CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Commuting

Driverless cars (and buses)

(113 posts)

  1. Rosie
    Member

    Article in the current Private Eye:- (PS - is there a self-driving thread?)

    There's a cheap and tried technology for getting the urban traveller efficiently through cities.

    From Private Eye

    ROAD RAGE

    Ministers’ enthusiasm for robo-cars – handy distraction from the government’s dire road-safety record – won’t be dented by the recent death of a pedestrian in Arizona hit by an Uber car in self-drive mode.

    New medicines undergo masses of tests before humans take them, yet various governments, including our own, are eager to unleash potentially lethal self-drive vehicles quickly. In 2014 our austerity-obsessed government found £10m for a “driverless car trial”. Last year it predicted: “Fully self-driving cars will be on the UK roads in as little as three years.”

    Robo-cars are emerging because technology makes them possible, not because there’s pressing need for them. Their chief proponents – huge motor and technology corporations – say the vehicles would eliminate the many accidents caused by driver error. What they don’t mention is the other types of accidents that would proliferate unless taxpayers splash out on adapting and improving the road infrastructure.

    Robo-cars’ safety would also depend on big changes to the way other legitimate road users – including pedestrians and cyclists – get around, and on an infallible cyber-security regime – something the world’s cleverest computer boffins have yet to produce.

    The supposed safety benefits of self-driving vehicles are music to the ears of Tory ministers, who love trumpeting vague improvements in the distant future to divert attention from inaction today. Thus environment secretary Michael Gove has banned saes of new diesel and petrol cars from 2040 while Britain falls far short of meeting its 2010 clean-air deadlines; and transport secretary Chris Grayling flags up unproven hydrogen and battery trains while reneging on promises of further deployment of super-efficient electric trains.

    Robo-cars are a convenient distraction from Britain’s grim safety record. In the year to September 2017, 27010 people were killed or seriously injured on Great Britain’s roads. The number of traffic police fell by about 24 percent from 2012 to 2017, according to data from two-thirds of forces. Duty on road fuel has been frozen for eight years, while public transport fares have rocketed, stimulating extra road traffic; small increases to fuel duty could have funded proper maintenance and repairs on our roads. Robo-cars would need far better maintenance of roads, including painted lines, but the cost of getting our roads to that standard rises with every additional year of neglect.

    Some of the technology underpinning robo-cars is well established. “Intelligent” speed limiters and black-box data recorders could be made compulsory in human-driven vehicles. But Tory ministers have opposed both on grounds of “privacy” and “data protection” and “Big Brother nannying” – while brimming with enthusiasm for self-driving cars which would usher in Big Brother nannying and data-protection issues in spades.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  2. Baldcyclist
    Member

    There's much debate beginning to brew on the expansion of autonomous vehicles. Seems they aren't as safe as we were initially told, and the thought is now that in-car technology will never be enough to ensure the public are completely safe, and the only way to 'ensure' safety is to transfer the technology to people, and objects.

    Essentially the car industry is beginning to envisage a world where pedestrians and cyclists use beacons as a means of being detected by autonomous vehicles. Trek seem to be the first bike company signed up for this future, and is currently developing technology for it's high-end bikes which will alert cars of their presence.

    Of course there are many ethical questions which should come long before the technological ones, privacy, data sharing for sure are key concerns, but there is a developing feeling that somehow we are sleepwalking into a future where the only way this will technically work is if whole populations are mandated to wear these beacons, or somehow they will be responsible for their death/injury if hit by an autonomous vehicle.

    Some interesting news articles here:
    https://www.bikebiz.com/search?query=beacon

    Posted 6 years ago #
  3. neddie
    Member

    There is already tech available to make human-driving much safer (and already fitted to a very limited no. of cars), namely:

    - GPS controlled speed limiters.
    - Black boxes.
    - Automatic emergency braking.
    - Reducing the power output of the engine.

    And yet these are not widely fitted, citing reasons of privacy, security & cost...

    But somehow we are supposed to accept expensive autonomous vehicles sharing data with everyone and anyone (Google, Facebook, Uber...) as kind of mobile-advertising-debt-instruments.

    Deal with the basics first by making speed limiters, black boxes, etc. mandatory for human drivers, and then I'll start to believe the AV nonsense...

    Posted 6 years ago #
  4. Baldcyclist
    Member

    There was a stat, or quote I heard or read somewhere recently, maybe on the Spokesmen cycling round-table podcast, can't be sure or cite; that said that "the data gathered from a person using an autonomous vehicle is 3000 times more valuable than the data that is currently scraped from facebook"

    If the data is worth that much, then you can be guaranteed that whether we want them or not AV is coming...

    Posted 6 years ago #
  5. neddie
    Member

    whole populations are mandated to wear these beacons

    As with any tech, it will be easy to create decoys out of these beacons.

    Like the time multi-million dollar Israeli weaponry was fooled by $50 decoys.

    3 x 6 peleton of decoy cyclists should ensure wide passes. Or how about scattering a load of decoys on the city bypass, causing "chaos"?

    Posted 6 years ago #
  6. Baldcyclist
    Member

    "3 x 6 peleton of decoy cyclists should ensure wide passes. Or how about scattering a load of decoys on the city bypass, causing "chaos"? "

    That's the type of scenario that leads some to think that basically 'Jaywalking 2.0' will be 'invented' to keep pedestrians and cyclists away form the roads.

    One of the benefits of AV that is sold is that these new cars won't require as much roads space (narrower lanes), and so more space can be allocated to peds / cyclists.

    (I'm not stating *my* views, just some of the comment I've heard. I find it an interesting topic)

    Posted 6 years ago #
  7. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

  8. acsimpson
    Member

    Although the glimmer of hope is that the articles moves on to talk about how cities are moving away from the car.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  9. Baldcyclist
    Member

    One of the sold benefits of these cars is that in our future utopia, we won't need to give as much space to cars. Lanes will be much narrower because the cars will be able to drive much closer to each other than humans currently can in conventional cars.

    No imagination of cyclists on the roads in that 'utopia'.

    Whether that means we'll have our dedicated infrastructure we so crave, or be obsolete is open to interpretation...

    Posted 5 years ago #
  10. acsimpson
    Member

    "One of the sold benefits of these cars is that in our future utopia, we won't need to give as much space to cars."

    There are certain shades of the indi/brexit ref debates here. Those who aren't talking about the status quo can make up whatever they like with no need to provide much in the way of solid evidence. They just need to make it sound plausible.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  11. neddie
    Member

    Yeah sure, traffic lanes will get narrower...

    Untitled by Ed, on Flickr

    Or maybe not, based on current trends of ever larger vehicles...

    Posted 5 years ago #
  12. Rosie
    Member

    Article on the EU Commission’s backing of the self-driving car. Automatically seen as progress. No sceptical voices allowed. I suppose high ups in the EU Commission are driven about everywhere.

    Commuters would use such a vehicle so they could work/watch porn as they’re driven to work. It’s the car as capsule and private space. That is the great attraction of a car – that it is your very own room on wheels.

    So the self-driving car is a modern form of chauffeur. In the early days of motoring the early adopters, who were rich and employed a staff of servants, did use chauffeurs.

    https://euobserver.com/science/143367

    Posted 5 years ago #
  13. steveo
    Member

    So the self-driving car is a modern form of chauffeur.

    In the long run more likely a cab, one would own neither the vehicle or the staff but would pay to rent it for the journey. The very wealthy might choose to own their own SD car but I suspect they'll be too expensive for the majority.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  14. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Commuters would use such a vehicle so they could work/watch porn as they’re driven to work

    When I was little I thought the future might hold 'mystic crystal revelations and the mind's true liberation' simply because I hadn't considered vehicular onanism.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  15. Rosie
    Member

    @steveo - I dunno. A car is a driver's own particular space with bits and pieces kept in it - kids' toys and so on. I can still see people wanting to keep that space.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  16. toomanybikes
    Member

    @rosie but the cost of that space is huge. It could be as much as a 20 fold increase in the cost of car use to own one. (calculated if you ignore temporal variation in car use, because they sit stationary 95% of the time, car sharing reduces the cost by 20x, also assuming that electric "fuel" is essentially free at 3p per mile ).

    It could be even higher once you then become responsible for the then required storage.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  17. crowriver
    Member

    @Rosie, aye folk treat cars like mobile living rooms. Nowadays many have the leather armchairs and entertainment systems to match that usage.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  18. steveo
    Member

    @rosie you don't have to tell me my car is a midden between the kids and my wife (and more rarely me) but I'd be more than happy to ditch that mess and liability if a car could be sent to me on (relatively) short notice.

    I think what I'd miss is places poorly served by public transport but that would be a fairly long/expensive drive in a SD car. Pentlands would be fine in fact ideal opening up linear runs but places like glentress or the Highlands would become more difficult to access. Let's face it munro bagging is largely facilitated by cheap access to personal transport. Some of the stories from the intra war years about climbers and out door folks leaving town on a Friday night hitching as far as they could before finding a doss for the night would make most walkers these days wince.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  19. acsimpson
    Member

    I have some friends in London who are bagging the Munros. They catch the Friday night Train North. I suspect they have hired a car where required though.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  20. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    munro bagging is largely facilitated by cheap access to personal transport

    Why do you think the A9 was dualled?

    Posted 5 years ago #
  21. unhurt
    Member

    @steveo when I was a student at Glasgow one of my friends spent a lot more time in the hills climbing/ice climbing/skiing than he did actually in Glasgow going to lectures*, and he pretty much always hitched there and back (usually getting the train to Balloch and walking out of town to thumb a lift).

    *this resulted in a 3rd, but I think he felt his time in Scotland was well-spent

    Posted 5 years ago #
  22. crowriver
    Member

    "Some of the stories from the intra war years about climbers and out door folks leaving town on a Friday night hitching as far as they could before finding a doss for the night would make most walkers these days wince."

    Rural bus services did actually exist in those days though, and the rail network was much bigger than after the Beeching cuts.

    But yes, today's hikers have become very used to the convenience of having a car to get them as close as possible to their chosen challenge.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  23. unhurt
    Member

    This reminds me - I should actually read (rather than dip in & out of) my copy of The Ancient Pinewoods of Scotland: A Traveller's Guide by Clifton Bain - he visits many (all? I dipped!) by bike, foot & public transport.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  24. chrisfl
    Member

    Not cars, but it does seem like Stagecoch are looking at introducing an autonomous bus service from Ferrytoll to Edinburgh Part, https://www.eventbrite.com/e/cav-forth-autonomous-bus-drop-in-edinburgh-park-tickets-69836650301?aff=ebdssbdestsearch

    Posted 4 years ago #
  25. duncans
    Member

    The workplace poster:

    Some clarity on the route would be helpful, but if using the 'public transport corridor' it will encounter cyclists and pedestrians, and either way on the A8.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  26. HankChief
    Member

    I understood the plan was to run them along the M8 to Hermiston Gate.

    What would happen if any of the route was blocked is anyone's guess.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  27. duncans
    Member

    The route as published in the totally reliable evening news is impossible, but implies old road bridge.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  28. acsimpson
    Member

    @duncans, Am I missing something which makes that route impossible? The FRB is not designated as a "public transport corridor" so would be the logical choice for such a service.

    Other than the northern bridge access roads this route should be entirely free of pedestrians and cyclists. I wonder if they have taken into account that cyclists are using road between the FRB and the Ferrytoll junction.

    There was also a suggestion that a pedestrian crossing is being considered at the southern end of the bridge which would possibly affect this.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  29. Frenchy
    Member

    Am I missing something which makes that route impossible?

    I can't see how you get from the A9000 to the M90 when going south.

    Heading north I think is possible by going via Ferrymuir Road - although that's not what the map shows, but that could just be a simplification.

    EDIT: Openstreetmap shows some "emergency" only lanes connecting the two roads, which the buses could conceivably be allowed to use.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  30. duncans
    Member

    @acsimpson ... the FRB is designated as a 'public transport corridor'...it's the route busses take.

    As Frenchy points out, the issue is with access to the M90 from the existing FRB. Southbound may be possible with some re-engineering, Northbound is more of an issue.

    Presently busses access the FRB via the A904. If there was speedier access direct to the M90, they'd be doing that already.

    Posted 4 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin