The Right to Drive - Discuss.

[Velma's Dad]

I don’t fully agree with this Amarillo. If you have minimal protection as a pedestrian, surely you instinct for survival would make you even more aware of your surroundings and take the necessary steps to look after yourself.

Maybe but as drivers we must start with the assumption that not all pedestrians may be fully ‘competent’ - they may be children, elderly/infirm, or disabled physically or mentally. Our daughter was hit by a car last year, fortunately she wasn’t seriously injured. She has both impaired hearing and substantial sight loss. She made a mistake but the driver should have been able to avoid the accident. Both made honest mistakes but the driver was the one in charge of a one tonne lump of metal and the law rightly holds drivers to a high standard and falling below that standard is an offence (careless driving).

But the law can only do so much. In future I fully expect autonomous vehicles to do a much better job of staying alert to other road users than human drivers are capable of doing, 100% of the time.

 

[soulstyledevon]

There is an abundance of stories relating acts of stupidity by road users of all sorts, many with catastrophic consequences. There is, however, a greater duty of care required from someone driving, often at considerable speed, inside a steel box than someone with little more than flip-flops and clothing defending their body.

I agree to a point Amarillo. Drivers do need to recognise their weapon of choice.
However, those vulnerable need to be especially aware of themselves and surroundings.
I know when I ride my cycle, I am constantly assessing potential dangers.

If I decided to jump off the kerb onto the road in front of a vehicle expecting to pull out of a junction. Then I would expect to get run over.

Had i been the cyclist in that situation I would have ridden behind the vehicle.

 

[Amarillo]

I don’t fully agree with this Amarillo. If you have minimal protection as a pedestrian, surely you instinct for survival would make you even more aware of your surroundings and take the necessary steps to look after yourself.

The duty of care is about the safety and well-being of others.

As someone has correctly pointed out, legally pedestrians have the same duty of care towards motorists as motorists have towards pedestrians. However, as a 75 Kg pedestrian walking at 1 m/s has 1/4000 the kinetic energy of a 3 tonne California being driven at 10 m/s I still think that the California driver will need to give more thought to the safety and well-being of the pedestrian than the pedestrian needs to give to the safety and well-being of the California driver.

An example of this is when I cycle past a slow moving motor vehicle I may do so with just a few inches to spare. However, when driving and I pass a cyclist I try to leave at least a van’s width between my California and the cyclist.

 

[Amarillo]

I know when I ride my cycle, I am constantly assessing potential dangers

Potential dangers to you or your potential danger to drivers?

I often cycle along canal tow paths. There I will concern myself with the danger I might pose to walkers and even their pets, but when on the road I’m rarely bothered about the hazard I may pose to motorists.

 

[Joker 1299]

There are times when I drive because I have to and there are times when I drive because I want to. Equally, there are times when I don’t want to drive so I walk, or take public transport. If I had an autonomous vehicle, I might use it for the times when I drive because I have to, but I might also use it for the times when I don’t want to drive thereby increasing, not decreasing the number of driven miles (given that I would likely still drive [something] when I drive because I want to).

 

[Amarillo]

I’m now trying to imagine a London with little or no private car ownership. People summon a vehicle from a phone app, which comes from a lot maybe 200 metres away.

No on street parking and narrower motor carriageway means dedicated space for pedestrians, cyclists and autonomous vehicles. Road junctions run smoothly with motor traffic slowing appropriately to arrive at the intersection to pass without delay.

Apparently, private cars are only in use for ~5% of the time, so if the London fleet was a quarter or a fifth that which it is now there should still be plenty of vehicles to go round.

 

[WelshGas]

Potential dangers to you or your potential danger to drivers?

I often cycle along canal tow paths. There I will concern myself with the danger I might pose to walkers and even their pets, but when on the road I’m rarely bothered about the hazard I may pose to motorists.

A little hypocritical, methinks. A cyclist or pedestrian is more than capable of posing a hazard to others, no more and no less than a vehicle driver is.

 

[WelshGas]

I’m now trying to imagine a London with little or no private car ownership. People summon a vehicle from a phone app, which comes from a lot maybe 200 metres away.

No on street parking and narrower motor carriageway means dedicated space for pedestrians, cyclists and autonomous vehicles. Road junctions run smoothly with motor traffic slowing appropriately to arrive at the intersection to pass without delay.

Apparently, private cars are only in use for ~5% of the time, so if the London fleet was a quarter or a fifth that which it is now there should still be plenty of vehicles to go round.

To be expected. London centric as usual.
I’m afraid there is a great big part of the country that is NOT London.
Maybe the way forward is to bring the rest of the country, you know that bit outside London, upto the same standard and availability of Public Transport that you enjoy.

 

[Joker 1299]

Now I am trying to imagine a world with autonomous vehicles. As a biker, most of my friends that have been killed (or worse) in accidents were as a result of human error (sorry mate, I didn’t see you/him/her). Would I trust an autonomous vehicle not to pull out of a junction in front of me more, or less, than I would trust a human? Will I still be allowed to ride my bike in this health and safety autonomous world?

 

[Velma's Dad]

A little hypocritical, methinks. A cyclist or pedestrian is more than capable of posing a hazard to others, no more and no less than a vehicle driver is.

Eh? Well yes maybe just as likely to be a factor in an accident occurring, but completely different in the consequences, most of the time.

Campervan driver causes collision with pedstrian, likely consequence dead pedestrian. Pedestrian causes collision with campervan, likely consequence dead pedestrian. Spot the assymetry.

 

[Amarillo]

To be expected. London centric as usual.
I’m afraid there is a great big part of the country that is NOT London.
Maybe the way forward is to bring the rest of the country, you know that bit outside London, upto the same standard and availability of Public Transport that you enjoy.

There is also a great big part of Europe that is not Britain. But that is not the point. London is where I live, and it is also where I can imagine private car ownership dropping substantially.

Already fewer than 50% of Inner London households have a private motor vehicle, and that could drop to perhaps 5%.

It is hard to imagine that such low private car ownership levels could be achieved in villages and small towns so easily.

It is also the case that larger towns and cities produce more pollution, so the country as a whole would benefit from lower levels of private car ownership in bigger urban areas.

So, yes: to be expected.

 

[WelshGas]

Eh? Well yes maybe just as likely to be a factor in an accident occurring, but completely different in the consequences, most of the time.

Campervan driver causes collision with pedstrian, likely consequence dead pedestrian. Pedestrian causes collision with campervan, likely consequence dead pedestrian. Spot the assymetry.

Pedestrian causes collision with Campervan who swerves, likely consequences family of 4 in oncoming vehicle killed.
So who is responsible?

 

[WelshGas]

There is also a great big part of Europe that is not Britain. But that is not the point. London is where I live, and it is also where I can imagine private car ownership dropping substantially.

Already fewer than 50% of Inner London households have a private motor vehicle, and that could drop to perhaps 5%.

It is hard to imagine that such low private car ownership levels could be achieved in villages and small towns so easily.

It is also the case that larger towns and cities produce more pollution, so the country as a whole would benefit from lower levels of private car ownership in bigger urban areas.

So, yes: to be expected.

And your plan for the rest of us?

 

[blondebier]

Pedestrian causes collision with Campervan who swerves, likely consequences family of 4 in oncoming vehicle killed.
So who is responsible?

The morality element of AI is fascinating and one I think will always be a problem for developers of autonomous vehicles.

There will come a time where there is a decision (calculation) that needs to be made. I.e. Who dies?

E.g. Car with 1 occupant or the one with more?

There are no easy answers to these questions.

 

[Velma's Dad]

Pedestrian causes collision with Campervan who swerves, likely consequences family of 4 in oncoming vehicle killed.
So who is responsible?

God I’m not going to get into a debate about moral theorising a la the Trolley Problem (Google it if unfamiliar).

Back in the real world, it’s almost invariably the pedestrians and cyclists who are the ones who get killed, rather than being the killers.

We can all agree that everyone should be diligent and careful. But re the thread topic, are you arguing then that making cars safer (eg by automation) shouldn’t be mandated because sometimes it’s not actually the car drivers who cause the fatal accidents?

 

[blondebier]

It's not a straightforward answer.

The title was "THE RIGHT TO DRIVE".

I agree that if there are "driver aids" that make vehicles safer and reduce the risks to me and my passengers (and the outside world as a consequence) then I'm all for that. My car stopped by itself and saved a pedestrian from an impact. On that occasion I was happy that it did what it did. I.e. stopped and didn't knock her over

But what if my car detected "something" and stopped and this caused a multi car pile up and someone was killed? I'd have to live with that.

My car regularly "detects" things and applies the brakes. Sometimes it's bloody annoying when someone has turned in front of me at the last minute and there was enough time for them to pass safely.

That's the same system. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it gets it wrong.

It'll take time for this technology to mature.

On balance I'd still have AEB than not have it.

Our insurance premiums have been cheaper too. That must tell you something.

 

[WelshGas]

God I’m not going to get into a debate about moral theorising a la the Trolley Problem (Google it if unfamiliar).

Back in the real world, it’s almost invariably the pedestrians and cyclists who are the ones who get killed, rather than being the killers.

We can all agree that everyone should be diligent and careful. But re the thread topic, are you arguing then that making cars safer (eg by automation) shouldn’t be mandated because sometimes it’s not actually the car drivers who cause the fatal accidents?

Yes, because it is not the “ vehicle “ that is responsible but the people and circumstances surrounding the accident.
You will never be able to eliminate all risk and in fact you might/will expose other unintended consequences. With autonomous vehicles - computer hacking and viruses.
1 driver 1 vehicle. 1 Computer virus, 1000s of Vehicles.
Education and responsibility is, I believe, far more important.

 

[Velma's Dad]

Yes, because it is not the “ vehicle “ that is responsible but the people and circumstances surrounding the accident.
You will never be able to eliminate all risk and in fact you might/will expose other unintended consequences. With autonomous vehicles - computer hacking and viruses.
1 driver 1 vehicle. 1 Computer virus, 1000s of Vehicles.
Education and responsibility is, I believe, far more important.

There certainly will be unintended consequences, of course. When some cars were first equipped with disc brakes in the 1960s I’d be prepared to be (but have no data) some folks got hurt or maybe even killed when they hit one up the @rse.

There will be engineering failures with AVs, just as with airliners, and some people will die. As with Boeing 737 Max, yet flying overall is massively safer than it was before modern tech and few would now want to risk going on holiday in a 1950s airliner.

Education of all road users I agree is very important but it can only go so far as we can’t ‘train out’ inattention and simple misjudgement. If manually driven cars were invented today and the carnage we’d do in them was known, it’s inconceivable society would allow us to drive them.

Actually though I don’t think manually driven cars will be outlawed. AVs will be able to cope with fallible human road users, through machine learning and probabilistic logic and by th3 fact that they can make millions of accident avoiding decisions while we’re still looking around for the signs to the campsite.

 

[Amarillo]

And your plan for the rest of us?

I have no plan for anyone, just an imagination of how things might develop in my local area. Why would you think I might have a plan!?

 

[Loz]

All these driver aids are good but everyone has to have them, not just some.

 

[WelshGas]

I have no plan for anyone, just an imagination of how things might develop in my local area. Why would you think I might have a plan!?

Past performance elsewhere.

 

[vmaxkiddy]

In the Netherlands it looks like e-bikes for the over 65's need to be autonomous. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...behind-rising-death-toll-among-dutch-cyclists

More cycling fatalities than deaths in cars

Disturbing news this morning: more people died on a bike than in a car in the Netherlands in 2017. A total of 206 people died on bicycles and 201 in cars. This is the first time that ever happened.…

bicycledutch.wordpress.com

 

[willwander]

Now I am trying to imagine a world with autonomous vehicles. As a biker, most of my friends that have been killed (or worse) in accidents were as a result of human error (sorry mate, I didn’t see you/him/her). Would I trust an autonomous vehicle not to pull out of a junction in front of me more, or less, than I would trust a human? Will I still be allowed to ride my bike in this health and safety autonomous world?

The days of being allowed to ride a motorbike are already pretty much numbered. Young people have been priced off the road deliberately. The expense of passing the motorbike test and insurance has risen so much that it is almost impossible for a young person to own a motorbike. If you ever go to large motorbike meet-up’s you will see it’s basically just a bunch of old men.

In a few years time I expect the same will be true for cars

 

[BikerGran]

And what of disabled people who need to park in specific places (not just disabled spaces in car parks) in order to access places they are unable to walk to? My Blue Badge allows me to park on double yellow lines if necessary.

 

[soulstyledevon]

Back peddling a few posts.
Interesting video

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=607654829643782