I Cannot Wait

[Ric.ror]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28551069

[RATTER15]

So could I get it to drive me to work and then find its own way home for the Good Lady to have the car for her needs?

[ludwig]

// Can I get rat ar5ed and get my car to drive me home? //

No. You'd have to get a driverless taxi.

[Svejk]

all these issues will be looked at. they're not unleashing them on the general public yet.

[Svejk]

lol, you're on fire this morning, Ludwig.

[Kromovaracun]

I wonder if you could summon it like the Batmobile.

[Baldric]

//Driverless Taxi//
Least you wouldn't have to 'Tip it'
and non of this "I ain't going South of the River at this time of night" nonsense either!

[anotheoldgit]

Could you be charged for being drunk in a driverless car?

[youngmafbog]

Still technically in charge of it I would have thought AOG

[youngmafbog]

The sensors etc are a great idea. Mrs ymb has them front and back on the SLK and she is far more confident and so far no scrapes on the spoiler yest - unlike the last car.

But as for driverless. I think it may be a long time yet. As TTT points out I bet the lawyers are rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of all the law suits.

[askyourgran]

Hope it works, unlike the sat-nav which could leave you in the middle of a field if you are not careful. MrAsk likes to be in control, I don't think he would like to be driven.

[ludwig]

// I think it may be a long time yet. As TTT points out I bet the lawyers are rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of all the law suits. //

Why would there be any more law suits than there are currently? I can't see there being more accidents. At worst there'd be the same number.

[youngmafbog]

//At worst there'd be the same number. //

How can you even start to make that estimate. Do you have inside information or are you able to see into the future?

But, what I was getting at is that as TTT alluded to who would be responsible in the event of an accident, the owner, the car maker, the man who serviced it. Maybe now the cyclist could be held to account or the pedestrian?

So many questions and possibilities coupled with new laws to enable the use of driverless cars means lawyers will make a mint fighting to set the precedents - as usually happens with all new laws (usually full of holes) or products.

[EDDIE51]

The problem will be while there are both normal and driverless cars on the road. Once there are 100% driverless vehicles it will be much safer.
Wait till the Unions realise this means the end of 'driver jobs' no taxi, bus, coach, delivery drivers any more.
The only reason we still have train drivers is Union opposition, all the technology is there for 100% driverless trains as on the docklands railway.

[ToraToraTora]

yes but if your driver less car causes an accident how can it be your fault and you can't sue a lump of metal. If it is deemed to be your fault then you'd drive it yourself anyway, either way the whole exercise is pointless. It'll never happen, not for technical reasons but for legal ones.

[youngmafbog]

//all the technology is there for 100% driverless trains as on the docklands railway. //

the DLR is not 100% driverless. Been on it at rush hour when the trains are close ?

//Once there are 100% driverless vehicles it will be much safer. //

How can you say that, how do you know how reliable it will be or how the technology will age? I doubt very much it will be safer.

Remember 'where there is blame there is a claim' and there is a whole industry setup to exploit this. It wont be going away.

[EDDIE51]

^^ I used the Docklands railway during the Olympics when it was packed still no drivers.

[EDDIE51]

^^ you won't get situations like the only accident I was in , the other driver was on my side of the road round a blind corner and drove straight into me head on, she didn't even see me as the 'Sun was in her eyes' and she was late for the school run. A driverless car will not 'speed up' to avoid being late. Or the near miss the other day, when doing a steady 30mph in a residential road when I heard a screech of brakes behind me, another driver who MUST have been doing at least 70mph in a 30 limit had to break so hard to avoid hitting my rear that he locked all 4 wheels and left a smoke screen .

[Svejk]

I think eddies right. you cant make it idiot-proof, but once you take all the idiots out of the equation..........

[Ric.ror]

Maybe now the cyclist could be held to account or the pedestrian?

Cyclists responsible for accidents!!!!
As if such a thing would ever happen;-))

[ludwig]

I take the point about the legal implications, but I see it being drastically different to the current situation.
The same sort of questions exist - ie if a car runs into a cyclist who is to blame?

a) the cyclist
b) the car driver
c) mechanical fault due to manufacturer (brake/steering failure cos of design)
d) mechanical fault to due negligent service engineer(he put the widget on back to front)
e) mechanical fault due to driver (he didn't have the brakes fixed)
f) no-one's fault - the driver had a heart attack and lost control
g) some other tw4t that jumped out in front of the car\bike forcing the driver\rider to swerve.

The legal complications are already there. They'll change a bit but they're already there.