Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
I thought this was a DIY site
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote: Mulling over the driverless car mixed with conventional human operators, I think there may need to be changes to the current highway code. I'd have thought any driverless car would automatically have to give way to pedestrians, cyclists etc. And once they realise that, there will be no stopping them. ;-) -- *i souport publik edekashun. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#162
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
I thought this was a DIY site
On Sunday, 5 April 2015 19:23:29 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/04/2015 13:29, wrote: On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 11:11:12 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote: On 04/04/2015 21:23, wrote: On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 6:25:38 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote: On 04/04/2015 15:53, wrote: You are still going to face the problem they found with the concept of small personal transport vehicles in 1967 - virtually nobody wanted to use them. A survey found that, besides most people disliking them simply because they were small, small vehicles were rated badly for both comfort and safety. Suspension & safety have come a long way since 67 of course. Computer control can be expected to much improve safety. Large cars are still much more comfortable than small ones, even if small cars today are probably more comfortable than many large cars of 1967. Comfort certainly doesnt come into the decision to take public transport, It does if you are trying to get people to use it instead of cars. People use it en masse, despite the lesser comfort. I cant see much mileage in debating it. I suspect that many people will be quite dubious of the safety of fully automatic vehicles for quite a long time. Many will. But its relatively easy to demonstrate much higher safety of computer drivers than human. If being able to demonstrate the superiority of a system over emotional choices, we would have an electricity supply system without wind generators and with lots of nuclear power. no-one has any difficulty understanding a computer driver doesnt suffer the problems of a human one. You also have the basic problem of people not liking them, simply because they are small. Lots of people buy small cars, so it doesnt seem to be a big problem for most. That rather depends upon what you class as a small car. The 1967 report was looking at bubble car size or smaller. Today's equivalent is probably something like the Smart car. And why would they need to be small? Pods can be a mix of sizes. Bear in mind that small had very different implication in 67 than today. Then it normally meant cheap, borderline and unsafe. What has changed is that we expect more from our cars today, so while they are much superior to the equivalent cars of 1967, they are still cheap, poorly equipped and unsafe compared to their contemporaries. Once again, computerised vehicles can come in all sizes and small ones can have better safety than today's human driven cars. It seems pointless to go back and forth over basic stuff. Re the original mention of tiny karts, small size is only a downside when it meets large oncoming vehicle. This risk is removed by barriering such lanes from larger vehicles. NT |
#163
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
I thought this was a DIY site
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Eh? The trains round here give as smooth a ride as any car. Sadly, the newer the bus, the harder its suspension, and the seats have a covering with little more resilience than sprayed flock. Chris -- Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK Plant amazing Acers. |
#164
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
I thought this was a DIY site
On Monday, 6 April 2015 10:16:10 UTC+1, Chris J Dixon wrote:
Sadly, the newer the bus, the harder its suspension, and the seats have a covering with little more resilience than sprayed flock. OTOH the new ones rattle less than the older ones. Owain |
#165
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
I thought this was a DIY site
On Monday, 6 April 2015 10:37:50 UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , wrote: Re the original mention of tiny karts, small size is only a downside when it meets large oncoming vehicle. This risk is removed by barriering such lanes from larger vehicles. So which roads are these lanes going to be on? Many of the roads around here are barely wide enough for two vehicles. yup, only workable where any of the following could grab a little space: lanes wider than they need to be more than 1 lane pavement wider than needed routes too narrow for cars NT |
#166
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
I thought this was a DIY site
|
#167
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
I thought this was a DIY site
On Monday, 6 April 2015 11:13:05 UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , wrote: On Monday, 6 April 2015 10:37:50 UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote: In article , wrote: Re the original mention of tiny karts, small size is only a downside when it meets large oncoming vehicle. This risk is removed by barriering such lanes from larger vehicles. So which roads are these lanes going to be on? Many of the roads around here are barely wide enough for two vehicles. yup, only workable where any of the following could grab a little space: lanes wider than they need to be **** to that. more than 1 lane And to that also. pavement wider than needed routes too narrow for cars If you're talking of the roads I was referring to, that would mean large numbers of people would have to walk miles to any shop, would halt most farming, and kill of many rural buses. that makes no sense whatever |
#168
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
I thought this was a DIY site
On Monday, 6 April 2015 15:44:55 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/04/2015 00:57, wrote: ... no-one has any difficulty understanding a computer driver doesnt suffer the problems of a human one.... You don't have much experience of real life do you? Have fun debating that with yourself. |
#169
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
I thought this was a DIY site
In article , Tim Lamb
writes In message , writes On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 11:15:00 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote: On 05/04/2015 10:23, wrote: On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 10:39:25 PM UTC+1, Capitol wrote: wrote: Suspension& safety have come a long way since 67 of course. Computer control can be expected to much improve safety. Small vehicles = small wheels. Potholes seem worse now than I recall. I can well understand small vehicles being unpopular, particularly if you are overweight or have luggage/children/pushchairs. Computerised vehicles could learn where potholes are, and when its easy enough to move over a little to avoid them, do so. There are already cars that look at the road just ahead of their wheels and adjust the suspension to suit as the wheel passes over that bit. Not cheap cars though. Hence I'm not suggesting it If we ever have computer driven pods, I suspect a good mix of sizes would make most sense, along with the ability for them to connect and permit passengers to walk through from one to the next, maybe while in motion. I doubt that they would link physically, although they may well link electronically, allowing them to travel much closer than if they were driving individually. Linking physically has some real upsides, and should be doable safely on dual carriageways and other wide roads. Mulling over the driverless car mixed with conventional human operators, I think there may need to be changes to the current highway code. F'rinstance..... minor road crossing a major one. Two vehicles arrive at the same time, both turning right. Humans will make eye contact and proceed safely. Obviously, two computer controlled pods could do the same but how do you cater for one of each? Worse still if a mixed queue forms. NT You could cut across the pod knowing it would give way to you rather than hit you. -- hugh |
#170
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
I thought this was a DIY site
wrote:
On Monday, 6 April 2015 10:16:10 UTC+1, Chris J Dixon wrote: Sadly, the newer the bus, the harder its suspension, and the seats have a covering with little more resilience than sprayed flock. OTOH the new ones rattle less than the older ones. YMMV Chris -- Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK Plant amazing Acers. |
#171
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
I thought this was a DIY site
In message , hugh
writes If we ever have computer driven pods, I suspect a good mix of sizes would make most sense, along with the ability for them to connect and permit passengers to walk through from one to the next, maybe while in motion. I doubt that they would link physically, although they may well link electronically, allowing them to travel much closer than if they were driving individually. Linking physically has some real upsides, and should be doable safely on dual carriageways and other wide roads. Mulling over the driverless car mixed with conventional human operators, I think there may need to be changes to the current highway code. F'rinstance..... minor road crossing a major one. Two vehicles arrive at the same time, both turning right. Humans will make eye contact and proceed safely. Obviously, two computer controlled pods could do the same but how do you cater for one of each? Worse still if a mixed queue forms. NT You could cut across the pod knowing it would give way to you rather than hit you. OK for the cognoscenti but what about us geriatrics? Rush hour driving to Watford recently, I have been reminded of the wide range of driving skills/foolhardiness displayed across the range of drivers encountered. A pod could readily slot onto a busy roundabout as does the youngster in a VW GTi:-) Apparently, Microsoft are assembling a team to progress something to do with traffic management in Singapore. -- Tim Lamb |
#172
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
I thought this was a DIY site
On 05/04/2015 20:42, Tim Lamb wrote:
.... Mulling over the driverless car mixed with conventional human operators, I think there may need to be changes to the current highway code. F'rinstance..... minor road crossing a major one. Two vehicles arrive at the same time, both turning right. Humans will make eye contact and proceed safely. Obviously, two computer controlled pods could do the same but how do you cater for one of each?... The text display on the front of the pod informs the human driver that it is giving way. -- Colin Bignell |
#173
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
I thought this was a DIY site
"Tim Lamb" wrote in message ... In message , hugh writes If we ever have computer driven pods, I suspect a good mix of sizes would make most sense, along with the ability for them to connect and permit passengers to walk through from one to the next, maybe while in motion. I doubt that they would link physically, although they may well link electronically, allowing them to travel much closer than if they were driving individually. Linking physically has some real upsides, and should be doable safely on dual carriageways and other wide roads. Mulling over the driverless car mixed with conventional human operators, I think there may need to be changes to the current highway code. F'rinstance..... minor road crossing a major one. Two vehicles arrive at the same time, both turning right. Humans will make eye contact and proceed safely. Obviously, two computer controlled pods could do the same but how do you cater for one of each? Worse still if a mixed queue forms. NT You could cut across the pod knowing it would give way to you rather than hit you. OK for the cognoscenti but what about us geriatrics? Euthanasia for you. Rush hour driving to Watford recently, I have been reminded of the wide range of driving skills/foolhardiness displayed across the range of drivers encountered. A pod could readily slot onto a busy roundabout as does the youngster in a VW GTi:-) Apparently, Microsoft are assembling a team to progress something to do with traffic management in Singapore. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
I thought I was bad... | Metalworking | |||
OT - Thought for the day | Metalworking | |||
Here's a thought... | Woodworking | |||
see the most hot new site of 2007see the most hot new site of 2007 | UK diy | |||
Just a thought | Woodturning |