Electric Vehicles (EV) Thread

[Dannie Boy]

Imagine the insurance premiums for one of those cars!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pharvey]

^^ "It says deaths from drink driving, speeding, tiredness and 'inattention' will all be reduced as a result."

But surely, the "driver" or at least the one in the driving seat should be capable of taking over should anything go amiss with the "self-driving system"? Someone under the influence of drink or drugs or tiredness is hardly going to be able to do so and therefore shouldn't legally be able to be behind the wheel.

[STEVE G]

^In my opinion, self driving cars only make sense when the technology has got to the point where they're capable of doing it without human intervention.
When they're basically a driverless taxi that could be used by a non-driver, a disabled person or is capable of making journeys by itself to pick someone up etc., then I can see the use of it but if you've got to sit there monitoring the road, it doesn't really achieve anything.

[pharvey]

^ Yes, I'd agree. There's certainly been some trials, but personally I believe we're a fair few years off a truly reliable and safe system.

[KhunLA]

^In my opinion, self driving cars only make sense when the technology has got to the point where they're capable of doing it without human intervention.
When they're basically a driverless taxi that could be used by a non-driver, a disabled person or is capable of making journeys by itself to pick someone up etc., then I can see the use of it but if you've got to sit there monitoring the road, it doesn't really achieve anything.

[STEVE G]

^Exactly!
I think those two old boys would have been happier with this '69 Plymouth Roadrunner that I came across in Luxembourg yesterday:

[HHTel]

Some AVs will have a ‘user-in-charge’ (UiC) function. This means they would have functionality to both be driven or to drive itself for some or all of the journey. When such a vehicle is driving itself, the driver is not responsible for how the vehicle drives, though they retain other responsibilities such as insurance and vehicle roadworthiness. When the vehicle is being driven, it is treated as a conventional vehicle.

Alternatively, a ‘no-user-in-charge’ (NUiC) journey would be one where the AV drives itself for the whole journey. No occupant is a driver during the journey and, in some cases, it may not be possible for the vehicle to be traditionally driven, as it may not have a steering wheel or other conventional controls. A licensed operator would monitor the vehicle during the journey and ensure it is properly insured and maintained.

[Dannie Boy]

^Exactly!
I think those two old boys would have been happier with this '69 Plymouth Roadrunner that I came across in Luxembourg yesterday:

Although you’re probably correct about this before their journey, I’m pretty much certain that after the journey they were converted to the new technology!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[STEVE G]

^Yes, self driving at that level is impressive.
I know that some companies are interested in the idea of car subscription services with cars like that. Basically instead of owning a car, you would order one when you need it and it turns up at your door.

[pharvey]

Personally I'm quite a way from trusting the technology.

Yes, the "Jagwire" in the video is impressive, but even around town/city streets with lower speed limits, I'd be bloody nervous- let alone on higher speed main roads and motorways.

A while back I test drove a Model S Tesla which had the "Self-Drive" facility (albeit an older version), but there was no-way on earth I was taking my hands off the wheel. That feeling still remains.

[STEVE G]

I've read articles about the technology behind self driving cars and apparently one of the main problems is the unpredictability of human road users. If the roads were just full of self driving cars it would be much easier because they would all act logically.

[HHTel]

The testing done in 3 cities in the states found that after 100,000 miles, there were only 2 accidents and neither was the fault of the driverless car!

[Dannie Boy]

I’m sure it’s going to take a lot of testing to convince the majority - regrettably it will probably take a serious crash/fatality to convince them it was wise to be cautious!!

[STEVE G]

I’m sure it’s going to take a lot of testing to convince the majority - regrettably it will probably take a serious crash/fatality to convince them it was wise to be cautious!!

The average SE Asian taxi driver doesn't convince me that humans have a monopoly on safe driving.

[Dannie Boy]

I’m sure it’s going to take a lot of testing to convince the majority - regrettably it will probably take a serious crash/fatality to convince them it was wise to be cautious!!

The average SE Asian taxi driver doesn't convince me that humans have a monopoly on safe driving.

Well of course, but we’re talking about a new technology that promises an exciting future, but if/when it goes wrong, I’m fairly certain it will have a major negative impact on trust of this technology, that it will take a lot to recover from.