Tesla and the Magic Roundabout

No, not the Magic Roundabout that was a teatime treat on TV many years ago. And not Nikola Tesla either. We are taking about the US electric car company and one of the best-known features of my home town Swindon - our Magic Roundabout.

The reason for this post is that Tesla has been doing some testing of fully self-driving cars in the UK, and a test site they have publicised is getting across the Magic Roundabout. We inhabitants of Swindon are rather proud of our ability to fearlessly cross the Magic Roundabout, but it certainly puts an aspect of nervousness into many who encounter it for the first time.

What can be scary about a roundabout? Because it isn't really that at all - it is five mini-roundabouts joined together by very short sections of roadway.

The diagram alongside shows the layout of the roundabout, and two possible routes for getting from the bottom left road to the right hand one. This is what makes it so much fun. You can go whichever way you like around the whole structure as long as you stick to proper roundabout protocol on the mini-roundabouts. There is never just one way to get from A to B.

However, the diagram also demonstrates that to a logic-following computer, there really is no complexity to navigating the Magic Roundabout. At each point there are clear options - and it doesn't really matter if you choose a non-optimal route. You will still end up where you want to go.

For me this is a classic example of showing how an autonomous vehicle can cope better with things humans are bad at. We struggle initially with getting our heads around the Magic Roundabout as a single system, rather than simply heading towards where you want to go, considering each mini-roundabout in its own right. But computers have always been better at some things than humans. Just because Excel is a lot better than me at adding up a column of numbers doesn't mean it can write books better than me.

A real test for a Tesla in fully automated mode, or any other self-driving car, is things that people are good at, but provide a challenge to computers. A far better test as far as UK driving goes, would be navigating the country roads just a couple of miles from the roundabout. These involve tight turns, around which you might meet a sheep or a bicyclist, requirements to give way where visibility is not great, potholes to avoid and potential debris in the road from tree branches to horse muck. (Oh, yes, and knowing how to pass a horse and rider travelling in the opposite direction.) If a Tesla could do all of that, I'd be impressed. But the Magic Roundabout? Pah.

Here's the Tesla in action - of course it looks impressive, but we are looking at it through human eyes:

Tesla image from Unsplash+ by Tesla Fans Schweiz. Magic roundabout image from Wikipedia by Hk kng, cmglee

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:

See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Search This Blog