- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Driverless pod artist's impression by O2 Arena (picture Phoenix Wings).pngDriverless car transition period poses major challenges says Commons transport committee
The Commons transport committee says that the Department for Transport (DfT) needs to prepare for a transition period when autonomous vehicles first come into use, reports the BBC. It emphasised that there is also a need to clarify who will be liable in the event of a driverless car crash.
The government is currently in the process of rewriting legislation in a bid to ensure the UK becomes a world leader in driverless technology. However, in a recent report, an influential group of MPs has drawn attention to many of the complexities that will be faced.
One of the main challenges highlighted is the transition period when manual, semi-autonomous and autonomous vehicles are all running together on UK roads. The report points out that several of the perceived benefits of driverless technology – such as improved safety – will be less apparent during this time.
“During the transition period only some of the benefits promised by autonomous vehicles and the application of modern communications technology to motoring will be realised. The full benefits cannot be realised until there is wide uptake of such technologies.”
To that end, the report recommends devising ‘a range of fiscal and other incentives to increase their rate of adoption’. Suggestions include lower rates of vehicle excise duty and a gradual tightening of certification and testing requirements as well as mandating the fitting of particular technologies to new and existing vehicles by a specified date.
AA president Edmund King described the transition period as being ‘a potential nightmare’.
"The report rightly points to potential problems of a transition period on the roads. There is a potential nightmare scenario whereby robotic driverless cars are fighting for space with cars with humans behind the wheel and indeed semi-autonomous cars with no-one totally in control.
"We really need a safe vision for the future whereby all vehicles and all road users can coexist in harmony. This vision will entail government, manufacturers, insurers and indeed drivers agreeing the way ahead."
Another major issue relates to collisions and the report says that it will be important that the DfT clarifies who will be liable in these situations.
“Will the driver of a vehicle remain liable even if a car is operating autonomously, or will the manufacturer of the vehicle bear some responsibility? Depending on how liabilities are apportioned, such technological changes might lead to different models of ownership and a different relationship between manufacturers, owners and drivers.”
It is suggested that changes in technology may mean that vehicle ownership carries new obligations in the future beyond simply ensuring roadworthiness. For example, an owner may become responsible for ensuring that the latest software updates have been applied to the vehicle.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- fenix 5 hours 1 min ago
But it's got PNS on ? Honestly. You just don't get fashion.
- mdavidford 5 hours 53 min ago
Debatable. Rule H3 says you should not cut across cyclists, and that this applies whether they're on a cycle lane, cycle track, or on the road. It...
- LookAhead 6 hours 13 min ago
Spot on, Kask's chin strap is faux leather (contra the review's claim that it's real leather) and excellent, by far the best I've used. It's snug...
- David9694 7 hours 31 min ago
Live: Audi crashes on to its roof in Honiton town centre https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/live-audi-crashes-roof-honiton...
- wtjs 7 hours 46 min ago
There is now a development of uncertain veracity on this Nissan, with a photo somebody has sent me suggesting it's stolen....
- belugabob 8 hours 20 min ago
Yes, it does seem reasonable - but not in the motonormativity world, where people just don't want to admit where the problem lies.
- brooksby 10 hours 44 min ago
But at least they're halfway there...
- hawkinspeter 12 hours 27 min ago
I definitely agree that we could do with better crossings and junctions....
- check12 14 hours 34 min ago
click the unsubscribe link at the bottom of them all, then you won't get any more
- Hirsute 15 hours 53 min ago
A few problems here https://youtu.be/0P0a_n6XgrQ?t=125
Add new comment
18 comments
It's a scenario we all see daily: you should really give way to oncoming traffic as the parked cars are on your side of the road. But the oncoming vehicles are endless and if you don't bend the rule and creep out you will be stuck there forever. So you wait for the slimmest of opportunities and force your way through, waving apologetically to the other driver. It ain't playing by the book but it's commonplace and it works.
Today's computers can't cope with such a situation, we're all doomed.
From a safety for cyclists point of view give me a computer over a fuckwit human any day of the week.
There will probably be unintended consequences, a bit akin to Sat Nav taking people up dead ends, into fields, or fords. Maybe people will play dare and rush into an oncoming driverless car to see how quickly it stops and how close they can step out in front before it hits them (you get the idea).
Given that I have just cycled past Trafford Bar when a United match is building up, I think it is the pedestrian issue that will make 'autos' further away then me might think. As one Mr Clarkson pointed recently, Googlecars will have to make moral decisions about self defense; slam the brakes on or assume they are in the right. Every street has school kids, pensioners, and general morons stepping out all the time. Often self preservation is what makes them change their mind. When a mass of pedestrians becomes too large they just step out and assume you will stop. They need to know that 90% of the time the car won't stop and they 'probably will' be hit by it.
The issue with cyclists is not one of obstruction but SMIDSY, and probably within current technologies scope.
"We really need a safe vision for the future whereby all vehicles and all road users can coexist in harmony. This vision will entail government, manufacturers, insurers and indeed drivers agreeing the way ahead."
Quite simple really.
Write out a "Highway Code" which keeps all road users safe when followed correctly.
Everybody obeys the Highway Code.
Fail to follow the Highway Code and you are banned from using the road as you are a danger to others who have agreed to coexist in harmony.
Hang on a minute....................
‘a range of fiscal and other incentives to increase their rate of adoption’
Yes how about shooting the person in charge of a car being driven in a manner which falls below that of a competent and responsible driver?
Great so subsidising robot wheelchairs is the answer
‘a range of fiscal and other incentives to increase their rate of adoption’
What about a range of fiscal and other incentives to increase the rate of adoption of a healthy form of transport like cycling?
Like much better infra
Incentive to swap cars for bikes
Bikes on prescription for many etc etc...
We wouldn't need seperate infrastructure if the vehicles around us drove responsibly. Autonomous vehicles could set a good example and make average driving look bad. It would be far easier to revoke peoples driving licenses since the 'I need to be able to drive' argument is gone.
Also autonomous cars could park themselves in large underground car parks, cities could be transformed.
I like your point on the 'I need to be able to drive defence' but sadly I think your 'cities could be transformed' observation might happen in way you don't intend.
At the moment the density of traffic is determined by what motorists will endure. We have proved that high fuel prices, high running costs, Congestion Charging etc have had no affect on traffic levels. The only thing which contains traffic growth is lack of parking and drivers' frustration with too much traffic.
Driverless cars will be immune to both of these restrictions and as a result I fear greatly increased traffic.
There's an interesting cultural change implied by driverless cars. Currently anyone in a car expects pedestrians and cyclists to get out of the way, and most people not in a car expect to get out of the way.
Driverless cars will be programmed not to crash into other road users so pedestrians and cyclists don't need to get out of the way.
So in the image at the beginning of this article, the autonomous vehicle it will stop and wait for the pedestrian. If the vehicle was human driven the pedestrian would move out of the way.
The interesting bit is what happens when the autonomous vehicle is followed by a human driven car, and how people on bikes and walking will decide which action they need to take.
These things will stop if they sense an unsafe condition or an unexpected sensor response, they will be sitting stopped all over the place blocking the road.
Who is liable? The manufacturer of course, an autonomous car should be able to drive without anybody in it.
Insurers will be against autonomous cars because they will obliterate their profits, also they will have to fight a few big corporations instead of lots of individuals.
But the driver is still responsible for overriding adaptive cruise control, is this not an extension of that? One can only presume that there will be a kill switch in the vehicle.
Correct, Type 3a Autonomous vehicles will still hand over to the human driver in difficult situations. The liability will be with the car operator not the manufacturer.
Who's stupid idea is that! So, the driver will be sleeping/eating/playing call of duty and the car gets in to trouble and wants to hand over!
Fully autonomous cars or no autonomous cars, the middle ground is not safe.
AA president Edmund King:
What's this fighting business eh Ed? Seriously, there are rules to follow.
Edmund King is ascribing human motivations to a computer-controlled vehicle in the 'fighting for space' term. The self driving vehicle would cede the space in a conflict in order to avoid a collision.
This behaviour is already programmed into every test programme vehicle.
Needless scaremongering using quite inflammatory language.
Ah, but wait till they become self-aware!
Seriously, surely the bigger danger is that, given the auto-cars have to always stop for obstacles, there will be pressure to introduce laws to prevent pedestrians or cyclists becoming such obstacles - i.e. stay out of the road entirely.