iPods

Lots of stories this past week that are linked but we are getting into the realms of fantasy - I hope.

As a Brit, I find this Fox News story quite embarrassing.  It is about a fleet of driverless pods called LUTZ Pathfinders that will be ferrying people around Milton Keynes this year.  They look awful:

But fear not, "In the event that something does go wrong, the body panels are made from a flexible material to absorb much of the impact."  Oh dear.

Glad nobody ever goes to Milton Keynes.

Since this is nothing to do with Apple, it wouldn't be called an iPod.

However, most of the motoring press (and a fair bit of the non-motoring press) have been getting excited about Apple's foray into the car business.  Here is Car+Driver's take on it. I guess it won't be called the iCar though because that could upset the Information Centre about Asylum and Refugees or perhaps the International Committee for Animal Recording.

Current speculation is that Apple's car will be electric and driverless.

Ye Gods.

Presumably you would speak to it and Siri would then work out where you wanted to go and take you there.

The commenters at the bottom of the Car+Driver story are of a much higher quality than the morons you get at the bottom of Telegraph or Mail stories.  My favourite comment with which I 100% agree is "As for self-driving cars, aside from the disabled, elderly, and inebriated, it's an absurdly complex solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Engineering wankery, I say."  I wonder if that commenter is British - wankery is a very un-US term of disaffection.

But, if today's BBC story has any mileage, these self-driving cars could evolve into self-owning, self-procreating cars.  This is the prospect put forward by Mike Hearn, a software developer who is "both an ex-Google engineer and one of the leading Bitcoin software developers."  He envisages taxis that could run their own taxi-businesses getting their jobs via phone apps and being paid using, wait for it, Bitcoins!  Presumably they would need to be pre-programmed with mild-racism and a dislike of going "South of the river".

He also suggests these taxis could migrate to other cities if there wasn't enough work for them where they are.

Would we end up with UKIP complaining about UK streets being full of these?

That's a Romanian Taxi in case you were wondering.

Now There's Two of Them

I've always hated the BMW X6:

I've made it no secret that I categorise it alongside the Fiat Multipla, the Google Self-Driving car and the Hyundai Atoz as a completely stupid looking car.

Unfortunately, it looks like 250000 sales means that there a lot of people who like it.

Including Mercedes:

Meet the GLE Coupe.

Or BMW X6 as I'd call it.

This interesting little article from caradvice.com.au, Mercedes-Benz’s global chief of design Gorden Wagener spills the beans - or the Benz.

Looking at the comments at the bottom of the article, the car fans of Australia tend to agree with me.

Wagener admits that BMW invented the SUV coupe segment but reckons it overcomplicates its designs with complex surfacing.  It may have been true in the Chris Bangle days but not so much now.

He goes on to say, "...in the end I think we managed to do a very unique car, a very clean car that is essential for our purity philosophy, it’s quite sexy and sculptured."

Very unique!  Very unique!   OK, I'll let that pass since English isn't his first language - but it isn't even slightly unique and it certainly isn't sexy.

Sexy like James Bond is sexy?

But then again, the Mercs are always driven by the baddies.

Driverless Cars are not Good-ish

Perhaps they are Rubb-ish.

I went to see Dave Gorman live a few weeks ago.  He was more than good-ish.  If you don't know him, he presents a series on the Dave Channel called "Modern Life is Good-ish".  Part of this involves him performing seomething called a Found Poem which is where he takes comments made by idiots on the Internet at the bottom of news stories and turns them into something very funny.

Here is his found poem about the beef-being-substituted-by-horse-meat scandal from earlier this year.


He also produced a very fine poem about Google's driverless cars - although the funniest line in it wasn't made by an idiot - it was made by a genius (which is incidentally the name of another show Dave Gorman did)

That line was:

"Why does it have wing-mirrors?"

Well, it looks like that question has now been answered along with my main worry from July when I looked at driverless cars.

The answers appear in this article from caradvice.co.au

The article states that:

The long-awaited Google self-driving car has been uncovered with the technology company claiming it is “the best holiday gift we could’ve imagined”.

No it isn't.   It now has legal requirements such as those mirrors and working lights and safety features that the lack of concerned me - such as a steering wheel and controls.

 

It provides more Found Poem fodder...

...and it still looks stupid.

A Software Engineer and a Hardware Engineer are in a Car Driving down a road...

Suddenly, there is a catstrophic steering failure and the car slams into a tree and catches fire.

The engineers manage to get out and the hardware engineer suggests phoning the emergency services.

But the software engineer says, "No, let's just get back in and see if it happens again."


So, who's Getting Excited About Driverless Cars?

Not me.

But The BBC are.

Three stories from them since it was announced that driverless cars will be allowed on British shores.

Here's the first one that makes the announcement.

Then Business Secretary Vince Cable had a ride in one.

Then a BBC Journalist had a go.

The Government want cities to bid for the right to trial driverless cars next January.  I hope none do.  But if are going to get lumbered with them, at least let them be like in the video with someone competent and sober at the steering wheel to take control.  I could live with that.

I don't like Vince Cable much since he helped his mate get the Lib Dem leadership by shafting the likeable Charles Kennedy in return for a senior post within the Party.  But that's beside the point.  He was asked in the report whether or not he was nervous.  Stupid question - he was travelling slowly-ish on a private test-track with massive run-off areas next to a professional test-driver who could take control at any second.  It's not like he'd accepted a high-speed lift across London off Charles Kennedy.

Maybe it is because I like cars and driving that I don't like the idea of driverless cars - I foresee accidents unless these cars go so slowly that they can cater for all of the eventualities that may or may not have been programmed in to them.  They are unlikely to travel above the speed limit and I doubt if they will get the concept of accelerating OUT of trouble.

But at least if someone in the driver's seat can arrest control, it shouldn't be too horrific - assuming he isn't texting or reading a book or having forty winks at the time.  Or blind drunk.  Or blind.

The Google driverless cars seem much scarier.  They have no steering wheel or pedals and a top speed of 25mph.  They will have no facility for a human to take control, other than an emergency stop button.  That will be really useful when an out-of-control bus is heading straight towards you.  I chose bus for dramatic effect but a motorbike would be bad enough.

Oh yes, and they look stupid.