Waymo's self-driving cars face their toughest test yet: London Waymo has started letting its software take the wheel on London streets, with trained specialists on standby as it gradually accelerates toward a fully driverless ride-hailing launch. The Alphabet-owned biz began putting vehicles on London streets in October, initially with a human driver in control, as it started teaching its …
I would like to propose some Reg shorthand syntax for describing self driving tech in the UK. If it requires a human "just in case" we should describe it as "Chaper-On" and if it doesn't it is is "Chaper-Off".
e.g. "In a landmark decision by the UK government, it Waymo has been deemed safe enough to become chaper-off".
I've seen taxi drivers do it, vans do it, cars do it, and, yes, people on bikes, especially e-bikes, and particulaary, illegal e-bikes.
When it was still one-way, I've seen a couple of drivers blithely zooming the wrong way down the Tottenham Court Road.
E-bike riders are the worst - I'm a road cyclist, they terrify me - but in terms of kinetic energy to do harm, the drivers are far more lethal.
They shouldn't terrify you, because being a good cyclist, you're aware of everything around you at all times...aren't you?
I suspect you aren't, which is why most cyclists are a fucking nuisance...sticking their arm out at the last minute before trying to pull off a 90 degree turn to the right across traffic.
Cyclists need to start carrying insurance, pay road tax and meet minimum fitness levels to be able to cycle on the road.
As a teenager, I used to cycle everywhere, most of my journeys were 10-20 miles...I was fit as fuck, and I would even cycle in the pouring rain and my pet peeve on the roads back then was other cyclists, not cars, buses, vans, trucks etc...particularly fair weather cyclists. Puffing and panting like fucked bouncy castle and cycling at well under the speed limit for the road. The most dangerous people on the road are cyclists, because everyone else on the road had to pass a test to be there and meet a minimum standard, they carry insurance and most of them have considerable amounts of time behind the wheel...cyclists on the other hand...well anyone can call themselves a cyclist, get on a bike and become a danger to everyone. They don't carry insurance, they don't have to meet a minimum standard...literally anyone can climb on a bike and start being a hazard immediately.
I think if cyclists wish to be respected on the road, they should agree that a standardised set of testing (to the same sort of minimum standard anyone using a road should meet, including fitness, nothing intense just a basic "cycle up that incline without stopping" test, in the same sort of spirit as "read that number plate") and they should also be required to carry insurance and pay road tax. As a person that used to treat cycling purely as a form of transportation, not as leisure activity...I would have been absolutely fine with this.
I also think cycling for leisure should be banned on roads. Roads are not there for entertainment or leisure, they're there for transportation.
"because everyone else on the road had to pass a test to be there and meet a minimum standard"
is this true? How are the Uber drivers blindly following sat-nav meeting this standard? The roads would be far more efficient if everyone followed the Highway Code. Maybe it should be renamed Highway Law to stop people thinking it's just a suggestion?
And outright dangerous driving should result in the removal of a foot, with no disability payments. Driving like a complete twat deserves real punishment as it's seldom the dick driver who suffers, it's usually some bystander or other vehicle occupants. Might also cut down congesiton?
The Uber problem is simpler to solve than you think. Uber tracks every journey, it's easy for them to determine if a driver has broken the speed limit. They should be obligated to report drivers that break the speed limits.
Mind you, the number of Uber drivers claiming to be on bicycles that turn up in a car is insane.
"Shall we ban driving cars for leisure too, while we're about it?"
Absolutely, pay for a track day if it is the act of driving that is pleasurable for you. If you're out driving to enjoy the countryside, go for a hike you lazy fat bastard. If you aren't going to a track or hiking in the countryside, you're just half arsing both activities by combining driving with enjoying scenery. Driving through the country for leisure is essentially a shit hike or a very slow track day.
Nobody should be using roads for "leisure".
Yeah maybe...
However, the number of vehicles on the road now and the sheer amount of activity is fucking insane compared to when I was a kid and it is unsustainable. It is objectively dangerous. You have households now that have multiple cars but no driveway which means you end up with streets full of parked up cars which causes massive visibility issues for children and makes navigating streets dangerous and difficult...especially if that street is full of 7 seater aircraft carriers...add to this drivers dodging around cyclists as well as parked up cars and you have a recipe for disaster.
It's not dumb as fuck to want roads to be safer and easier to traverse. Something has to give otherwise the roads will become unusable or worse, extremely dangerous.
Yes people need cars to get to work, but the problem there isn't the need for a car, the problem there is the need to travel large distances to get to work with no viable alternate transport. Under investment in public transport, ever increasing fares, parking fees etc are what have contributed to ruining the roads for everyone...even the roads themselves are fucked, pot holes everywhere, rubbish surfaces, endless cars parked where they shouldn't be...it's absolutely insane out there.
If public transport wasn't as shit as it is, I probably wouldn't take as hard a line on this sort of thing. I barely drive these days unless I absolutely have to, especially at night (present day headlight technology messes with my eyes and I hate it).
I used to enjoy driving 20+ years ago...but what we have now you can't really call it driving...it's just a gauntlet of stressed out bellends, hazards and danger.
If we want roads to be usable in 10-20 years time, we have to start making some hard decisions.
-- I also think cycling for leisure should be banned on roads. Roads are not there for entertainment or leisure, they're there for transportation. --
First I think transportation includes moving people around for leisure but I would ban cycling clubs where they go onto a main road 3 or 4 across thus blocking it for normal traffic (including other cyclists).
Just as a small note - there is no such thing as "road tax", the.maintence of the highways falls under local council responsibility and therefore mostly by council tax.
Car tax on the other hand goes into the big general tax pot in the sky and is used for everything, but mostly funneling money to private hands.
Go ride a bike and be less of a problem for everyone's health.
You got a downvote from me because of the road tax suggestion, insurance is a maybe but without registration plates how are they going to enforce it? So another non-starter
However like you I also cycled when I was younger right through to my late 30's, and like you I remained fit and able to cover 13-15 miles in around 35-55 minutes depending on which way the wind was blowing. I never had issues with other cyclists, Trucks were the most considerate giving me a wide berth when passing, Vans were mostly White Van Man who cared little.
And cars ? I was taken out twice (thankfully with only minor bruises and scratches) by cars who just had to turn left rather than wait a moment, and one on a narrow lane who also could not wait for a passing spot and almost shoved me into the ditch - deliberately.
As for tests, whilst at school I did a Cycling Proficiency Course - do they still exists? I may even have the badge for one still.
I have always had fully working and services bikes and wore hi-viz (to give those van drivers a target to aim for) . My only major gripe with other cyclists are those who don't have lights, dress in black at night and don't have working brakes - these the police should seize and crush just like they do with some cars.
And the latest scourge here are e-scooters. They can go 20-25 mph so they are generally driven on the streets, and seem to consider stop signs and in some cases red lights as optional. I saw one yesterday making a LEFT off the street I live on at full speed without even slowing down right in front of a car which was forced to hit its brakes or it might have clipped him. Not sure if the rider didn't see the stop sign, or just assumed that since it is a residential area with light traffic the odds a car would be coming at that exact moment were low enough to risk.
At least if you do that when making a right it is going fast enough it is probably safe though still stupid, but making a left on a completely blind corner was insane!
E-bike riders are the worst - I'm a road cyclist, they terrify me
They need to be classified as motor vehicles. not bikes, as that is what they are.
The stupid looking fat wheel e-bikes weigh more than a moped, and are often faster, so why they hell don't they need tax, insurance and licences?
The point at which (in the UK) an e-bike becomes a moped requiring helmets, licence, vehicle registration, and insurance is if any of the following criteria apply: that it can be propelled at more than 15.5mph by the motor, if motor power exceeds 250 watts, if it does not have pedals that can be used for manual propulsion. There's nothing about size and weight (I think most people would agree there should be). I also think if a rider uses any bike (electric or manual) in the course of trade they should be required to hold a full driving or motorbike riders licence and have insurance.
Occasionally the police do seize e-bikes that should be registered and insured, either because they were always of that category, or because they have been modified into the category, but as we've all seen there's little routine effort to police e-bikes or their rider's behaviour.
E-bikes shouldn't of themselves be a problem, but essentially their regular users behaviours and lack of good regulation and effective enforcement make them a common safety hazard for other road users and pedestrians. Mind you, if we cracked down on them, how would the terminally lazy get their fatty treats delivered to their door?
Probably the single most sensible suggestion of any of the comments on here, and would go a HUGE way to increasing safety on our roads - 100% also ban learners on mopeds/motorbikes from carrying out any trade activities until they are fully qualified
Because "think of the poor, they need to get to work too!".
These sorts of vehicles are a nightmare because they are mostly owned by what could be viewed as the "less fortunate" and therefore regulating them could be seen as "discriminatory". No government has had the balls to try and regulate them because they don't want to risk losing voters over what they perceive as a "trivial" matter.
That's how it appears to me anyway.
As a government employee somewhat near this issue (but not a policy officer myself) I'm confident that the absence of regulation isn't due to perceptions of negative social impact. The demography of users is recognised, but I know as fact that some of the e-bike fire safety efforts have been specifically targeted to address those groups.
In respect of road safety, e-bikes and scooters have had an entirely undeserved free pass for a long time partly as they fit the bill for "zero emissions"and partly as they sit at the boundary of several regulators and various government departments, including DESNZ, DfT, DBT, HO, Defra. Then you've got police, local authorities, HSE, the product safety regulator, and others. Home Office are the worst and most difficult to deal with of all of these, but there's such a hotch potch of competing power, and interest that it's a nightmare.
Ah yeah, y'see, they don't count because *insert nebulous bullshit reason here*
I've also been told that not everyone riding a bicycle is a cyclist and that the only real cyclists are ones who's lycra is so tight that you can guess their religion and "real cyclists" would never break the law on the road.
Which was ironic because that idiot was posting pictures of his fixie and quite proudly stating that he was riding it in London despite it not having a front brake which makes it illegal on the road.
Really? I've seen the police stopping red light running cyclists and issuing on the spot fines around Russell Square, they got four in the twenty minutes or so we were stood there.
Must have worked then.
Shame they didn't get the one that was cycling the wrong way down a one way street and started screaming at my wheelchair using partner when she couldn't get out of his way.
Oh I had this conversation with some rabid cyclist who also claimed all infractions of the law by cyclists were ok because cars, motorbikes and even pedestrians break laws.
I responded by recording video, taking photos etc for two weeks *every* time I saw a cyclist breaking the law and posting them on Twitter and @ing him. (pre nazi takeover days and at least a dozen different cyclists a day and yes, I am that persistent)
So yeah, there is an excellent way of taking high quality pics and video, proving that people who claim it never happens are a hazard on the road because they're either blind and shouldn't be on the road or are cycling around with blinders on.
Ahem, there has been no such thing as "road tax" since 1 April 1937.
Vehicle Excise Duty is now "vehicle tax" or "car tax", and is a general tax - no longer hypothecated for road maintenance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motoring_taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom
Judging by my recent forays into central London, pub goers are already doing their best to stress test Waymo's safety features. Last weekend's antics included two chaps sprinting to overtake the Waymo before stopping as close in front of it as they could without getting hit. The Waymo passed UAT
What I still don't understand is who is liable when an accident happens.
Is it Waymo Execs that can be jailed, face fines & points on their driving licenses or the disposable minimum wage human in the driving seat.
I suspect it is that and it is utter exploitation whilst all those who are making the money and are actually responsible can ignore all the failures.
Equally the next question is "who is using them?".
They are as much a part of the problem as those who provide the service.
I'm guessing India is the final boss. First they have to level up, by defeating London. Then they move on to Paris. Then Rome, perhaps with a side-quest somewhere ridiculously inaccessible like Luca - where half the roads are basically footpaths - and only then they can try their luck in Lagos or Delhi.
Ah, Rome. Driving in Italy I've noticed that Italians seem to be able to negotiate their way out of traffic jams (including TS & C's) by speaking entirely in horn.
Do places like India have their own dialects of horn or would they understand each other? Google translate doesn't appear to have options for either. How important is arm waving?
"London is the real test. If the system survives that, it might survive anything."
A distinct lack of horse riders in London though - try the countryside around here. We also have a huge number of quite barrow very winding roads (with added feature of no pavements & lots f inclines) with huge amounts of blind bends so you do not know if a cyclist, horse, cattle crossing from one field to the next will be there to greet you around the corner. As an added bonus many of these (ludicrously) have national speed limit signs (obviously everyone ignores that & goes slower, but plenty of idiots drive too fast to handle an unexpected entity around a blind bend*).
I also look forward to driverless cars on the even more fun single track (with passing places) roads - how will they deal with the human choreography of headlamp flashes & hand gestures that usually negotiates who (usually reversing back) moves to nearest passing place.
* narrowness of road means that, if a vehicle coming in opposite direction then there is usual very little "free" road space remaining & so a huge problem if e.g. a horse where you need to pass slow & with lots of space to avoid "spooking it"
As these cars have been trained on Google Captcha they will stop at all the crosswalks, not drive on a sidewalk, obey traffic lights hanging off of wires, not stop by a fire hydrant and not overtake yellow busses. It is a good job London doesn't have zebra crossing, pavements, traffic lights on poles, double yellow lines and red busses.
Exactly. That's why I'd like to see the scheme applied to the Ainley roundabout. The idea occurs to me every time I'm queued up at the top of the hill out of Elland or coming down from the M62 which used to be my daily commute years ago. It's a roundabout that covers a lot of ground so there would be plenty of room to implement it.
But I suspect it would confuse the hell out of Waymo.
