New legislation will pave way for driverless cars

12.00 | 11 June 2014 | | 17 comments

New legislation is to be drawn up to allow driverless cars on Britain’s roads, according to MailOnline.

MailOnline says that “ministers admit the current Highway Code and rules of the road are inadequate for the new generation of vehicles which pilot themselves”.

The article says that the Government “wants to ensure that Britain is not overtaken by Google’s drive to see its cars used legally on the streets of California”.

Google has recently unveiled its ‘hands-free’ self-driving bubble car which has no steering wheel, brake or accelerator pedals, just buttons for start, pull over and emergency stop and a computer screen showing the route.

Google plans to have prototypes ready to test later this summer and says the goal is for the car to ‘shoulder the entire burden of driving’.

A British version of a driverless car is being developed in Oxford, but Google has clocked up more road miles with its version.

According to MailOnline, David Willetts, minister for universities and science, is in talks with the DfT about rewriting the law to allow cars on to UK highways without anyone in the driving seat.

Mr Willetts said: “We are one of the world leaders in this. There is British technology, and it’s a lot cheaper than the Google technology.

“But whereas the Google car, they have notched up more miles, so we have got to ensure that the British has its own opportunity to get tested in a wider range of environments and that’s what we are working on with the DfT.”

 

Comments

Comment on this story

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Report a reader comment

Order by Latest first | Oldest first | Highest rated | Lowest rated

    Personally I feel uncomfortable using cruise control when driving; aproaching even a gentle bend when the car maintains speed where I would ease off the the accelerator slighlty doesn’t feel right. Drivers all drive differently – some approach hazards quicker than others etc. A computer would, presumably, be programmed to act consistently, so this would go against many drivers’ natural instincts. Most who enjoy driving will not enjoy being driven; in effect being in the driver’s seat but having little or no control.


    Andy, Warwick
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Duncan’s scenarios are fair comment and it would be interesting to hear what Google or anyone invoved in this technology have to say about it. At present, I’m open-minded about the concept.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Nick
    I wonder if the good people at Google have ever encountered a roundabout or a gyratory system? On the bridge over the river Severn in Worcester you are encouraged to ‘mingle and merge’ something that we humans manage with relative ease, but something that would be quite beyond a non-sentient piece of equipment. Today I negotiated my way round Stratford’s terrible gridlock whilst taking notice of all the human interactions that took place. Understanding the pleading look on the face of the lady trying to ease out of her driveway onto the main road and making a gap for her to pull in to. The exchange of glances with the lad on the pushbike so he knew I had worked out his intentions. Knowing that if I sped up a fraction so that I arrived at the merge point on the gyratory just a fraction of a second before the bloke coming the other way did then he would let me in front. Hanging back on the bridge as I knew from the position of the large truck coming the other way he would have to swing into my lane to get around the bridge parapet. These everyday occurences make the system run smoothly and go largely unnoticed by us, but even the most advanced computer wouldn’t be able to do any of these things.


    Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    A short answer from me Nick Rawlings, is No. I do not believe those who are employed to research and develop such systems are aware of real traffic situations that are encountered safely and successfully billions of times per day by human beings. I have some academics amongst close family, and their abilities in driving and hazard perception are much to be desired. Training and experience. There is no substitute.


    Derek Reynolds, Salop.
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    People cause safety in fundamentally unsafe systems, so if you remove the people you remove the safety! There is a lesson from history at: http://youtu.be/-cv2ud1339E


    Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Google’s logic is that as human error accounts for almost all road accidents, then taking away the human element should eradicate accidents which does make some sense – no more drink-driving, tailgating, distracted drivers, driving too fast, poor judgment etc. Quite a lot of human falings behind the wheel can be removed. Problem is – as I said before, we all like driving too much! Perhaps these vehicles should be supplied with a kiddies dummy steering wheel and gear shift to stick on the dash! On a serious note, as this is a road safety forum, I suppose we should cautiously embrace the principle, as it is no doubt going to be the future.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Had a ride in a Ferrari at the week-end. Driverless cars, I do not think so!


    Terry Hudson
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Nick
    When I asked an academic involved with so called “Intelligent Speed Adaptation” some basic questions about safety assessments, such as consideration of unintended consequences, his response was a combination of denial and affront. It was clear that there was not even an embyonic safety case, considering all hazards that ISA may contribute to. I’ll trust those working on these systems when they publish there safety assessments.


    Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Idris, Duncan and others
    You make some interesting points but don’t you think the intelligent and highly qualified people who are working on driverless car projects for Google and others will be very aware of the concerns you highlight, and will ensure they are addressed in the work they are doing?


    Nick Rawlings, editor, Road Safety News
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Driverless car! Assuming that is correct both occupants are passengers and therefore no-one needs a driving licence. Look at all the crashes caused by unlicenced people driving computers and then let us re-think the whole area. Most of the concern is about their interaction with driven vehicles so the obvious thing is all vehicles driverless or none.


    Peter London
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Insane, as they will find out soon enough if our legislators are mad enough to allow them. An example?

    “e.g. Maximum braking force – meaning the autonomous vehicle would be able to start braking much quicker than a human and also brake more effectively.” Perhaps so – but what happens when the human who cannot brake effectively happens to be driving close behind?

    “The Government “wants to ensure that Britain is not overtaken by Google’s drive to see its cars used legally on the streets of California”. Typical politician! What matters is whether the system is safe – rather, whether it is safer than we already have. Being ahead of other countries is not the point, at least for non-politicians.

    Far better to let others try it out and see what happens 6,000 miles away. And who will provide insurance and whom will we be able to blame in a crash with one of them?


    Idris Francis Fight Back With Facts Petersfield
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Humans are adaptable, computers are not. Far too many people think that as people are the ’cause’ of accidents if you remove the people you will remove the accidents. Anybody that watched the film War Games back in the 80’s knows that not to be true.


    Duncan MacKillop, Startford on Avon
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    I remember driverless cars being depicted in futuristic comics of the early 1960’s, running along on underground guidance systems. Times have moved on. What probability is there that such cars would be the target of mischievous youths wishing to see some fun in jumping out in front of them to see the computers reaction (as well as the occupants) and legging it?

    Some drivers, it might be a minority or a majority, will read the road ahead for hazards. But many I fear will drive on some kind of autopilot expecting nothing untoward occurring during their journey, with hazard awareness ‘switched’ off. They are compensated for their lack of awareness with so called safety devices as are built into the car; air bags, crumple zones, seat belts etc. etc. In every instance it is legislation that demand protection. Whereas what is needed is prevention. Which in turn needs better education and hazard awareness. But instead, we turn yet again to computers. The ‘easy’ option – until they fail.


    Derek Reynolds, Salop.
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    Hugh:
    I guess you don’t like flying too much. Anyway I have mixed feelings on this but well sometimes looking at who drives on our roads it does seem there are robotic tendencies already.


    Pete
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    A computer may find it difficult to predict or anticipate in the same way as a human but has other benefits which could more than compensate. Autonomous vehicles can communicate with each other and with the infrastructure e.g. The traffic lights will change in x seconds.

    One of the biggest benefits in emergency situations is the vehicle’s ability to remove human reaction times and use the maximum capacity of the vehicle to avoid the hazard, e.g. Maximum braking force – meaning the autonomous vehicle would be able to start braking much quicker than a human and also brake more effectively.

    My biggest concern relating to any widespread introduction of autonomous vehicles in the future would be that legislation requires a human to be able to take control of the vehicle in an emergency. Humans perform unreliably in novel situations and this would be exacerbated by having very little or no situational awareness when expected to take control in a situation that will develop over a period of seconds at most. In my opinion, driverless cars must do what they say on the tin: be driverless. I think the latest Google product is close to the mark and the tech is pretty much there – the next real developments for driverless cars will almost certainly need to be legal and political before anything more can happen. Then there is the question of how many people will want one?


    Matt Staton, Cambridgeshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    The human brain works by constantly making predictions about the future states of what it senses which is the ideal mechanism for negotiating our crowded and dangerous roads. The ability to predict allows us to handle potentially dangerous situations before they happen rather than as or after they happen. This ability is due to our large sequence memory that can rapidly compare current sensory inputs with inputs that it has encountered before and then move our limbs to gain the greatest possible advantage from the situation. The sensory sequence of a pedestrian looking down at his phone and heading steadily towards the kerb will instantly ring alarm bells as we would probably have sensed a very similar thing before. If the last time we saw the sequence the pedestrian stepped out into the road then we will predict a high probability of them stepping out this time too and we’ll be ready for it and another life will be saved.

    Computers on the other hand can make predictions but their ability is restricted to only those situations that exactly match those that have already been programmed in. Taking the same situation with the pedestrian a computer would probably detect the walking human and determine its speed and direction and from that predict a possible future state. However as most pedestrians that are heading towards the kerb will usually stop at it and wait for a gap in the traffic before crossing the computer would probably take no action. In our situation the addition of the mobile phone makes it increasingly unlikely that the pedestrian will stop and so for us the problem is easily resolved and we get ready to stop or swerve.

    In the normal day to day transactions of the road transport system there will be many tens of thousands of such ambiguous situations that our brains will handle with the utmost ease. In order for the computer to do the same it has to not only be programmed with all these situations, but also all of the situations that might ensue even those that nobody has ever encountered before!

    My thoughts are that we are still a long way away from having driverless cars that can operate in our current road transport system.


    Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

    If they do become a common sight on our roads, it will be interesting to see how human road users respond to it when they’re in its vicinty. Will they relax and assume a false sense of safety? Will human drivers see it as a role model in how to drive correctly? The concept and the possible scenarios are mind-boggling but personally, I love driving and I only trust myself at the wheel so I don’t think I’ll be queuing up for one just yet.


    Hugh Jones, Cheshire
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
    0

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close