We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

73% of Brits would not feel safe with driverless cars on the road

1235

Comments

  • Johno100
    Johno100 Posts: 5,259 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    zagfles wrote: »
    I didn't write that. Nor did you write anything about dropping of at the gates. You're just making the argument up as you go along, aren't you? You pretend to have said something you didn't and pretend I said something I didn't. I CBA with you and your sad little games. Ta ta.

    Can't beat a good flounce of a Sunday morning.:D
  • zagfles
    zagfles Posts: 21,548 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Chutzpah Haggler
    Johno100 wrote: »
    Yes, because they are such unusual events.
    Yes but they lead to public enquiries, demands "something must be done" etc.
    There are not tens of thousands killed by pollution in this country. There may be a statistical reduction in some peoples life span because of pollution (of all kinds). But that may be a weeks reduction in a 90 year old.
    Or a few decades for susceptible people, eg those with respiratory problems.
    And on any measure pollution levels are considerably lower than they were just a generation ago and probably the lowest they have been since before the industrial revolution.
    Yes it's better than it was, although there are still localised issues. And of course it's not just cars, in-house wood burners are a major source of indoor pollution esp particulates.
  • zagfles
    zagfles Posts: 21,548 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Chutzpah Haggler
    Johno100 wrote: »
    Can't beat a good flounce of a Sunday morning.:D
    It's not a flounce, it's an addition to my ignore list ;)
  • Johno100
    Johno100 Posts: 5,259 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    zagfles wrote: »
    Yes but they lead to public enquiries, demands "something must be done" etc.

    And we have also done something about road deaths. They are about a quarter of what they were just forty years ago and that is despite there being many more vehicles on the roads.
    zagfles wrote: »
    Or a few decades for susceptible people, eg those with respiratory problems.

    And how many of those individuals do you think had pollution as the cause of death on their death certificates? As has always been the case those with underlying medical conditions will be more susceptible to such things. Reminds me of a local news report a couple of years ago about a campaigner with COPD wanting a reduction in pollution levels from the newly built by-pass. And the cause of her COPD? Smoking 40 cigarettes a day for 35 years, I kind of lost sympathy at that point.
    zagfles wrote: »
    Yes it's better than it was, although there are still localised issues. And of course it's not just cars, in-house wood burners are a major source of indoor pollution esp particulates.

    I'm glad you've made your final point, as all the debate seems to focus on motor vehicle pollution and not the other close to two thirds of pollution from other sources.
  • zagfles
    zagfles Posts: 21,548 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Chutzpah Haggler
    Johno100 wrote: »
    And we have also done something about road deaths. They are about a quarter of what they were just forty years ago and that is despite there being many more vehicles on the roads.
    Yes, and technology has helped, and should continue to do so. This is the next stage.
    And how many of those individuals do you think had pollution as the cause of death on their death certificates? As has always been the case those with underlying medical conditions will be more susceptible to such things. Reminds me of a local news report a couple of years ago about a campaigner with COPD wanting a reduction in pollution levels from the newly built by-pass. And the cause of her COPD? Smoking 40 cigarettes a day for 35 years, I kind of lost sympathy at that point.
    Yet a lot have lung problems which are no fault of their own.
    I'm glad you've made your final point, as all the debate seems to focus on motor vehicle pollution and not the other close to two thirds of pollution from other sources.
    Yes a lot of people do live under the illusion that something "natural" like burning wood can't do you any harm and only worry about "man made" pollution. But cars are still a pollution problem, even if only a third of it.
  • AdrianC
    AdrianC Posts: 42,189 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    zagfles wrote: »
    Yes a lot of people do live under the illusion that something "natural" like burning wood can't do you any harm and only worry about "man made" pollution. But cars are still a pollution problem, even if only a third of it.
    As ever, "pollution" is a broad term.

    There's long-term versus short-term carbon cycle.
    There's PMs and NOx and various other combinations coming out of the same things going in.
    There's local and distant sources of pollution, and local and global effects.


    It's very easy to pick and choose and emphasise the bits that best serve our preconceptions.
  • Ergates
    Ergates Posts: 3,195 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    AdrianC wrote: »
    ....
    So let's be generous and say half are own-stupid-fault.
    ....

    So, going by your own figures - removing the humans from the equation would, at the very least, reduce road deaths by half.
  • Ergates
    Ergates Posts: 3,195 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    AdrianC wrote: »
    The big problems with autonomous cars are currently the "out-of-the-ordinary" situations. How does an autonomous car deal with taking you to the site of a big temporary event? There might be informal carparks springing open in fields. Official carparks might be full or closed because of adverse weather. There may be a park and ride a mile or two away. How does the car know any of this? The main road through our village has been closed for several days this week - initially because of emergency roadworks for a water leak, then for removal of a fallen tree that took down phone cabling. How does it deal with that?
    Simple really - the people who organise the event are responsible for updating the local navigation data to include the temporary car parks. Similarly with road closures - the council, when putting down the "road closed" signs, also update the navigation databases to indicate that the road is closed. They could do that now - so that sat-navs wouldn't direct people down closed roads - but because they're not obliged to they don't bother.
    AdrianC wrote: »
    The signed diversions took people down single-track lanes. How do they deal with having to reverse to a passing place? Or meeting somebody on a horse down that lane?
    The operating system can work out how wide the road is and keep a record of it over the last X metres. Then when a vehicle is met, it reverses to the last point where the road was wide enough for 2 vehicles. Maybe the autonomous systems in both cars could communicate and decide which one was closer to the last passing place. As for horses - treat it like any other vulnerable road user - pass slowly, or wait for it to pass you.

    AdrianC wrote: »
    If and when somebody in an autonomous car arrives at my house, how does it know where in the drive to park so that it won't block the public footpath or garage? Or not to park under that tree, because there's still some hung-up bits of branch from a recent trim?
    The same way any human guest or taxi-driver etc, would know. You'd tell them.

    AdrianC wrote: »
    And that all assumes the car can talk to "base"... We have zero mobile phone signal round here - not even send-and-receive SMS, let alone any viable data connection.

    Well that's obviously a totally insurmountable problem - better abandon the whole plan then. Unless, I suppose, someone were to build some more mobile phone masts or something.
  • F1F93
    F1F93 Posts: 366 Forumite
    Ergates wrote: »
    Well that's obviously a totally insurmountable problem - better abandon the whole plan then. Unless, I suppose, someone were to build some more mobile phone masts or something.

    You do realise that for this to work, 100% of the road network needs to be covered? And the network of every phone company that driverless cars use - what if Ford used the O2 network while Vauxhall use EE?! Or do you propose we force manufacturers to use one supplier- if so, who?

    Now bear in mind that on my 90 mile round trip to work and back wholly on 2 major A roads (and one smaller, but still popular A road) I'd estimate that at least 30% of my journey I have no signal, with very poor signal for at least another 20%.

    Yes, this would work in a city. But your comment that we should just build more phone masts suggests you grossly underestimate the scale of the problem.
  • prowla
    prowla Posts: 14,182 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    I'm surprised that 27% said they think it is safe.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 259K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.