Autonomous Cars, Yes or No?

[niebz]

Hi Everyone

Hugely controversial topic here regarding Autonomous cars.

How do you feel about autonomous cars? I understand that everyone here enjoys driving however what if you could half journey times, put your feet up while your car drives you to and from work. Alongside reduced deaths and number of accidents would you swap?

Would you consider a self driving car as a secondary car?

Or are you against the idea completely?

I understand that the technology isn't fully ready however lets imagine a what if scenario.

Thanks!!

[SidewaysFeltham]

Originally Posted by niebz

Hi Everyone

Hugely controversial topic here regarding Autonomous cars.

How do you feel about autonomous cars? I understand that everyone here enjoys driving however what if you could half journey times, put your feet up while your car drives you to and from work. Alongside reduced deaths and number of accidents would you swap?

Would you consider a self driving car as a secondary car?

Or are you against the idea completely?

I understand that the technology isn't fully ready however lets imagine a what if scenario.

Thanks!!

If one considers the core realities, then the automobile is effectively dead.

In the UK, for example, all M ways are choked: and the problems worsen when towns and cities are entered.

The future probably lies in turning the major motorways into railways and either hiring a robot taxi when one arrives at the town/city destination; or a simple self drive electric personal conveyance a bit like a golf buggy with roof and sides. Hire here; leave there. If you like a bit the same as Boris Bikes.

In any case, the motorcar changed lifestyle: instead of localised communities (A bit like expanded villages ), where people lived worked shopped, socialised and played, increasingly, as space became rare, life moved increasingly to an "Out of Town" lifestyle.

More and more people commuted to work, often some distance: shopping was increasingly out-of-town too.

Now, due to the dreaded internet, more and more work from home, shop online and even (The younger especially) live a quasi sort of cyber-existence, particularly insofar as their social lives are concerned.

Therefore the need to travel decreases year on year.

A problem with technology and technologists, today, and since 1980 as I have been deeply immersed in Tech, is what I call "Latest Toy Syndrome": what this means is burning to apply the latest technology, even when in actuality, it is travelling along a pointless road to a useless conclusion and application.

One of the very best examples was given me by a very bright engineer: who said, "The trouble with these young upstarts in technology, is they all want to design things with multiple microprocessors, the latest chips etc and come up with useless devices such as a CCTV system for shaving! Have they not heard of a mirror?".

Personally, since I am old and started driving on drum brakes which faded, cart springing (two lateral leaf springs, one at the front and one at the back!), cross-ply tyres and no heating, air con or screen washers, let alone heated screens and best of all, little or no syncromesh then my philosophy is if you cannot bloody drive, then stay off the increasingly clogged roads and leave it to those who damned can!

For an increasingly short time...

[Bakemono]

Im all for it, as long as I have the option to drive manually when I choose. I commute almost as hour each way and Id love to be able to set the car to auto-drive, kick back and read a book, look at stuff on my phone or take a nap.
Who knows, maybe at some point the technology will advance where highway speeds here in the states could be 100 mph or more.

[SidewaysFeltham]

Originally Posted by Bakemono

Im all for it, as long as I have the option to drive manually when I choose. I commute almost as hour each way and Id love to be able to set the car to auto-drive, kick back and read a book, look at stuff on my phone or take a nap.
Who knows, maybe at some point the technology will advance where highway speeds here in the states could be 100 mph or more.

Nice idea.

However, remember, what happens when something goes awry? Software glitch: electrical failure: static wipes out an essential CMoS chip?

Quite a few years ago, I flew back from Milan to London, on the flight deck of a brand new Boeing 757, complete with the then latest HUDs and computerised flight systems. Acting as a Devil's Advocate, and then being deeply engaged in silicon fab and ICT applications, I asked the captain what would happen in the case of a lightning strike taking out the main flight control computer: "Oh" he said, "We switch to the back-up!".

"OK" is replied: so what happens if both computers are taken out?"

"We would have to fly the airplane manually, Sir; and would be far too busy to be talking to you!"

However, the unspoken reality is de-skilling: as modern automobiles have increasingly adopted a range of assistive technologies (ABS, Traction Control) etc, drivers have become increasingly de-skilled.

Having suffered the misfortune of driving, repeatedly along the 101 freeway, thru the San Franciso Bay area, between San Jose and 'Frisco in the rush hour, with all lanes clogged bumper to bumper with mobikes, trucks, panel vans, cars, buses and Big Mac supertrucks, if one driver made any serious error or suffered any sort of failure, then the thought of my being squashed as a sandwich filling by all that metal travelling at circa 50-60 MPH was frightening!

In extremis, I could kick the cruise out; but I still had control.

Lovely scary thought: there you are bowling along reading your book or dozing and a chime announces a meassage which states "Windows 25 has unfortunately suffered a serious system error and will re-boot shortly,. Microsoft apologises for this unavoidable problem."

Let's just hope you have the time to read it!

[Bakemono]

Originally Posted by SidewaysFeltham

Nice idea.

However, remember, what happens when something goes awry? Software glitch: electrical failure: static wipes out an essential CMoS chip?

Quite a few years ago, I flew back from Milan to London, on the flight deck of a brand new Boeing 757, complete with the then latest HUDs and computerised flight systems. Acting as a Devil's Advocate, and then being deeply engaged in silicon fab and ICT applications, I asked the captain what would happen in the case of a lightning strike taking out the main flight control computer: "Oh" he said, "We switch to the back-up!".

"OK" is replied: so what happens if both computers are taken out?"

"We would have to fly the airplane manually, Sir; and would be far too busy to be talking to you!"

However, the unspoken reality is de-skilling: as modern automobiles have increasingly adopted a range of assistive technologies (ABS, Traction Control) etc, drivers have become increasingly de-skilled.

Having suffered the misfortune of driving, repeatedly along the 101 freeway, thru the San Franciso Bay area, between San Jose and 'Frisco in the rush hour, with all lanes clogged bumper to bumper with mobikes, trucks, panel vans, cars, buses and Big Mac supertrucks, if one driver made any serious error or suffered any sort of failure, then the thought of my being squashed as a sandwich filling by all that metal travelling at circa 50-60 MPH was frightening!

In extremis, I could kick the cruise out; but I still had control.

Lovely scary thought: there you are bowling along reading your book or dozing and a chime announces a meassage which states "Windows 25 has unfortunately suffered a serious system error and will re-boot shortly,. Microsoft apologises for this unavoidable problem."

Let's just hope you have the time to read it!

Very true, thats a risk but thats why I want to have the ability to switch the system off and driving manually.
You spoke of driver de-skilling. Considering all the bad drivers who I encounter on the roads every day who are playing on their phone, doing their makeup, eating while driving and all in all just not paying attention when they are driving you have to ask yourself, whats the bigger risk: human drivers or computer drivers?

[SidewaysFeltham]

Originally Posted by Bakemono

Very true, thats a risk but thats why I want to have the ability to switch the system off and driving manually.
You spoke of driver de-skilling. Considering all the bad drivers who I encounter on the roads every day who are playing on their phone, doing their makeup, eating while driving and all in all just not paying attention when they are driving you have to ask yourself, whats the bigger risk: human drivers or computer drivers?

Which is precisely why, as motoring has become ubiquitous, and taken for granted as a "Right" of participation, then the automobile has made itself self-obsolescent. Henry Ford's vision fulfilled, yet turned into a nightmare...

Perhaps the most profound analysis of this problem was made on TV by the late Kenneth Williams in a chat show, years back.

The host asked Williams "Do you drive?".

He replied, "Oh not anymore darling: it is rather like farting. It's lovely when you do it, but not much fun when everyone else does!"

When I was young (A few centuries ago!), we viewed driving as a privilege and bad driving as a crime. Above all else we wanted to develop superior driving skills and considered it an artform: not simply a utility and alternative to public transport.

Furthermore, our cars (Old) cost a bomb and we had to spend weekends mending and improving them. Workshop bills were for the wealthy!

Therefore, our car was a unique and precious possession.

Not today, sadly. This lack of respect for the privilege and machine has led to utter contempt for everyone else on the road.

Fortunately, for the few determined types, our passion enabled competitive driving skills to be even more developed by rallying, circuit racing etc.

Clearly, therefore, the future lies in converting main communication arteries (freeways, motorways, autoroutes) into mass transportation systems. Fully robotic.

Pause and consider: the automobile is a major cause of ground level atmospheric pollution: plus mankind is burning non-replaceable fossil fuel to power it. As a sop, major auto manufacturers developed hybrids as a middle step. But clearly, the future lies in small electrically driven vehicles. Yet these suffer small range. Fine for towns and cities: useless for major inter-town commutes.

Plus the electricity to recharge the electrically powered car must be developed!

If all cars were electrically powered, then Western electricity generation systems would collapse.

A majority are still powered by a mix of coal and oil: with nuclear and alternatives making up a small proportion.

Sad to say, however it is abundantly clear to me that the day of the IC engined automobile as an everyday personal conveyance is past...

[BertMk2]

There's one question that comes up when discussing autonomous cars - if my car has a choice between crashing and killing me or crashing and killing someone else what will it do? Or even crashing and killing me instead of injuring someone else? Will the car put its owners (not drivers ) safety first or will it put the safety of others first?

[SidewaysFeltham]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

There's one question that comes up when discussing autonomous cars - if my car has a choice between crashing and killing me or crashing and killing someone else what will it do? Or even crashing and killing me instead of injuring someone else? Will the car put its owners (not drivers ) safety first or will it put the safety of others first?

Well, Bert, in the Brave New World planned for us all by the insane techies and computer scientists, once Real AI (Artifical Intelligence) takes over, and robots ostensibly do all the work whilst we have all the fun, after a wee bit, the AI systems, which clearly cannot possess real emotion, compassion and forgiveness for human frailty, will decide Homo Sapien was the most predatory animal species ever, is useless, becomes sick, goes on strike, breaks down, eats far too much, causes wars and chaos and confusion...

So, they will EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE

[Bakemono]

Originally Posted by BertMk2

There's one question that comes up when discussing autonomous cars - if my car has a choice between crashing and killing me or crashing and killing someone else what will it do? Or even crashing and killing me instead of injuring someone else? Will the car put its owners (not drivers ) safety first or will it put the safety of others first?

Likely it will become a probability model. It will calcualte who has the greatest chance of survival.

[Bakemono]

Originally Posted by SidewaysFeltham

Which is precisely why, as motoring has become ubiquitous, and taken for granted as a "Right" of participation, then the automobile has made itself self-obsolescent. Henry Ford's vision fulfilled, yet turned into a nightmare...

Perhaps the most profound analysis of this problem was made on TV by the late Kenneth Williams in a chat show, years back.

The host asked Williams "Do you drive?".

He replied, "Oh not anymore darling: it is rather like farting. It's lovely when you do it, but not much fun when everyone else does!"

When I was young (A few centuries ago!), we viewed driving as a privilege and bad driving as a crime. Above all else we wanted to develop superior driving skills and considered it an artform: not simply a utility and alternative to public transport.

Furthermore, our cars (Old) cost a bomb and we had to spend weekends mending and improving them. Workshop bills were for the wealthy!

Therefore, our car was a unique and precious possession.

Not today, sadly. This lack of respect for the privilege and machine has led to utter contempt for everyone else on the road.

Fortunately, for the few determined types, our passion enabled competitive driving skills to be even more developed by rallying, circuit racing etc.

Clearly, therefore, the future lies in converting main communication arteries (freeways, motorways, autoroutes) into mass transportation systems. Fully robotic.

Pause and consider: the automobile is a major cause of ground level atmospheric pollution: plus mankind is burning non-replaceable fossil fuel to power it. As a sop, major auto manufacturers developed hybrids as a middle step. But clearly, the future lies in small electrically driven vehicles. Yet these suffer small range. Fine for towns and cities: useless for major inter-town commutes.

Plus the electricity to recharge the electrically powered car must be developed!

If all cars were electrically powered, then Western electricity generation systems would collapse.

A majority are still powered by a mix of coal and oil: with nuclear and alternatives making up a small proportion.

Sad to say, however it is abundantly clear to me that the day of the IC engined automobile as an everyday personal conveyance is past...

What point were you trying to make? That theres too many cars on the road and people take driving for granted?

[Number4]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35692845
Google car collides with bus

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by Bakemono

Likely it will become a probability model. It will calcualte who has the greatest chance of survival.

Well in that case I'll stick to driving myself thanks - "today the machine has decided you will die".

[niebz]

The question lies in should we adopt a utilitarian approach, where we simply look at numbers and say 100 deaths < 1000 deaths? This is a very computerised approach but if statistically we are less likely to die in an autonomous car, should it matter if its a computer fault, or driver fault? As a human being i'd personally prefer to drive my own fate but then a part of me likes the idea of autonomous cars, and if done right, the computer would never put itself in a scenario where it needs to choose 'who to kill'.

Some great discussion going on here thanks!!, Im actually looking into how autonomous cars be successfully implemented in today society for a university project, if anyone would like to help me I have a survey asking a few more questions it would be great if some of you could complete it, it's as long as you make it. https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/NWDXKK8

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by niebz

the computer would never put itself in a scenario where it needs to choose 'who to kill'.

The computer has no control over external factors - like pedestrians walking out in front of the car, animals running about on the carriageway etc. etc. It can only react to what's placed in front of it (same as a human) but the machine will make the life/death decisions rather than the driver. In the case that an autonomous car runs over a pedestrian who is to blame? The owner (operator? what's the term to use?) of the car or the manufacturer? That's a whole can of worms right there!

Originally Posted by niebz

Some great discussion going on here thanks!!, Im actually looking into how autonomous cars be successfully implemented in today society for a university project, if anyone would like to help me I have a survey asking a few more questions it would be great if some of you could complete it, it's as long as you make it. https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/NWDXKK8

Interesting subject for a uni project

[chillibowl]

and who is to say protecting life in general or human life would be the priority?

if the program looks at this in terms of liability then perhaps the conclusion it comes to is that value of the life of an 80 year old retired person is less than the potential property damage so when it attempts to avoid an accident it does so from the point of view of which outcome will cost its owner more money and attempt to avoid that...taking out the old person or driving into that house.


scary stuff.

[SidewaysFeltham]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

and who is to say protecting life in general or human life would be the priority?

if the program looks at this in terms of liability then perhaps the conclusion it comes to is that value of the life of an 80 year old retired person is less than the potential property damage so when it attempts to avoid an accident it does so from the point of view of which outcome will cost its owner more money and attempt to avoid that...taking out the old person or driving into that house.


scary stuff.

In medical emergency situations, I believe it is called Triage, Chilli.

As a chum advised me some years ago. Choice: young child; middle aged man/woman: old geezer.??

Choice Target One: child.

Target Two: Middles aged man/woman.

Target Three: geezer.

[SidewaysFeltham]

Originally Posted by Bakemono

What point were you trying to make? That theres too many cars on the road and people take driving for granted?

Precisely.

Plus, since their very success from Henry Ford's first ultimate goal, automobiles have made themseves self-obsolescent.

As did the horse, as a means of both personal travel and freight movements.

Instead of self-driving cars, then synthesise the concept into a self-steering horse!

Which wouldn't have meant the horse wasn't past its sell by date, huh?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by SidewaysFeltham

In medical emergency situations, I believe it is called Triage, Chilli.

computer assisted triage!

would that come as an option or a standard feature?

[owrforever]

News has just come out that one of Google's self driving Lexus hybrid suv's got tangled up with city bus in Mountain View, California on February 14th. Nobody was hurt, obviously the system still requires some attention. Google is accepting "partial responsibility." Any lawyers out there?

[Akrapovic]

I completely disagree with the idea that a modern vehicle is "de-skilling" current drivers. Given that decades ago, a driving test involved driving up and down a runway and knowing the basic controls, and todays test is FAR more comprehensive, I don't think that's fair.

In 1960, there was some 6 million registered cars on British roads. There was also 8000 (!!) deaths in traffic collisions. In 2010 there was 30 million registered cars. There was under 2000 deaths. So there are 5 times more vehicles, but less than a quarter of the deaths.

Now you could argue that the vehicles being safer were the cause of the reduced deaths. So lets look at general accident statistics. In 1960 there was 341,000 injuries - this includes minor and slight injury. In 2010 there was 203,000, so a reduction of over a third. In 2013, there was 181,000, which is a further reduction of about one tenth in 3 years, with no major advancements in car technology.

So I do not agree with the suggestion that we're deskilling drivers. The statistics show the opposite where despite a massive increase in vehicle numbers, we're having less accidents than ever before, killing less people than ever, and putting people through a driving test which becomes more comprehensive every year. And this is before we start talking about todays information overload society. The idea that current drivers are worse is the lovely nostalgic feeling we get about the old days. It isn't reflected in the statistics at all.

I do not believe that an argument against self-driving cars should be the de-skilling argument. There are plenty of good pro/con arguments for the vehicles. I believe they have their place in the world, but it isn't in my garage.

[SidewaysFeltham]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I completely disagree with the idea that a modern vehicle is "de-skilling" current drivers. Given that decades ago, a driving test involved driving up and down a runway and knowing the basic controls, and todays test is FAR more comprehensive, I don't think that's fair.

Oh dear, my memory must be suffering badly.

Since I took and passed my driving test in 1959, I seem to have forgotten the bit about the runway??

Seriously, the driving test at that time was the same, in principle, as for many years thereafter. Car control ws critical, as automatic transmission ws only applied to a few luxury and large cars and then was mainly the US Borg Warner 3 speed unit with a torque converter and very inefficient. Manual boxes lack good synchromesh (Until the Porsche patent baulk ring system became ubiquitous).

Thus clutch control and smooth gearchanging were essential. And every test included a mandatory hill start. Included were three point turns, reversing around a corner and if you were unlucky, parking between two vehicles; followed by an emergency stop, under full control (and tests were conducted in heavy rain), etc. Finally, a viva voce (verbal) quiz on the Highway Code.

Most of today's drivers, who pull out in front of others, fail to give signals, swerve and swop lanes constantly, park in the wrong places, such as on the wrong side of the road at night with headlamps blazing away, etc would fail.

Even with manual gears, today's learners are taught to drive up to stop lines and use the brakes rather than gears: thus they are not in control.

In terms of statistics, such are, as always valueless when considered on surface, rather than drilling down and segmenting such into sub-sets.

The national speed limits was introduced in 1966, a statistical skew.

The road breath test (breathalyser) was introduced in 1967 as was the now cast in stone drink-drive limit: previously, it was an arbitrary process reliant only on a doctor deciding if the subject was unfit to drive due to alcohol.

In 1960, there were many older cars on the road: these were far heavier, many with solid chassis. The Kinetic Energy imparted on impact was far far greater; thus the damage far greater too. No seatbelts.

No collapsable telescopic steering columns: in a moderate to severe accident which involved sudden deceleration, drivers were invariably speared through the chest, mortally. Additionally, with no crumple zones, often driver and front seat passenger/s suffered the engine/gearbox unit slamming back onto their legs: look Mum, no legs!
Remembering, whilst the mass of the car had decelerated to zero velocity, the passengers hadn't...

Also critical in reduction of death and injury has been the introduction of safety standards which manufacturers have had to adhere to for their products to be "Type-Approved": without which they cannot sell them.

Also to be added into the mix are: cross-ply tyres: Drum brakes which faded: brake fluid which being hygroscopic absorbed atmospheric moisture and when hot, the water boiled, turned to steam and no hydraulic first principle. Fun: happened to me more than once.

Serious drivers on ice, snow and heavy rain conditions, has to learn Cadence Braking techniques: 'cos there was no ABS.

Steering was hit and miss and suspension, agricultural.

With Clean Air Acts and controls of industrial smoke pollution, the dreadful Smogs and Winter fogs of the 50s, 60s and early 70s have all but vanished.

Next skew: as traffic density has increased, but most road mileage still dates back to the 1930s, generally, speed has fallen considerably: I just wish I could have exceeded the bloody speed limit yesterday morning! it took me 2 hours to travel 22 miles: a journey which in the 1960s on a then winding country lane, mainly would have taken perhaps 25 minutes. And I left at 06.45 AM.

Modern Unit-Construction (monocoque) cars are designed to crumple: bumpers too. The passenger safety zone protects them from the engine landing on their legs.

Far lighter grades of mild steel and extensive use of alloys and plastics has significantly reduced vehicle weight: thus a car-to-car head on collision creates far less kinetic energy.

Inertia Reel seat belts and Air Bags have further reduced both serious injury and fatality. More statistical skews!

Tyres do not blow out as they used to. Modern High Hysteresis radial tyres, thanks to motor sport, rarely suffer from aquaplaning. If you have never experienced severe aquaplaning at 80 MPH, then believe me, you haven't lived!

An excellent cure for constipation!

with no major advancements in car technology.

Automotive technology advances week by week.

So I do not agree with the suggestion that we're deskilling drivers.

Forget the bare and thus unqualified and ergo, tenuous statistical arguments; and please consider the foregoing.

[Akrapovic]

I won't dissect your post as I feel that takes us far too far off topic and tbh is a little disrespectful (I feel when people do that, they do it purely to create arguments), isn't a fair thing to do, but I disagree with basically the entire thing, especially -

Seriously, the driving test at that time was the same, in principle, as for many years thereafter.

This just isn't true, I'm sorry. I work with driving instructors and examiners who have said it's barely recognizable what drivers go through now compared to what they did before. Mentioning what is the same ignores what is not. The theory test did not even existed until the mid 90s and has massively evolved into an entirely different animal, and then the introduction of the Hazard Perception is a completely new concept, nevermind being principally the same as something 5 decades ago. The Independent Driving section was only introduced in the last few years as well. Despite these additional elements being introduced, the theory test being introduced, the highway code evolving massively, and roads becoming more congested and complex in layout, the pass mark has remained the same - 45-50% (varying more on location than anything else). So todays drivers are coping with more advanced test with more stressful environments, with the same pass rate. This does not coincide with a lack of driving skills.

Giving examples like "most of todays drivers who commit X offense" is meaningless, since they'd have failed their test 50 years ago too according to the description you've given, and yet here we are with bad drivers of all ages. How can this possibly be? And since new drivers are only allowed to total 6 penalty points in their first 2 years, they already have less of a buffer to work with than the more experienced drivers.

I have provided many a statistic to show that driving has not gotten worse. You have dismissed these as baseless and without value, but replaced it with anecdotal evidence. I don't see how this has any more value than the facts from government studies, which show accidents declining despite the massive increase of cars. Sorry if you disagree, but then we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

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

On the topic of driverless cars - currently there's a problem where the driver is still legally in charge of the vehicle, even with the computer driving. This sounds fine before you consider what would happen in an accident really, as you'd have to take control of the vehicle extremely quickly.

How does this link to the self parking cars? Who is responsible should you bump something using those?

I can see this working if everything was self driving. But with a bunch of humans in the equation, you'll never be able to tell what the person is actually going to do. And what happens when they come across a police chase? I know it sounds mental, but that's the sort of thing a human reacts to. You could make it react accordingly to blue flashing lights, but a car trying to escape the police...? Hmmmm.

There is a place for these cars in this world, without a doubt. But I do enjoy my daily commute, and it'll be sad if that goes.

[chillibowl]

interesting debate about the deskilling of drivers.

certainly as cars have become safer/better built/better tech one would expect fatalities and injuries to decline dramatically over time but that is not the same as the total number of collisions per number of cars on the road.

at the same time, most cars are made out of plastic so maybe more collisions get reported these days. in the past if no one was hurt why report a collision/file an insurance claim to fix a dent in a steel bumper when you could just bang it out yourself. but today if someone rear ends me they have probably cracked my rear (plastic) bumper so i have to report a collision/file an insurance claim because i cant fix it myself.

so im not sure how accurate collision stats would be anyways.


as for driveless cars,

yeah good point. in the interim as people switch over/ buy new cars there will be a lot of problems but will those problems still exist when every car on the road is an automated one?

if every car was computer controlled and each car was operating on the same network and the network was working properly, then presumably there would never be another accident (or as close to zero as possible) because every car would know what the other cars around it were doing and could act accordingly.

[JHamilton]

I spend 10-12 hours a week in bumper-to-bumper traffic. My average speed over the last 400 miles is 17mph. I'll hit a button and take the chance that it drives me into a bridge abutment. I won't be going fast enough to do much damage.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I won't dissect your post as I feel that takes us far too far off topic and tbh is a little disrespectful (I feel when people do that, they do it purely to create arguments), isn't a fair thing to do, but I disagree with basically the entire thing, especially -

As I took and passed my test in July 1963, I can totally agree with Sidesways Feltham and it was carried out on the streets around the North London suburb of London, Hendon, which included driving on both single and dual carriage way roads which and no speed limit then.In fact there were a number of other things in the test that young people just laugh at nowadays, the most obvious being the use of hand signals. This meant that regardless of the weather, the driver had to keep his window fully open so that you could indicate with your right arm completely out that you were slowing down or turning right. Mind you, I can't remember who was holding on to the steering wheel whilst you doing that and changing down gear at the same time .

And the car that I took my test in didn't have a synchromesh gearbox, so it was double-declutching, a skill that I would guess is not possessed by many youngsters. And as Sideways says, tyre technology has moved on hugely over the decades; the rain was just as wet 40 or 50 years ago, and we didn't have the advantage of modern patterns and compounds which help to keep cars, on the whole, on the straight and narrow. But what I have noticed is that the older generations seem to have better road craft skills when ice and snow are around compared to youngsters; maybe it's because we learnt how to drive on the older style tyres that gives us an edge. Obviously, there are exceptions.