"In a few years we'll have the opportunity to replace the whole automotive fleet with synchronised self-driving electric cars, cutting greenhouse gas emissions to almost nothing but we'll miss out because cyclists won't get off the road."


The current explosion of bidirectional cycleways (NSW Government's $33 million for cycling routes in 2013-2014 and $40 million in 2015-2016) in the inner city suburbs has the effect of removing cyclists from the road proper. Is this the first stage of banishing bicycles from the streets of Sydney to make way for self driving cars?


Views: 622

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

As to your second point about Sydney's cycleways removing cyclists from the road...I think the effect is the opposite. The cycleways induce more riding in general, and much of that occurs on streets without cycleways. Even if there was an "explosion of bidirectional cycleways" instead of the current trickle, this effect would be even greater.

In cities where cycleways are very common, such as in the Netherlands, cycleways are not on smaller, local roads, and thus those roads have very large numbers of cyclists.

Agreed. The creation of separated cycleways in Sydney has doubled the number of cyclists out there in the last 5 years. Those cyclists aren't just on off-road paths, they are everywhere. We would have had better growth if the full network had been built, if we hadn't lost parts that had been built too.

Those that oppose bidirectional cycleways because of the fear of cyclists becoming ghettoised off the road are cutting off their nose to spite their face. If you want normalisation of cycling you need numbers. The single best way to increase numbers is to get more infrastructure out there. Without the infrastructure it will never happen.

It's all true, at the same time we need a boundary.

A 20mm wide cycleway, to take an extreme, would have to be rejected.

So, how bad must they be before we say "no thank you"?

I tried under-guideline bidis again today, at only just over the 12km/h balance minimum, cruisy as. Castlereagh-Liverpool-Kent-King. Drivers at driveway crossings did really well. Pedestrians scared me shitless.

They don't have cycleways on the bigger roads, they have separated bicycle paths. No sign of that here on Parramatta Rd, Military Rd, New South Head Rd, etc. We are already excluded, Bill.

"AEB systems still suffer from a severe limitation that points to the next grand challenge that AV developers are struggling with: predicting where moving objects will go. Squeezing more value from cyclist-AEB systems will be an especially tall order, says Olaf Op den Camp, a senior consultant at the Dutch Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO). Op den Camp, who led the design of Europe's cyclist-AEB benchmarking test, says that it’s because cyclists movements are especially hard to predict."

I don't think a predictive model can possibly be safe. Instead, you must assume that the cyclist is unpredictable. They may have to rely on furthest-on-circles ie. a protected volume big enough to enclose all possible movement of the cyclist for some interval such as until the next sense-and-recalculate cycle.

what we all do now for cars to some extent. You have to assume some predictability though, or you would never get past the end of your street.
Neat link.

Great video in the section on automatic braking and airbags on car windscreens to reduce impact when car hits cyclist. European car manufacturers to introduce in 2018.

Also, the section on sensors (on bikes as well as cars) that communicate to each other and could reduce crashes at blind intersections and over crests etc. Vibrating handlebars when a car is coming too close, or alert the rider at intersections. Brave new world.

So how do they handle pedestrians? Wouldn't they just as "unpredictable"? Or animals? We could go on. I'd say their autonomous vehicles need a lot more work before they're ready for public roads.

When the road toll is likely to be cut by 50 % or 80% or some figure like that, a bit of collateral damage may be tolerated.

Bi dis will be redundant. Save your money.

'tolerable' is an interesting point.

In the US, the principle governing system safety is cost. In other words if it is cheaper to compensate victims and their lawyers, you can stop making your system safe at that point.

In Australia, it is more stringent. You have to make your system risk "As low as reasonably practicable", known as ALARP. So yes, there should be a lot more work required here AND you can't rely on guessing what a rider/driver might do.

"what about pedestrians?" is still the point. I think it will have to be safe and that bar will be got over with us being "collateral beneficiaries"

Pretty much


© 2020   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service