Cycling UK Forum

Jdsk wrote:

mjr wrote:

Jdsk wrote:And they can contribute to the decrease in personal car ownership. That can make it easier for people to choose to walk or cycle for each journey. And can reduce on-street parking.

Will the benefit of reduced street parking outweigh the discouragement of increased motor traffic due to empty vehicles travelling to pick up their next fares?

It could, but of course that depends on the distance to base and the number of empty journeys.

But as with everything else in transport if you don't have an integrated policy you shouldn't expect to maximise the benefits of any single intervention. In this case I'd like to see restrictions on motorised vehicles in residential streets, and that doesn't need to wait for widespread uptake of AVs. But restrictions will be much more acceptable if personal car ownership decreases.

Jonathan

As with all things, I'm guessing there will be a tipping point at which take-up means that the AI that controls their routes, availability, charging etc will be able to optimise things to maximise their level of usage - it figures highly in trucking, I know - never run an empty truck being the maxim.

Another tipping point is when they reach a density such that they also start to autonomously optimise traffic flows (because cooperation, and I'm sure lots of other factors), and reduce congestion.

...but first we've got to teach 'em in challenging conditions like Oxford.

Bonefishblues wrote:... it figures highly in trucking, I know - never run an empty truck being the maxim.

30% of journeys in the UK in 2016.
https://greenfleet.net/news/11122017/research-project-tackle-empty-truck-journeys

That sounds utterly depressing, but I have no idea how much is avoidable.

Jonathan

IMO the overriding factor is that we live in a market economy, in which the manufacture, sale and use of motor vehicles play an important role as ... er ... drivers of the economy. There are reasons why this may be seen as undesirable but it's a fact.

I can imagine a quicker adoption of autonomous vehicles for long-distance movement of freight than for private cars ie something broadly similar to the MK robots but in a 40 tonne format moving only on motorways and perhaps some D/Cs overnight between freight hubs built near motorway junctions. Amazon has recently opened a big depot just off the M1 in East Leeds.

Private cars, including and perhaps especially those used as "company cars" are fundamentally different as they are used for more than just getting around. The big money for the industry is in the sophisticated models, rather than the runabouts. AIUI, most of the technology for autonomous vehicles is already developed and increasingly available in production cars on the trickle-down principle. This type of technology is typically labelled "Assist" eg Lane Assist to keep a car in a running lane. The point about this carefully-chosen designation is that it plays to the driver's wish to be in control.

The imperative then, in terms of the car trade, is to make autonomous cars attractive to the users of luxury cars to lead the rest of the market. As I keep posting, not everybody is attracted to a car which is programmed to be totally law-abiding, especially complying with speed limits. Even if autonomous cars eventually become universal, it's important to remember that there will be a transition period with plenty of what I'll call legacy vehicles still in use. Nobody but nobody is going to shell out big money to trundle about in a car complying with speed limits while 02 reg bangers zip by.

So, IMO, both systems mentioned above are small steps towards marketing this technology.

Perhaps a variant of the MK system might be developed to provide autonomous wheelchairs in suitable locations.

Third crank raises a good point there that autonomous cars arrive not in a bang but by creeping in with increments like lane assist.

Jdsk wrote:There will be big advantages in access, for example for the visually impaired.

This is a good point, probably undervalued.

And they can contribute to the decrease in personal car ownership. That can make it easier for people to choose to walk or cycle or use public transport for each journey. And can reduce on-street parking.

That presumes the desire for ownership, for personalisation, will decrease. People use their cars for so much more than just transport, I'm not sure this is true. On a simply practical note, you can't leave personal items in a hired car. On an emotional one, you don't feel it's yours, special. And you don't get the adrenaline kick of ownership.

Bmblbzzz wrote:On a simply practical note, you can't leave personal items in a hired car.

But on the same simply practical note, we have been told for many years not to leave personal items in any car, lest they get stolen (either from or with the car). Insurers are probably going to be massively supportive of a change that discourages it!

Bmblbzzz wrote:

Jdsk wrote:And they can contribute to the decrease in personal car ownership. That can make it easier for people to choose to walk or cycle or use public transport for each journey. And can reduce on-street parking.

That presumes the desire for ownership, for personalisation, will decrease. People use their cars for so much more than just transport, I'm not sure this is true. On a simply practical note, you can't leave personal items in a hired car. On an emotional one, you don't feel it's yours, special. And you don't get the adrenaline kick of ownership.

I wouldn't make any grand claims for the size of the effect of AVs. But it's a pressure in the same direction as:

young people's choices (and that includes not having a licence as well as not owning a car):
https://info.uwe.ac.uk/news/uwenews/news.aspx?id=3754
and
decarbonisation
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmsctech/1454/145403.htm#_idTextAnchor000

And, as you say, there are pressures in the opposite direction.

Jonathan

Here's one estimate of what could make a difference:


https://www.theengineer.co.uk/car-ownership-poll/

Of course those responses on remote working are before the current outbreak!

Jonathan

mjr wrote:

Bmblbzzz wrote:On a simply practical note, you can't leave personal items in a hired car.

But on the same simply practical note, we have been told for many years not to leave personal items in any car, lest they get stolen (either from or with the car). Insurers are probably going to be massively supportive of a change that discourages it!

You just have to look at the little pools of car window glass to see how many people nevertheless use their cars as wardrobes and offices. I counted four on two short streets the other day.

@jdsk raises the important use of AV to transport the visually impaired. Both Light-Electric AV (LEAV) and Heavy-polluting-motor-vehicle-AV (HPMVAV) will be able to do this. The LEAV will have the advantage as it will be able to do door-door and even into buildings like flats, shops, supermarkets etc, think autonomous mobility buggy. The LEAV will be able to take a passenger as well as goods whereas the HPMVAV will need the goods transported to where the motor vehicle is parked.

LEAV also coexists well with pedestrians and cyclists. Here is another possible advantage that when our glorious leaders eventually twig that small light vehicles can distribute goods using less energy and causing less pollution and destroying the roads/paths more slowly - this incentivises the building of greenways.

HPMVAV is also programmed to 'run-over-the-buggers'. This is how the woman cyclist got killed by the HPMVAV as she was not crossing on a pedestrian crossing the car said 'probably tumbleweed'. LEAV are inherently safer because of their lower speed, lower weight, and they are programmed to be cautious.

LEAV can be parked inside businesses, houses, and flats when not being used so will lead to less congestion on the streets. HPMVAV will need mass queues on our streets just as we do with black cabs in London.

LEAV may also be able to provide a security patrolling function on our greenways to prevent/discourage attacks on cyclists and pedestrians. Cranebridge has seen vicious unprovoked attacks on young men on the greenways which are not patrolled by police who are in cars.

atlas_shrugged wrote:HPMVAV is also programmed to 'run-over-the-buggers'. This is how the woman cyclist got killed by the HPMVAV as she was not crossing on a pedestrian crossing the car said 'probably tumbleweed'.

Have you got a source for that, please?

Thanks

Jonathan

IIUC correctly you're comparing car-like AVs with LEAVs as if they were interchangeable for many purposes. As before:

Jdsk wrote:What fraction of the current number of heavy car-like vehicles do you think will be on public roads in the UK in 10y time? I think that it's over 50%.

Thanks

Jonathan

Uber warned about AV before fatal crash killing cyclist:

https://www.bicycling.com/news/a2561655 ... h-cyclist/

In 10 years time I am guessing 2% of people will be making point-to-point AV journeys using HPMVAV and 60% of people will make some use of delivery by LEAV.

I am hoping that LEAV will make the case for greenways in all our towns and cities. But a major barrier is poor leadership by our MPs.

Re the suggestion of a mobile surveillance system with CCTV in autonomous vehicles, I can't see how that would suit a small one any better than something bigger / much bigger. As it is, we've loads of CCTV already (more than any other comparable country?) and most of it seems to go unmonitored. FWIW, I think drones will be the next big thing in this type of surveillance.

@thirdcrank

The reason greenways have no surveillance by HPMVAV is because they can not travel along the greenways. The greenways in places e.g. Cranebridge are often completely segregated from the roads. They are often quiet places e.g. alongside rivers, and the misguided busway. They are perfect places for scumbags like drug dealers (because they are not patrolled). LEAV like the MK ones already have audio and video capability. This is fed back to a patrol room. So the LEAV has the capability to raise the alarm e.g. if there are calls of distress.