Claire Byrne Live debate on cycling deaths

magicbastarder

Chuchote wrote: »

Fault is in the cars: maker pays
Fault is in the stars: no one pays
Fault is in some eejit fecking around with it: eejit pays

it's worth listening to malcolm gladwell's podcast (in the the 'revisionist history' series) about the 'stuck accelerator' problem in toyotas which toyota have paid out over a billion in damages for, despite the fact that evidence points at driver error.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's worth listening to malcolm gladwell's podcast (in the the 'revisionist history' series) about the 'stuck accelerator' problem in toyotas which toyota have paid out over a billion in damages for, despite the fact that evidence points at driver error.

That sounds interesting.

On a tangential note, I know in the States that the authorities have the reputation of being quite indulgent when a collision occurs because the driver confused the accelerator with the brake.

tomasrojo

boardbeer wrote: »

An AV, on catching a NPE in its control system, for example, would probably just need to come a stop, broadcasting its status to cars in the vicinity and the traffic control system.

The concern I've heard expressed most is that the autopilot just totally messes up for some unpredictable reason (which happens with complex software, inevitably), and the human "driver" just isn't paying any attention at all.

boardbeer

endagibson wrote: »

This is the one I'm on about. The public expects them to be driverless, but I expect that for liability purposes, the driver is going to have to be quite involved still.

In the kind of scenarios I've read about, the cars are owned and operated by some corp., GM or Uber, who provide the service for a price, and cover all the costs, maintenance, insurance, cleaning. You just tap the app, the car turns up and takes you where you are going. Unlikely to be any controls inside, apart from entertainment systems. Posh ones might have leather and walnut interiors, back-from-the-pub ones will be shiny plastic and be able to hose themselves out.

The real interesting point about insurance (and insurance companies are already discussing this), is will you still be able to get insurance to operate a non-AV in an urban environment?

Leroy42

If the answer to the question is driverless cars then you are asking the wrong question.

boardbeer

Leroy42 wrote: »

If the answer to the question is driverless cars then you are asking the wrong question.

"What transport system would make our cities safer and more pleasant to live, walk and cycle in, that would be accepted by the masses used to the convenience of private motor vehicles?"

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

That sounds interesting.

there are complicating factors in relation to pedals becoming stuck under mats, etc., but they did come back to a core issue - there is pretty much no car engine in the world which can compete against modern car brakes.

alb

On the subject of self driving vehicles, it's not even hypothetical anymore, they've had self driving buses on trial in Helsinki on public streets, carrying members of the public as passengers (and I think Paris recently also). They don't have a human driver: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/18/self-driving-buses-helsinki

Pinch Flat

magicbastarder wrote: »

i dunno. humans have an uncanny knack of taking something designed with one goal in mind and using to achieve the opposite.

Bit like the fool who pulled out in front of me in a Volvo at the roundabout just past the zoo in the Phoenix Park - one of the safest cars on the roads apparently - but wasted on a complete idiot who can't drive it properly.

Leroy42

boardbeer wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

If the answer to the question is driverless cars then you are asking the wrong question.

"What transport system would make our cities safer and more pleasant to live, walk and cycle in, that would be accepted by the masses used to the convenience of private motor vehicles?"

Instead of continuing to pander to the failed notion that each city dweller should own and operate their own personal vehicle which costs both the person the the state significant sums of money in terms of infrastructure and control systems, policing, healthcare etc we should invest in better public transport and cycling/walking infrastructure.

The money that is being wasted to try to solve a problem by technology when we already know the answer but are too stuck in the gra for the dream of the open road to accept that the whole thing has been a monumental waste of time and resources

Chuchote

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Bit like the fool who pulled out in front of me in a Volvo at the roundabout just past the zoo in the Phoenix Park - one of the safest cars on the roads apparently - but wasted on a complete idiot who can't drive it properly.

Safe for those inside, or safe for those outside?

HivemindXX

Leroy42 wrote: »

Instead of continuing to pander to the failed notion that each city dweller should own and operate their own personal vehicle which costs both the person the the state significant sums of money in terms of infrastructure and control systems, policing, healthcare etc we should invest in better public transport and cycling/walking infrastructure.

The money that is being wasted to try to solve a problem by technology when we already know the answer but are too stuck in the gra for the dream of the open road to accept that the whole thing has been a monumental waste of time and resources

Driverless cars doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will have one. Hopefully this will coincide with a reduction in individuals owning their own cars, so less wasted space storing things that are only used a couple of hours a day and perhaps less journeys that would be better made on foot or a bike being made in the car simply because of the fallacious thinking that not using your car at every opportunity is a waste.

Think of them like driverless taxis if you want. If I was a taxi driver I would be very worried about this. Not as worried as Uber drivers though.

A significant amount of people seem to be utterly adamant that they must have door to door service, ensconced in their own individual vehicle not shared with the masses and ready to go whenever they want it. If you try to reduce resources for private cars they do not like it at all and start making absurd claims like that there is a "war on motorists". These claims are of course given lots of credence by the like minded in the media. I think these people are the majority and any effort to actually eliminate or even significantly reduce the position of the private car as king of the road is doomed to failure. If true then accepting it and improving things by having private cars that work better by eliminating the worst element, the driver, is a decent compromise.

magicbastarder

my main concern is that there is plenty of scope for pool cars already, but it's still very much a niche market.
one benefit driverless cars will have is the obvious barrier to entry to this market - a driving licence - being rendered moot. but that still doesn't explain why pool car companies have only had marginal gains in ireland.

so basically the concern is - if pool cars aren't adopted now, is that a signal that people won't adopt them in future?
and as alluded to above, for many people, a car is a status symbol.

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

so basically the concern is - if pool cars aren't adopted now, is that a signal that people won't adopt them in future?

I don't think so. BlaBlaCar is big in France, but it took till now for it to take off.

nailer54321

im not saying if you wear his viz and have lights on your bike you won't be in an accident, we all know that the roads are not very bicycle friendly, what I am saying is if you don't have lights or any reflective wear you are more likely to be involved in an accident, give yourself the best chance of been seen with a light and reflective clothing, it's the cyclist own responsibility to take care of themselves.

Chuchote

nailer54321 wrote: »

im not saying if you wear his viz and have lights on your bike you won't be in an accident, we all know that the roads are not very bicycle friendly, what I am saying is if you don't have lights or any reflective wear you are more likely to be involved in an accident, give yourself the best chance of been seen with a light and reflective clothing, it's the cyclist own responsibility to take care of themselves.

Mmmmyes and no. a) Yes, anyone who cycles around in black and unlit after dark seems a bit of an idiot to me, personally. But b) figures on accidents show that they are not more likely to be in an accident.

odyssey06

Chuchote wrote: »

Mmmmyes and no. a) Yes, anyone who cycles around in black and unlit after dark seems a bit of an idiot to me, personally. But b) figures on accidents show that they are not more likely to be in an accident.

I agree with (a), but I would have doubts about (b) in that we're probably dealing with a small sample size... I wouldn't recommend driving a car in dublin areas that are fully lit by streelights without your car headlights on but I would find it very difficult to provide incident or accident figures to justify that assertion.
Lights are more important than hivis, but as noted earlier, your best chance to be seen is with both.

tomasrojo

odyssey06 wrote: »

I agree with (a), but I would have doubts about (b) in that we're probably dealing with a small sample size... I wouldn't recommend driving a car in dublin areas that are fully lit by streelights without your car headlights on but I would find it very difficult to provide incident or accident figures to justify that assertion.
Lights are more important than hivis, but as noted earlier, your best chance to be seen is with both.

There was a Ph.D. thesis done in Nottingham that looked into the collision incidences between cyclist who wore hi-viz and those who didn't. There was no statistically significant difference in collision rates. The sample size there was quite decent, as far as I can recall.

It's in the hi-viz thread, which this is in danger of coalescing with.

Chuchote

odyssey06 wrote: »

I agree with (a), but I would have doubts about (b) in that we're probably dealing with a small sample size... I wouldn't recommend driving a car in dublin areas that are fully lit by streelights without your car headlights on but I would find it very difficult to provide incident or accident figures to justify that assertion.
Lights are more important than hivis, but as noted earlier, your best chance to be seen is with both.

English study of Smidsy (Sorry, mate, I didn't see you) dangers -

http://irishcycle.com/2013/11/30/high-vis-on-cyclists-unlikely-to-stop-dangerous-overtaking/

- related to overtaking distance found that hi-viz didn't make drivers sheer off:

The average gap which a motorist left while overtaking the cyclist was recorded at 1.18 meters, a decrease of more than half a meter from a study at the end of the 70s when the average gap was 1.79 meters…

Given this result, the authors conclude: “There is little riders can do, by altering their appearance, to prevent the very closest overtakes. We suggest that the optimum solution to the very closest overtakes will not lie with bicyclists them selves, and instead we should look to changes in infrastructure, education or the law to prevent drivers getting dangerously close when overtaking bicyclists.

odyssey06

Chuchote wrote: »

English study of Smidsy (Sorry, mate, I didn't see you) dangers -

http://irishcycle.com/2013/11/30/high-vis-on-cyclists-unlikely-to-stop-dangerous-overtaking/

- related to overtaking distance found that hi-viz didn't make drivers sheer off:

Thanks for the link and while the study is interesting, it does not directly relate to do with the point I just made. It's a very specific study about overtaking distance in relation to hi-vis. It has no mention of whether the trips were taken in darkness or daylight. My doubts are only increasing, and it will take a much better study than that (one that takes into account darkness, daylight and % of trips taken in same versus accidents, factoring out traffic levels) to convince me otherwise.
If there is a study showing same noted on the hivis thread, I'll chase it up there...

boardbeer

odyssey06 wrote: »

If there is a study showing same noted on the hivis thread, I'll chase it up there...

I know there was such a study quoted in Tom Vandabilt's book, Traffic. I'll see if I can dig it out. Also pertinent is that essay by the fighter pilot dude that's doing the rounds, where he gets into the psychology of seeing stuff, saccades, ... - it pretty much explains why hi-viz and lights, etc., are of only marginal utility when you want to be seen.

mrcheez

Currently in 'Dam and I'm amazed how bikes and cars just "get along" with each other. It's clear this is because pretty much every driver cycles, but also because of clear separation between road and cycle path.

No arguing about lack of hi-vis. No close passes. And many cyclists go through red lights *shock horror*...again no problems.

I reckon a stint in Amsterdam would sort out any of the motorist begrudgers.

tomasrojo

If anyone does have any new hi-viz stuff, maybe put it on the aforementioned hi-viz thread. Just to have all the evidence in one place, and to avoid derailing this thread.