Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Haringey to get self-driving taxis
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jamie Harper
-
They are significantly safer than human drivers. 127 million miles of driving data show that.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson
-
The data compares Waymo to accidents in the USA. The situation is very different in the U.K. which has one of the lowest road accident rates in the world. Having said that driverless still come out as causing fewer accidents than driven cars.
https://ourworldindata.org/britain-safest-roads-history#:~:text=If%...
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton
-
Sources of data please, Jamie Harper and if possible online links. Do you have any professional relevant links?
-
-
The source is linked to below the table. Here's another, and an earlier peer reviewed study.
-
-
Thanks, James Harper.
However I'm still unable to get any official confirmation for the so-called "news" that:
"Haringey to get self-driving taxis."I can of course see the many advantages- not least a very welcome reduction in accidents. But I can also see why people should worry about the concept; and also why this concern could be misused. I recall the worry when some driverless trains were first introduced.
-
-
-
Hello again Jamie Harper.
Thanks again for this useful information. You're "puzzled" why I "can't just search for this information" . I'm unsure if that's a description of your irritation or a reproach?
I'm happy to accept both. I'm also happy to discuss the thoughts and questions I have on the topic. Although that may be the last thing you want or need from me. Clive Carter who weighs in on the side of Waymo expressed his impatience to me on the general basis that the arrival of Waymo in London is a good thing.I know I am being illogical and even silly. And it brings to mind a radio programme I heard many years ago when a nervous journalist was invited on a Concord flight. Arriving back at Heathrow, the pilot says to the journalist: "This bit crossing London by car is where it gets truly dangerous. "
Now, which of your almost certainly fair questions - if any - would you like me to begin with? Two I'll guess and answer in advance. My eyesight is poor - glaucoma. It's stabilised. but what's damaged stays damaged. I also prefer links shown in a different font and colour or underlined. I don't know how to make that happen. The second is that Maddy says she is "disturbed" by the Time Out article. I suspect that lots of people might possibly agree with her. Public confidence is important.
A question for you. Have you any skin in this game? For example are you a scientist working on this area and offering your professional advice for free? If so doubly thanks.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter
-
LARGELY on the grounds of long-term accident reduction, I'm excited about the concept of LIDAR-equipped, driverless vehicles.
I remain shocked at the long term, casual acceptance of poor human driving leading to deaths and injuries, that is insufficiently recognised in the courts and in legislation.
I heard a suggestion recently, that the reason there were so few permanent driving licences bans is due to the possibilities of non-observance and of individual's reform. There is no concept of deterance. This indulgence by the authorities needs to end.
As driverless trends towards the best or perfect driver (with the likely exception of Musk's inferior example), the evidence will increasingly contrast with the standard of driving we have come from to expect from humans.
There are likely to be societal benefits over time. From the reduced call on Accident and Emergency through fewer accidents through to the re-deployment of capital into more productive use.
When the average standard of human driving becomes better recognised, there may be less tolerance for careless and deliberately dangerous driving.
If fewer crashes are seen, the motor insurance is likely to feel the impact too. I'm happy no longer to be paying big premiums that in aggregate cover:
- fraud
- advertising
- commissions
- others' recklessness & carelessness
- oh, and the actual cover for repair bills
The "industry" wants to make a margin after all the above costs are met, of course.
-
-
Maddy have you confirmed with Haringey Council that this "news" has actually been confirmed by them? The Time Out item seems to be one of several similar mousetraps to capture people's data.
-
-
NOT all self-driving vehicles are the same. There is a big difference in safety and technology between:
- the one that uses costly LIDAR (WayMo); and
- the other supposed contender that depends on far-cheaper cameras (Musk's RoboTaxis)
Over many years, WayMo self-driving taxis have been comprehensively tested in cities in the USA, and are likely to be much safer on average than human drivers.
However, Musk's grossly over-hyped CyberCabs are inferior and they are in limited early testing in a few US cities. A stage from which I doubt it will ever progress much beyond, due to safety concerns. It would be disturbing new if London were getting Musk's half-baked technology. But that is not the case.
If WayMo's LIDAR-guided cars were widely adopted, then there is likely to be a reduction in accidents of all types. And a possible benefit over time, may be a reduction in the number of cars owned, driven and parked.
Of course, this would mean that fewer fares would get to enjoy banter with London's Finest.
On the other hand, WayMo may go sarf of the river and even to Catford.
© 2025 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
