Advanced Driving Hub

jont- wrote: Don't tell me if you can autopark a car, you can't tell the driver they aren't overtaking and need to move left

Probably prevented by limitations imposed by sensor range.

Radar cruise control? A few seconds ahead in the same lane.

Moving left? Probably requires awareness of traffic 12-14 seconds ahead, in all lanes. Ideally considering following/closing traffic from behind too.

Horse wrote:

jont- wrote: Don't tell me if you can autopark a car, you can't tell the driver they aren't overtaking and need to move left

Probably prevented by limitations imposed by sensor range.

Radar cruise control? A few seconds ahead in the same lane.

Moving left? Probably requires awareness of traffic 12-14 seconds ahead, in all lanes. Ideally considering following/closing traffic from behind too.

More likely prevented because manufactuers wouldn't sell cars that tell their owner they're a poor driver. I'm still waiting to see whether driver monitoring can be usefully implemented without upsetting owners. I'm sceptical.

Manufacturers don’t always seem too concerned about encouraging good driving. Example being automatics with stop/start where the driver is often told in the owner’s manual to keep foot on footbrake after stopping until ready to go again, oblivious to glare from brake lights dazzling the vehicle behind.

HC of course says otherwise, rule 114
“In stationary queues of traffic, drivers should apply the parking brake and, once the following traffic has stopped, take their foot off the footbrake to deactivate the vehicle brake lights. This will minimise glare to road users behind until the traffic moves again.”

jont- wrote:

Horse wrote:

jont- wrote: Don't tell me if you can autopark a car, you can't tell the driver they aren't overtaking and need to move left

Probably prevented by limitations imposed by sensor range.

Radar cruise control? A few seconds ahead in the same lane.

Moving left? Probably requires awareness of traffic 12-14 seconds ahead, in all lanes. Ideally considering following/closing traffic from behind too.

More likely prevented because manufactuers wouldn't sell cars that tell their owner they're a poor driver.

Do you think the typical radar cruise control system is capable of monitoring all lanes sufficiently far ahead?

My rough guide for moving back left s that I won't have to move back out to pass with 12 seconds.[♧ [I don't count, it's just a guess that I make, that I've 'monitored' a couple of times] Also being aware of what's closing from behind - if closing the gap swiftly then I'll 'accept' a shorter gap.

You say 'more likely'; based on what knowledge?

Horse wrote:Do you think the typical radar cruise control system is capable of monitoring all lanes sufficiently far ahead?

Until it is, it makes a mockery of the driverless cars concept.

There is of course another reason (of several) for staying in a lane nearer the central reserve, even when not overtaking. It is when you’re not holding anybody up, and get a better view around a left hand bend by being in a right hand lane.

I wonder whether future autonomous vehicles’ AI algorithms will allow themselves to take advantage of such exceptions to the rule?

Gareth wrote:

Horse wrote:Do you think the typical radar cruise control system is capable of monitoring all lanes sufficiently far ahead?

Until it is, it makes a mockery of the driverless cars concept.

No, perhaps I wasn't clear.

The equipment installed for radar controlled cruise control is going to be sufficient for that. If you want it to do more then you'll need more sensors with better range.

Guessing, that (sensor distance capability) will partly be why the permitted L4 systems will have a maximum speed (40mph?). (Speed / distance / reaction & handover time?)

eg This is a tad more complicated:

A few thoughts on autonomy from the antipodes.

Strangely Brown wrote:A few thoughts on autonomy from the antipodes.

I've not had much to do with it, but I can tell you that what happens (safety standards) during AV testing this side of the Atlantic is very different to the US.

Half measures.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11976617/Plans-deadly-smart-motorways-SCRAPPED-Rishi-Sunak-PM-acknowledged-safety-concerns.html

Apologies for the DailyWail link.

Surely if they're dangerous, and you accept that they are dangerous, then you should get rid of the existing ones too, not leave them in place with some vague promise of a "safety refit".