reidconti

Citation?

All I could find is this, which is for the US, and I don't think it covers bicycles. 11% of motor vehicle fatalities are pedestrians.
https://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/crashstats.cfm

I can imagine pedestrian death rates would be higher in nations with.. slightly more chaotic driving.

Still, >50% sounds large.

genec

Neither one delivers door to door service.

I recently tried doing a temporary commute of some 30+ miles using local train service... the last train left the station at 5:30PM. How freaking convenient.

Now imagine having a chauffeur... who happens to drive the speed limit and allows you to do whatever you want in the back seat... that is the model for self driving cars... not Amtrak or Greyhound.

genec

Exactly.

Roughstuff

Buses and local trains are such an inconvenience that some communities are thinking of giving vouchers to use taxis and gypsy cabs, instead of subsidizing bus systems.

I am heading down to DC from WMass in a few days using the train...sure hope its better than your experinece Genec. Wouldn't want to fly or drive, though. Would have biked in better climate.

Anyway..for starters, I just wish 'smart cars' would do a few simple things...

(1) prevent drivers from going over the speed limit; and
(2) take a big step forward in avoiding accidents by preventing running red lights, rear end fender benders, etc. All that would be necessary for this is for the cars to 'talk' to the lights at an intersection, and with the car directly in front of them. Shouldn't be too hard.


roughstuff

genec

The sad thing with my train experience is that it was a beautiful setting, right along the coast... and if I combined bike with train it would have given me about 5-7 miles of bike commuting, and about 30 miles with the train. The train was very nice and had plenty of racks for bikes, but their schedule was hosed. If you work until 5:00, you need time to get to the station... I just could not believe the last train was at 5:30.

I ended up having to drive 34 miles each way for a month.

Now I have a new job 4.5 miles from home. 7.5 miles by the best streets to bike commute. And the best part is it takes over a half hour to drive as there are so many cars clogging the streets. I can actually bike it in 40 minutes... only because a bike lane exists. If there were no BL, it would be heck trying to fight the bumper to bumper traffic. Even at 8MPH, up the steep hills, I move far faster than motor traffic.

sggoodri

It's not just worse drivers and worse roads, but the fact that in much of the world, the majority of road users are pedestrians and cyclists, put in danger by a minority group of motorists. Also, many of them have a poor understanding of traffic safety because they are not trained drivers themselves.

In previous years it was over half; this year it seems to have dipped under half:

https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/.../en/index.html

Glynis27

Well, to be fair, those devices have been found to increase survivability for crash victims by quite a bit. It makes sense that car manufacturers install these items on their cars. I would have no problem driving around without a seatbelt if I were the only driver on the road, but that is not the case. I have also removed airbags, ABS and cruise control from my car. Removing my airbag may be kinda silly, but it would only go off if I ran head-on into something. I plan on not doing that. I am still more protected than if I were on my bike.

ABS and traction control, however, remove control from the driver and are a crutch for those drivers who are under qualified or who lack common sense. Instead of paying attention and adjusting their driving to the road conditions, they rely on the car's systems to keep them on the road. "Oh, you don't know how to use your brakes correctly? That's ok, you can still drive because the brakes will sense your ham-feet stomping down and do the braking for you" or "It's cold, icy and snowy. You should know this and slow down, but instead this computer will try and keep you on the road. Go ahead and floor it." It's just asinine that cars and laws are designed around the population's worst drivers/citizens. It messes things up for the rest of us. As long as I can still drive a normal car without the laws or insurance companies forcing me to convert, I will be ok.

I'm getting off track. I'm done.

sauerwald

Actually Glynis27, I don't think that you were very much off track. If drivers were well trained and responsible, there would be much less need for driving robots. The fact is that we can't rely on drivers being well trained, and that has led to things like ABS to make up for drivers who do not have the skill or training to operate their vehicles safely. Technology like ABS and traction control increase survivability and reduce crash rates for unskilled drivers. As a society we have decided that driving is a right, not a privilege - I know that legally it is not this way, but the reality is, it is very difficult to prove yourself such a bad driver that your 'privilege' is taken away. Given that, I don't think that it is that much of a stretch to allow robotic driving so that the right to drive can be truly universal.

Glynis27

I guess I can agree with this. I would rather have unskilled drivers being chauffeured around by computers instead of worrying about them crashing into me. It would make those few times I do drive even more enjoyable and less stressful. However, I do fear that laws or insurance would force everybody to have automatic driving cars, and I just won't go for that as long as I prove I am safe behind the wheel.

Wogster

Most likely a self-drive system would need to be able to detect other vehicles using some form of transponder, wouldn't be hard to mount a battery powered transponder on a bicycle,, might not even need to be visible. The self drive car would send out a radio wave, the transponder would receive that, and send a signal back. A transponder that is GPS enabled could encode it's position in the signal it sends out. The Self drive car knowing where the bicycle is, could easily make sure that it leaves the proper clearance when passing. When coming up to a stop sign the Self drive car would also detect the approaching bicycle, and act appropriately.

Where this could also be useful is traffic lights, the light could also make use of the transponder, detecting the bicycle and triggering a cycle change. The issue is that self drive cars are at least 20 years off, and coordinating adding transponders to all vehicles that could be on the road would probably take 10 years itself.

genec

Ultimately you may not have a choice... it could be that gasoline becomes scarce and the only fuel available is for self driving cars; your choice then would be either to bike or use a self driving car.

Artkansas 

Roughstuff

ABS makes adjustments much faster and much more reliably than almost ANY driver short of a NASCAR trained rider. For decades people told drivers to steer with the skid; but it is very counterintuitive. Nor can a driver assign the brake and power to different front wheels with anything RESEMBLING the accuracy and speed that the computer would do, if they can it at all.

Some cyclists resent auto technology because it increases the superiority of the automobiile as a mode of transportation. Wonderful agenda....if we could just make every other form of transportation less safe, , more people might ride bicycles.

roughstuff

mustang1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRF_K...rom=PL&index=2

TRaffic Jammer

I can't remember where but I've seen self drive video tests. I'm imaging that the proximity and vectoring software regarding evasive/collision avoidance tech in these cars will simply factor in the cyclist as another logic process. Add to it the combination of heat signature/IR and body shape, then human avoidance priority settings would kick in. I do believe the main thrust of this technology will be highway driving to avoid pileups and help the commute along, and realize massive fuel savings enmass.

It wasn't the above video I saw, the one I saw was more about the logic and the sensors. I really do like the "learning" approach taken in that video ... very cool.

prathmann

The system can't only depend on such active transponder devices since the car would need to react to a variety of road obstacles - fallen trees or branches, rock slides, deer and other animals, children, etc. that would not be transponder-equipped. But there are very good radar and sonar devices that can provide the data for detecting hazards in the car's path - including cyclists.

Roughstuff

By the way one feature about self driving cars---if they indeed end up being safer, with fewer collisions etc---perhaps they could also be lighter and therefore more fuel efficient.

roughstuff

Digital_Cowboy

Very interesting video clip. Why is that the new cars don't have the ability to communicate with each other?

Given that most if not all newer cars have GPS' built into them. The ability for cars to be able to communicate with each other they would be able to know where each car is on the road.

For bicycles and horse and buggies and other similar vehicles, the stand alone GPS' could also be programmed to communicate with the GPS' in the cars. So that their road position could be known.

And through having the cars communicating with each other sharing GPS data if the following/passing car got to close it could be programmed to slow down to a safer speed.

Also all of those ubiquitous road reflectors could be setup to communicate with the car. So that if it's raining the car could be slowed down, likewise if the car is approaching a blind curve.

In that way the driver would still have control of the car, but in certain circumstances the car can take limited control.

Also with with the cars GPS' communicating with each other emergency vehicles would also be able to override cars and slow them down and direct them towards the side of the road.

Roughstuff

Goodness some very interesting applications. Is there an app for that? In any case, it shows an excellent example of how self driving cars can drastically improve performance on the roadways. To keep the system sane and minimize 'learning curve errors,' I hope we introduce these new applications with some patience.

roughstuff

genec

Our current GPS system while quite accurate using the right algorithms, is somewhat dependent on accurate maps, which we don't yet have. Of course over time, the demand for better data could result in the accuracy we need.

TRaffic Jammer

Autonomous cars cannot use GPS as the primary navigator. Any communication lost between car/car/sat could be disastrous and hackable. All systems will need to be self contained within the vehicle to be viable. A "grid" of cars being controlled by a single source could be terrible news.

genec

true that. the Darpa challenges allowed GPS use only for coarse course correction.

TRaffic Jammer

https://www.technologyreview.com/read....aspx?id=18908
The DARPA challenge?

DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) test the car and determine if it proceeds to the next round in the Urban Challenge.
LEARN ABOUT DARPA

DARPA is the research and development arm of the U.S. Department of Defense. DARPA's mission is to maintain the technological superiority of the U.S. military and prevent technological surprise from threatening our national security.

DARPA funds unique and innovative research through the private sector, academic and other non-profit organizations as well as government labs.

DARPA research runs the gamut from conducting scientific investigations in a laboratory, to building full-scale prototypes of military systems. We fund research in biology, medicine, computer science, chemistry, physics, engineering, mathematics, material sciences, social sciences, neuroscience, and more.

DARPA research projects evolve into military use through technology transition.

This is NOT who you want to control your autonomous car technology. You think you're making it safer for everyone on the roads and then your research is suddenly installed into autonomous drones in the air and on the ground. Self guided car bombs, hunter/killer air drones (which we already have), ah no more DARPA entries please...back to lab geeks we're selling the next one to Mercedes.

Roughstuff

Correct. IT also violates the KISS principle. WE need to walk slowly before we run, and learn along the way. The first task is to allow cars to 'talk to one another ' and avoid accidents; talk to traffic lights and and coordinate movement; etc. Zillions of cars as part of a satellite network would be considerable further down the line.

roughstuff

genec

Uh, no, we don't want DARPA controlling our cars, but like many other technological advances from air travel to computers to cell phones, a government/military initiative was the first step that allowed those advances to be made available to the public. Even our interstate freeways and GPS systems all have military history.

And yes, the DARPA challenge has already succeeded in producing self drive vehicles... although I understand that DARPA also chose a funding path for one company based on their military-connection basis rather than their ability to meet the challenge.

Volvo and Audi are already working on self drive technology.

https://www.self-drivingcar.com/blogs.php
https://www.motorward.com/2009/10/sel...goes-rallying/
https://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1...f-driving-cars

Even VW has thrown it's hat into the ring.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07..._driving_golf/

Top Gear in a self drive BMW on a track... at race speed.
https://videos.streetfire.net/video/1...ing_180380.htm

So I certainly would not worry about DARPA being the "the one in control."