Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think the actual title could do with changing - "Driverless" sounds random and out of control. They'll still have a driver, it'll just be a computer. Something like "computer guided cars" would sound way more reassuring.


Personally when I see the rage, aggression, selfishness and inattention displayed by a significant minority of car drivers I think they can't come soon enough! Take LL as an example, think how many blockages, near misses etc are caused by people trying to push through, computer guided cars all linked to a network which calculates the optimum way for all vehicles to get through would work far better.

As with electric cars, the great unanswered question asbout driverless cars is who's going to pay? All that infallible infrastructure, all those new vehicles. You're looking at tens if not hundreds of billions.


Will only driverless vehicles be permitted - in one big switchover? The clever optimisiation of vehicle movements will be impossible if there are pesky humans also on the road, making their own decisions.


And the great philosophical conundrum is that your car might be programmed to kill you. Imagine a scenario where you're driving at speed and a tree crashes into the road just ahead of you. The only way to avoid it is to plough into a bus queue by the side of the road. Will the car 'kill' you or the half a dozen people in the queue? I can see hackers fiddling with the car to allow all kinds of different scenarios.

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Will only driverless vehicles be permitted - in

> one big switchover? The clever optimisiation of

> vehicle movements will be impossible if there are

> pesky humans also on the road, making their own

> decisions.


That's going to be the big problem, as I understand it what's being trialled at present are autonomous vehicles, so they make their decisions based on what they sense around them. To have full optimisation using central control then yes, human controlled cars would have to go. It'll happen in a few generations I think - 50-75 years maybe - when people have become so used to driverless cars that driving them yourself will seem as big an anachronism as having a chap with a red flag in front.


The big advantages from a personal point of view would be that a) they'd presumably be programmed to give cyclists "as much room as when overtaking a car" (that's what it says in the Highway Code!) and b) one could whistle up one's driverless car after a night on the ale and get home safely.

Yeah I don't think there's a need for new infrastructure, the cars will be self-guiding based on image recognition and motion detection.


You won't need to ban manually driven vehicles, but there may be financial incentives/penalties... e.g. vehicle tax, "congestion charges", insurance premiums, etc.. market forces would ensure that eventually almost all new cars have a self-driving facility.


I can certainly imagine a situation where one's insurance might be voided if you're in an accident and it transpires that you've turned off the autopilot.


Bit of a shame in some ways, as I do enjoy driving (outside of London at least), but the safety advantages will eventually be undeniable.


Traffic optimisation is a separate topic really. But with self-driving cars relaying their progress back to a server (similar to how Waze works already), efficient routing would seem very feasible, even with a mixture of self-driving and manually-driven cars on the road.

Seabag Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Can you take a nap whilst 'not actually driving'

> the car.


Not at the moment, nor sadly are you allowed to have a few pints - at present where they've been introduced a licensed and competent driver must be there at all times to override the computer if necessary. But one would imagine, given the exponential growth in technologies, that ultimately it will reach a point where the human driver is totally redundant.

Calm down calm down.


"I'm not going to go in a driverless car"


Well you wont have to.


Cars and navigation systems will get more advanced. Things will communicate with other things through the .... Internet of Things.


My only prediction is that techology will serve us in ways yet predicted.


Private car ownership will in deed, fall. And the sharing economy will rise - but again unpredicatably. Who could have seen AirBnB's fall from grace?


It will be exciting.


(PS like it or not Uber are progressive, but don't whisper that to any cabbies)

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> the only bit that keeps me sane driving down to

> Cornwall with the kids in the summer is the

> driving.....dreading it/them


I'm going to put mine in the driverless car and follow on my driverless motorbike


And is it me, or does Cornland get further away each time you drive there

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Cars and navigation systems will get more

> advanced. Things will communicate with other

> things through the .... Internet of Things.


This is no less a faith-based prediction than those that suggest that Jesus Christ will return in glory or that we'll all have jetpacks by 2000. I'm not buying that anyone's going to be able to afford all this. It's a hell of a lot more than a camera, some sensors and GPS.

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What do people think about Driverless Cars. ?

>

> I really find the whole idea frightening..

> Driverless Cars negotiating Lordship lane.. Can

> that work.. ?

>

> DulwichFox


Why is it frightening? Driverless cars already have an almost perfect safety record - per km or mile travelled, they are far safer than a human driver.


They won't be widespread for decades. Their introduction will be gradual as the tech improves, they will be costly; personally, as someone who buys 10 year old cars and drives them for another 10, I doubt I'll ever own one.


This resistance to new technology!

Taking this all to extremes..

I mostly use my car to do my weekly shop..


Perhaps I could get myself a driverless car... GPS.. and programme in the co-ordinates of Tescos Surrey Quays.

Send the car off to collect my Pre-ordered goods. Sit back with a nice cold beer and await the return of my order.


The car would self park outside my home in its reserved space.. and text me to let me know it has arrived.


DulwichFox

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Fox, are you suggesting that one day, we might be

> able to do our weekly food shopping without

> leaving the home?


As an example .. Take a manned mission to Mars.. Do we really need to risk Human life when we can send robots and the like to do the same work..


Likewise sending ones own driverless car to do the shopping seems to make perfect sense. I will be safely tucked up at home.


On a serious note.. I believe there are services that actually send out Pizzas (stash ?)in small electric 'carts'

Guided to your door by GPS.


Foxy

The question is whether there will be enough residual moments where judgement is required rather than rule. Driving is heavily rule-based; but not entirely so. To make it entirely rule-based would probably require banning humans - certainly to optimise it. I'd be all in favour: there is a simple statistic about road deaths to make the comparison.


One advantage is that entirely computer-driven cars will be able to go MUCH faster in non-residential areas, perhaps the speed limit could be raised to 120 or so. And my cat will be a great deal safer in east Dulwich!


The general effect will be MUCH reduced congestion, no parking problems etc (cars can go off and park themselves somewhere out of the way even when owned).


The other advantage is that one will no longer own a car unless one wants to make the statement (I really don't). So I can sell my car and start renting (as with so much else, property is looking outdated). I can treat myself to a ride in some bling one day, or in a utility vehicle the next.


This mirrors other situations: underground trains, planes, medical advice.


I'm really looking forward to not having to worry about driving.

I had the pleasure of driving a number of new (hire) cars on a recent event. The chap from Enterprise dropped my vehicle off and told me a little out its workings. Does it have stop/start I said all excitedly? Yes but you turn it off by pressing that button. Why would anyone turn somethign off that saved 10% fuel I questioned him.


So we get a briefing about why we are driving the cars and that we need to know how to open the bonnet, boot/tailgate, petrol cap etc.


Good thing there are no women here today said the chap organising the event.


During the day he also made comments about the French and gay men.


I kicked myself when I got home for not actually saying anythign at the time (my God you moron, what age are you from) and did actually report him for his xenophobia and casual homophobia and sexism. He's been told to be more careful in the use of his language as we are no longer in the 1980s. Clearly this must have been you Grok.


Now others I may say they were just being ironic.

Watched Prof Phil Blythe (Newcastle Uni and Dept for Transport Chief Scientific Advisor) talk about future transport networks last Tuesday at the Turing Institute/British Library on a live stream. Sadly they don't seem to show this on Youtube post event but I'll see if I can get hold of it.

Everyone should read E.M. Forster's short story 'The Machine Stops' and I was pondering this...

The hippocampus in the brain is concerned with spatial awareness and consolidating short term memories into long term ones- linking them to emotions. If we stop using it for spatial problems (already the use of satnavs is making it redundant for finding our way) will it shrink, or fail to develop fully? Scary thought.....Shanks' Pony is looking very attractive....

As for Cornwall- it is driving across from here to the outskirts of London that is getting worse by the day. I went there and started out from Maidenhead and it makes an enormous difference.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...