Driverless taxi stopped by a traffic cone

[Vierwielen]

An interesting article here. A group that is opposed to driverless taxis in San Francisco is immobilising said taxis by placing trafic cones on the taxis' bonnets. The vehicle's cameras see the traffic cone and know that they cannot drive past it.

[6637]

This is the first I've ever heard of fully self driving vehicles being road legal anywhere in the world. Amazing how such a big thing has happened with such little fanfare.

[bothar]

While this was deliberate, you have to wonder if these vehicles can accurately assess the implications of a plastic bag blowing the wind or something else that a human would know to ignore.

[Conekicker]

While this was deliberate, you have to wonder if these vehicles can accurately assess the implications of a plastic bag blowing the wind or something else that a human would know to ignore.

Such as a bouncing ball coming into the road between two parked cars and a child visible through the parked vehicles windows chasing the ball, something that a human driver might see in their peripheral vision and react in time. Will the driverless vehicle stop for the ball? If not, will it have time to stop for the child?

In the UK, would it stop for a cat (non-reportable if you hit one) or a dog (reportable if you hit one)?

[bothar]

While this was deliberate, you have to wonder if these vehicles can accurately assess the implications of a plastic bag blowing the wind or something else that a human would know to ignore.

Such as a bouncing ball coming into the road between two parked cars and a child visible through the parked vehicles windows chasing the ball, something that a human driver might see in their peripheral vision and react in time. Will the driverless vehicle stop for the ball? If not, will it have time to stop for the child?

In the UK, would it stop for a cat (non-reportable if you hit one) or a dog (reportable if you hit one)?

And of course what you should do should be influenced by who is behind you etc.

[Conekicker]

While this was deliberate, you have to wonder if these vehicles can accurately assess the implications of a plastic bag blowing the wind or something else that a human would know to ignore.

Such as a bouncing ball coming into the road between two parked cars and a child visible through the parked vehicles windows chasing the ball, something that a human driver might see in their peripheral vision and react in time. Will the driverless vehicle stop for the ball? If not, will it have time to stop for the child?

In the UK, would it stop for a cat (non-reportable if you hit one) or a dog (reportable if you hit one)?

And of course what you should do should be influenced by who is behind you etc.

...and if you're following a driverless car and it stops because it's programming identifies something dangerous which actually isn't and slams on the anchors unexpectedly...?

These things are many years away from being safe to be on the road. Not all the world is like a Californian city, with wide streets set out in a grid pattern with nice weather for considerable parts of the year. Anyone fancy being a passenger in one on a dark, rainy night in February out in the sticks in Northumbria or Cornwall for example?

[freebrickproductions]

These things are many years away from being safe to be on the road. Not all the world is like a Californian city, with wide streets set out in a grid pattern with nice weather for considerable parts of the year.

From what I've seen on Twitter, they've been struggling out in California and the rural areas people have been "testing" driverless cars in (typically in the SW US, IIRC) as well.

[Bryn666]

They should simply not be a thing full stop. This is what happens when techbros are allowed to come up with answers to problems nobody has.

We already have transport for people who hate driving, it's called a bus. Or a train. Or a taxi. Perhaps we should spend money on these tried and tested technologies instead of handing more cash to imbeciles like Musk.

[Chris Bertram]

They should simply not be a thing full stop. This is what happens when techbros are allowed to come up with answers to problems nobody has.

We already have transport for people who hate driving, it's called a bus. Or a train. Or a taxi. Perhaps we should spend money on these tried and tested technologies instead of handing more cash to imbeciles like Musk.

Ah, but we already have driverless trains, so surely driverless cars must be a possibility? Mustn't they?

[Helvellyn]

They should simply not be a thing full stop. This is what happens when techbros are allowed to come up with answers to problems nobody has.

We already have transport for people who hate driving, it's called a bus. Or a train. Or a taxi. Perhaps we should spend money on these tried and tested technologies instead of handing more cash to imbeciles like Musk.

Ah, but we already have driverless trains, so surely driverless cars must be a possibility? Mustn't they?

Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

[SteveA30]

Unfortunately, scientists and techno geeks think that if something can theoretically be done, it should.

[KeithW]

These things are many years away from being safe to be on the road. Not all the world is like a Californian city, with wide streets set out in a grid pattern with nice weather for considerable parts of the year. Anyone fancy being a passenger in one on a dark, rainy night in February out in the sticks in Northumbria or Cornwall for example?

I would love to see try the Hardknott Pass - from a safe distance
https://www.google.com/maps/@54.4027857 ... ?entry=ttu

[jnty]

They should simply not be a thing full stop. This is what happens when techbros are allowed to come up with answers to problems nobody has.

We already have transport for people who hate driving, it's called a bus. Or a train. Or a taxi. Perhaps we should spend money on these tried and tested technologies instead of handing more cash to imbeciles like Musk.

Ah, but we already have driverless trains, so surely driverless cars must be a possibility? Mustn't they?

Well, by the standards we'd applying to the automotive industry, we don't even have driverless trains, do we? Sure, the DLR certainly crosses a fairly significant threshold of automation by dispensing with a driver sitting at the front, but it is still operated by an on-train attendant - they just have a bit less to do. (A lot of other trains operate in a pretty autonomous mode for much of the time, but it turns out that having the 'operator' sitting at the front of the train is a perfectly convenient place to dispense their remaining duties while not actively controlling power delivery and braking.)

If driverless taxis forever require a member of staff sitting in them at all times to operate them, I don't think we would call them driverless. And perhaps more importantly, the huge amount of investment that's gone into autonomous vehicle tech on the assumption that it will slash staffing costs will have been largely wasted.

[trigpoint]

Aside from driving an important part of a taxi drivers job is assisting less able passengers. Helping carry their shopping and being human contact.

A driverless car cannot do that.

[Vierwielen]

Aside from driving an important part of a taxi drivers job is assisting less able passengers. Helping carry their shopping and being human contact.

A driverless car cannot do that.

Taxi drivers also assist whith helping find ertain services eg "Please take me to a hotel" or "Please take me to the railway station for Blackpool". Again, a driverless car cannot do that.