Could the non-drivers not take a train?

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Jdsk
Posts: 5178
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Could the non-drivers not take a train?

Postby Jdsk » 11 Nov 2020, 9:43am

atlas_shrugged wrote:Uber warned about AV before fatal crash killing cyclist:

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

Thanks

Jonathan

Jdsk
Posts: 5178
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Could the non-drivers not take a train?

Postby Jdsk » 11 Nov 2020, 9:46am

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%.

atlas_shrugged wrote: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.

But that's the answer to a different question. The point that I'm trying to make is that there will be a lot of heavy car-like vehicles on traditional roads for the foreseeable future, and if there is technology that will make that safer for other road users we should adopt it as quickly as possible. (And that will require testing.)

Jonathan

atlas_shrugged
Posts: 469
Joined: 8 Nov 2016, 7:50pm

Re: Could the non-drivers not take a train?

Postby atlas_shrugged » 11 Nov 2020, 10:19am

In 10 years time in our cities I am guessing 60% of all journeys will be by LEV (escooters, ebikes, ebuggies etc).

Jdsk
Posts: 5178
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Could the non-drivers not take a train?

Postby Jdsk » 11 Nov 2020, 10:21am

And outside cities? One of the attractions to owners of traditional cars is the number of different modes of travel that they offer.

Jonathan

thirdcrank
Posts: 30529
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Could the non-drivers not take a train?

Postby thirdcrank » 11 Nov 2020, 10:32am

atlas_shrugged wrote:@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.


I do get that. eg read any of my posts about policing canal towpaths. Ditto pedestrian subways in places like Bradford, where a big CCTV project failed because nobody was monitoring it.

Talking of getting it, I don't think you realise how much developments in the UK are influenced by market forces. Levels of new car sales are routinely treated as a measure of the state of the economy. Re autonomous vehicles in particular, UK governments have for some time been keen to facilitate their development.

I'd be interested to know if anybody can point to a country with more of a command economy perhaps, which has introduced regulations compelling the introduction of autonomous vehicles.

Re my comments about the importance of top-of-the-range models to the car industry and the wider economy, there's a report in the Daily T business section (but not online) saying that Direct Line has taken a hit because fewer posh cars are being registered because of current economic uncertainty.

Jdsk
Posts: 5178
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Could the non-drivers not take a train?

Postby Jdsk » 11 Nov 2020, 10:57am

thirdcrank wrote:I'd be interested to know if anybody can point to a country with more of a command economy perhaps, which has introduced regulations compelling the introduction of autonomous vehicles.

I can't.

There's a convenient review of what's happening in China from McKinsey, before the outbreak:
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/how-china-will-help-fuel-the-revolution-in-autonomous-vehicles#

And here's an overview of what's happening and what's planned in the EU:
https://www.acea.be/uploads/publications/ACEA_Automated_Driving_Roadmap.pdf
NB Long period of some technology that stop short of autonomy, and interaction with smart road technology.

Jonathan

atlas_shrugged
Posts: 469
Joined: 8 Nov 2016, 7:50pm

Re: Could the non-drivers not take a train?

Postby atlas_shrugged » 11 Nov 2020, 11:02am

@jdsk
And outside cities?

That is a great question. How do we crack this one to help sustainable transport? My own suggestion is to build long distance greenways. These should support LV direct and non-stop into city centres. This essentially comes down to:

Greenways .vs. Expressway debate

IMHO we need to build Greenways because these support direct point-to-point journeys using sustainable transport with LV. It is no longer possible to build Expressways into medieval city centres and so mode shifting is required (e.g. park and ride or consolidation centres). Mode shifting will be very slow, unreliable, and expensive (Oxford train station closed, buses in jams, car parking charges etc). Greenways allow the fastest journey into city centre destinations together with the ability to use the transport for multiple trips within the city. Greenways will also allow poor and vulnerable people (visually impaired, children, OAPs etc) to have mobility. Other modes especially public transport will be too expensive.

Cranebridge is having a go at building greenways now. However they need to go into the city centre, be direct (no right angle turns), be non-stop, be high-spec, be safe. Not sure they will do this but here is hoping!

thirdcrank
Posts: 30529
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Could the non-drivers not take a train?

Postby thirdcrank » 11 Nov 2020, 12:02pm

By coincidence:

Britain's first ROBOT delivery vehicle completes maiden journey on London roads... but don't expect it to bring you large parcels

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/car ... shift.html

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17971
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Could the non-drivers not take a train?

Postby [XAP]Bob » 13 Nov 2020, 12:10pm

Bmblbzzz wrote:All crossings should have dropped kerbs (or raised carriageway surfaces) anyway.

But yes, it is gimmicky. Proof of principle maybe.



Ad a wheelchair user I’d far rather raised carriageway, the camber on pavements as they constantly drop for every driveway is a right pain in the roadside arm (which does all the work on a pavement).
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

Jdsk
Posts: 5178
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Could the non-drivers not take a train?

Postby Jdsk » 13 Nov 2020, 12:12pm

[XAP]Bob wrote:
Bmblbzzz wrote:All crossings should have dropped kerbs (or raised carriageway surfaces) anyway.

But yes, it is gimmicky. Proof of principle maybe.

Ad a wheelchair user I’d far rather raised carriageway, the camber on pavements as they constantly drop for every driveway is a right pain in the roadside arm (which does all the work on a pavement).

I didn't know that... how about crossings as opposed to driveways?

Thanks

Jonathan

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3751
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Could the non-drivers not take a train?

Postby Bmblbzzz » 13 Nov 2020, 1:37pm

We seem to be talking about slightly different, though connected, things.

Driveways almost always have dropped kerbs at the carriageway edge. Just occasionally you see miniature ramps instead. But some driveways also have dropped kerbs across the width of the pavement; so instead of the vehicle entering the driveway having to rise to the level of the pavement, the people on the pavement drop to the level of the carriageway (then rise again immediately). This, I think, is what XAP Bob is talking about. He describes it from a wheelchair user's perspective but I think it's valid for everyone. Apart from the physical obstacles to users of wheelchairs, balance bikes and whatever, it psychologically marks out that the driver is entering pedestrian territory not the other way round.

At crossings it's very rare for carriageway to rise to pavement level, but where it is done, it's also an effective speed breaker.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17971
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Could the non-drivers not take a train?

Postby [XAP]Bob » 16 Nov 2020, 12:07pm

Jdsk wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:
Bmblbzzz wrote:All crossings should have dropped kerbs (or raised carriageway surfaces) anyway.

But yes, it is gimmicky. Proof of principle maybe.

Ad a wheelchair user I’d far rather raised carriageway, the camber on pavements as they constantly drop for every driveway is a right pain in the roadside arm (which does all the work on a pavement).

I didn't know that... how about crossings as opposed to driveways?

Thanks

Jonathan



The difficulty is camber on the pavement. There is usually enough camber (for drainage reasons) to strongly favour the roadside arm anyway; but dropped kerbs provide a regular change of direction for a wheelchair user - always *onto* the road (i.e. the less safe direction).

Crossings tend to be less frequent, and they are usually at corners - raised table junctions would be easier for chair users, but they would then need increased amounts of kerbs/textured pavement etc for the visually impaired (textured pavements are another challenge for a wheelchair, but they are both relatively rare and absolutely vital for other road users, so there's no complaint about those).

Whilst going past any dropped kerb is annoying it's specifically drives that happen very frequently - and that causes it's own issues.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

Jdsk
Posts: 5178
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Could the non-drivers not take a train?

Postby Jdsk » 16 Nov 2020, 12:15pm

Thank you.

Jonathan

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3751
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Could the non-drivers not take a train?

Postby Bmblbzzz » 16 Nov 2020, 1:59pm

Thanks for the explanation Bob. Good to be able to try to see these features as they affect others who have to deal with them.

atlas_shrugged
Posts: 469
Joined: 8 Nov 2016, 7:50pm

Re: Could the non-drivers not take a train?

Postby atlas_shrugged » 16 Nov 2020, 2:37pm

@Bob

Thanks very much for enlightening everybody about problems caused by poor camber on pavements. I am absolutely onside with you on this issue. In Cranebridge you can often see wheelchair users struggling and tired on bumpy old worn out pavements and they push their chairs with only one hand. It only takes about 0.1sec to understand that this is because of the poor camber and the chap needs to maintain direction.

One other example of problems caused by driveways is when my daughter cycled on a shared pavement (with me on the road beside as a shield). She picked up speed but then was destabilised by a driveway dip before she finally crashed into a bin on the shared path. So these driveways proveably cause crashes and household furniture (e.g. bins) is placed on the path because it has clearly been given secondary status to the driveway.

So Bob what I am trying to say is why can't we make safe, suitable, segregated, and practical infrastructure for vulnerable road users and just abandon these crazy, expensive, and dangerous projects that will put autonomous tanks on our roads. Why is it that people have so little empathy?