Driverless cars on UK roads soon.

[GrasB]

One thing that puzzles me is that I would have thought driving one of those Autos would be all about autonomy. It's surprising to see it replaced by automation.

The 5, 6 & 7 series are about luxury & performance not involvement, they're heavy weight mile munchers. The lower numbered BMWs are the same to a lesser extent. If you want autonomy buy a Lotus or build your self a kit car (see avatar for example)

 

[Arch]

A car, driver-less or not, would struggle to avoid the pedestrian who suddenly steps across the road.
Therefore in theory if you are going to suddenly step across the road without warning you need a sensor that transmits a signal the car can pick up. Luckily most us already have one in our pockets. The humble mobile phone.

I think a lot of people who step out into the road without looking have their phones in their hands, under their noses, anyway!

The more human drivers I see, the more I think driverless cars are a good idea. We just need to fit the same tech to pedestrians (and lot of people on bikes too!)

 

[CopperCyclist]

What? You mean they'll actually be programmed to follow the road rules? That would be a refreshing change.

No, I worry that they won't overtake even when safe to do so by using the opposite lane - which in turn makes me fear the beginning of 'compulsory cycle lanes' and worse!

 

[John the Monkey]

No, I worry that they won't overtake even when safe to do so by using the opposite lane - which in turn makes me fear the beginning of 'compulsory cycle lanes' and worse!

Depends on the frame of reference of the legislators - in the UK and US, pedestrians and cyclists should definitely worry that a ban from more roads is imminent, I think.

 

[Over The Hill]

Assuming you have a 2.2 turbo diesel 1500rpm = 149.3m/min of piston travel & 2500 rpm is 247.5m/min. Now compared to that high revving engine, those piston speeds equate to 2288rpm & 3813rpm respectively.

I think I am following that! My piston is going as fast as high revving engines that are going round faster? Longer stroke then I guess??

The beast has a 3.0 v6 auto, that is oddly badged as a 280. In normal auto even when pulling away it changes gear very early but seems to know what it is doing, it has a sport mode to get it to hang on if I want and a sequential manual which I have only used once to get up a 25% hill fully loaded on holiday in Cornwall. I sometimes tow a small caravan and can easily forget it is there.
I was a bit worried about fuel consumption but the figures are really quite close to the 2.2. I bought it last year with 100k on the clock at 6 years old and it looks and drives like it was new. We used it last weekend for a friends wedding as the wedding car. I don't like the newer E class so I sort of have in mind keeping it for 20 years (if I am around that long) it probably has more years in it than I do. I may end up being the only car with a driver in it!

 

[GrasB]

I think I am following that! My piston is going as fast as high revving engines that are going round faster? Longer stroke then I guess??

The force applied to the cylinder when firing will be more-or-less the same all things being equal, which isn't true in this case but we'll ignore that for now. With a shorter stroke the amount of work done by the force is less, so you increase the number of repetitions. Also because this force isn't being applied as far out you have less apparent force at the gearbox input (aka torque), the compensation for a lack of torque is revs!

Generally if you look at production engines, for the most part they stick to the same range of piston travel for their nominal power band.

 

[sight-pin]

I suppose (if no one has already mentioned this yet) 'Driverless cars' could be handy if you have an irreparable breakdown with the bike miles from home, With a phone app, you'll probably be able to call your car to come and pick you up lol.

 

[captain nemo1701]

Well, driverless or not, they will still suffer from the same problem as all cars - taking up space. They'll still get caught in jams.

 

[Gravity Aided]

Oh, but the driverless car people like Google tell me that their cars won't get caught in jams because they will all be driving very close together due to the enhanced technology, and will save space and avoid existing tie ups and God help anyone riding something so unpredictable and independent as a bicycle or horse. Sacrifices for Progress. Mustn't Grumble.

 

[Alex H]

I'm of the opinion that this

looks far too much like this

and if I'm going to have to have a driverless car it should look like this

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Still driven like every other Audi...

 

[GrasB]

Still driven like every other Audi...

That's from a film! It's fictional!

though I do like that as a concept version of the Audi TT or R8

 

[dexter101]

I think the best thing about driverless cars is that people will probably be in less of a rush, why rush to work when you can have a laptop in your car, eat your breakfast on the drive whilst watching tv or reading the paper. people then wouldn't get annoyed waiting at a junction, waiting at red lights or waiting behind a cyclist, to be honest they probably wouldnt even realise! the problem is going to be (as someone has already mentioned) is when you only have a few driverless cars! people will be overtaking them because they will do the exact speed limit or are waiting behind something.

 

[Brandane]

why rush to work when you can have a laptop in your car, eat your breakfast on the drive whilst watching tv or reading the paper.

Is that not what already happens, in between the odd glance at the road?

 

[CopperBrompton]

I wonder how they work. I anticipate they won't run over cyclists, else they couldn't be on the road - but can they safely overtake them?

You can see an example of how it works here - showing what the computer sees when there's a cyclist ahead:
http://9to5google.com/2014/04/28/go...cus-on-city-driving-as-they-log-700000-miles/