FLYER Forums

If only George Orwell knew how right he would be ......

There is little evidence at present but on an overall statistical basis I would be astounded if driverless cars were any more dangerous than those with humans directly in control.

And of course this would mean large parts of the world all agreeing at the same time to have driverless cars.

Otherwise how would the system cope if for instance France says no to the concept and you have to mix driverless cars with mainstream cars to and from the continent ?

Then there are lorries, buses, motorbikes, bicycles, older cars that cannot be converted, it won't be happening to soon.

The challenge is for the new driverless stuff to integrate with 'normal' traffic - that is why it is taking time and effort to get this sorted.

If there was a date to work to and we would all be forced to go for the driverless stuff life would be much easier for the developers of driverless cars.

But as we are not (yet) the same as North Korea a cut off date is unlikely to happen.

I cannot wait to hear exactly how they plan to be able to convert my 1957 car to drive by itself.

You’ll just need to fit a Mode S transponder and squit ADS-B out so it’ll be easy.......... won’t it?

plus7g wrote:If only George Orwell knew how right he would be ......

Modern surveillance and profiling goes way beyond anything that Orwell could ever have imagined.

Facebook and YouTube often know people better than they know themselves.

Lockhaven wrote:I cannot wait to hear exactly how they plan to be able to convert my 1957 car to drive by itself.

They don’t need to. Retrofit a speed limiter and, potentially, retrofit a braking mechanism. You will be in charge of steering.

Dave W wrote:Little evidence 20mph speed limit reduces casualties, says report

The quote from BRAKE in that article doesn't seem at all considered, assuming it was sought as a response to the report rather than a generic statement.

The headline should have read “Little evidence of enforcement of 20mph zones leading to lack of evidence of their value on casualty reduction”.

johnm wrote:There is little evidence at present but on an overall statistical basis I would be astounded if driverless cars were any more dangerous than those with humans directly in control.

I would be astounded if a human driver could match the safety of a driverless car.

Leodisflyer wrote:The headline should have read “Little evidence of enforcement of 20mph zones leading to lack of evidence of their value on casualty reduction”.

Except that it didn't. It said that there is little evidence that 20mph speed limits reduce casualties. Don't try to generate something from nothing.
Apparently there is a policy in Glasgow to make all residential areas 20mph with appropriate traffic calming measures. The roads budget has been being spent on implementing these instead of filling pot holes. Unfortunately there are no stats on number of car suspension failures which would likely follow that trend.

Leodisflyer wrote:Facebook and YouTube often know people better than they know themselves.

My Facebook certainly remembers things better than I do!

riverrock wrote:

Leodisflyer wrote:The headline should have read “Little evidence of enforcement of 20mph zones leading to lack of evidence of their value on casualty reduction”.

Except that it didn't. It said that there is little evidence that 20mph speed limits reduce casualties. Don't try to generate something from nothing.
Apparently there is a policy in Glasgow to make all residential areas 20mph with appropriate traffic calming measures. The roads budget has been being spent on implementing these instead of filling pot holes. Unfortunately there are no stats on number of car suspension failures which would likely follow that trend.

Apologies for not giving some more context. There has been a lot of criticism on social media of the report pointing out the lack of enforcement of 20 zones.

I was clumsily trying to make a point by joining what should have been researched into what the report said.

I’d like to see research that measures actual before and after speeds and looks at the quantities of deaths and quantities and severities of injuries.

I’ve had problems with people passing me at high speeds in 20 zones. In one case a driver didn’t like the fact that I caught up with him at the next red light and promptly jumped the light to try and show that he was right to pass me so as to not be held up.

Leodisflyer wrote:

Lockhaven wrote:I cannot wait to hear exactly how they plan to be able to convert my 1957 car to drive by itself.

They don’t need to. Retrofit a speed limiter and, potentially, retrofit a braking mechanism. You will be in charge of steering.

Amusing idea :
Fitting a speed limiter to my 1949 Land-Rover....and a braking mechanism that works too! As for steering, I heve never been in ' charge' of that yet

Charliesixtysix wrote:

Leodisflyer wrote:

Lockhaven wrote:I cannot wait to hear exactly how they plan to be able to convert my 1957 car to drive by itself.

They don’t need to. Retrofit a speed limiter and, potentially, retrofit a braking mechanism. You will be in charge of steering.

Amusing idea :
Fitting a speed limiter to my 1949 Land-Rover....and a braking mechanism that works too! As for steering, I heve never been in ' charge' of that yet

Amusing idea, I think its hilarious:
My 1957 car has no power brakes, no power steering, no anti-skid control, also no seat belts, no MOT and no road tax as they are not a legal requirement for pre 1960 cars, it must be 'Leodisflyer' worst nightmare all rolled in to one vehicle.
As for retro fitting a speed limiter and braking mechanism