Remote driving in UK from abroad should not be allowed, says Law Commission(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Remote driving in UK from abroad should not be allowed, says Law Commission
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-64705924
82 comments
> relatively calm (if somewhat pedestrian hostile) style of driving in the UK
The UK is pedestrian hostile? In comparison to where? It's always seemed to me one of the most pro-pedestrian countries, eg there is no such thing as "jaywalking": you can cross anywhere and cars are obliged to stop once you're "established in the road" - plus they are obliged to stop at all times on zebras.
The UK is pedestrian hostile? In comparison to where? It's always seemed to me one of the most pro-pedestrian countries, eg there is no such thing as "jaywalking": you can cross anywhere and cars are obliged to stop once you're "established in the road" - plus they are obliged to stop at all times on zebras.
The UK has a lot of pedestrian rights. But drivers are hostile against pedestrians and cyclists getting "in their way".
People speed like maniacs in residential areas too. The road outside my house is 30mph, but every time I walk down it I catch a few people clearly going at least 40, probably 50mph.
People speed like maniacs in residential areas too. The road outside my house is 30mph, but every time I walk down it I catch a few people clearly going at least 40, probably 50mph.
> drivers are hostile against pedestrians and cyclists getting "in their way"
In the past year two drivers purposefully drove up to my bike, matched speed, and made it clear they do not like cyclists.
One was civil, but the other wad swerving the car dangerously and shouting obceneties.
Unfortunelty I don't have a dashcam or anything to record the number plate and report the latter one.
In the past year two drivers purposefully drove up to my bike, matched speed, and made it clear they do not like cyclists.
One was civil, but the other wad swerving the car dangerously and shouting obceneties.
Unfortunelty I don't have a dashcam or anything to record the number plate and report the latter one.
I was surprised coming to Finland from the UK. It seems much more pedestrian hostile here (in Finland) in my opinion. It seems pretty rare for people to stop at a zebra crossing here unless you're actually already in front of them (in Finland).
Also in the UK traffic lights 'protect' the crossing - i.e. you will never get a green light to turn across a crossing that has a 'green man'. This means here that drivers want to get closer to the pedestrians that are crossing and 'squeeze through' as soon as they can, to avoid holding up people behind during their 'turn' of the green light.
Edited to clarify that I think it is more pedestrian hostile in Finland than the UK.
Also in the UK traffic lights 'protect' the crossing - i.e. you will never get a green light to turn across a crossing that has a 'green man'. This means here that drivers want to get closer to the pedestrians that are crossing and 'squeeze through' as soon as they can, to avoid holding up people behind during their 'turn' of the green light.
Edited to clarify that I think it is more pedestrian hostile in Finland than the UK.
Having been to Finland I feel the reverse: it's much more hostile. It is not great that (as you implicitly described) they put zebras next to road turns and as you're crossing the road cars will occasionally turn right across you. Pedestrians are clearly also a lot more afraid of cars in Finland - as evidenced by their famous waiting at crossings for the green man even when there are no cars.
Finland is a very different country than the UK - much worse weather in winter but much much sparser - but looking at the stats it seems to do a little worse on road casualties than the UK on most measures. eg 3.8 road deaths per 100k pop in Finland vs 2.9 in the UK and 5.1 road deaths per billion km in Finland vs 3.8 in the UK.
I don't think Finland's road safety is as good as the UK though it is still one of the better countries.
Finland is a very different country than the UK - much worse weather in winter but much much sparser - but looking at the stats it seems to do a little worse on road casualties than the UK on most measures. eg 3.8 road deaths per 100k pop in Finland vs 2.9 in the UK and 5.1 road deaths per billion km in Finland vs 3.8 in the UK.
I don't think Finland's road safety is as good as the UK though it is still one of the better countries.
It varies a lot throughout the UK. There plenty of places where cars are guaranteed to stop if you so much as look at a zebra crossing, and they will wait, as they are obliged to, until you're full off the other end too, not zoom on through as soon as their lane is clear.
Even less pedestrian hostile now that cars have to give way to pedestrians simply waiting to cross a road at a junction:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction#ru...
Prioritising the safety of vulnerable Highway users is obviously good, but potentially forcing cars to come to a full stop on a 40 mph road seems like it’s going to cause a fair few high-speed rear end collisions.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction#ru...
Prioritising the safety of vulnerable Highway users is obviously good, but potentially forcing cars to come to a full stop on a 40 mph road seems like it’s going to cause a fair few high-speed rear end collisions.
Why are cars allowed to drive 40mph in an area for pedestrians?
As a pedestrian in the UK it seems like the rules around yielding mean very little in practise
As a pedestrian in the UK it seems like the rules around yielding mean very little in practise
tbh if someone slows down and signals for a turn and then belatedly comes to a full stop when it spots pedestrians, and the car behind it is unable to avoid a high speed rear end collision, there's something seriously wrong with the driver of that car. Nothing new about the possibility a junction might be blocked.
If you might have to stop suddenly at a junction then it's unsafe to drive so fast that that would be dangerous, regardless of what any speed limit sign says.
This highway code change hasn't done much in practice. Not many car drivers give way to pedestrians on junctions.
But hopefully habits will change.
But hopefully habits will change.
The reason is because while it's a great rule to introduce in theory, the reality is much harder after decades of previous rules.
For the rule to work, every driver and pedestrian has to be on the same page. And this is behaviour that is ingrained in people since they began crossing roads or driving.
If the pedestrian understands the rule and the driver doesn't, then you've got an accident waiting to happen. The pedestrian could expect a driver to stop and cause an accident.
If the driver understands the rule change and the pedestrian doesn't, then you've got a confused and cautious pedestrian wondering what's going on. Not to mention that in most junctions the pedestrian can't easily see any gestures by the driver to usher them across the road. It can also cause a pedestrian to forget to look the other way.
Plus, most drivers don't even know about the rule change, even today many months after it's introduction.
So as a pedestrian, it's much easier to assume every driver is oblivious and rely on your own judgement as to when it is safe to cross. And that means letting cars turn into junctions before crossing. Which, in turn, reinforces the undesired behaviour.
This is why I think in reality nothing will change. It's just too unsafe to assume drivers know the new rules of the road when they barely understand ones that have existed for decades.
For the rule to work, every driver and pedestrian has to be on the same page. And this is behaviour that is ingrained in people since they began crossing roads or driving.
If the pedestrian understands the rule and the driver doesn't, then you've got an accident waiting to happen. The pedestrian could expect a driver to stop and cause an accident.
If the driver understands the rule change and the pedestrian doesn't, then you've got a confused and cautious pedestrian wondering what's going on. Not to mention that in most junctions the pedestrian can't easily see any gestures by the driver to usher them across the road. It can also cause a pedestrian to forget to look the other way.
Plus, most drivers don't even know about the rule change, even today many months after it's introduction.
So as a pedestrian, it's much easier to assume every driver is oblivious and rely on your own judgement as to when it is safe to cross. And that means letting cars turn into junctions before crossing. Which, in turn, reinforces the undesired behaviour.
This is why I think in reality nothing will change. It's just too unsafe to assume drivers know the new rules of the road when they barely understand ones that have existed for decades.
Original OP here - yep, it’s the uncertainty that’s the problem - that, and as a pedestrian I have to assume drivers are distracted idiots who’ll run me over if I give them any opportunity. And as you point out elsewhere, I shouldn’t give way and wave them on because I don’t know what other pedestrians, cyclists or drivers are about to do - I might cause an accident.
Presumably the Government have done the research, and drivers should always be ready to stop safely regardless, but … I preferred the old rules.
Presumably the Government have done the research, and drivers should always be ready to stop safely regardless, but … I preferred the old rules.
What? But we just make eye contact and wave to let someone know they can start to cross? Also I thought when you were turning off a main road onto a side road, pedestrians already had right of way?
It's the same reason you shouldn't wave pedestrians across any other multi lane traffic, because you can't always see what's coming in the other lanes. Some turnings, especially on wide roads, put the car and the pedestrians waiting to cross quite far away.
Pedestrians only had right of way if they're in the process of crossing. The new rule is that pedestrians waiting to cross have priority, which is just not practical to introduce without everyone being on the same page.
Being predictable is how you are the safest pedestrian or driver. Prior to the rule change being predictable was assuming pedestrians wait for vehicles. With the rule change, you can no longer be predictable because different people have different expections of what a pedestrian or driver will do.
Pedestrians only had right of way if they're in the process of crossing. The new rule is that pedestrians waiting to cross have priority, which is just not practical to introduce without everyone being on the same page.
Being predictable is how you are the safest pedestrian or driver. Prior to the rule change being predictable was assuming pedestrians wait for vehicles. With the rule change, you can no longer be predictable because different people have different expections of what a pedestrian or driver will do.
Do you think a publicity campaign would work? Adverts on the TV, radio, YouTube and the web to teach car drivers and pedestrians about the new rules
Depends what you consider to be "pedestrian hostile", I guess. There are some countries where the custom is for a pedestrian to see five lanes of traffic and just slowly walk across the road, with the expectation that other drivers will anticipate this behaviour and stop or steer around them. Then again, those countries kill a lot more pedestrians...
I think I only saw one or two zebra crossings in London, Oxford, and Cambridge. The vast majority of crossings are only marked on the ground with a ridged plate.
I would agree with the grandparent poster that the UK is pedestrian hostile. The sidewalks are too narrow and the roads too wide. Having double decker buses drive by (only feet away) is an unpleasant experience.
I would agree with the grandparent poster that the UK is pedestrian hostile. The sidewalks are too narrow and the roads too wide. Having double decker buses drive by (only feet away) is an unpleasant experience.
[deleted]
> who is underpaid and is forced to drive 3 cars at once
Nono, you will pay to drive, it will be a $100 DLC to the European Truck Simulator (or whatever its called)
Nono, you will pay to drive, it will be a $100 DLC to the European Truck Simulator (or whatever its called)
Minor correction - it's just chaos. There's absolutely no need to qualify it with the illusion of structure :)
The commission lists a whole load of reasons why this is an issue (loss of connection, cyber attack, etc.). But these are all just as much a problem if someone is remotely driving a car from Gdansk or from Brighton. Possibly connection errors and response times would become an issue at much greater distances and that'd mean you couldn't have someone in Saigon driving a car in London. But there's no technical reason it couldn't be done from Eastern Europe.
However, they do list one reason that matters a lot: criminal liability. What happens if the overworked, underpaid driver in a Hertz sweatshop in Hyderabad breaks traffic laws, or crashes and injures someone? Which will happen.
However, they do list one reason that matters a lot: criminal liability. What happens if the overworked, underpaid driver in a Hertz sweatshop in Hyderabad breaks traffic laws, or crashes and injures someone? Which will happen.
I've heard that even if an in-person driven lorry from Eastern Europe crashes into you in the UK, your UK insurance company will use your insurance to pay out for the damage and won't even bother trying to recoup the costs.
Maybe in practice, but legally any third party liability insurance from any EU+Green Card (see https://www.cobx.org) countries have to have representative in any other country, and definitely are liable.
Yes, but I think the insurance companies have done a cost benefit analysis of spending 3 weeks on the phone vs dinging someone else for the £2k or whatever the accident cost.
But... How is that different from being dinged by someone from UK?
I would imagine if a UK insurer calls up another UK insurer, things get resolved in an orderly fashion, especially as stuff will tend to net out over time. They can also go to a UK court to resolve if it ever came to it.
[deleted]
> pay out for the damage
I mean, cool, but I was rather thinking about criminal liability i.e. when negligence of the remote driver causes death of another road user.
I mean, cool, but I was rather thinking about criminal liability i.e. when negligence of the remote driver causes death of another road user.
I've heard all manner of Xenophobic nonsense, and I don't take it seriously unless evidenced.
Understandable. Let me just set up a peer reviewed study for you to confirm what common sense might already tell you.
I'm sorry that you mistake confirmation bias of your existing prejudices for "common sense", but it very much is not that.
No, no common sense angle here at all: https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/corruption-rank?co...
Virtue signal received loud and clear though.
Virtue signal received loud and clear though.
No, no evidence received at all. "you've heard" and that's good enough for you, and you'll defend it because you want to believe. As expected.
Bullshit signal received loud and clear though.
Bullshit signal received loud and clear though.
I agree, liability is definitely the most important reason.
Coming soon: British remote driving centers connected to the internet via Tor.
I Germany you pay easily 2500€ to get a driver's license. Just the thought that you would share the road with cars driven remotely by call center employees in Asia is hilarious and frightening at the same time.
It can be as high as that in the UK as well. Depending on how many lessons you need. The driver's test is certainly far more difficult than the one in the US.
I'm actually going through this now in the UK and I feel like the way they do it could be much better. The randomness of driving on real roads makes luck an important factor to passing.
I'm actually going through this now in the UK and I feel like the way they do it could be much better. The randomness of driving on real roads makes luck an important factor to passing.
How would they do it better? The randomness of real roads is something drivers have to deal with, and the test routes are supposed to be 45 minutes covering a variety of road conditions, so it's near impossible to pass if you haven't got the hang of basics like picking a suitable lane and merging at roundabouts and checking stuff in mirrors which is what it's testing for, regardless of traffic levels and roadworks and some cities having different layouts to others. There isn't an expectation that new drivers will never be flummoxed by encountering weird behaviour from other drivers or an oddly laid out junction, and you can rebook another test asap if you're confident the only things you were failed on were hesitancy or overcorrection in response to chance events.
As with most learning processes which finish with an exam, the need to undergo a general learning process to get to the stage where it's likely that you will actually pass is more important than the exact equivalence of the tests.
As with most learning processes which finish with an exam, the need to undergo a general learning process to get to the stage where it's likely that you will actually pass is more important than the exact equivalence of the tests.
The randomness of real roads is something drivers have to deal with
I think the point is that depending on circumstances you can spend either 45 minutes driving down a more or less empty road or 45 minutes in rush hour traffic and it's basically impossible to judge someone equally in those two cases. I know people here in Sweden who after failing their test a couple of times in city traffic, schedule their next driving test at a test centre in a small rural village and pass easily. These people can then return home and start legally driving in the same city traffic they couldn't pass their drivers test in.
There isn't an expectation that new drivers will never be flummoxed by encountering weird behaviour from other drivers or an oddly laid out junction
Exactly! And that is why it is important that we make sure everybody gets tested on that before we give them a license.
I think the point is that depending on circumstances you can spend either 45 minutes driving down a more or less empty road or 45 minutes in rush hour traffic and it's basically impossible to judge someone equally in those two cases. I know people here in Sweden who after failing their test a couple of times in city traffic, schedule their next driving test at a test centre in a small rural village and pass easily. These people can then return home and start legally driving in the same city traffic they couldn't pass their drivers test in.
There isn't an expectation that new drivers will never be flummoxed by encountering weird behaviour from other drivers or an oddly laid out junction
Exactly! And that is why it is important that we make sure everybody gets tested on that before we give them a license.
> think the point is that depending on circumstances you can spend either 45 minutes driving down a more or less empty road or 45 minutes in rush hour traffic and it's basically impossible to judge someone equally in those two cases
But you're highly unlikely to find a UK test centre where the routes consist of more or less empty roads (UK population is not distributed like Sweden's)
> Exactly! And that is why it is important that we make sure everybody gets tested on that before we give them a license.
The test isn't to ensure that they consistently handle weird behaviour from other drivers or oddly laid out junctions flawlessly (experienced drivers don't either). If we expected that, nobody would ever drive at all, at least not without thousands of hours in a simulator. It's to ensure their approaches to junctions are at sensible speeds and they pay attention to what's going on and use mirrors and signals. You can do that in high traffic or low traffic, and it's by no means certain that the low traffic conditions would more favourable to you anyway
But you're highly unlikely to find a UK test centre where the routes consist of more or less empty roads (UK population is not distributed like Sweden's)
> Exactly! And that is why it is important that we make sure everybody gets tested on that before we give them a license.
The test isn't to ensure that they consistently handle weird behaviour from other drivers or oddly laid out junctions flawlessly (experienced drivers don't either). If we expected that, nobody would ever drive at all, at least not without thousands of hours in a simulator. It's to ensure their approaches to junctions are at sensible speeds and they pay attention to what's going on and use mirrors and signals. You can do that in high traffic or low traffic, and it's by no means certain that the low traffic conditions would more favourable to you anyway
They could set up a test courses which are deterministic.
> and you can rebook another test asap if you're confident the only things you were failed on were hesitancy or overcorrection in response to chance events.
Yeah? How can I do that when tests are all booked pretty much everywhere for the next 4 months? If I fail I am likely waiting another 4 months before I can get another test.
The fact is that test centres have wildly different pass rates (some as high as 80% vs. some as low as 38%). That kind of variance shows that the testing is not fair.
> and you can rebook another test asap if you're confident the only things you were failed on were hesitancy or overcorrection in response to chance events.
Yeah? How can I do that when tests are all booked pretty much everywhere for the next 4 months? If I fail I am likely waiting another 4 months before I can get another test.
The fact is that test centres have wildly different pass rates (some as high as 80% vs. some as low as 38%). That kind of variance shows that the testing is not fair.
I'm not even sure what a deterministic test course would look like, or how optimising for this would prepare people for real world road conditions? Few things are less deterministic than traffic.
Realistically it should be around half that.
The average driver needs 45 hours worth of lessons. Add to that the cost of a provisional license, the theory test, and the driving test and it’s around £1,300.
The average driver needs 45 hours worth of lessons. Add to that the cost of a provisional license, the theory test, and the driving test and it’s around £1,300.
That was approximately my cost (in London). £22 per hour, 40 lessons, then an additional £100 for the instructor to take me to the test, wait, and drop me home. Add in the cost of the theory/practical test, and the inflation of the last 6 years, and you arrive at your figure.
Damn, how did you find such "cheap" lessons?
Even in Spain it was about 22 quid per 45 minutes and then 150 euros for the test. And here in Sweden it's double that across the board :/
Even in Spain it was about 22 quid per 45 minutes and then 150 euros for the test. And here in Sweden it's double that across the board :/
I would be curious though if the more expensive and involved driving license in many European countries results in better outcomes though. Wouldn't be surprised if the main factor is practice over everything else.
> Wouldn't be surprised if the main factor is practice over everything else.
European driving licenses are expensive because they require more practice. You pay for the practice hours. The tests themselves are much cheaper.
European driving licenses are expensive because they require more practice. You pay for the practice hours. The tests themselves are much cheaper.
> I would be curious though if the more expensive and involved driving license in many European countries results in better outcomes though.
It doesn't. UK road fatalities are very low compared to mainland Europe and it doesn't matter much whether your divisor for that stat is number of vehicles or number of miles driven. It's arguable how much of that is down to the driving test and how much down to other factors like rules, rule following behavior, etc etc - but I think at least some of it is.
It doesn't. UK road fatalities are very low compared to mainland Europe and it doesn't matter much whether your divisor for that stat is number of vehicles or number of miles driven. It's arguable how much of that is down to the driving test and how much down to other factors like rules, rule following behavior, etc etc - but I think at least some of it is.
My understanding in the US is that in many states the process to get a driving license is barely more than
"Can you show me your car"
"Yes, it's that one"
"OK, here's your license"
"Can you show me your car"
"Yes, it's that one"
"OK, here's your license"
This is not the case in Europe. In Denmark you need to pass both a theoretical and practical test (With a large percentage of people failing). In Denmark a driver license set you back roughly 2000 EUR and requires you to take 29x45min theory lessons and 24x45min on roads with a certified teacher.
I don’t think it’s the case in my state either. Beside having a permit for 1 year and one day you have to take a test as well as the following:
>You must complete an approved driver education course with a certified private or public driver training school using one of the following methods. Approved classes are also offered online. You must also complete each item in the method you choose.
Method 1 30 hours of classroom instruction 6 hours behind the wheel training at the certified school 40 hours of supervised driving with a parent or guardian (6 hours of the 40 hours must be at night)
Method 2 30 hours of classroom instruction at the certified school 40 hours parent-taught behind-the-wheel training. Parent/Teen Driving Guide (includes 40 hours of supervised driving with parent or guardian)
Method 3 30 hours of online instruction with a certified virtual program 6 hours behind the wheel training at a certified school 40 hours of supervised driving with a parent or guardian (6 hours of the 40 hours must be at night)
Method 4 30 hours of online instruction with a certified virtual program 40 hours of parent-taught behind-the-wheel training.
After you do the above you need to take a driving test. You need to be able to parallel park, reverse park, and do a variety of things while driving around.
Not sure where European readers could be located, but snow driving is not taught in my state. We get snow every couple years at most and it rarely sticks to roads.
>You must complete an approved driver education course with a certified private or public driver training school using one of the following methods. Approved classes are also offered online. You must also complete each item in the method you choose.
Method 1 30 hours of classroom instruction 6 hours behind the wheel training at the certified school 40 hours of supervised driving with a parent or guardian (6 hours of the 40 hours must be at night)
Method 2 30 hours of classroom instruction at the certified school 40 hours parent-taught behind-the-wheel training. Parent/Teen Driving Guide (includes 40 hours of supervised driving with parent or guardian)
Method 3 30 hours of online instruction with a certified virtual program 6 hours behind the wheel training at a certified school 40 hours of supervised driving with a parent or guardian (6 hours of the 40 hours must be at night)
Method 4 30 hours of online instruction with a certified virtual program 40 hours of parent-taught behind-the-wheel training.
After you do the above you need to take a driving test. You need to be able to parallel park, reverse park, and do a variety of things while driving around.
Not sure where European readers could be located, but snow driving is not taught in my state. We get snow every couple years at most and it rarely sticks to roads.
I can only speak of what I've heard from people I know, but I've not heard anything like this in the USA, though it is a little odd to think of people as young as 14 driving around.
A few friends from remote countryside had relatively easy driving tests, but the easiest-sounding test was my friend from Mumbai (he'd always refer to it as "Bombay" and I never figured out if that was his preference or if he was trying to accommodate us). He said his driving test boiled down to driving round a block and not hitting anything or doing something particularly stupid.
A few friends from remote countryside had relatively easy driving tests, but the easiest-sounding test was my friend from Mumbai (he'd always refer to it as "Bombay" and I never figured out if that was his preference or if he was trying to accommodate us). He said his driving test boiled down to driving round a block and not hitting anything or doing something particularly stupid.
> driving round a block and not hitting anything
To be honest I'd struggle to do that in most Indian cities, and I've got 25 years experience of not hitting anything in the UK.
To be honest I'd struggle to do that in most Indian cities, and I've got 25 years experience of not hitting anything in the UK.
Has this person ever lived in the US? I had to take a pretty demanding law test with a 90% passing grade, a parking test and a street driving test when I got my US driving license.
Here's a relevant article by someone who experienced getting an American license and a British license:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/02/uk-dri...
(Not sure how accurate that is, as with all things on the internet.)
(Not sure how accurate that is, as with all things on the internet.)
It depends massively on the state no?
CA was pretty tough, they even fail you for driving too slow.
CA was pretty tough, they even fail you for driving too slow.
You can be failed for driving too slow in the UK as well. "Undue hesitance".
It really depends. I had to have a real driving test with surface streets, highway driving, as well as parallel and reverse 90 degree parking. In Minnesota. Where I was just exchanging my license for a US/Minnesotan one.
[deleted]
Perhaps it would be cheaper to hire somebody in the call centre to drive your car than to get the license to do it yourself.
I did not know that this is a thing. I mean it's not something I am/should be surprised that is a thing - hell we 'offshore' all sorts of things and the tech is completely there - but I do have to wonder what safeguards are in place. The picture shows the car without anyone in the driving seat, which I would hope is not what the company selling the service is encouraging (a la Tesla 'Autopilot' still requires an attentive driver to override when necessary) but without any kind of regulation I also wouldn't be surprised if they did.
There's eight years and two billion tonnes moved of quasi autonomous remote mine machinery operation already in the bag - 100 tonne trucks etc operating autonomously with oversight control from 1,200 km away.
eg:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmCSRg5p7-E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bki-SfbzkKQ
It's not a great leap from there to remote car delivery, etc.
eg:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmCSRg5p7-E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bki-SfbzkKQ
It's not a great leap from there to remote car delivery, etc.
They don't have as much unexpected behaviour to contend with. Navigating busy streets and highways is significantly more prone to an unexpected incident of some kind occuring than those mining setups are, even if the severity of outcome is not as catastrophic in terms of vehicle destruction. No pedestrians or pets to be concerned about for a start, but it's far safer when _everything_ on the road is (semi)autonomous or remotely operated with the proper procedures and guidelines than it is to remotely operate a vehicle in a thick soup of pedestrians, (motor)cyclists, and manually operated vehicles.
Sure, and, of course, there are accidents and there is a mix of autonomous and people operated vehicles on site.
The main point here is that there is eight years prior art in real world conditions dealing with 1,000 km + remote driving | oversight with dropped connections and extreme heat, winds, lightning, dust storms, unexpected blockages in roads, etc.
That's a foundation that can be built on and extended.
The main point here is that there is eight years prior art in real world conditions dealing with 1,000 km + remote driving | oversight with dropped connections and extreme heat, winds, lightning, dust storms, unexpected blockages in roads, etc.
That's a foundation that can be built on and extended.
I think remote driving could be interesting in combination with automated driving.
For example, self-driving cars are already "safer" than human drivers in ideal conditions, but what about when conditions change rapidly. Can a self-driving car detect when the situation is 100% ideal and it's 100% certain there is nothing going wrong, and differentiate from being less than 100% sure that everything is optimal?
Can a human at a dispatch center be brought in to potentially assist when this happens? And can this make the trip overall safer?
For example, a self-driving car driving along an empty highway in daylight on a dry day is very unlikely to encounter any issues, but an animal may still jump out in front of the car. If that happens, it should be able to brake on its own, but a human at a dispatch center might be brought in as copilot also, to ensure things go smoothly.
Maybe it's not an animal, but a shadow crossing the road from a stray cloud overhead. The AI might not be able to determine 100% whether it's safe to proceed. A human can make this determination and continue the trip (or slam on the brakes)
For example, self-driving cars are already "safer" than human drivers in ideal conditions, but what about when conditions change rapidly. Can a self-driving car detect when the situation is 100% ideal and it's 100% certain there is nothing going wrong, and differentiate from being less than 100% sure that everything is optimal?
Can a human at a dispatch center be brought in to potentially assist when this happens? And can this make the trip overall safer?
For example, a self-driving car driving along an empty highway in daylight on a dry day is very unlikely to encounter any issues, but an animal may still jump out in front of the car. If that happens, it should be able to brake on its own, but a human at a dispatch center might be brought in as copilot also, to ensure things go smoothly.
Maybe it's not an animal, but a shadow crossing the road from a stray cloud overhead. The AI might not be able to determine 100% whether it's safe to proceed. A human can make this determination and continue the trip (or slam on the brakes)
> If that happens, it should be able to brake on its own, but a human at a dispatch center might be brought in as copilot also, to ensure things go smoothly.
I'm not sure I'd trust a human more than a machine in this circumstance. Just being dropped in with a split-second to make a decision? It's not like you can get 30 seconds of replay to get your bearings etc, otherwise by time the human is ready, the problem's already over.
There's a lot of "state" that a driver should already have built up for this. Traffic, road conditions, who's behind me, etc. Just being thrown into a situation that's rapidly devolving sounds like a nightmare.
I'm not sure I'd trust a human more than a machine in this circumstance. Just being dropped in with a split-second to make a decision? It's not like you can get 30 seconds of replay to get your bearings etc, otherwise by time the human is ready, the problem's already over.
There's a lot of "state" that a driver should already have built up for this. Traffic, road conditions, who's behind me, etc. Just being thrown into a situation that's rapidly devolving sounds like a nightmare.
Why not just have a human in the car??? Is equipping a car with a 5g modem so that you can pay 2$/hr an hour to someone in SEA to drive your car really the horizon of human achievement?
Let's say you have 1000 self-driving long-haul trips that have an accident rate of anywhere from 0.1*A to 10*A (where A is the rate of accidents with human drivers) with just self-driving.
Let's say 100% of the time there is an accident, the self-driving system is able to determine with at least 1 second of notice that human intervention could make the upcoming segment of the trip safer, and such flagged sections constitute less than 0.1% of the time the vehicle would otherwise be in operation.
Let's also say a highly trained team of 10 people, monitoring that fleet of 1000 vehicles, selected for fast reaction, and with adequate training could theoretically prevent 99% of at-fault incidents, bringing it down to a range of 0.001*A to 0.1*A.
I don't know if this would actually play out, but if the above assumptions were found to be accurate, then it'd be hard to make an argument for having human drivers in the vehicle when this system at scale could reduce at-fault accidents to <10% of the current rate
Think Mechanical Turk meets Lambda for improving self-driving car safety
Let's say 100% of the time there is an accident, the self-driving system is able to determine with at least 1 second of notice that human intervention could make the upcoming segment of the trip safer, and such flagged sections constitute less than 0.1% of the time the vehicle would otherwise be in operation.
Let's also say a highly trained team of 10 people, monitoring that fleet of 1000 vehicles, selected for fast reaction, and with adequate training could theoretically prevent 99% of at-fault incidents, bringing it down to a range of 0.001*A to 0.1*A.
I don't know if this would actually play out, but if the above assumptions were found to be accurate, then it'd be hard to make an argument for having human drivers in the vehicle when this system at scale could reduce at-fault accidents to <10% of the current rate
Think Mechanical Turk meets Lambda for improving self-driving car safety
You'd only need a human while the car is driving. If the human needs to be physically in the car, they couldn't just switch to a different car when this one has been parked, and you'd need to organize their own travel when they take a car somewhere remote, or need to fetch it from there.
This would still be massively cheaper even if you pay the driver whatever you'd pay them locally for driving in person, simply because of less downtime, e.g. while a truck is being loaded.
This would still be massively cheaper even if you pay the driver whatever you'd pay them locally for driving in person, simply because of less downtime, e.g. while a truck is being loaded.
So it’s being a driver without any of the downtime of a driver? That’s somehow even worse!
[deleted]
The article makes it clear that the UK definition of "driving a vehicle" is currently centred on the physical location of the vehicle, inverse legal question of "Is the driver considered to be driving a vehicle in the country where they are physically location country?" which I'd imagine varies quite a lot too as many countries probably didn't foresee remote operation when drafting their laws.
You could potentially end up in a situation where a remote driver in Estonia needs a driving license and insurance in both Estonia and the UK to fully cover themselves.
You could potentially end up in a situation where a remote driver in Estonia needs a driving license and insurance in both Estonia and the UK to fully cover themselves.
Generally any third party liability insurance from any EU+Green Card countries (see https://www.cobx.org) is valid in any other country. Same with the driving license, but EU+Vienna Convention countries (2 or 3 different conventions actually - and in case of driving license, this means most of the world)
And a minicab license as well maybe?
What about those itsy bitsy delivery rovers by companies like coco?
Dunno about UK, but if you can remotely murder people in other countries with drones/missiles, I think remote driving is the least of the problems.
Real Late Stage Capitalism to push up the cost of learning to drive to absurd amounts (along with a massive shortage in driving test places) - easily 3k+ GBP nowadays, and then just offshore driving jobs remotely.
Driving also varies a lot between countries. I can't imagine having to switch between left- and right-hand driving multiple times a day, let alone remotely. Nor can I imagine switching between the relatively calm (if somewhat pedestrian hostile) style of driving in the UK, to the structured chaos of driving somewhere like India.