For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
#1560554
I am reminded of a piece on the late and lamented 'Monday Night at Home'. (Monday Night at Home (MNAH to aficionados) was a radio programme of the late 1950s, broadcast on the BBC Home Service. MNAH was about as near to satire as the 1950s BBC allowed).

To solve the problem of (pre-motorway) road congestion, the 'Over-Car' was proposed. This vehicle would allow traffic to operate in both directions on both sides of the road - thus immediately doubling the UK's road capacity.

This would be achieved by mounting a ramp on top of all cars - a ramp running from road level at the front of the car, over the car and back to road level at the rear.

Thus, a car approaching head-on would go either over or under your vehicle. The over or under choice was solved by having small road-touching wheels at the front of each ramp. If you paid a higher rate of vehicle tax, you were allowed to fit smaller wheels - thus you would have a smoother ride.

To overcome the possibility of two cars with the same size of ramp wheels meeting head on, the front ramp wheels would be mounted eccentrically - so there was a random chance of going over or under.

Perhaps a random element would solve the autonomous car's ethical dilemma? :D
kanga liked this
#1895774
I wonder if this will create sufficient nervousness within the manufacturers to delay launches?
Human drivers should not be legally accountable for road safety in the era of autonomous cars, a report says.

If anything goes wrong, the company behind the driving system would be responsible, rather than the driver.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-60126014
#1895828
Boxkite wrote:Hopefully that will stop us being forced to become beta testers.

My initial thought is the ramifications of the manufacturer being held responsible for the lifetime of every car on the road is likely to pose some major questions. I guess it will depend on the finer detail of the liability and potential consequences.
#1895839
VRB_20kt wrote:Presumably the manufacturers will simply insist that anyone driving one of their vehicles pays annually into a fund to cover such costs else they’ll switch the car off.

Is the whole point, though, that the changes are recommended because there is no driver?

I wonder if there's potential for it to shake up the insurance market. Could manufacturers see an opportunity for diversification, or acquisition?
#1895900
Haven't read the source yet, but if the report is correct I'm surprised.

What I suggested in my evidence to the House of Lords AI Committee was no-fault lability placed on the operator. This would increase insurance premiums, but the reduction in accidents would reduce premiums, and lower legal costs would reduce them further.

Placing liability on the manufacturer destroys the motor insurance sector, and concentrates liability in a worryingly small pool, a few dozens world wide. Covering costs through the price of the car makes it madly expensive to buy, so it requires the invention of some new subscription model, with fees to manufacturers.

All seems too disruptive to me, so I must go and read the source.
User avatar
By VRB_20kt
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1895907
The manufacturers have the capability of switching the car off. Just as software has moved from being a purchase to the widely used subscription model, it’s conceivable that cars could be subject to a subscription which would cover the cost of accidents (and perhaps ongoing development too).

Of course this is predicated on the concept that cars will continue to be owned. Self-driving cars brings the strong possibility of a simple membership model where a user has access to a pool of vehicles that are delivered to the door Just In Time. The member would select the size (etc) of car needed and duration required and that would be that.
T67M liked this
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1895916
Human drivers should not be legally accountable for road safety in the era of autonomous cars, a report says.

If anything goes wrong, the company behind the driving system would be responsible, rather than the driver.


This is exactly as it should be. If you arent driving, how can you be at fault? There have been some "interesting" blame cases regarding accidents between the various driverless cars and the public in the US which I certainly dont think should happen this side of the pond, which appear to be aimed at speeding up the push by various companies to get driverless cars the general green light over there.

I think that @VRB_20kt has it when he says individuals wont own them, they will be rented on a per-use basis, and I think initially their cost will mean they will replace Taxis, then as the price point lowers they will take over private car use and then public transport.

Regards, SD..
#1895922
skydriller wrote:This is exactly as it should be. If you arent driving, how can you be at fault?

The question is; what are the implications for manufacturers and the insurance markets?

I agree with @VRB_20kt, ownership is likely to change and that too has very significant implications, maybe even more so, for the industry. However, although interlinked, it is in a way a separate question.

The upcoming transport revolution is going to change many things about life in general. Whether many of us will see it reach maturity, well... :lol:

@profchrisreed thanks for your contribution. Please do come back once you have had an opportunity to consider it further. :thumright:
#1895929
Total replacement of the private car by individual autonomous vehicles rented by the mile won’t work if we stick to 9-5 Monday to Friday systems. No one will invest in cars that are only needed for an hour at the beginning and end of the day.
We do it now because we own the car and that’s a source of status and the illusion of independence (cf private aircraft)
#1895931
Miscellaneous wrote:The upcoming transport revolution is going to change many things about life in general. Whether many of us will see it reach maturity, well... :lol:

I really hope not. Many of the joys in my life involve driving, riding and flying personal machines. The freedom of a means of transport, from the age of 16, was amazing for a girl who was always told that doing stuff alone was “dangerous”. The world is no safer now but I still retain that freedom.
skydriller, townleyc liked this
#1895934
Flyingfemme wrote:...I still retain that freedom.

…for now! :thumright:

I fear for the future of freedom. I'm concerned freedom as we enjoy it is under threat.

Not that I necessarily disagree with the need for some action, however;

There's automated vehicles.
I fear for restrictions on travel on environmental grounds.
I fear restrictions on many aspects of life on environmental grounds.
I fear restrictions on free speech.
I fear restrictions on certain actions and activities on 'market' grounds.
I fear restrictions on having freedom of thought.

The restrictions of covid have helped crystallise just how easy restrictions can be applied and how quickly we accept them.

Meanwhile, I'm off to exercise my freedom with what will be a very pleasant drive to the airfield, albeit it's not a flying day. :wink: