Electric Car Nation

[najaB]

That will be when they get Zeta to work!

ITER is expected to be up and running net energy positive by 2025, though not producing electricity.

 

[HSTEd]

Nuclear fusion reactors that can run for long times are proving problematic. The death rays emanating from the reaction in the form of ultra fast neutrons tend to destroy the reactor walls (and the rest!) in hort order.
To the point where the real fuel of ITER is probably going to be replacement superconducting magnets

 

[43021HST]

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.

Some top level pedantry going on here. Miss my point but pick apart the semantics.

My point being that the DLR is manned even though the train captain doesn't do any driving. When it probably doesn't need to be, same for tube trains. You lot may feel safe as due to knowing about railways you have the critical thinking faculties to realise it's perfectly safe, but many people do feel a bit uneasy knowing somethings not under 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.



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.

I maybe one of those people, I love driving since I passed my test 2 years ago it's brought out my inner Clarkson, I shudder at the idea of not having the sound of an engine, but I know electric cars are for the greater good. However driverless is something I don't feel confident with at all, would much prefer control of my vehicle. My job involves working with technology on a daily basis and I certainly don't trust it. It's why I keep backups of my data. However in a driverless car what's the backup should things go wrong, do we just grind to halt?

In 50 years and even 100 years there will still be people who passed their driving test, who may still want to drive. Anyway no one appears to be dealing with the larger question of what do we do about the possibility of an entire work sector being made redundant?

I will admit my patience wears thin with cyclists (I used to be one by the way), if they cycle well, IE use the cycle paths and give cars adequate room on the road to overtake, I have all the patience in the world. But when they're the sort of self righteous prats who cycle out in the middle of a long straight road with a national speed limit, ignore all cycle paths and never indicate, those sorts get my goat.

When I used to cycle I would try to avoid the main roads, would often pull into laybys to let traffic go and always indicate, car drivers would be so much politer, it's a pity the majority of cyclists never realise this.

 

[AlterEgo]

Some top level pedantry going on here. Miss my point but pick apart the semantics.

My point being that the DLR is manned even though the train captain doesn't do any driving. When it probably doesn't need to be, same for tube trains. You lot may feel safe as due to knowing about railways you have the critical thinking faculties to realise it's perfectly safe, but many people do feel a bit uneasy knowing somethings not under human control.

It's not semantics or pedantry at all.

You claimed that

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

The PSA does not habitually drive and is rarely in control of the train - the train runs completely automatically and this is perfectly obvious and transparent to all who use it. You can even sit at the front to satisfy yourself there is no driver. The DLR is a wonderful system and there is almost nobody who thinks that it is unsafe.

There are many transit systems worldwide which run without a driver, such as large parts of the Paris metro. The lines without a driver are well patronised and people use them without a problem. Ever been to Gatwick, Heathrow, Stansted, Birmingham airports? Transit systems with no driver exist there. Heathrow even has driverless pods running to the executive parking area.

If you were completely honest with yourself you would see that the Victoria Line still has drivers for a reason other than "people don't like or accept driverless trains".

 

[43021HST]

It's not semantics or pedantry at all.

You claimed that



The PSA does not habitually drive and is rarely in control of the train - the train runs completely automatically and this is perfectly obvious and transparent to all who use it. You can even sit at the front to satisfy yourself there is no driver. The DLR is a wonderful system and there is almost nobody who thinks that it is unsafe.

There are many transit systems worldwide which run without a driver, such as large parts of the Paris metro. The lines without a driver are well patronised and people use them without a problem. Ever been to Gatwick, Heathrow, Stansted, Birmingham airports? Transit systems with no driver exist there. Heathrow even has driverless pods running to the executive parking area.

If you were completely honest with yourself you would see that the Victoria Line still has drivers for a reason other than "people don't like or accept driverless trains".

It is sematics becuase I'm sure you know the context.

I was using the DLR as an example, of how despite the automation that the system still needs to be manned in case human intervention is needed. Yes there are many automatic systems that aren't manned, but these tend to be short distance concerns, (with a few exceptions) so if it grinds to a halt you won't be stuck too far away from help.

The fact of the matter is many people including myself wouldn't trust driverless cars for a very long time, unless there was some way of human intervention should an event out of the ordinary occur. As I raised previously, I work with technology and I always keep backups of my data, as soon as there's a backup to driverless technology that's proven to be reliable, I'd be willing to put more faith into it.

If you wish to debate this matter of public trust and the DLR I'd suggest you create a separate thread about it.

Anyway moving back onto the topic of electric cars, the point raised earlier about depending on renewables for electricity is a valid one. The issue with wind power is it's inconsistency as of course it's dependent upon the weather although admittedly I'm not a massive fan of nuclear power.

 

[AlterEgo]

It is sematics becuase I'm sure you know the context.

I was using the DLR as an example, that many people including myself wouldn't trust driverless cars for a very long time, unless there was some way of human intervention should an event out of the ordinary occur.

If you wish to debate this matter of public trust and the DLR I'd suggest you create a separate thread about it.

Well, you used the DLR to substantiate an argument about driverless cars, and now suggest that is off-topic...

Because you used the DLR to buttress your claim, I picked you up on some of the facts about the DLR, and explained how the fact that it has (quite obviously and transparently!) no driver has not been a bar to its success whatsoever.

To clarify again: The PSA is not there to monitor the track ahead and take evasive action (essentially what you would envisage a human would do with a driverless car) - they do not habitually drive. They are there to provide passenger information and to assist in evacuation if necessary. It has very little to do with "public trust".

The scenario is not akin to driverless cars because none of the PSA's duties would apply to a driverless car. You would be in the car and would evacuate yourself if there was an issue. You would be responsible for programming the route. There are no fares to discuss. And so on.

You can certainly make the point that you yourself don't trust driverless technology, absolutely. I cannot disagree with that. There are quite a few people who certainly don't trust it - at least not yet. But don't try and substantiate it with something which is:

a) off-topic, apparently, by your own admission - but it only became off-topic when it appears that I came back with a good argument, and

b) not really akin to driverless car technology, as I have outlined.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, what the PSA does is what people are good at - providing personal customer service.

People are less good at acting as machines, hence most plane crashes being caused by human error (far more than are prevented by humans intervening because a machine got it wrong).

This (going a bit off topic) is why I see DOO as a blip and GOO a much more likely future for the railway. A driver does something a machine either can already do or will be able to do in the next 20 years. A guard does something that a machine can only replace part of (flogging tickets) but also many other human things.

 

[jonty14]

Where will all the lithium for all the electric cars come from? It has to be mined from somewhere then transported world wide.

 

[AlterEgo]

Where will all the lithium for all the electric cars come from? It has to be mined from somewhere then transported world wide.

I expect it'll come from China and South America. Sure, the production of the battery might be carbon-intensive, but compared with billions of journeys made by fossil fuel-burning cars disappearing I think that's a good trade-off.

 

[bramling]

This (going a bit off topic) is why I see DOO as a blip and GOO a much more likely future for the railway. A driver does something a machine either can already do or will be able to do in the next 20 years. A guard does something that a machine can only replace part of (flogging tickets) but also many other human things.

A driver does something a machine *may* be able to do in the next 20 years, with no guarantee that the machine will do it better. There's little benefit if it results in poorer performance, which is a definite possibility based on the ATO systems we already have in reality, including the latest ones.

 

[Dave1987]

It's quite clear some on here have no clue at all what they are talking about and want to pedal their agenda/wishes/ideology/dogma off the back of things they don't actually understand the working principles of.

 

[Dave1987]

A driver does something a machine *may* be able to do in the next 20 years, with no guarantee that the machine will do it better. There's little benefit if it results in poorer performance, which is a definite possibility based on the ATO systems we already have in reality, including the latest ones.

There is no point bothering. You are classed as a Luddite and "burying your head in the sand" if you don't completely agree with their ideology even if you know that they don't understand what they are talking about and are trying to compare apples with pears!

 

[Dave1987]

Indeed, what the PSA does is what people are good at - providing personal customer service.

People are less good at acting as machines, hence most plane crashes being caused by human error (far more than are prevented by humans intervening because a machine got it wrong).

This (going a bit off topic) is why I see DOO as a blip and GOO a much more likely future for the railway. A driver does something a machine either can already do or will be able to do in the next 20 years. A guard does something that a machine can only replace part of (flogging tickets) but also many other human things.

Is there any point in pointing out the huge amount of flaws in your ideas? Because you are using a system that has completely different operating practices to justify your arguments of your ideologies. Then again you seem to want everyone possible on the dole so that isn't surprising.

 

[najaB]

A driver does something a machine *may* be able to do in the next 20 years, with no guarantee that the machine will do it better. There's little benefit if it results in poorer performance, which is a definite possibility based on the ATO systems we already have in reality, including the latest ones.

I agree that there's no point in implementing full ATO if it results in poorer performance. Current systems can't match a trained human, but I'm less confident than you that that will always be the case. AI and machine learning have come on leaps and bounds in the last few years and machines are able to perform some tasks today that even ten years ago would have been seen as impossible.

 

[AlterEgo]

There is no point bothering. You are classed as a Luddite and "burying your head in the sand" if you don't completely agree with their ideology even if you know that they don't understand what they are talking about and are trying to compare apples with pears!

Have you seen driverless cars operate? Have you looked at how perceptions on driverless vehicles changed positively as a result of trials in Milton Keynes?

Not sure if you remember Zoe - a poster who repeatedly rattled on about driverless tech on these forums 5 years ago or more. They were ridiculed, because at the time the tech was not seen to be particulary advanced by laypeople. Now, driverless and electric vehicle technology appears to be on the up and governments are thinking very seriously about the regulatory barriers to further development.

We live in a country which has about 200,000 people injured on the roads, and 2,000 killed every year (and we are not even a nation of particularly bad drivers). The chief cause of accidents, by far, is driver error or misadventure.

Were those statistics applicable to the railway, the forum would be in total uproar.

The idea of removing the individual driver - unable to communicate with other road users save for a beep or light flash - and moving to a world where vehicles communicate with each other millions of times a minute, plan their own routes in the hive mind, optimise battery or fuel efficiency, routinely abide by the speed limit, and so on - is laudable. People who are disabled or otherwise unable to drive might get unprecedented freedom as a result.

The key is in being a realistic optimist and envisaging how that happens rather than moaning all the time about how difficult it all seems.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree that there's no point in implementing full ATO if it results in poorer performance. Current systems can't match a trained human, but I'm less confident than you that that will always be the case. AI and machine learning have come on leaps and bounds in the last few years and machines are able to perform some tasks today that even ten years ago would have been seen as impossible.

Agreed.

But even if the current system couldn't match a human exactly - how does doubling the service on your little rural branchline sound, given that you now only have to pay for the guard on each train?

To Dave1987, it's this kind of thing I want to see, not mass dole queues. Get the humans doing things humans are good at - solving problems and interacting with other humans. Don't waste them and money having them do things machines can do better.

Ticket offices are the same. Don't close them. Instead, keep the same number of staff, but put half of them out telling people how to use TVMs for their simple tickets, then put chairs and a "take ticket" facility in the ticket office, call it a travel centre, and spend a proper amount of time discussing the passenger's requirement with them. That becomes affordable when trivial stuff can be done self service.

Or, as another one, don't have first-line helpdesk agents doing password resets in work. Have them trained up and doing actual service instead with users using self service password resets.

This, rather than headcount cuts, is how you really improve things using automation.

 

[Dave1987]

Agreed.

But even if the current system couldn't match a human exactly - how does doubling the service on your little rural branchline sound, given that you now only have to pay for the guard on each train?

To Dave1987, it's this kind of thing I want to see, not mass dole queues. Get the humans doing things humans are good at - solving problems and interacting with other humans. Don't waste them and money having them do things machines can do better.

Ticket offices are the same. Don't close them. Instead, keep the same number of staff, but put half of them out telling people how to use TVMs for their simple tickets, then put chairs and a "take ticket" facility in the ticket office, call it a travel centre, and spend a proper amount of time discussing the passenger's requirement with them. That becomes affordable when trivial stuff can be done self service.

Or, as another one, don't have first-line helpdesk agents doing password resets in work. Have them trained up and doing actual service instead with users using self service password resets.

This, rather than headcount cuts, is how you really improve things using automation.

Considering you have this crazy idea that DOO would have stopped the Beeching cuts to branch lines I don't really believe that you understand what you preach. I can put you in touch with someone who studied the Beeching cuts and has written coursework on it if you want. They might be able to educate you. I'm well aware of the current state of technology and it's limits! That's why I have a believe when I see it attitude to this notion that all new ICE vehicles will be banned in 20 yrs time. Battery technology will have to improve immeasurably to get to the stage where all vehicles on the road will be electric only.

And most comments I read from you involve union bashing or aspirations of someone being put out of a job in the vaige hope you might benefit. Maybe start having a little empathy for those whose livelihoods are set to be ruined by tech firms on a truly massive scale eh?

And before you call me Luddite again even the likes of Professor Noel Starkey are concerned about the future economy and believes politicians are in denial and are refusing to admit the problem will exist even though the leading tech experts are saying it does.

 

[radamfi]

New technology does not always mean the end of a trade or type of work. A lot of the time it creates demand for products and/or services that people didn't previously think they needed or wanted.

 

[AlterEgo]

New technology does not always mean the end of a trade or type of work. A lot of the time it creates demand for products and/or services that people didn't previously think they needed or wanted.

And even if tech advances over the next 20-50 years led to mass unemployment, where the same, or greater amount of wealth existed in society - that's a political problem to be solved, rather than an argument not to have driverless cars.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And even if tech advances over the next 20-50 years led to mass unemployment, where the same, or greater amount of wealth existed in society - that's a political problem to be solved, rather than an argument not to have driverless cars.

Precisely.

After all, automation (and IT more generally) has created its own multi billion dollar industry pervading almost every part of life that didn't even exist 70 years ago.

 

[radamfi]

And even if tech advances over the next 20-50 years led to mass unemployment, where the same, or greater amount of wealth existed in society - that's a political problem to be solved, rather than an argument not to have driverless cars.

It only takes one country or even one part of a country to implement driverless cars and if the expected benefits are realised it would be impossible to prevent driverless cars operating in all other areas.

 

[Dave1987]

And even if tech advances over the next 20-50 years led to mass unemployment, where the same, or greater amount of wealth existed in society - that's a political problem to be solved, rather than an argument not to have driverless cars.

It will become a very very big problem. If tech does advance and lead to mass unemployment who will buy these battery driverless cars? Why will anyone use a battery driverless taxi? People will have no money so will sit at home all day being economically inactive. Tech is getting to the point of being self defeating by destroying the economy the tech needs to be useful.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It will become a very very big problem. If tech does advance and lead to mass unemployment who will buy these battery driverless cars? Why will anyone use a battery driverless taxi? People will have no money so will sit at home all day being economically inactive. Tech is getting to the point of being self defeating by destroying the economy the tech needs to be useful.

People have said that for years. But as one door closes another opens.

 

[AlterEgo]

It will become a very very big problem. If tech does advance and lead to mass unemployment who will buy these battery driverless cars? Why will anyone use a battery driverless taxi? People will have no money so will sit at home all day being economically inactive. Tech is getting to the point of being self defeating by destroying the economy the tech needs to be useful.

Why do you think that unemployment and having no money would necessarily go hand in hand in an autonomous future?

 

[Dave1987]

People have said that for years. But as one door closes another opens.

Well the new door better open soon then.........

 

[Dave1987]

Why do you think that unemployment and having no money would necessarily go hand in hand in an autonomous future?

Because this is a cut throat, dog eat dog world. Unless you change the way the world economy works nobody will have enough money to use your battery driverless car. The less money in the economy from people working, the less money there will be for people to pay for expensive luxuries like cars, and if people are unemployed as they won't have to commute a battery driverless car will probably be very low on the list of priorities to buy.

Not that I believe batteries will get remotely good enough to truly replace the ICE like for like anytime in the near future. And I doubt that driverless cars will ever actually happen like for like with what we have now.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I maybe one of those people, I love driving since I passed my test 2 years ago it's brought out my inner Clarkson, I shudder at the idea of not having the sound of an engine, but I know electric cars are for the greater good. However driverless is something I don't feel confident with at all, would much prefer control of my vehicle. My job involves working with technology on a daily basis and I certainly don't trust it. It's why I keep backups of my data. However in a driverless car what's the backup should things go wrong, do we just grind to halt?

Interesting how people have different attitudes. Reliability of technology depends of course on how much is invested in it, testing etc. I would think of it as something more comparable to the technology behind online banking. Billions of transactions a day, and how often does money get lost because of something going wrong with the software (ie. not because of fraud)? So rarely that most of the time it's scarcely worth worrying about. I don't see any reason to doubt that driverless cars, before they finally become mainstream, will have been tested to that kind of level.

That's not to say that there won't ever be accidents, but I'd fully expect that the accident rate from driverless cars per mile travelled will within some decades become massively lower than the rate of accidents caused by human-driver-error.

In 50 years and even 100 years there will still be people who passed their driving test, who may still want to drive.

Will there? If in 100 years time, almost all cars are driverless, what reason will there be for young people to bother learning to drive manually in the first place?

Anyway no one appears to be dealing with the larger question of what do we do about the possibility of an entire work sector being made redundant?

I'm fairly sure the answer to that is exactly the same as the answer when any other technology comes along: There will be much discomfort over the transition period as people need to re-train, and I would hope that (unlike many times in the past) we would have a Government that is more pro-active supporting the people affected. But ultimately, you always find that different new careers become available instead. (Think how many people today work in IT-related jobs that simply did not exist 30 years ago)

I will admit my patience wears thin with cyclists (I used to be one by the way), if they cycle well, IE use the cycle paths and give cars adequate room on the road to overtake, I have all the patience in the world. But when they're the sort of self righteous prats who cycle out in the middle of a long straight road with a national speed limit, ignore all cycle paths and never indicate, those sorts get my goat.

When I used to cycle I would try to avoid the main roads, would often pull into laybys to let traffic go and always indicate, car drivers would be so much politer, it's a pity the majority of cyclists never realise this.

Without wanting to go too far off-topic, and while acknowledging that there are cyclists who are inconsiderate (personally I always try to allow cars to pass if I can do so safely and without causing significant inconvenience to myself - which isn't always possible): I'm sure if you have cycled, you'd be aware that there are all sorts of reasons why cyclists might quite legitimately avoid cycle paths, or cycle away from the kerb. (Glass in the road, or poor quality surfaces that might not be visible to a car driver, badly designed cycle paths, etc. My own bugbear - fortunately becoming rarer - is cycle paths where you have to give way at every side road, where cycling on the road means you keep priority). The existence of a cycle path does not, and should not, impose any obligation on cyclists to use it. (But in my experience, most cyclists will use a cycle path if it is useful and sufficiently well designed and signed).

 

[ainsworth74]

Not that I believe batteries will get remotely good enough to truly replace the ICE like for like anytime in the near future.

You sure? In terms of cars at least the Tesla Model 3, which has just started being delivered, has a long range version with a range of 310 miles per charge. You can regain another 170 miles with a thirty minute Supercharge (and if you've just driven 310 miles having a thirty minute break is no bad thing). That's on technology that's available to buy today. I see no reason not to believe that the technology will improve further in the next five years.

 

[Dave1987]

You sure? In terms of cars at least the Tesla Model 3, which has just started being delivered, has a long range version with a range of 310 miles per charge. You can regain another 170 miles with a thirty minute Supercharge (and if you've just driven 310 miles having a thirty minute break is no bad thing). That's on technology that's available to buy today. I see no reason not to believe that the technology will improve further in the next five years.

Like I've said repeatedly, believe it when I see it. I'm not looking forward to having to buy a battery car where I'm constantly worried about how far I can go before I need a charge or do I have enough range to use the air-con or heater etc. When you can recharge your car to 400-500 miles range in 5 minutes without ruining the batteries and needing to purchase replacements every 2 years or be worrying about using anything that uses power in the car, then I will believe we are at a stage where the ICE is irrelevant. We are a long long way off that yet. And with regards to HGVs haven't heard anything about them on batteries yet.

 

[najaB]

Like I've said repeatedly, believe it when I see it.

Then go look at a Tesla 3. You might not like it, but 300 mile range on a single charge is possible today.