Hands free driving comes into view

[lostandfound]

External Link/Members Only

Hands-free driving could arrive on UK roads by spring next year, the government has said, as it launched a consultation on the technology.

The Department for Transport (DfT) has issued a call for evidence into automated lane keeping systems (ALKS).

Such technology controls a car's movements and can keep it in lane for extended periods, although drivers need to be ready to take back control.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders claims it could cut accidents.

The technology could be given the go ahead for speeds of up to 70mph, according to the DfT, potentially making long stretches of tedious motorway driving a thing of the past.

Will no doubt be welcomed by taxi drivers everywhere. 

[Corus Boy]

Sounds good for Blow and Go appointments, as well.

Or will they become Go and Blow appointments?

[Blackpool Rock]

Obviously there are already numerous trials going on for "Driverless" cars however reading this it appears that this system is just for lane control / steering on motorways and doesn't brake in emergencies etc.

If this is correct then i'm not sure what the advantage is compared to a true driverless system, surely by definition it's a just a cheap imitation 
The problem I see with this compared to a true driverless system is that human nature will have a tendency to lose concentration, I mean if you don't need to steer then more time to look around; check your phone etc or do whatever thereby taking your eyes off the road and not noticing you need to brake in good time

[lostandfound]

Obviously there are already numerous trials going on for "Driverless" cars however reading this it appears that this system is just for lane control / steering on motorways and doesn't brake in emergencies etc.

If this is correct then i'm not sure what the advantage is compared to a true driverless system, surely by definition it's a just a cheap imitation 
The problem I see with this compared to a true driverless system is that human nature will have a tendency to lose concentration, I mean if you don't need to steer then more time to look around; check your phone etc or do whatever thereby taking your eyes off the road and not noticing you need to brake in good time

I haven't read the 46 page document but this External Link/Members Only summary states

ALKS is vehicle technology designed to control the lateral, left and right, and longitudinal, forward and back, movement of the vehicle for an extended period without further driver command. During such times, the system is in primary control of the vehicle, and performs the driving task instead of the driver, at low speeds on motorways ...

IMO "longitudinal, forward and back, movement of the vehicle" sounds like it include braking and acceleration.

How this will differ from the Adaptive Cruise systems fitted to the likes of Mercedes and Audi I don't know exactly, but perhaps that is one reason for the consultation.

[dubs]

Sounds like an unworkable system to me.  If the driver does not have concentration and the self-driving car "panics" with a situation it can't handle, the driver must respond to the alert, assess the situation and try to take avoiding action immediately.

[winkywanky]

In 50yrs' time we'll all be driving electric or hydrogen-powered cars...or rather, the cars will be driving us.

The journey between now and then will be fraught with 'impossible' collisions and gormless, unnecessary deaths brought about by the new technology. Nothing's as good as a real, alert, responsible human driving, but then again, they're quite rare beasts anyway.

[Chorley]

Somewhere  right now JRC is no doubt having a meltdown. 

[winkywanky]

....another one?   

[Waterhouse]

Sounds like an unworkable system to me.  If the driver does not have concentration and the self-driving car "panics" with a situation it can't handle, the driver must respond to the alert, assess the situation and try to take avoiding action immediately.

Totally agree.

Can’t believe the chimps in Westminster have time on their hands to be giving attention to this malarkey.  If they have, then clearly they’re not focusing *all* of their attention on the current situation and all the shit that's going on in the economy and communities fully enough.

[lostandfound]

Luddites!  I'm all for it. Adaptive Cruise is great on long motorway hauls.

[winkywanky]

Luddites!  I'm all for it. Adaptive Cruise is great on long motorway hauls.

What happens if it's late and you fall sleeep.

Can the car take care of itself/you?

[Blackpool Rock]

In 50yrs' time we'll all be driving electric or hydrogen-powered cars...or rather, the cars will be driving us.

The journey between now and then will be fraught with 'impossible' collisions and gormless, unnecessary deaths brought about by the new technology. Nothing's as good as a real, alert, responsible human driving, but then again, they're quite rare beasts anyway.

I believe though that the fully automated systems already being trialled have proven themselves to be far safer mile for mile than humans.
There was the accident with a Tesla which hit the side of a lorry I believe and also a Volvo that hit a cyclist in the dark and immediately everyone jumps up and says "See it isn't safe" while conveniently forgetting accidents happen every day with humans behind the wheel whether it's someone who is pissed; speeding; overtaking dangerously; tired; not concentrating; texting; just a general fuckwit or a woman 

It's a bit like whenever there is an accident on a roller coaster or a jumbo jet crashes, it's makes the news but mile for mile they are far safer than cars, it only makes the news due to the rarity of the event.

I remember someone at work about 25 years ago read an article about when cars were 1st on the roads and someone got run over and killed, the question was asked how can we avoid this happening again but ignored the fact that people were also run over by horses pulling carts.
That may have been why they introduced the bloke carrying a red flag in front of the car, perhaps we should revert to that 

[Blackpool Rock]

What happens if it's late and you fall sleeep.

Can the car take care of itself/you?

I recall hearing a story when I was a kid about some bloke who would go to the village pub and get totally pissed, when it came to closing time they simply took him outside and loaded him into the back of his horse and cart then slapped the horses arse and it took him home 

[winkywanky]

I believe though that the fully automated systems already being trialled have proven themselves to be far safer mile for mile than humans.
There was the accident with a Tesla which hit the side of a lorry I believe and also a Volvo that hit a cyclist in the dark and immediately everyone jumps up and says "See it isn't safe" while conveniently forgetting accidents happen every day with humans behind the wheel whether it's someone who is pissed; speeding; overtaking dangerously; tired; not concentrating; texting; just a general fuckwit or a woman 

It's a bit like whenever there is an accident on a roller coaster or a jumbo jet crashes, it's makes the news but mile for mile they are far safer than cars, it only makes the news due to the rarity of the event.

I remember someone at work about 25 years ago read an article about when cars were 1st on the roads and someone got run over and killed, the question was asked how can we avoid this happening again but ignored the fact that people were also run over by horses pulling carts.
That may have been why they introduced the bloke carrying a red flag in front of the car, perhaps we should revert to that 

Here's the problem: its a bit like the exam fiasco...overall the result would be statistically acceptable, but if you were a responsible driver who did nothing wrong, simply allowed the car to do what it was meant to, but you had an accident because the car (or another car/driver) fucked up, you'd be rightly pissed off.

[lostandfound]

What happens if it's late and you fall sleeep.

Can the car take care of itself/you?

What happens now if it's late and you fall asleep?

My car has sensors to detect if I'm not paying attention - not sure what it does as they've never gone off, and I haven't bothered to read the manual. Also has autonomous emergency braking and SOS services in the event of an incident - though again I don't know what they do. Fairly common on new cars I think - the proposals AIUI are in respect of more advanced systems than are currently available in most cars.

With current Adaptive Cruise the system is designed to take action if you do not have your hands on the wheel. What action it takes is not mandated by the authorities and different systems do different things. Most slow down and stop in some way or another. I expect these issues to be considered in the consultation if they are not already codified in a standard described within the 46 page consultation document.

[winkywanky]

Scenario no.2: you're a pedestrian who gets killed by a car. you did nothing wrong. It's not the driver's fault, it's the car's fault.

How does the law put things right for the grieving family? There's no driver to prosecute, it wasn't his fault. It was the car's fault.

Prosecute Elon Musk? The big, faceless manufacturer?

Do we just accept that things will go wrong from time to time and live with the consequences?

As humans, we like accountability from others. The way this will work in future will need getting used to.

[winkywanky]

What happens now if it's late and you fall asleep?

My car has sensors to detect if I'm not paying attention - not sure what it does as they've never gone off, and I haven't bothered to read the manual. Also has autonomous emergency braking and SOS services in the event of an incident - though again I don't know what they do. Fairly common on new cars I think - the proposals AIUI are in respect of more advanced systems than are currently available in most cars.

With current Adaptive Cruise the system is designed to take action if you do not have your hands on the wheel. What action it takes is not mandated by the authorities and different systems do different things. Most slow down and stop in some way or another. I expect these issues to be considered in the consultation if they are not already codified in a standard described within the 46 page consultation document.

So basically, nothing is clear at the moment.

I can tell you're a responsible driver, so am I.

But lots of people aren't, they'll misuse the new systems.

I think before a whole new generation of drivers grows up with driverless capability, there'll be regular, alarming accidents. Bound to happen I think.

[lostandfound]

So basically, nothing is clear at the moment.

I can tell you're a responsible driver, so am I.

But lots of people aren't, they'll misuse the new systems.

I think before a whole new generation of drivers grows up with driverless capability, there'll be regular, alarming accidents. Bound to happen I think.

There will be a lot of stuff to be worked out - hence the consultation.

This govt announcement was warmly welcomed by motoring groups and manufacturers (AA & SMMT) in the BBC article I linked to, on the grounds of safety. Humans make mistakes, machines are many times safer. I imagine insurers will be broadly in favour of fewer accidents as well, though there are liability issues to be worked out, which they have been discussing for years now.

I would say there have been industrial accidents since the dawn of the industrial revolution. They did not prevent industrialisation proceeding at pace, as a public outcry might have done. And overall the resulting automation has been hugely beneficial.

When you're on a punt, you arrive at a hotel, and the girl's room is on the seventh floor, do you take the stairs or the lift? I expect most of us would take the lift without a second thought, blithely putting our lives in the hands of an automated mechanism.

[winkywanky]

It's complicated with cars.

It's your car, it's the other guy's car, it's crowded roads, it's kids on bikes, it's pedestrians. The permutations are endless, and so is the amount of ways to get hurt or do harm to others.

I fully expect at some point we'll all be safely driving automated cars but it's how we get to that point. Baby steps and careful planning, and an automotive industry lobbying hard for it all to happen.

I'm pretty sure there'll be scandal along the way.

[lostandfound]

It's complicated with cars.

It's your car, it's the other guy's car, it's crowded roads, it's kids on bikes, it's pedestrians. The permutations are endless, and so is the amount of ways to get hurt or do harm to others.

I fully expect at some point we'll all be safely driving automated cars but it's how we get to that point. Baby steps and careful planning, and an automotive industry lobbying hard for it all to happen.

I'm pretty sure there'll be scandal along the way.

Motorways are the safest roads in the UK, and the inside lane the safest place on the motorway. Automated driving in the inside lane of the motorway is far removed from pedestrians and kids on bikes and other urban to and fro.

Anything worth doing is usually hard. Anything that involves humans almost always involves some humans behaving badly.

[winkywanky]

Yes, but at some point not too far off, the technology will be used for built-up and busy areas with many and varied hazards.

[lostandfound]

Yes, but at some point not too far off, the technology will be used for built-up and busy areas with many and varied hazards.

I haven't read the 46 page consultation document, but from I have read and heard, that is not in the scope of this proposal.

As with this proposal, and almost any other complicated activity, I believe at its core, wider deployment will be a question of managing risk.

My view is that so long as that is done well the downside risk should be vanishingly insignificant, and that is the reason why most of us are already happy to let other devices controlled by computer software transport at high speed without a care in the world. Planes, trains, why not automobiles?

[Adoniron]

Why do we need driverless cars?
What is the benefit (except for those who produce them)?
Will they get us where we want to go cheaper or quicker?
What if the technology is hacked or fails? It could lead to serious accidents or gridlock.
I just can't see a positive case for it.

[lostandfound]

Why do we need driverless cars?
What is the benefit (except for those who produce them)?
Will they get us where we want to go cheaper or quicker? Yes - approx 50% of the cost of a taxi journey is the driver
What if the technology is hacked or fails? It could lead to serious accidents or gridlock.
I just can't see a positive case for it.

Yesterday's announcement has been warmly welcomed by both the AA and SMMT on the grounds of safety.

ransport Minister Rachel Maclean said: "Automated technology could make driving safer, smoother and easier for motorists, and the UK should be the first country to see these benefits, attracting manufacturers to develop and test new technologies."

Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society for Motor Manufacturers and Traders, said automated technologies would be "life-changing" and could prevent 47,000 serious accidents in the next 10 years.

The AA's president, Edmund King, has welcomed the move, saying the UK is right to look into measures which could potentially make roads safer.

External Link/Members Only

[george r]

Why do we need driverless cars?
What is the benefit (except for those who produce them)?
Will they get us where we want to go cheaper or quicker?
What if the technology is hacked or fails? It could lead to serious accidents or gridlock.
I just can't see a positive case for it.

 

[winkywanky]

I haven't read the 46 page consultation document, but from I have read and heard, that is not in the scope of this proposal.

As with this proposal, and almost any other complicated activity, I believe at its core, wider deployment will be a question of managing risk.

My view is that so long as that is done well the downside risk should be vanishingly insignificant, and that is the reason why most of us are already happy to let other devices controlled by computer software transport at high speed without a care in the world. Planes, trains, why not automobiles?

Planes aren't in a crowded environment. And if others are nearby there's plenty time for evasive action.

Trains are on their own tracks, with by and large known and predictable hazards.

Cars on busy roads are a completely different kettle of fish.

[winkywanky]

Yesterday's announcement has been warmly welcomed by both the AA and SMMT on the grounds of safety.

External Link/Members Only

Of course they're only looking at it from the driver's POV (or at least predominantly). Other roadusers will have their own concerns and should be consulted by govt when the time comes.

[lostandfound]

Planes aren't in a crowded environment. And if others are nearby there's plenty time for evasive action.

Trains are on their own tracks, with by and large known and predictable hazards.

Cars on busy roads are a completely different kettle of fish.

Relative to their speed planes are often in a crowded environment - one reason why we have ATC. I believe that during certain phases of flight modern jetliners are unstable without computerised systems to direct their control surfaces.

Cars in the inside lane of a motorway are in an environment with by and large known and predictable hazards. And technology has come a long way since the invention of the railway.

Still, the trains planes and automobiles line was a bit glib, but I couldn't resist it being a slick phrase - even though I knew you'd seize on it! 

[lostandfound]

Of course they're only looking at it from the driver's POV (or at least predominantly). Other roadusers will have their own concerns and should be consulted by govt when the time comes.

Right, you must be referring to other future possible deployments, from your previous posts, in an urban environment?

Because I believe they are referring to all vehicles on the motorway being safer if this proposal is implemented.

[winkywanky]

Relative to their speed planes are often in a crowded environment - one reason why we have ATC. I believe that during certain phases of flight modern jetliners are unstable without computerised systems to direct their control surfaces.

Cars in the inside lane of a motorway are in an environment with by and large known and predictable hazards. And technology has come a long way since the invention of the railway.

Still, the trains planes and automobiles line was a bit glib, but I couldn't resist it being a slick phrase - even though I knew you'd seize on it! 

You got that last bit right     

I'm merely making the point that at some stage there'll be a move to make cars more and more autonomous, even to the extent of driverless on busy city centre roads.  Steps will have to be very small and gradual and there will be accidents along the way. And then it'll become a whole new ball game as to 'who is to blame'.

Even on the slow lane on a Motorway, what if a vehicle overtakes you and then suddenly pulls in and sideswipes you? With low sun? Or other stuff which a robotic car might find difficult to deal with? There's a million and one scenarios waiting to catch out new systems.

[winkywanky]

Right, you must be referring to other future possible deployments, from your previous posts, in an urban environment?

Because I believe they are referring to all vehicles on the motorway being safer if this proposal is implemented.

Yes.

Having said that, you get dogs or animals running around on the Motorway sometimes, you even get some idiots on bikes riding along the hard shoulder.

[sub_marine]

Sounds like an unworkable system to me.  If the driver does not have concentration and the self-driving car "panics" with a situation it can't handle, the driver must respond to the alert, assess the situation and try to take avoiding action immediately.

There was a tesla that killed a pedestrian pushing a bicycle with shopping bags across a road in US&A, the sensors could't compute what the obstruction was so the computer kept interigating the sensors trying to find matches from its databse of likely things to sense while traveling.  About 0.3 seconds before impact it sounded a bleep and handed control back to the human as it didnt have a clue what to do, and by that point it was too late to emergency brake.

Scenario no.2: you're a pedestrian who gets killed by a car. you did nothing wrong. It's not the driver's fault, it's the car's fault.

How does the law put things right for the grieving family? There's no driver to prosecute, it wasn't his fault. It was the car's fault.

For the past 20 years the courts always put the onus on the pedestrian if the incident happened on live carriage way, same with cyclists, the instances of a driver actually going over the coals for killing on the road is very rare.

Why do we need driverless cars?
What is the benefit (except for those who produce them)?
Will they get us where we want to go cheaper or quicker?
What if the technology is hacked or fails? It could lead to serious accidents or gridlock.
I just can't see a positive case for it.

About 90% of people like there own space while in transport, but can't be f***ed with the actual controling of the car for more than 10 mins, hence why all new cars are built like space stations with so much distractions other than driving.  The driver is so cocooned away from the outside world, why bother asking them to drive.  Plus if there is a crash, chances of the occupents being killed is slim these days, cars are so safe.

[lostandfound]

You got that last bit right     

I'm merely making the point that at some stage there'll be a move to make cars more and more autonomous, even to the extent of driverless on busy city centre roads.  Steps will have to be very small and gradual and there will be accidents along the way. And then it'll become a whole new ball game as to 'who is to blame'.

Even on the slow lane on a Motorway, what if a vehicle overtakes you and then suddenly pulls in and sideswipes you? With low sun? Or other stuff which a robotic car might find difficult to deal with? There's a million and one scenarios waiting to catch out new systems.

If someone cuts into your lane as you describe the system should react faster than any human. If there is low sun that should not affect those car systems which do not rely on cameras and visual recognition. AIUI German cars - which have the widest deployment so far I believe - use radar for adaptive cruise. I believe they've clearly chosen the slow lane because it is a safe and predictable environment.

[lostandfound]

Yes.

Having said that, you get dogs or animals running around on the Motorway sometimes, you even get some idiots on bikes riding along the hard shoulder.

Yeah - and they often get run over - I recall press reports to that effect! Another case where the automated system may well be safer than having a human driver.

Systems already deployed on some production vehicles have good cyclist detection.

[winkywanky]

For the past 20 years the courts always put the onus on the pedestrian if the incident happened on live carriage way, same with cyclists, the instances of a driver actually going over the coals for killing on the road is very rare.

Thankfully, this is starting to change now, and bad/careless driving resulting in the death of cyclists is being taken more seriously with more appropriate charges and sentencing.

There are still instances where lives get snuffed out because of inattention by drivers though, and it's heartbreaking when there's no real recompense at all.

Think I'm right in saying in EU countries like France, Netherlands and Belgium, in a collision between a motorised vehicle and a bicycle, the vehicle is assumed to be at fault unless proved otherwise, at least for insurance purposes. It kind of makes sense because in the vast majority of such cases (90% or more?) the driver is at fault.

And before any jumps in and says what about the cunts on bikes who jump red lights, I couldn't agree more. But the reality is that in most of these collisions, the driver is at fault and also in very little physical danger at all, unlike the guy on the bike.

[Blackpool Rock]

You got that last bit right     

I'm merely making the point that at some stage there'll be a move to make cars more and more autonomous, even to the extent of driverless on busy city centre roads.  Steps will have to be very small and gradual and there will be accidents along the way. And then it'll become a whole new ball game as to 'who is to blame'.

Even on the slow lane on a Motorway, what if a vehicle overtakes you and then suddenly pulls in and sideswipes you? With low sun? Or other stuff which a robotic car might find difficult to deal with? There's a million and one scenarios waiting to catch out new systems.

The what lane   

What each lane on a motorway is for
Let’s clear up a couple of myths first.

There’s no such thing as a fast lane. There’s no such thing as a slow lane.

The lanes on a motorway are called lane one, lane two and lane three. That’s it.

This is how they work:

Lane one – left-hand lane – normal driving

Lane two – middle lane - overtaking

Lane three – right-hand lane -  overtaking

External Link/Members Only.

[winkywanky]

The what lane   

What each lane on a motorway is for
Let’s clear up a couple of myths first.

There’s no such thing as a fast lane. There’s no such thing as a slow lane.

The lanes on a motorway are called lane one, lane two and lane three. That’s it.

This is how they work:

Lane one – left-hand lane – normal driving

Lane two – middle lane - overtaking

Lane three – right-hand lane -  overtaking

External Link/Members Only.

Yes, I do know that, I'm being colloquial  .

In reality it is the slow lane because we don't allow undertaking in the UK.

[Blackpool Rock]

Yes, I do know that, I'm being colloquial  .

In reality it is the slow lane because we don't allow undertaking in the UK.

In reality most of our motorways are so congested that all the lanes are slow 

[mr.bluesky]

Why not have self driving cars  you have aircraft that fly on auto pilot. I bet nearly all flights are mostly done on auto pilot. Having said that their is something reassuring having a pilot who can take over if something was to go wrong. I would not step on a plane if it was completely automated.

[mr.bluesky]

The what lane   

What each lane on a motorway is for
Let’s clear up a couple of myths first.

There’s no such thing as a fast lane. There’s no such thing as a slow lane.

The lanes on a motorway are called lane one, lane two and lane three. That’s it.

This is how they work:

Lane one – left-hand lane – normal driving

Lane two – middle lane - overtaking

Lane three – right-hand lane -  overtaking

External Link/Members Only.

Now so called "smart motorways " have 4 lanes and no hard shoulder so if you break down your well and truly fucked. 

[Blackpool Rock]

Why not have self driving cars  you have aircraft that fly on auto pilot. I bet nearly all flights are mostly done on auto pilot. Having said that their is something reassuring having a pilot who can take over if something was to go wrong. I would not step on a plane if it was completely automated.

I'm in favour of fully automated cars but not some half arsed crap that just steers and doesn't brake etc though an earlier post indicated this system may in fact also brake etc
Most of the routine in flight stuff is done on auto, not sure if any landings are auto but pilots do have to still land planes to keep the practice in.

Agree having a pilot is reassuring but still did fuck all good when travelling in the 737 Max as the computers over ruled them 

[Blackpool Rock]

Now so called "smart motorways " have 4 lanes and no hard shoulder so if you break down your well and truly fucked. 

Wasn't there a Panorama program about 6 months ago which basically said they were dangerous and they aren't looking to implements any more, think there was also talk of getting rid of some.
The flaw is that the original concept still had safe points where you could pull in every 100 yards if your car was breaking down but it ended up being done on the cheap and they didn't build the safe points 

[Blackpool Rock]

Wasn't there a Panorama program about 6 months ago which basically said they were dangerous and they aren't looking to implements any more, think there was also talk of getting rid of some.
The flaw is that the original concept still had safe points where you could pull in every 100 yards if your car was breaking down but it ended up being done on the cheap and they didn't build the safe points 

Found this article

External Link/Members Only

[Doc Holliday]

If it stops cars remaining in the middle lane when there is little or no traffic in the inside lane then I am all in favour of it 

[joninbristol]

I recall hearing a story when I was a kid about some bloke who would go to the village pub and get totally pissed, when it came to closing time they simply took him outside and loaded him into the back of his horse and cart then slapped the horses arse and it took him home 

You've not been to Somerset recently have you ?!!!!   

[Blackpool Rock]

You've not been to Somerset recently have you ?!!!!   

Funnily enough the story came from a village in the middle of nowhere in Devon so I guess not a Million miles away but then again I believe some people still don't have mains electricity or an indoor toilet yet   

[Chorley]

Does this mean I can have a cheeky J Arthur on my morning commute?

[Xtro]

In 50yrs' time we'll all be driving electric or hydrogen-powered cars...or rather, the cars will be driving us.

I used to watch Space 1999 in the mid 70's..... I'm still waiting for that to happen!

In reality it is the slow lane because we don't allow undertaking in the UK.

I'm sure the  National Association of Funeral Directors would disagree.   

Now so called "smart motorways " have 4 lanes and no hard shoulder so if you break down your well and truly fucked. 

So called indeed, and responsible for 38 deaths in 5 years!   
External Link/Members Only

Does this mean I can have a cheeky J Arthur on my morning commute?

We're discussing hands free driving Chorley, not going to work via public transport!   
External Link/Members Only

[LLPunting]

Best auto-drive car is one that drops the lazy fucking driver at the nearest train, tram or bus stop and in its best, loudest, harridan voice tells them to "Now fuck off and don't come back until you've done what you need to."

Auto-drive vehicles will be more economical because they will moderate and change speed more efficiently.  They won't be driving in isolation they will be intercommunicating so all manoeuvring will be more measured and less sudden compared to equivalent response by a panicked driver.

Drivers shouldn't be permitted to buy the feature without first passing an advanced drivers test that includes how to manage an auto-driving vehicle and they should be held responsible for the car's actions regardless of who's in control for at least the first 6 months of ownership, subject to review of black-box data that specifically indicates catastrophic system failure that drove the car into peril.

[sub_marine]

Thankfully, this is starting to change now, and bad/careless driving resulting in the death of cyclists is being taken more seriously with more appropriate charges and sentencing.

And before any jumps in and says what about the cunts on bikes who jump red lights, I couldn't agree more. But the reality is that in most of these collisions, the driver is at fault and also in very little physical danger at all, unlike the guy on the bike.

No laws have been changed yet, its just in the media more due to the fact more people are cycling and collective bodies such as SKC(stop killing cyclists) do a good job or countering Daily Mail readers who all want cyclists exterminated

And as for cyclists jumping red lights, its not done blindly, judgement is used in the same way as when a pedestrian crosses a road without the aid of a proper crossing.  In some european countries, theres an extra set of small traffic lights just for cyclists, so that they get a green 8 seconds before the motorised traffic does.  How many cyclists have been killed by waiting at a red light only for a truck with no indicator just turns left when the light turns green.  If cases like that ever go to court the truck driver just pleads blind spot, and gets off.  If a Vauhall Corsa can have 360deg cameras to aid parking, why is the truck industry such a bunch of ludites about eliminating the blind spots.  The reason is that the courts back up the truck drivers despite a solution being so simple.