11–20 of 116 posts
UK to allow tests of driverless cars on public roads to start in January. In the same way that has already begun in the rest of the world. Same legal/insurance issues stand (as elsewhere) and are likely the bigger barrier to adoption.
That's what it says, yes. Have such tests already begun the "the rest of the world"?
UK to allow tests of driverless cars on public roads to start in January. In the same way that has already begun in the rest of the world. Same legal/insurance issues stand (as elsewhere) and are likely the bigger barrier to adoption.
That's what it says, yes. Have such tests already begun the "the rest of the world"?
And I know they have been testing driverless farm machinery near where I live since the late 70's
UK to allow tests of driverless cars on public roads to start in January. In the same way that has already begun in the rest of the world. Same legal/insurance issues stand (as elsewhere) and are likely the bigger barrier to adoption.
Since there are a total of zero commercially available driverless cars, was that distinction really required? Nowhere in the world has permitted non-test driverless cars because non-test driverless cars aren't a thing yet. The whole "rest of the world" remark seems like smug condescension. Which is a little odd as only a small handful of places even allow test-cars to be run on public roads. Plus isn't this a welcome…
Apologies is there was any condescension, I was only trying to convey that it's not that different to what's been going on elsewhere. I'm from the UK myself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what it says, yes. Have such tests already begun the "the rest of the world"?
It's allowed in a few states in the US. Last time I went to California I saw one up close, that was pretty neat (though I don't know if it was driving itself at the time)!
http://www.wtsp.com/story/tech/2014/07/28/driverless-car-hit...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand the distinction. If the UK is allowing tests of driverless cars, it must be allowing them on the roads, and of course "in January" means "starts in January", what else would it mean
Driverless cars are a risky unproven technology, and done wrong could easily kill people. It'd be like taking "FDA approves new drug for human testing" and making the headline "FDA to allow human use of new untested drug." Both are technically true, but the latter makes it sound like a widespread thing being done regardless of poorly understood risks. And that's misleading, since it's being done in very limited scope…
It seems to me that it's clear that driverless cars are the future, which is going to become real very soon. Any progressive government would (and should) allow such testing, even given the inflexibility of the state's bureaucratic machine. Allowing is an easy part. The hard part is actually building those cars and to my knowledge no UK firm does this at the moment.
I think the two main questions will be liability & drivability -
1) when (not if) these cars get into a serious crash, who is to assume liability? Is it Google who created the algorithm? Is it the Audi integrator who fused Google technology into the Audi? Is it the fault of the mapping software that did not update the fact that the signals had been moved to a different position on that street?
2) More mundane - will a driverless car be able to drive every single place that a drivered car would? When a flash flood closes down the freeway will this autonomous beast be able to drive on the back road that is normally closed to traffic?
Having said that I cannot wait for Cars-As-A-Service where the Cars park themselves & disappear when I don't need them and magically reappear when I do (without humans - Lyft, Uber et al. need not apply).
[1] http://www.wired.com/2014/05/the-robot-car-of-tomorrow-might...
Who will be a vendor of those cars? It seems to me that it's clear that driverless cars are the future, which is going to become real very soon. Any progressive government would (and should) allow such testing, even given the inflexibility of the state's bureaucratic machine. Allowing is an easy part. The hard part is actually building those cars and to my knowledge no UK firm does this at the moment.
When ever I see a new place or country allowing a test of these cars this wired article always comes to mind [1]. I think the two main questions will be liability & drivability - 1) when (not if) these cars get into a serious crash, who is to assume liability? Is it Google who created the algorithm? Is it the Audi integrator who fused Google technology into the Audi? Is it the fault of the mapping software that did n…