

Driverless car review launched by UK government - sjcsjc
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31364441

======
awjr
A most telling point is the comment about how driverless cars would keep to
the speed limits and how 'boring' this would be.

In the UK there is a reason why the police have stopped using the word
'accident' when reporting a road traffic collisions. There is almost always
somebody at fault.

With around 2175 road deaths in the UK in 2012, I truly believe driverless
cars are the only way we will ever see a massive reduction in this fatality
rate.

I, for one, welcome our driverless car overlords, but expect this to be years
in the making.

~~~
onion2k
_There is almost always somebody at fault._

With people, yes.

With robots, perhaps not.

If you think of a collision as "someone doing something wrong" (as the police
do) then a robot car can't really be responsible for a collision because all
it can do is follow its programming. It's literally impossible for it to be
'careless' or 'dangerous' in the same way that a human driver can.
Consequently, any accident between two robot cars will always have to share
responsibility between the two owners (or possibly the manufacturers, but
that's highly unlikely). It'd be exactly the same as if two human-driven cars
hit each other in blameless circumstances today - the costs are just divided
equally, or each car's insurer pays for the damage to that car, or something.

Robot cars will _massively_ disrupt the insurance industry.

~~~
techdmn
A human driver can certainly can be careless or dangerous, but in my
experience this is not how blame is assigned in the case of a collision. It is
assigned based a failure to conform to very specific rules of the road -
operating left of center (or right, depending on the country), failure to
yield, etc. Human factors are taken into consideration, but there is certainly
an existing framework for assigning responsibility that appears to be quite
compatible with autonomous operators. I would suggest that the shared
responsibility case would be the same as it is today - when both operators are
in violation.

------
bonaldi
Notably not part of the review: the economic impact from hundreds of thousands
of drivers becoming unemployed. In fact, no mention at all of the wider
political landscape in this review.

It's one thing having the technology in place - and we're some way away from
having something that can manage London - it's another thing entirely getting
it deployed.

Driverless trains have been a technical reality for decades; the Tube still
has drivers (and "captains").

~~~
Veus
The Tube (TFL) are trying to introduce driverless trains. Its the unions that
are stopping them. I'm sure if TFL could get rid of all drivers tomorrow and
replace them with driverless trains they would.

The thing that will hold up real deployment of this will be unions rather than
the technology.

~~~
dominicgs
Aren't the Central, Jubilee and Victoria lines all using ATO already? They
carry drivers for doors, emergencies, etc but I thought that the movement of
the train was automated.

------
rikkus
It will be interesting to see what happens to the world of work when those
(ex-)drivers who have a significant commute are able to perform some work
during that commute.

It would be great if employers would be open-minded enough to allow employees
to work during their commute and shorten their time at the workplace while
keeping the same total hours.

This would effectively nullify the 'dead time' of the commute and allow more
time outside work. I know a commute can be a relaxing time for some, but we'd
still be able to relax during the same hours, while having a choice of venue
rather than having to be stuck in a car.

Sadly, I can imagine many employers pushing for employees to keep the same
hours at the workplace while perhaps pressurising them to work 'from car'.

------
Shivetya
I can see a lot of use for them inside of city limits, to the point that human
driven vehicles could get excluded. Yet I would rather see it implemented in
public transportation, from full size buses down to smaller "pods" or the
like. The smaller one's could be ideally suited to serve the handicapped or
special needs.

Long haul trucks also look ideal, long before your own car goes that route.

As to mention about boring and speed limits, why wouldn't speed limits
increase? As the technology improves one can assume there will access
controlled lanes if not entire highways for automated vehicles. The US has
HOT/HOV lanes that would make perfect sense to convert to such use.

------
dpatterson2008
This sounds promising, however it could potentially be a disaster waiting to
happen. Just recently HN posted this article about BMW flaw:
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31093065](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31093065).
With this in mind, it wouldn't surprise me if someone somewhere gains access
to the driverless cars. Not only to add that it can be connected to your
smartphone, which is great. But then I suppose the smartphone app keeps track
of where you've been. I have mixed feelings.

