Electric Car Nation

[43021HST]

it is part of the selling point. You are buying a futuristic stand out vehicle that everyone knows is an electric and generates kudos.

Usually futuristic and stand out means gaudy and lacking any design subtlety and finesse.

I do believe it's a selling point for the kind of fickle imbeciles that queue up outside the apple store for 24 hours for their latest phone and then chuck their perfectly good year old one away, without a care for the environmental impact, and then drive home in their BMW I3.

The kind of selling point for people with no taste or principles and only care about keeping up with the Jones'.

Whereas there *are* driverless cars out on the road, today. The technology is out of the hands of scientists (whose job is to prove that it's possible) and into the hands of engineers (whose job it is to make it reliable). Pretty soon it'll be over to the manufacturers - who have to make it affordable.

If only it was that simple. What you're missing before the technology is handed to the manufacturers is the discussion that takes in between as to whether driver-less technology is ethical, what with increasing automation of shopping checkouts, ticket machines, library systems and many other systems, many jobs which provided large scale employment are becoming obselete.

The amount of jobs driverless technology will make redundant is eye watering and may bring about serious debate as to whether the current 40 hour work week is still feasible or not to keep the majority employed.

The introduction of a new working system to replace one that has evolved since the industrial revolution is absolutely enormous, and it's that which I think may prevent driverless technology being introduced en masse.

As much as I agree with electric cars, I don't think our roads will ever be fully driverless. We've had automatic gearboxes in cars for a very long time but the only reason why they haven't replaced manual gearboxes is that people prefer the control they have on manual, if that's the case I can't see driverless ever being fully implemented.

 

[najaB]

If only it was that simple. What you're missing before the technology is handed to the manufacturers is the discussion that takes in between as to whether driver-less technology is ethical, what with increasing automation of shopping checkouts, ticket machines, library systems and many other systems, many jobs which provided large scale employment are becoming obselete.

It didn't stop the mechanisation of textile mills and it didn't stop automation in manufacturing. Sadly, considerations of the worker come a distant second to increased productivity, reduced costs and the profits they generate for the owners.

We've had automatic gearboxes in cars for a very long time but the only reason why they haven't replaced manual gearboxes is that people prefer the control they have on manual, if that's the case I can't see driverless ever being fully implemented.

That's a very UK-centric view. In North America 'stick shifts' are very much the exception rather than the norm.

 

[43021HST]

It didn't stop the mechanisation of textile mills and it didn't stop automation in manufacturing. Sadly, considerations of the worker come a distant second to increased productivity, reduced costs and the profits they generate for the owners.
That's a very UK-centric view. In North America 'stick shifts' are very much the exception rather than the norm.

Which maybe because I live in the UK.

The thing is at the the time we had mechanisation of the mills yes it reduced the man power required but certainly not to the degree that driverless vehicles will. IE the machines at the mill still required manning just less so.

However if driverless vehicles are introduced, every lorry driver, courier, taxi driver, takeaway deliverer, coach and bus driver, Chauffeur and many other jobs will be redundant. We're not talking a reduction in staffing but the abolishment of an entire work sector as we know it, which is bringing up debate in powerful quarters as to whether we can afford this or not and whether the very nature of work has to be changed to accommodate this reduction in jobs.

 

[najaB]

Which maybe because I live in the UK.

The thing is, none of the big players in the autonomous road vehicle industry are UK-based so the technology will progress whether we want it to or not. And once it exists in other markets, the adoption in ours is inevitable.

The thing is at the the time we had mechanisation of the mills yes it reduced the man power required but certainly not to the degree that driverless vehicles will. IE the machines at the mill still required manning just less so.

However if driverless vehicles are introduced, every lorry driver, courier, taxi driver, takeaway deliverer, coach and bus driver, Chauffeur and many other jobs will be redundant. We're not talking a reduction in staffing but the abolishment of an entire work sector as we know it, which is bringing up debate in powerful quarters as to whether we can afford this or not and whether the very nature of work has to be changed to accommodate this reduction in jobs.

And what you will likely initially see is ARVs doing the heavy lifting motorway work and bulk deliveries to warehouses, with humans doing the in-town work. Even if the delivery vehicle does the driving, the sofa isn't going to carry itself into your house.

 

[HSTEd]

If only it was that simple. What you're missing before the technology is handed to the manufacturers is the discussion that takes in between as to whether driver-less technology is ethical, what with increasing automation of shopping checkouts, ticket machines, library systems and many other systems, many jobs which provided large scale employment are becoming obselete.

The amount of jobs driverless technology will make redundant is eye watering and may bring about serious debate as to whether the current 40 hour work week is still feasible or not to keep the majority employed.

Why is it ethical to artificially force people continue to perform soul destroying and repetitive work to earn a living?
We had a 48 hour week once, now we have 40 hours, it is not unreasonable to assume that the working week length will eventually shrink again.

Massive full time employment is not the ends, it is the means to provide sufficient economic output to support a desirable standard of living.
If society is better off as a result of not requiring huge numbers of man hours that are currently required in the transportation sector, it is possible to design a taxation and social safety net system that makes everyone better off.

 

[43021HST]

The thing is, none of the big players in the autonomous road vehicle industry are UK-based so the technology will progress whether we want it to or not. And once it exists in other markets, the adoption in ours is inevitable.
And what you will likely initially see is ARVs doing the heavy lifting motorway work and bulk deliveries to warehouses, with humans doing the in-town work. Even if the delivery vehicle does the driving, the sofa isn't going to carry itself into your house.

The furniture removal drivers that you've used as an example are only a small part of the driving sector. What about taxi drivers, or HGV staff where the warehouse packers unload the lorries, bus drivers etc.

What I'm saying is that the ethical issues are being taken into account by the industry and MPs so I don't think driverless vehicles will be very prolific for at least 50 years or so, at least until we find something else labour intensive to occupy the workforce or revolutionise our ideas about labour distribution.

This passive acceptance that employers will only seek what is most productive, simply isn't true, why do Tesco's still retain a large amount of their manually operated tills, why haven't the railways tried to completely eradicate railway guards sooner and look at the backlash that happens when they try to do. It's becuase they take the broader ethical picture into account. Whether by choice or not.

Why is it ethical to artificially force people continue to perform soul destroying and repetitive work to earn a living?
We had a 48 hour week once, now we have 40 hours, it is not unreasonable to assume that the working week length will eventually shrink again.

Massive full time employment is not the ends, it is the means to provide sufficient economic output to support a desirable standard of living.
If society is better off as a result of not requiring huge numbers of man hours that are currently required in the transportation sector, it is possible to design a taxation and social safety net system that makes everyone better off.

That's exactly what I'm saying, that only after we've reduced the working week can we truly exploit driverless technologies. Completely replacing a whole sectors manpower without any alternatives and still expect there to be enough work to go round on a 40 hour work week is incredibly unethical is the crux of my point. Just look at what decimating the manufacturing and mining industry did to the north. To be honest implementing a less than 40 hour work week, I think is economically very difficult within the present day system. So until we can find a way to reduce the working week and yet for many working activities to remain profitable, only then can driverless technology be fully utilised.

 

[AM9]

Really? So all the news reports we see on a regular basis about the Christmas/Easter/Summer "getaway", or for that matter the stream of traffic one sees heading north along the A1 on a Friday evening, or west along the A303 or M5, is a figment of the imagination?

It is true that the holiday traffic regularly clogs up a few trunk routes during the school holidays on Friday Afternoons and Saturday Mornings. What you are failing to recognise is that those stupid avoidable delays are a drop in the ocean of total road traffic.

This may not get in the way if a viable alternative can be provided, but I just can't see people accepting it if such an alternative doesn't come about. I remember how people went crazy during the fuel protests just because petrol wasn't quite as available as normal.

By 2040 there will only be alternatives, very high restrictions on fossil burning ICEs or something more sensible that may be inconvenient to a few. To help those who are in denial of the environmental problems that they are helping to create, pricing, taxes and duty will be the gentle persuaders that moderate their behaviour. It has happened in the last 20 years with smokers, so polluters will become the new pariahs.

As someone else pointed out, all this has to get through quite a few general elections in the meantime.

A sizeable number of voters already see the folly of pretending that there isn't a problem. That will soon be a majority. Don't forget, not all voters insist on polluting the environment, - but many more of them will be suffering from the actions those who continue to to do so.

I get sick of hearing the baby-boom generation preaching about what changes need to be made in the future, whilst they continue to enjoy everything as it is now and make no adjustments to their own behaviour at all. All seems rather hypocritical to me.

Oh yes, the environmental economics version of Godwin's Law just had to come up in this discussion, - just blame another generation. I, and many like me have already made adjustments to travel arrangements and will probably continue along the same progressive line, until my body is itself recycled. Then you can have it, warts and all to yourself. It would be easier for us to say "not our problem now" because it really is your generation that must take the correct actions.
It's ironic that those who want to continue plundering the environment and contribute the least to rescuing it are those who will have to pay for their behaviour for much longer. Don't just lash out at another group because you don't want to change your ways.

 

[najaB]

The furniture removal drivers that you've used as an example are only a small part of the driving sector. What about taxi drivers, or HGV staff where the warehouse packers unload the lorries, bus drivers etc.

The same applies to the majority of delivery drivers - getting the pizza, sofa, internet purchase, etc. to your curb isn't the whole job. As for bus drivers it's likely a long time before their jobs are replaced by ARVs simply because they aren't simple Point A to Point B journeys.

I fully expect HGV and taxi drivers to be the first to be automated out of a job, but it won't happen overnight.

This passive acceptance that employers will only seek what is most productive, simply isn't true, why do Tesco's still retain a large amount of their manually operated tills...

Ethics has little to do with it - they know that a lot of people don't like using self-service checkouts. However, that proportion is declining and it's not uncommon in my local Tesco to see the self-scan busy and the person on the manual till sitting looking bored.

 

[43021HST]

The same applies to the majority of delivery drivers - getting the pizza, sofa, internet purchase, etc. to your curb isn't the whole job. As for bus drivers it's likely a long time before their jobs are replaced by ARVs simply because they aren't simple Point A to Point B journeys.

I fully expect HGV and taxi drivers to be the first to be automated out of a job, but it won't happen overnight.Ethics has little to do with it - they know that a lot of people don't like using self-service checkouts. However, that proportion is declining and it's not uncommon in my local Tesco to see the self-scan busy and the person on the manual till sitting looking bored.

Did you not see the rest of my point? for your convenience I will re-iterate it again.

What about taxi drivers, or HGV staff where the warehouse packers unload the lorries

What I'm saying is that the ethical issues are being taken into account by the industry and MPs so I don't think driverless vehicles will be very prolific for at least 50 years or so, at least until we find something else labour intensive to occupy the workforce or revolutionise our ideas about labour distribution.

This passive acceptance that employers will only seek what is most productive, simply isn't true, why do Tesco's still retain a large amount of their manually operated tills, why haven't the railways tried to completely eradicate railway guards sooner and look at the backlash that happens when they try to do. It's becuase they take the broader ethical picture into account. Whether by choice or not.

I recognise your point about the humans helping with the beginning and end but the majority of driving jobs don't work like that and can't work like that.

To spell it out for you, the reason why they keep the traditional checkouts is for the customers convenience, even though it would be more profitable for them not too. Imagine the backlash the Tesco's would receive if they removed the traditional checkouts. That's an example of them retaining something despite technological progress for ethical reasons.

This is the difference between driverless car technology and electric cars, a manually driven electric car (despite it's shorter driving range) generally brings benefits for all and won't make too much of an impact on the job market, in fact for the short term it may improve matters as car manufacturing may increase to replace all the diesel and petrol cars around.

However driverless cars are too controversial to introduce en masse and will be obsoleting an entire work sector, until we find new work to keep the workforce occupied or establish a shorter working week then we simply cannot adopt this technology or face mass unemployment on levels never seen before. That's something no government wants as part of their legacy, most governments are pushing for full employment rather than less.

So even if transport companies want driverless technology, government regulation more than likely will curb it.

 

[najaB]

To spell it out for you, the reason why they keep the traditional checkouts is for the customers convenience, even though it would be more profitable for them not too. Imagine the backlash the Tesco's would receive if they removed the traditional checkouts. That's an example of them retaining something despite technological progress for ethical reasons.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but it's profits, not ethics. Tesco know that if they eliminate manual checkouts a significant portion of their customer base will go to ASDA, Sainsbury's, etc. That's what keeps then open, not ethics.

How many people would refuse to use a company because the delivery would be made by an ARV? I think very few.

 

[ninja-lewis]

As much as I agree with electric cars, I don't think our roads will ever be fully driverless. We've had automatic gearboxes in cars for a very long time but the only reason why they haven't replaced manual gearboxes is that people prefer the control they have on manual, if that's the case I can't see driverless ever being fully implemented.

Until recently automatic gearboxes were poor - slower, unintelligent, less economical and more expensive than manual gearboxes

But the advent of intelligent dual clutch seven/nine-speed gearboxes has turned the situation on its head. Uptake of automatic cars is rapidly increasing. Furthermore virtually all EVs and hybrids have automatic transmissions. 2016 sales were 55% up on 2013 and the largest UK car leasing site reports that 45% of inquiries are for automatic cars. Ferrari don't even make traditional gated manual transmissions anymore, only clutchless semi-automatic flappy paddles.

This is the difference between driverless car technology and electric cars, a manually driven electric car (despite it's shorter driving range) generally brings benefits for all and won't make too much of an impact on the job market, in fact for the short term it may improve matters as car manufacturing may increase to replace all the diesel and petrol cars around.

However driverless cars are too controversial to introduce en masse and will be obsoleting an entire work sector, until we find new work to keep the workforce occupied or establish a shorter working week then we simply cannot adopt this technology or face mass unemployment on levels never seen before. That's something no government wants as part of their legacy, most governments are pushing for full employment rather than less.

So even if transport companies want driverless technology, government regulation more than likely will curb it.

Driverless cars will be introduced because it is convenient to consumers. There are lot of people out there who do not like driving and would happily use a driverless car for their commute if it allowed them to read a book, do their make up or look at cat GIFs on Facebook. Once that happens, nobody will think twice about driverless technology in other contexts.

Governments aim for full employment amongst other objectives. Nowadays they understand the greater damage that can occur by holding back progress to protect failing industries. If anything, governments and industry will embrace driverless technology as the response to an ageing workforce and lack of new entrants to replace retiring lorry drivers.

 

[bramling]

Driverless cars will be introduced because it is convenient to consumers. There are lot of people out there who do not like driving and would happily use a driverless car for their commute if it allowed them to read a book, do their make up or look at cat GIFs on Facebook. Once that happens, nobody will think twice about driverless technology in other contexts.

I suspect a lot would depend on the public's acceptance of the concept. A few high-profile accidents, for example mowing down a load of schoolchildren outside a school, may very quickly turn opinion against, no matter how safe they may or may not be statistically relative to human-driven cars.

 

[Western Lord]

All this talk of phasing out petrol and diesel cars begs the question, what are they going to sell in those parts of the world without the charging infrastructure? Large parts of Africa have poor or no electricity supply, that's why the clockwork radio was invented. In large countries with a low population density, electric vehicles would be useless. Good luck with an electric vehicle in Northern Canada or the outback of Australia, for example.

 

[AlterEgo]

All this talk of phasing out petrol and diesel cars begs the question, what are they going to sell in those parts of the world without the charging infrastructure? Large parts of Africa have poor or no electricity supply, that's why the clockwork radio was invented. In large countries with a low population density, electric vehicles would be useless. Good luck with an electric vehicle in Northern Canada or the outback of Australia, for example.

I suppose that's a question for those respective governments.

 

[HSTEd]

Electric vehicles will increase power demand and will spur the development of power grids in these regions, I would imagine

 

[AM9]

I suspect a lot would depend on the public's acceptance of the concept. A few high-profile accidents, for example mowing down a load of schoolchildren outside a school, may very quickly turn opinion against, no matter how safe they may or may not be statistically relative to human-driven cars.

I think this obsession with driverless cars will be constrained by the difficulty in establishing responsibilty for incidents. Then there would be the legal battle for civil or criminal liability to deal with. This could work both ways, i.e. the usual scenario would be a failure of the automatic drive system to prevent a collision that could have been avoided in a human driver situation. However, the same collision prevention system could apply an emergency stop that was unexpected by the occupant(s) that happened to be sipping a hot cup of coffee. Who would be responsible for them being burnt, a child who ran out in front of the car, the occupants who shouldn't do things that might harm them in such circumstances or the manufacturer because the nature of the avoiding action taken by the system. Bear in mind that such avoiding action could be much more complex than just stopping straight. What if it was a mountain road?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think this obsession with driverless cars will be constrained by the difficulty in establishing responsibilty for incidents.

An easier way would be to have mandatory comprehensive insurance covering all damage and injury caused by the operation of a vehicle but not covering any other vehicle - i.e. each pays for their own.

 

[radamfi]

If indeed accidents caused by an automatic road vehicle are much less frequent than ones caused by human driver caused ones, then it wouldn't cost that much if the vehicle manufacturer became liable. Obviously the (small) cost of compensation would be rolled into the overall cost of the vehicle in the long run. Prosecution as a result of criminal negligence would be possible, but it is also possible now if accident or death results because of mistakes or carelessness in vehicle manufacturing.

There may already be a precedent with automatic trains such as the DLR, Copenhagen Metro or Gatwick North to South Terminal shuttle. If there is a crash on any of those systems, there would probably be a prosecution of some kind if the fault lay with the operator or manufacturer.

 

[HSTEd]

Also off-topic but on the electricity supply:

On 31st December 1977, the day before Fessenheim Unit 1 entered commercial operation, France had 25 PWRs at various stages of construction, with a total net capacity of 22,900MWe.
With an average construction time of ~6 years [once the programme gets rolling] that is at least 3800MWe/yr, at ~90% capacity factor over a lifetime and a 60 year life.

Renewables can't hope to match that.

 

[43021HST]

As mentioned previously, public trust and the publics conceived notion of freedom will be infringed by these vehicles. Which I think will hold back the driverless car.

Why do you think automatic tube trains and the DLR still has driver and train captains or whatever they're called. It's to maintain the public trust. Many people don't feel safe in vehicles which they know doesn't have human control.

I remember reading somewhere that psychologically it's all about blame and the logical links we make in our mind. So if something goes wrong it's easier for us to blame another human being rather than an insentient object. It's half the reason why roller coasters have their thrill.

In regards to freedom, many people do enjoy driving and would like the freedom to. I think the main way you can build public trust in driverless cars is by retaining the manual controls and having the option to manually overide the system, much like in tube trains.

 

[najaB]

Renewables can't hope to match that.

To be honest, I don't think any reasonable people think that renewables other than tidal barrages should be compared to that. Nuclear is about baseload.

 

[AlterEgo]

As mentioned previously, public trust and the publics conceived notion of freedom will be infringed by these vehicles. Which I think will hold back the driverless car.

I doubt it. A driverless car would be the ultimate freedom, as in a utopian driverless world you wouldn't need a driving test or licence. That opens up on-demand car transport to millions of people unable to drive through disability, cost, or competence.

Many people don't feel safe in vehicles which they know doesn't have human control.

The DLR has PSAs to assist passengers. They do not habitually drive the trains. The same applies to many mass transit systems in the world, and also some smaller transit systems in this country.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I doubt it. A driverless car would be the ultimate freedom, as in a utopian driverless world you wouldn't need a driving test or licence. That opens up on-demand car transport to millions of people unable to drive through disability, cost, or competence.

Agreed. Taxi services such as Uber offer a very high degree of freedom if you can afford them; I'd happily not own a car and use Uber everywhere other than that it'd cost a fortune. But the main cost of a taxi is the driver. Remove the driver and they become cheap and convenient - why would you even own a car?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Why do you think automatic tube trains and the DLR still has driver and train captains or whatever they're called. It's to maintain the public trust. Many people don't feel safe in vehicles which they know doesn't have human control.

I don't feel at all unsafe on trains that don't have drivers. The DLR only has a human at the controls in the evenings (which I'm guessing is due to the greater likelihood of antisocial behaviour then). I'm perfectly happy on the DLR at other times.

As a cyclist and pedestrian I think I'd feel safer - not less safe - once driverless cars are the norm (which obviously won't be until the technology has developed a lot more). I'd be very confident that driverless cars in a few years won't have blind spots, will be constantly aware of everything (including me) around them, won't perform dangerous moves because they are tired/drunk/illegally using their mobiles/had a concentration lapse, will always stick to the speed limits, and won't ever deliberately decide to mow me down in a pique of anger.

In regards to freedom, many people do enjoy driving and would like the freedom to. I think the main way you can build public trust in driverless cars is by retaining the manual controls and having the option to manually overide the system, much like in tube trains.

I would expect that in the early years after driverless cars become usual, the option to manually override the system will remain for some years, but that the need to use it will gradually become rarer and rarer. I would also expect that as driverless cars become the norm, our culture will change to match that. In fact, I'd predict that in 50 or a 100 years time, manually driving vehicles (other than things like cycles or wheelchairs etc.) on public roads will be something that is only ever done by specially trained professionals in unusual circumstances, and young people who learn about history will feel astonished that manually driving in public - with all its attendant risks of making mistakes - was ever considered normal.

I do agree though that there are people who do genuinely enjoy driving for the sake of it - and who will therefore choose to drive manually even when they don't need to for some years into the future.

 

[najaB]

I do agree though that there are people who do genuinely enjoy driving for the sake of it - and who will therefore choose to drive manually even when they don't need to for some years into the future.

Even the nature of manual driving will change. In 100 years time, 'manual' driving will consist of plotting points on a trajectory map rather than physically moving levers and pedals.

 

[HSTEd]

To be honest, I don't think any reasonable people think that renewables other than tidal barrages should be compared to that. Nuclear is about baseload.

Then were stuffed in carbon emissions terms without nuclear

 

[radamfi]

Why do you think automatic tube trains and the DLR still has driver and train captains or whatever they're called.

But what about the Copenhagen metro, for example?

 

[AlterEgo]

Even the nature of manual driving will change. In 100 years time, 'manual' driving will consist of plotting points on a trajectory map rather than physically moving levers and pedals.

I expect so, though I also expect there to be an enthusiast scene which prefers the old "analog" cars (as they might be called!), sharing the roads.

I can understand some people are miffed at the idea that cars may become autonomous. For me the pleasure in driving is the ability to go wherever you want and to see the view, and I don't expect autonomy to impinge on that enjoyment. Conversely, if I go flying (and piloting the aircraft) the enjoyment is not just those two things, but also the satisfaction of being a responsible and safe operator, and the simple joy of accelerating the throttle and feeling the machine respond.

I still think autonomous cars will do an enormous amount of good to society.

 

[najaB]

Then were stuffed in carbon emissions terms without nuclear

In the medium term, yes. Longer term I'd expect the next generation of nuclear fission plants to be replaced by fusion.

 

[AM9]

In the medium term, yes. Longer term I'd expect the next generation of nuclear fission plants to be replaced by fusion.

That will be when they get Zeta to work!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZETA_(fusion_reactor)

ZETA, short for "Zero Energy Thermonuclear Assembly", was a major experiment in the early history of fusion power research. Based on the pinch plasma confinement technique, its goal was to produce large numbers of fusion reactions, although not large enough to produce net energy. Built at Harwell, UK, ZETA was much larger and more powerful than any fusion machine in the world at that time.

It's still producting zero energy as in 1955.