Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Software United Kingdom

'Self-Driving' Cars To Be Allowed On UK Roads This Year (bbc.com) 34

"Self-driving" vehicles could be allowed on UK roads by the end of this year, the government has said. The BBC reports: The Department for Transport said automated lane-keeping systems (ALKS) would be the first type of hands-free driving legalized. The technology controls the position and speed of a car in a single lane and it will be limited to 37mph (60km/h). Following a consultation last year, the government has now said that vehicles with ALKS technology can be legally defined as self-driving, "as long as they receive GB type approval and that there is no evidence to challenge the vehicle's ability to self-drive." The government confirmed that drivers will not be required to monitor the road or keep their hands on the wheel when the vehicle is driving itself. But the driver will need to stay alert and be able take over when requested by the system within 10 seconds. If a driver fails to respond, the vehicle will automatically put on its hazard lights to warn nearby vehicles, slow down and eventually stop. The Highway Code is now consulting on what rules will be put into new laws to make sure the technology is safely used. "ALKS as currently proposed by the government are not automated," cautions Matthew Avery, director of research at Thatcham Research. "They are assisted driving systems as they rely on the driver to take back control. Aside from the lack of technical capabilities, by calling ALKS automated our concern also is that the UK government is contributing to the confusion and frequent misuse of assisted driving systems that have unfortunately already led to many tragic deaths. Consumers will expect the car to do the job of a driver, which current models can't do."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Self-Driving' Cars To Be Allowed On UK Roads This Year

Comments Filter:
  • So no, not really... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2021 @04:33PM (#61325576)
    Automated lane-keeping systems work best on motorways with good lane markings. By limiting the systems to 60 km/h, they're literally banning them from the roads where they're the most effective.
    • by BrainJunkie ( 6219718 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2021 @04:39PM (#61325602)
      They are also giving the driver monitoring 10 seconds to respond if the car asks him to take over. This is an eternity....167 meters at 60km/h.

      What could the person be doing that would take 10 seconds to break away from?
      • by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

        And 10 seconds is far too long if the car is having problems figuring out the situation it is in it could crash in 5 seconds or less so IDK what fool came up with 10 seconds.

        Either it's a self driving car or it isn't, this halfway house crap needs to be banned from the start, it'll get lots of people killed if allowed.

        • by Bert64 ( 520050 )

          Not banned, just used and explained properly.
          These are just extensions of driver convenience systems we have already had for years, like cruise control, self cancelling turn signals and automatic headlights etc. The driver still needs to retain full control of the vehicle.

          • by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

            The summary clearly doesn't mean that at all, it says you have a full ten seconds before you need to gain control of the vehicle and this isn't a motorway(highway) lane assist or cruise control because it is limited to a weird 37MPH.

            What I'm saying is that doesn't make sense, a computer is not going to get itself into a situation where it knows ten seconds ahead that in 10 seconds time it won't know what to do next, if a computer loses it on the road it will likely be in a lot less than ten seconds. When th

            • It'll be decades until the car can be sure it will handle just any situation that can crop up, so that no driver will be needed. You have to start somewhere. The 10 seconds grace period is short enough for many situations, e.g. the weather turning foul. It's somewhat short for the driver to do something else meaningful - you can surely put down your phone in 10 seconds, but I doubt you can reliably wake up from deep sleep. But we have to start something. When they increase the speed to 110 km/h, I'm in, eve

              • by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

                This is UK, we don't do km/h, inner city is 20/30mph and motorways are 70mph, country A-roads are 60mph so 37mph makes no sense what-so-ever. I have to wonder how they came up with such a stupid speed. Percentage-wise there are very few roads between 30mph and 60mph.

                • by Teun ( 17872 )
                  The 37 mph sound perfectly fine for inner city driving where the legal limit is 30 mph.
                  You always need a small margin of error, like it would be rather stupid if the system would stop working when going downhill and the speed momentarily exceeds the 30 mph limit.

                  Now the BIG question is, does it know how to handle driving on the wrong side of the road?
                  • by MrL0G1C ( 867445 ) on Thursday April 29, 2021 @02:14AM (#61326822) Journal

                    The 37 mph sound perfectly fine for inner city driving where the legal limit is 30 mph.

                    With respect this is residential road speed here and this 100% is not perfectly fine to be driving at 37mph. That is not a small margin of error. Many people drive around at slightly under 30mph because of the way speedometers have a margin of error due to different tyre sizes affecting calculated speed.

                    Your city is clearly not a UK city.

                • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  It's because manufacturers don't want to make a special version just for the UK, they would rather just give us the EU version which uses KPH. Or the Japanese version, which also uses KPH and.

                  The reason it is set relatively low is because this technology is only designed for use in traffic. It requires a car in front to follow at a safe distance, with clear road markings. As soon as things speed up it requires the driver to take over.

                  • by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

                    As soon as things speed up it requires the driver to take over.

                    No, computers can easily do the 50% extra calculations, the reason they don't want cars going faster is because a 30mph crash = light injuries and a 70 mph crash = deaths. After all many cars have lane control and will happily cruise along at the motorway speed limit. Kph or mph has nothing to do with it, even the cheapest tat can give you the option of metric or imperial, in programming that is the easy bit.

                    If as the BBC suggests this relates

    • by Ormy ( 1430821 )
      One of the intended use cases is on heavily congested motorways and dual carriageways where your speed is more like 10-20mph. Heavy congestion such as this is a daily occurrence at peak times on certain stretches of motorway. This technology and the legislation that allows its use (particularly the bit that says drivers are NOT required to monitor the road when ALKS is active) will enable people regularly commuting on such congested motorways for long periods to get some work (paperwork, phone calls, onli
    • No, it's OK to trundle along at 60 km/h even on the motorway, there is no "minimum speed" in the UK. And if yopu can make use of the drive time in other ways because you don't have to stare at the road at all times, it's OK to spend longer on your journey.
      • by ac22 ( 7754550 )

        Perhaps it is in theory. How often do you actually see that happen if you spend any length of time on UK motorways?

        Trucks are usually doing 100 km/h in the slow lane - so enjoy having dozens of vehicles that weigh several tons approaching you from behind at speed and being forced to brake or move into the next lane - if they can.

        • Trucks are usually doing 100 km/h in the slow lane - so enjoy having dozens of vehicles that weigh several tons

          90KPH thanks to speed limiters and we weigh up to 44 metric tonnes. I'm running at 43,500kg every night Mon-Fri.

          • by ac22 ( 7754550 )

            Interesting - thank you! Can you defeat the 90KPH limit on a downhill stretch?

            I can imagine that you would be not very pleased if you encountered hundreds of cars doing 60KPH in the slow lane?

      • No, it's OK to trundle along at 60 km/h even on the motorway, there is no "minimum speed" in the UK.

        No it isn't OK. Unless there's traffic causing you to go that slow it is absolutely not OK to do that speed on the motorway and if the police catch you you'll be charged with driving without due care because of the risk it creates to other road users and eventually massive congestion behind you. Also there is a minimum speed for UK motorways - any vehicle which is not capable of reaching 50MPH is not allowed to go on a motorway.

    • by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

      Automated lane-keeping systems work best on motorways with good lane markings. By limiting the systems to 60 km/h, they're literally banning them from the roads where they're the most effective.

      I see you've never been on the M25 in rush hour.

  • Consumers will expect the car to do the job of a driver, which current models can't do.

    What do you mean they can't pass without signaling? What kind of fake are you trying to sell me?

  • I thought the sign said "ALKYS now permitted".

  • by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2021 @05:03PM (#61325684)

    I can't drive 37!

  • Can any of them simply pull over safely?
  • by MrL0G1C ( 867445 ) on Thursday April 29, 2021 @02:10AM (#61326812) Journal

    Manufacturers should not be putting systems in control of cars when those systems can not safety drive those cars.

    This should not be legalised full stop, it's fucking stupid.

    No half-way house, either your system can drive the car or it can't.

    • by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Manufacturers should not be putting systems in control of cars when those systems can not safety drive those cars.

      This should not be legalised full stop, it's fucking stupid.

      No half-way house, either your system can drive the car or it can't.

      Dont worry, this is just a brain fart from Boris to make it look like he's cool, edgy, a man of the people and not a corrupt crony in the slightest.

      Given the state of road markings and surfaces in general in the UK, I doubt many systems will work. Most were designed to work in sunny, well maintained California where it doesn't rain 18 days per month and roads have been around (and often not repaired) since the roman times (sarcasm aside, the UK motorway system is world class, A roads and beyond, not so much

  • by DrSkwid ( 118965 ) on Thursday April 29, 2021 @03:24AM (#61326958) Journal

    > But the driver will need to stay alert and be able take over when requested by the system within 10 seconds.

    And, as been demonstrated many times, this system will not work.

    "The computer cannot cope, please take control"

    Oh, so now you want me to instantly take over in a challenging situation for which I am less prepared than if I was already driving, great plan.

    It's as if no-one has seen "The Ironies of Automation" (1983)

    https://sci-hub.st/10.1016/000... [sci-hub.st]

    • by N1AK ( 864906 ) on Thursday April 29, 2021 @05:02AM (#61327058) Homepage
      I agree, your post does show a "Fundamental lack of understanding". If they are setting a 10 second period to take control vs being constantly aware and available as would be the expected standard for driving assists they clearly aren't expecting this to cover emergency situations; which means the vehicles will need to be able to operate safely without human intervention for 10 seconds.

      This change is clearly intended to allow for self-driving in low speed environments where a human driver could be available within a few secods; an obvious example of why 10 seconds vs no limit makes sense would be that a person would have to be in the driving seat, so in a scenario where the car comes to a safe stop a driver would be available without having to potentially get out of the vehicle to get to the drivers seat to then take control. There's nothing in the proposal that implies they see the 10 second limit as being intended, or effective, to allow a person in the vehicle to take over the car and drive safely with almost no notice.
      • This change is clearly intended to allow for self-driving in low speed environments where a human driver could be available within a few secods; an obvious example of why 10 seconds vs no limit makes sense would be that a person would have to be in the driving seat, so in a scenario where the car comes to a safe stop a driver would be available without having to potentially get out of the vehicle to get to the drivers seat to then take control.

        Not good enough. I was driving down my small dead end street going to work the other night. Due to parked cars there's only a car width lane to drive down. I saw some kids playing and slowed right down as I approached them. Good job I did because a little kid probably not even 5 years old ran out right in front of me from between two parked cars. Because I was in full control of the vehicle and had dropped my speed right down due to seeing the kids playing I was able to act instantly and stop, something whi

      • by DrSkwid ( 118965 )

        Then you too have not read "Ironies of Automation"

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Working...