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

zagfles

F1F93 wrote: »

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.

Driverless cars would obviously have to be capable of functioning without a mobile signal. Maybe not be able to do everything, eg find off road parking, or get up to date road closure info, or communicate with other vehicles, but they'd have to be capable of carrying on if they lost signal. What do you think they'd do in a tunnel?

Ergates

F1F93 wrote: »

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.

so that's 30% of your journey for which your automated car wouldn't be able to receive real-time traffic/road-closure updates. Not exactly the end of the world, and not exactly a nail in the coffin for the who shebang either...

Ergates

prowla wrote: »

I'm surprised that 27% said they think it is safe.

Maybe those 27% have been on the roads recently, seen the way that human-controlled vehicles drive and think "it couldn't be any worse"

unholyangel

zagfles wrote: »

They didn't have the imagination to envisage the new opportunities of increasing automation, they only saw it as taking their livelihoods away.

But at least they had the excuse of not having 200 years of history to look back on. Unlike their equivalents in recent times who've been predicting exactly the same with every new technology.

It was taking their livelihood away though. The luddites issue was not the technology, it was the impact on them personally - which just goes to show NIMBYs are not a recent occurrence. However people often misunderstood that throughout history and this has resulted in the modern usage of the word luddite to mean someone opposed to modernisation (industrialisation, technology etc).


But while its idiotic to automatically decry any modernisation, its equally idiotic to think that every technology should be embraced. As you say yourself, we have the last 200+ years to look back on. A lot of workers did lose jobs to technology, it wasn't a problem though as there was always other industries for them to go into. Which was the point I made - that what would happen if there were no alternative industries for them to go into?

Our economy is a bit like jenga. You may be able to move certain bricks and retain structural integrity but move the wrong one or too many and it all comes crashing down.

Jackmydad

Ergates wrote: »

Maybe those 27% have been on the roads recently, seen the way that human-controlled vehicles drive and think "it couldn't be any worse"

That'd be me thinking "It can't be any worse"
I've got a feeling that about 73% of the "drivers" out there, (and I use the term loosely) would be just as happy sitting there and being driven by the car once they got used to the idea. It'd let them play with their various gizmos, take selfies, and update their Facebook page.
I used to enjoy driving cars, and riding bikes. That was before it became more like a game of "dodge the idiot" with death or serious injury as the forfeit if you fail.

AnnoyedGuy

The dream coming a reality:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45935000

Driverless taxis by 2021! Seems rather ambitious though.

zagfles

unholyangel wrote: »

It was taking their livelihood away though. The luddites issue was not the technology, it was the impact on them personally - which just goes to show NIMBYs are not a recent occurrence. However people often misunderstood that throughout history and this has resulted in the modern usage of the word luddite to mean someone opposed to modernisation (industrialisation, technology etc).


But while its idiotic to automatically decry any modernisation, its equally idiotic to think that every technology should be embraced. As you say yourself, we have the last 200+ years to look back on. A lot of workers did lose jobs to technology, it wasn't a problem though as there was always other industries for them to go into. Which was the point I made - that what would happen if there were no alternative industries for them to go into?

Our economy is a bit like jenga. You may be able to move certain bricks and retain structural integrity but move the wrong one or too many and it all comes crashing down.

If technology results in jobs being lost, what do you think happens to the money that would have been used to pay the wages of the lost jobs?

Two main possibilities - lower prices for consumers so more money in their pockets to spend on other things, possibly creating more jobs elsewhere. Or more money to shareholders, company directors or other employees, which again should feed more money into the economy although probably less efficiently.

The saving in wages won't all disappear into a black hole.