Railways, Tramways, Busways, Driverless Vehicles

modsandmockers

I’ve brought this thread back to life because of the following exchange which took place on another thread, and I want to expand on my ideas...

Me - “I think that, if and when driverless vehicles become viable, they will immediately replace Boris Bikes, and the roadspace which is currently dedicated to cyclists will rapidly become part of a whole new infrastructure for the exclusive use of driverless vehicles”

A.N.Other - “Your pleas that you are not a troll simply fall on deaf ears because you write !!!!!! like this”


Driverless cars will only become viable when they are capable of predicting the behaviour of every other road and pavement user in their vicinity. At first, this will almost certainly mean that they will only be viable when they only have to deal with other driverless vehicles. That is because all driverless vehicles will be programmed to follow the same set of rules, and will do so without fail. The same cannot be said of drivers, pedestrians and, especially, cyclists. If driverless vehicles are continually brought to a sudden stop by an errant cyclist or motorist, or by some children playing chicken, then the idea will fail.

I think that driverless vehicles will be most useful on urban commuter routes, and I think they will be especially useful as an improvement on the idea of the Boris Bike. I believe that there are already one or two city centre ‘driverless-pod-hire’ pilot schemes in operation, but I have no idea how they work (if at all!).

Unlike Boris Bikes, driverless pods will require no effort from the user, and will offer weather-protection. Commuters and tourists will love them. When finished with, the user will simply walk away and the pods will relocate themselves to an appropriate place. They will almost certainly be able to organise their own refuelling or recharging.

So far, there has been little official enthusiasm in the UK for the provision of a Dutch-style network of cycleways, and it will be interesting to see how quickly the authorities will provide a dedicated infrastructure for driverless vehicle-pods. It will be even more interesting to see whether the people of Holland will then begin to demand that their cycleways should be replaced by a UK-style network for driverless vehicles.

Johnmcl7

None of that makes any sense whatsoever, I honestly wonder when you're typing posts like that if you even know what a bike is? Why on earth would driverless cars replace bikes given they are very different forms of transport, the usage you describe is clearly much more of a threat to taxis not pedal bikes.

John

modsandmockers

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

Why on earth would driverless cars replace bikes

Because for large numbers of people, cyclists and non-cyclists alike, driverless pods will be infinitely more convenient and comfortable than bikes. And, if the uptake fulfils the potential, then driverless pods will contribute more to an improved city environment than bikes because huge additional numbers of drivers will no longer bring their cars into town. There will always be the option to use a bike, no doubt, but the driverless pods will almost certainly have priority.

Johnmcl7

modsandmockers wrote: »

Because for large numbers of people, cyclists and non-cyclists alike, driverless pods will be infinitely more convenient and comfortable than bikes. And, if the uptake fulfils the potential, then driverless pods will contribute more to an improved city environment than bikes because huge additional numbers of drivers will no longer bring their cars into town. There will always be the option to use a bike, no doubt, but the driverless pods will almost certainly have priority.

This is the sort of complete and utter garbage that you wind people up with, I don't know if you're that ignorant you genuinely believe it or you're trying to wind people up. Cycling is a low cost, green option that is good for your health and takes you many places where cars cannot go - driverless cars even if they're mainstream are going to be expensive, not very good for the environment (that power has to come from somewhere) and they're restricted to roads.

The simple counterpoint that proves your post wrong is that if that sort of transport made bikes redundant then it would already have happened as there's plenty of taxis that offer the convenience and comfort you've cited.

I'd much rather take my bike than a car most days of the week, just because you utterly despise cycling in every form doesn't mean we all do and you certainly don't in any way speak for cyclists as you seem to keep thinking you can.

I'm putting you on my ignore list and the sooner you're banned from this forum for your constant anti-cycling trolling the better. It's really quite pathetic that you can find nothing better to do with your time than go into forum and constantly try to wind up people just because you don't like cycling.

John

modsandmockers

Taxis would probably remain the preferred choice for groups greater than one or two, and for people with lots of luggage, but driverless pods would eliminate the need for queues of large diesel-powered taxicabs stationary in traffic, each carrying a single passenger.

frisbeej

Driverless cars have already done thousands of miles on normal roads. They have sensors that allow them to track numerous other vehicles, pedestrians and other hazards. They aren't going to use a separate road system.


The Google car will actually edge forwards at intersections, do the things a human driver would do to impose themselves.


But the first ones to be introduced will still have driver controls, the driver will have to monitor and take over at minimal notice.


There aren't going to be any true "driverless pods" for a long time.

Exile_geordie

You miss one point about cycling and one in which is the very reason why they cycle - because of the health benefits and the enjoyment.


To actually come out and say that people will choose a driverless car of cycling is just stupid.

modsandmockers

Exile_geordie wrote: »

You miss one point about cycling and one in which is the very reason why they cycle - because of the health benefits and the enjoyment.

To actually come out and say that people will choose a driverless car of cycling is just stupid.

Let’s not try to create yet another argument about whether or not cycling is capable of saving the world. The intention of the thread is to try to imagine some possible ways in which public transport might develop in the future.

In cities, I think that the vast majority of people (including cyclists) would prefer a driverless pod to a bike. It is a small minority of people who currently regard cycling as the most healthy and enjoyable way to get to work and back. Driverless pods could serve much the same purpose as Boris Bikes, but would be attractive to many more people, and (unlike Boris Bikes) would have the potential to make the city environment better in every way.

The health benefits and enjoyment of cycling are real, but (for most people) not in cities. Competing for road space in a fume-filled and over-crowded narrow corridor is not the same thing as exploring the wild spaces of the countryside, or taking the family for a picnic day out in a nearby country park.

frisbeej

I think banning cars from cities and introducing driverless pods for those that don't prefer to cycle or walk is a great idea.


Great suggestion Mods!

wealdroam

modsandmockers wrote: »

In cities, I think that the vast majority of people (including cyclists) would prefer a driverless pod to a bike. It is a small minority of people who currently regard cycling as the most healthy and enjoyable way to get to work and back. Driverless pods could serve much the same purpose as Boris Bikes, but would be attractive to many more people, and (unlike Boris Bikes) would have the potential to make the city environment better in every way.

You seem to be saying that the majority of people who cycle to work do so for some other reason than health and enjoyment.
You may be right... I don't have any figures... do you?

Could that reason be one of economics? Currently, cycling to work is probably cheaper than using public transport.

Are you suggesting that these driverless pods will be as cheap to ride in as propelling oneself on a cycle?
If that is not what you are saying, then why will all these reluctant cycling commuters choose to ride in these new-fangled things?