedes or BMW. Some makers are experimenting with specific lighting configurations so you would be able to tell when their car is in autonomous mode. They are also writing algorithms which allow the car to drive more like a human than a robot, so its body-language in traffic doesn't unsettle other drivers.

This is the future of motoring, and at present there doesn't seem to be a downside.

Yes, these are generalisations. I know that if you spend long enough on the internet you will find contradictory instances, but the principles still hold true.

At present, no car maker has a computer that knows what to do at Quarterbridge. But neither do any human drivers.

Just more than a bit worrying that we have to fly to the UK to download apps from the Google Play store onto our phones as they have no idea where the IOM is, and yet somehow we trust that Google cars will know exactly where they are and we believe they are 100% safe on Manx roads. It's a bit odd isn't it?

 

Amusing as it is in your post, I think it would be a mistake to confuse the vagaries of Google Play's marketing arrangements with Google's abilities to locate the Isle of Man geographically. I can see my house on Google Earth, so I think they know where I live.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think it is the future of motoring.

 

It is slightly more gimmicky than eco friendly cars which are expensive and account for fractional percentages of new car sales.

 

Also who is the target audience for driverless cars? Who would be able to afford one?

 

I would agree that some of the research and development can help make better cars for drivers though.

 

I'm not so sure the iom could be the hotbed of development but i'd be interested to know exactly what the enquiry was and at what level.

It's not a gimmick. It's mainstream, and all car makers are trying to get it into production asap. It will be available in every car, and everyone who drives is the target audience. Like all car tech, it becomes available first in top of the range stuff and filters downwards. This happens faster and faster. New E Class already has everything it needs. Kia is working on it too, and that's traditionally the budget end of the market, though that is changing.

 

It isn't and won't be mainstream. Some of the technology will of course make it's way into cars and has done.

As I said, who is the target audience? Old people that can't drive? Kids?

 

I drive. I could think of nothing worse that getting in to a driver less car and not driving. Most people that drive don't sit there thinking "jes' i'd much prefer a driver (less) car to ferry me round". Really?

 

We can go forward 30 years from now and you won't be seeing roads full of driverless cars. What you will see is cars that embrace certain technologies. Be that auto parking (which is really for lazy people that can't park), sensor technology you could apply to keep a distance from the car in front etc.

And the road won't be full of electic cars either because (a) they are too expensive and will remain so and (b) most people enjoy driving cars that are not electric.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't think it is the future of motoring.

 

It is slightly more gimmicky than eco friendly cars which are expensive and account for fractional percentages of new car sales.

 

Also who is the target audience for driverless cars? Who would be able to afford one?

 

I would agree that some of the research and development can help make better cars for drivers though.

 

I'm not so sure the iom could be the hotbed of development but i'd be interested to know exactly what the enquiry was and at what level.

It's not a gimmick. It's mainstream, and all car makers are trying to get it into production asap. It will be available in every car, and everyone who drives is the target audience. Like all car tech, it becomes available first in top of the range stuff and filters downwards. This happens faster and faster. New E Class already has everything it needs. Kia is working on it too, and that's traditionally the budget end of the market, though that is changing.

 

It isn't and won't be mainstream. Some of the technology will of course make it's way into cars and has done.

As I said, who is the target audience? Old people that can't drive? Kids?

 

I drive. I could think of nothing worse that getting in to a driver less car and not driving. Most people that drive don't sit there thinking "jes' i'd much prefer a driver (less) car to ferry me round". Really?

 

We can go forward 30 years from now and you won't be seeing roads full of driverless cars. What you will see is cars that embrace certain technologies. Be that auto parking (which is really for lazy people that can't park), sensor technology you could apply to keep a distance from the car in front etc.

And the road won't be full of electic cars either because (a) they are too expensive and will remain so and (b) most people enjoy driving cars that are not electric.

 

That's my view too, spot on.

Another thought was, who will be to blame when somebodies driverless car kills someone ( and it will happen).

Most computers develop faults at some point and nobody can deny there are massive problems ahead.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...