Northern Auto Tech - ECU and Blue & Me Repairs

Are modern cars too good?

Currently reading:
Are modern cars too good?

Most Easterly Pandas said:
Trains manage it without issue, so I can't see what the issue is personally. I take it you've never been on the DRL then :confused:
Click to expand...

To work would require immensely tight regulation and standardisation. Fine on a railway running a time table with rolling stock built by the same company and maintained to manufacturer standards. Also with no cyclists, horses or pedestrians to deal with or steering for that matter.

Several different brands of driver less cars, mixing with driven cars...dealing with possible lack of maintenance, faults in the road system, road works e.t c. It is possible but as an integrated system it would have a lot of challenges once the cars left a controlled environment.
 
puntofan01 said:
DRL? What's that?
Click to expand...
Docklands light railway, autocorrect doesn't like DLR.

puntofan01 said:
Nope, never been on a plane.
Click to expand...

This does not surprise me.

StevenRB45 said:
Several different brands of driver less cars, mixing with driven cars...dealing with possible lack of maintenance, faults in the road system, road works e.t c. It is possible but as an integrated system it would have a lot of challenges once the cars left a controlled environment.
Click to expand...

Google have now been managing this for years, I don't think the Google car is far from becoming a commercial vehicle, and the U.K. Is one of the countries making plans to be at the coal face of this technology. Manufacturers are now agreeing to be liable for any accident caused by the technology to try and push it forwards. I predict self driving cars will be visibly on uk roads by 2020. And something anyone can buy by 2025
 
AndyRKett said:
Google have now been managing this for years, I don't think the Google car is far from becoming a commercial vehicle, and the U.K. Is one of the countries making plans to be at the coal face of this technology. Manufacturers are now agreeing to be liable for any accident caused by the technology to try and push it forwards. I predict self driving cars will be visibly on uk roads by 2020. And something anyone can buy by 2025
Click to expand...

I'm not up to date on googles project are they still required to have a driver on board and a chase vehicle with remote shut down capabilities?

Not that I don't believe it's possible, as someone who uses an Android phone the rate of progress in their mapping and GPS software and the speech recognition suggests they the resources to get it done.

However if it is done as each car reacting to what it "sees" I can see some issues with that. For example a fast Audi with 6 piston calipers detects a sudden obstacle (something blown on to the road or some such) anchors up fully. Self driving fiesta behind on budget tyres detects this also applies the brakes fully however doesn't have the same tools at it's disposal, still ends in a crash. Unless it would be programmed to swerve, but that then requires all the cars to talk to each other, stating I'm here doing this I will be in this space shortly etc also the road network itself perhaps as well.

Works well on motorways and predictable roads but I feel as though the technology would have to be truly amazing to deal with all the current variation.
 
StevenRB45 said:
Self driving fiesta behind on budget tyres detects this also applies the brakes fully however doesn't have the same tools at it's disposal, still ends in a crash.
Click to expand...

No different to what would happen if said Audi was being driven by a person and slams on tbh. Its a none issue, Fiesta always would be a fault.
 
Most Easterly Pandas said:
No different to what would happen if said Audi was being driven by a person and slams on tbh. Its a none issue, Fiesta always would be a fault.
Click to expand...

If both cars are automated...then is Ford at fault? Or Audi for fitting brakes that are better than average? If you are going to remove the human factor, then that removes reaction times to a large degree. Both systems react to the same thing but the variation inherent in cars means they can't have the same response. DLR is fine all their rolling stock behaves the same, cars don't, also if you aren't running on rails localised issues (for example diesel spills or ice) become an issue as well.

Theoretically it's the same as it is now...except if you're horribly injured due to circumstances beyond your control you can't sue the manufacturer of your car. If you've been told it drives itself, it's legally recognised it drives itself, then it fails, there would be a case there. At the moment for all the gizmos you are still responsible for your own accident. If an automated car crashes it could tell all the cars behind slow down/stop there's an obstruction, but will it? Will data about road conditions be shared, so if ice halts a car or nearly causes it to lose control will all the ones behind be stopped? It would require a level of integration unheard of between manufacturers.

These questions apply now except we all have free will and make a choice based on current conditions to proceed or not. If the car is now making that decision I want it to know everything...
 
StevenRB45 said:
However if it is done as each car reacting to what it "sees" I can see some issues with that. For example a fast Audi with 6 piston calipers detects a sudden obstacle (something blown on to the road or some such) anchors up fully. Self driving fiesta behind on budget tyres detects this also applies the brakes fully however doesn't have the same tools at it's disposal, still ends in a crash. Unless it would be programmed to swerve, but that then requires all the cars to talk to each other, stating I'm here doing this I will be in this space shortly etc also the road network itself perhaps as well.



Works well on motorways and predictable roads but I feel as though the technology would have to be truly amazing to deal with all the current variation.
Click to expand...



This is the current purpose built self driving electric Google car.

google-self-driving-car-prototype-front-three-quarters.jpg


It has no controls and does not need to be followed about it is fully autonomous.

With your given scenario it's easy to say it simply wouldn't happen. The Google car leaves big gaps, huge In fact, between it and other cars and with it's radar and lidar systems means it can react to things as quickly as the car in front is reacting. It may even detect and respond to an obstacle before the Audi would. It's not simply following what it sees on a camera it maps it's environment in 3D, in real time so it can act accordingly to anything that enters that space. It knows it's stopping distances and can plan it's follow distance as needed. Even with budget tyres it's unlikely to cause any issue.

If something did happen and the car was found to have caused an accident then the manufacturers are saying they will take on the liability them self, however the question with that are would they take responsibility if you fitted cheap poor quality tyres that differ from manufacturers specifications.

In the grand scheme of things the technology is already better than a normal human driver
 
This is the insurance issue with self driving cars. If the driver is at fault then liability and therefore any claim is their responsibility. Self driving cars will have to be the owners responsibility. This is as ridiculous as sitting in the back of a Taxi and being to blame if the driver crashes it.

A lot of the technology has been around for decades. Lane detection, FOD Radar and so on but my opinion of drivers aids is based purely on the dictionary definition of the word "aids".

For example...

Hearing aids are for people who are going deaf.
Walking aids are for people who are having trouble getting about.
Marital aids are for couples who are having issues.
Drivers aids are for people who can not drive.

:devil:
 
Liquid Knight said:
...

Hearing aids are for people who are going deaf.
Walking aids are for people who are having trouble getting about.
Marital aids are for couples who are having issues.
Drivers aids are for people who can not drive.

:devil:
Click to expand...

So do you always make a cup of tea on an open fire with wood you gathered in the forest? And lit by rubbing two sticks together ?

Do you wash all your clothes by hand?

F1 cars have more technology and 'Aids' than most cars but you can hardly claim that F1 drivers "can not drive" the reason they have that technology on those cars is that sometimes technology does a better job than even the best can muster
 
puntofan01 said:
Is that why my insurance was £50 cheaper on my Grande Punto 1.4 last year than it was for my old mk2b 1.2 back in 2013?
Click to expand...

Newer cars are less likely to be involved in accidents stastically. You're less likely to get injured in a newer car as they tend to be safer. Parts on new current model cars are easier to source and paint colours easier to match, older cars have faults worn parts and faded paint. All in all there is much less risk to an insurance company on a newer car than an older one. My brand new car is only £200 a year to insure by punto was £280 and aside from the obvious difference in value, the golf is much more powerful and faster and generally more complex car
 
AndyRKett said:
Newer cars are less likely to be involved in accidents stastically. You're less likely to get injured in a newer car as they tend to be safer. Parts on new current model cars are easier to source and paint colours easier to match, older cars have faults worn parts and faded paint. All in all there is much less risk to an insurance company on a newer car than an older one. My brand new car is only £200 a year to insure by punto was £280 and aside from the obvious difference in value, the golf is much more powerful and faster and generally more complex car
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I was genuinely (and pleasantly!) surprised when having gone from the base model mk2b to my top of the range, more powerful, more valuable Grande, I had expected my insurance to go up!
 
puntofan01 said:
Fair enough. I was genuinely (and pleasantly!) surprised when having gone from the base model mk2b to my top of the range, more powerful, more valuable Grande, I had expected my insurance to go up!
Click to expand...

Many many years ago I went from a mk3 1.1 litre fiesta to a mk1 1.8 litre mondeo and my insurance dropped a lot, because the car I bought was considered a lower risk. A bottom of the range mk2b punto is likely to be far more to insure for a young driver, than something like a top end family car
 
AndyRKett said:
Many many years ago I went from a mk3 1.1 litre fiesta to a mk1 1.8 litre mondeo and my insurance dropped a lot, because the car I bought was considered a lower risk. A bottom of the range mk2b punto is likely to be far more to insure for a young driver, than something like a top end family car
Click to expand...

Or, for that matter, a 200 bhp Alfa Romeo Brera 2.4 JTD: a mate of mine has 1 of those, and despite having the same amount of NCB, his insurance was only about £40 more than I paid to insure my Grande this year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pugglt Auld Jock
Too good to miss. Film : Serves You Right
Replies
8
Views
640
varesecrazy
V
AnthonyH
Under car camera
Replies
5
Views
99
AnthonyH
AnthonyH
SB1500
2023 Vauxhall Grandland Courtesy Car... An Experience
Replies
5
Views
135
vexorg
vexorg
AnthonyH
When buying a used car which is more important - mileage or age of the car
Replies
19
Views
364
The Panda Nut
The Panda Nut
AnthonyH
Your most historic tool
4 5 6
Replies
115
Views
2K
The Panda Nut
The Panda Nut
Back
Top