UK's Department for Transport Proposes To Allow Drivers To Watch TV on Self-Driving Cars (bbc.com) 47
People using self-driving cars will be allowed to watch television on built-in screens under proposed updates to the Highway Code. From a report: The changes will say drivers must be ready to take back control of vehicles when prompted, the government said. The first use of self-driving technology is likely to be when travelling at slow speeds on motorways, such as in congested traffic. However, using mobile phones while driving will remain illegal.
No self-driving cars are currently allowed on UK roads, but the first vehicles capable of driving themselves could be ready for use later this year, the Department for Transport (DfT) said. The planned changes to the code are expected to come in over the summer. The updates, proposed following public consultation, were described as an interim measure to support the early adoption of the technology and a full regulatory framework is planned to be implemented by 2025.
No self-driving cars are currently allowed on UK roads, but the first vehicles capable of driving themselves could be ready for use later this year, the Department for Transport (DfT) said. The planned changes to the code are expected to come in over the summer. The updates, proposed following public consultation, were described as an interim measure to support the early adoption of the technology and a full regulatory framework is planned to be implemented by 2025.
Great news! (Score:3)
That said, I'd rather take a nap.
If I can't read a book, watch a movie, or take a nap while driving, I really don't see the point of having a "Self Driving Car".
I know safety, etc, but if we are taking a passive role in driving and giving the active role to the car, I doubt we are really that alert to take control at a moments notice anyways.
Re:Great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
Most countries have trains and buses for that kind of stuff.
Re: (Score:1)
Most countries have taxis, ubers, etc as well.
But this article is about self-driving cars :)
Re: (Score:2)
<humor>Yea those countries suck!! </humor>
Re: (Score:2)
> Most countries have trains and buses for that kind of stuff.
Only the small ones, or only between major urban centers.
Re: (Score:2)
Most countries have trains and buses for that kind of stuff.
Which, if there were no benefits at all from individual vs. public vehicles, would be a perfect slam dunk argument.
But, since this is the real world, where there are massive benefits from personal vehicles vs. mass transit, we are back to risk/benefit calculations again ...
Re: (Score:2)
Most countries have trains and buses for that kind of stuff.
That must be one hell of a train that'll take you right from your garage to a parking spot 50m from where you're going.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great news! (Score:4, Interesting)
In Japan you can have a TV in your car and watch it while you drive. They even have special broadcasts that are easier to receive on the move, called 1seg.
Accident rates don't seem to be exceptionally high there.
Re: (Score:1)
In Japan, it's alarmingly common for drivers to be reading a book, doing their makeup or eating breakfast while they drive. I know, because I used to have to watch out for the idiots while I was riding my motorcycle there, which I did for about 6 years.
By and large most drivers were actually relatively safe and non-aggressive, and actually courteous towards motorcycles and would make space for you to filter up between lanes to the traffic lights, but commercial drivers especially had an alarming tendency to
Re: (Score:2)
Most countries have trains and buses for that kind of stuff.
The UK has trains and busses.
That isn't the point. The point is that the leader of the UK's current government is in a load of trouble over breaking the law (but that isn't what he's really in trouble for) and then misleading parliament over it (in simple terms, Boris Johnson lied his arse off even after video of the incident emerged, this is what he's really in trouble for). So they've got every toady out there trying to say stupid shit that will never see the light of day to try to take media attention
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. There is basically no point of having a self driving car if you are legally responsible if the car drives over someone accidently. If you are legally responsible then you must have your attention span 100% on the car and be ready to take over at anytime and then you might as well just have a simple cruise control instead of all this fancy stuff.
Re:Great news! (Score:4, Insightful)
It really says a lot about you that the only benefit you can imagine for new technologies is whether they'll reduce your legal liability for running people over.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what? I don't think that person said anything about being OK with a car that runs people over if he/she wasn't legally responsible or that they were solely seeking a mechanism to avoid legal responsibility. I think the point was that if you are legally responsible for something you are expected to (ethically and legally) exercise control over it. I mean, if you are legally responsible for what your bus driver does, would you see the point of sitting in the back of the bus and sleeping? Instead of rely
Re: (Score:3)
You misunderstood everything I said. My point is that if you are personally responsible when a software glitch results in the self driving car running someone over and then you face jail time for manslaughter even if you did absolutely nothing wrong, well then I would never rely on using a self driving car ever. I am not prepared to got to jail time because some car software programmer made an error. Before there will be self driving cars the laws have to be updated for this reality.
Re: Great news! (Score:2)
From TFA:
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA:
The key word here is "many". Many means not all, so you are still liable.
Re:Great news! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Great news! (Score:4, Interesting)
Driving takes a lot of energy and mental thought. Luckily for most of us, we have a lot of practice at driving, so we can drive safely.
However even though it feels second nature, if you are a little drunk,tired, stress out from something else or have a headache, driving becomes more stressful and difficult. Having driven home with an hour commute with a migraine, having a car that will keep you at speed, in your lane and not crash into stuff, even if you need to keep your eyes open and aware of your envrionment is still a massive benefit, because I can use my brain power to try to keep my head relaxed a bit, enough not to suffer as much.
Re: (Score:2)
> if we are taking a passive role in driving and giving the active role to the car, I doubt we are really that alert to take control at a moments notice anyways.
Yeah, I cannot wait to have a robotaxi that will take me where I want to go overnight while I sleep. I am seriously looking forward to that.
However, it's not going to happen before some form of Strong AI develops and that's probably 8-10 years off now.
The current "AI" is dumber than a toddler, and I rarely let them drive.
Since Humans are not the Driver who's watching TV? (Score:2)
...if we are taking a passive role in driving and giving the active role to the car, I doubt we are really that alert to take control at a moments notice anyways.
The whole point of a self-driving car is that you are not the driver, the computer is so you do not need to be ready to takeover at a moment's notice. So, given that the entire point of a self-driving car is that we are not the driver exactly who is watching the TV, the computer AI to stop it from getting bored?
Inbuilt Screen can cut off (Score:2)
I see having the 'driver seat' having an inbuilt screen that displays movies while in self-driving mode, but when the car decides it needs a human driver, automatically pauses the movie and returns to a standard dashboard display showing mph, etc.
Re:Inbuilt Screen can cut off (Score:4, Insightful)
If this happens it will probably be with little notice and in a bad situation. The human will be in no condition mentally to take over other than stomping on the brakes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes, stomping on the brakes is the exact wrong thing to do from a safety perspective
Stomping on the brakes is probably a bad idea, but it's something that only an incompetent driver would do. So if the alternative to self driving is to have an incompetent driver do all the driving all the time then self driving is still and improvement.
However, there is virtually no situation in which lifting off the throttle and moving your foot to cover (but not stomp on) the brake pedal is the wrong thing to do.
If the self driving simultaneously alerts the driver, lifts off the throttle, and possibly fl
Re: (Score:3)
If this happens it will probably be with little notice and in a bad situation. The human will be in no condition mentally to take over other than stomping on the brakes.
Not really. The difficulty of situation for AI has nothing to do with how sudden the situation is. AI won't disengage in a "ZOMFG a pedestrian stepped onto road right in front of the car, gonna pass over to driver", it's more likely "okay, with this temporary construction signage in place I have no clue how am I supposed to cross this intersection, I'll safely come to a stop and let the driver figure that one out".
Re: (Score:2)
If this happens it will probably be with little notice and in a bad situation. The human will be in no condition mentally to take over other than stomping on the brakes.
Not really. The difficulty of situation for AI has nothing to do with how sudden the situation is. AI won't disengage in a "ZOMFG a pedestrian stepped onto road right in front of the car, gonna pass over to driver", it's more likely "okay, with this temporary construction signage in place I have no clue how am I supposed to cross this intersection, I'll safely come to a stop and let the driver figure that one out".
You're forgetting the "my single, centralized cluster of front-facing cameras just got covered by a large blob of bird crap and I can't see" problem and the "my self-driving computer just crashed" problem, both of which could quite literally be an emergency handoff. But most of those also qualify as hardware defects. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Level 3 says that a driver needs to be given ample time to respond. Examples of this would be:
1) It starts to snow, rain or get foggy, reducing confidence in the system.
2) It sees a sign like "Construction ahead 2 miles".
3) You're approaching a known risky road segment like a complicated interchange, a traffic control device, a cross walk, a tunnel, a narrow curvy section, etc.
For Example even within Tesla's Level 2 Driver assist feature this takes place in its transition in and out of Navigate on Autopil
Re: (Score:2)
It'll have exactly enough time to display WASTED!
Emperor Elon the Last won't like that (Score:1)
He wants to do away with all manual controls including the steering wheel.
Fk that.
Re: (Score:2)
Will it also cut off if you don't pay your TV tax? (UK, remember, LOL!)
"By law, each household in the UK has to pay the licence fee (with some exemptions) if they: watch or record programmes as they're being shown on any TV channel. watch or stream programmes live on any online TV service - for instance, All 4, YouTube, or Amazon Prime Video."
Re: (Score:2)
Future Obituary (Score:3, Insightful)
I write in memory of my friend Ron whom we lost recently when he was run over by a self driving car containing moron who was watching X Factor at the time. The corporation who produced the car suffered no consequences due to being incorporated in the Bahamas.
Re: (Score:2)
From a future obituary: I write in memory of my friend Ron whom we lost recently when he was run over by a self driving car containing moron who was watching X Factor at the time. The corporation who produced the car suffered no consequences due to being incorporated in the Bahamas.
Can you explain what is it with the need to exact revenge on the driver who caused an accident? Driving is somewhat dangerous, that means from time to time some unlucky guy is going to draw the short stick and kill someone. Unless it happened as a result of gross negligence, exactly what good is served by putting him in prison? You got the insurance to cover damage costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you explain what is it with the need to exact revenge on the driver who caused an accident? Driving is somewhat dangerous, that means from time to time some unlucky guy is going to draw the short stick and kill someone. Unless it happened as a result of gross negligence, exactly what good is served by putting him in prison?
No wonder we need self-driving cars. When it comes to staying on topic, you're barely on the road.
In this example, self-driving mode is likely engaged at slow speeds and driver was legally distracted with movies when the safety systems failed to recognize Ron the pedestrian. The "driver" in this case, is the corporation creating faulty safety systems. It makes no sense to go after what is essentially a rider in this case, and that's not what the parent implied/joked about anyway.
And what is this "short-s
That 'cause' word. (Score:2)
Yeah, that 'cause' word. I dunno why people get so upset when Baldwin shoots someone on set, the insurance will handle it. Sandy Hook? Insurance.
Another measure (Score:3)
Yet another measure to help Darwinian reduction of stupid people.
Keep the rage monkey pacified... (Score:2)
This should lead to some fun accident reports (Score:3)
"A 22 year old man died in a self-driving car accident today. Police say he was found with his pants unzipped, his dick in his hand and Ass Masters 3 still playing on the video system when paramedics arrived."
Re: (Score:2)
Yes TV, No Cellphone? (Score:2)
What if I want to watch TV on the cellphone?
Or use a smart TV with cellphone capabilities (i.e. Android OS + keyboard & mouse)?
This law is moronic.
Re: (Score:2)
Not possible (Score:2)
Maintain enough situational awareness while being entertained to take back control while watching TV? One can write whatever legalese but neuroscience tells us the brain cannot multitask like this.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point is that there is coming a point (maybe now) where the situational awareness argument no longer applies. If the computer is driving the car well enough then I don't give a damn if the extent of the controls in the car is just a computer to select the destination. Heck get the bulky steering wheel out of there so that I have more room for a laptop or something.
Don't object! (Score:2)
Do not object to this ruling, because you will be denying science, and denying science is a crime punishable by up to 5 years in penitentiary.