When I was living in Spain, it became evident that the drivers, when in a traffic queue on a high speed road, would generally use their hazard lights to get the attention of the traffic coming up behind. Might not work in every situation but it certainly does make you approach with caution and encourage you to follow suit to warn the drivers behind you.
I do that when on a busy motorway here if I have to brake harder than I would like, especially M6 and M1.
I'm curious as to what defines an autonomous transport system? I've ridden on this system a few years ago, does it count as autonomous? Certainly no driver. The Generation 3 is interesting and reminds me to have a day on the waterbus routes of Rotterdam (with skipper). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ParkShuttle No drivers on the Docklands Light Railway either.
You are correct Jabbo . The two examples you mention are driverless but they both operate in a pre-programmed closed loop system so their scope of travel is restricted. They are very different to the Robotaxi and other driverless cars TSS was talking about. That ParkShuttle looks very neat.
"Closed loop system" bit of a key, thanks. This from the Generation 3 of the parkshuttle "On 7 March 2018 the MRDH granted Connexxion a new concession for 15 years, for the period December 2018 to December 2033.[4] This concession includes an extension of the route, renewal of the fleet of shuttles and driving in mixed traffic on some parts of the route". Some mixed traffic I'll have a look soon as possible along with the waterbus cruise
There's no reason why every city across Europe couldn't adopt versions of that ParkShuttle mixed with Electric Trams and remove cars completely from city centres. If they were frequent and there was enough of them it would be a brilliant system, just like the trams they have in Croydon etc. They work so well and if electric powered they would be far more 'green' than most other forms of transport. There just needs to be the political will in this country to bring about a massive improvement in public transport, and where better to start than in city centres. The problem here is that politicians would rather spend time scoring points against each other than they would actually tackling the pollution issues we all face. Driverless transport on the basis of fixed routes makes a lot of sense, especially if it's a hop-on and hop-off service. I will never understand why they don't recognise these things and just get on with it.
We had a break in Ghent before Christmas (excellent, recommended) the city center is car free https://www.theguardian.com/environ...alive-ghent-readers-on-a-car-free-city-centre An Amercan view https://matadornetwork.com/read/cities-banning-cars-city-centers/ I've seen an increase in pedestrian areas let's hope it's an accelerating trend.
OK, I suppose I have some explaining to do. First up, I do not "like" technology per se. That is to suggest that I like all forms of technology whether I understand them or not. I loathe Facebook, for example. I think it is dangerous, and I would advise anyone to stop using their accounts and close them. I don't like the technology of Bio-fuels. They are interim hoax. As is the Self-Charging Hybrid. It's not. It's a petrol car posing as a Green vehicle, and therefore only mildly better than a straight well-tuned petrol car. Technology to be avoided if at all possible. I am aware of new technology and have a decent understanding of its timing and impact. Possibly better than the average person. For example Robotaxis. They are 5-10 years away, depending upon the region of the world and the regulators. I don't mean the Google/Waymo system, which test operates in Phoenix, Arizona, with a safety driver who takes over if the system encounters problems it can't handle. They are Level 2 autonomous driving being billed as level 3/4, and a "localised solution" only. Meaning that what works in Phoenix won't work anyway else. What is needed is a worldwide generalised solution for driver-less cars, utilising an advanced driving computer and based on machine learning. That's already possible right now on motorways, but regulators won't ok it yet. And they won't for at least 5 years, by my reckoning, and UK and Europe, possibly 7-10 years. In 20 years humans probably won't be allowed to drive on the roads, as they will be far more dangerous than an autonomous vehicle. This is nothing remarkable. It's just the march of narrow AI, and it is inevitable. As to Smart motorways. Q. Why were they implemented? A. Because they were the cheapest solution. The speed regulated motorway system, whereby drivers were advised to proceed at restricted speeds, started to make progress. Traffic jams occurred less because restricting the speed smoothed out the pulses that start traffic jams and that make them carry on well past the time when an initial mass of vehicles that were responsible for it have gone. And this is where Smart motorways come in. Imagine being able to make the motorway bigger at any given point of the day because the volume of traffic demands it. A politician is going to leap all over that solution, because it is cheap and potentially effective. The real solution was never to have encouraged people into cars in the first place and kept a good working, reliable fully electrified rail transport system in place, that was as affordable as owning a car and an excellent option. And integrating alongside the road network. They do that in much of Europe, by the way. But that bird flew many years ago in the UK, even as British Rail came into being. So what are we left with? As usual, in the UK, it is cheap, stab-in-the-dark solutions, with more hope than data driven results to make progress. And meanwhile the cost to lives probably doesn't even figure in the balance sheet. So are smart motorways a good idea? In theory, possibly yes, until there is an accident. Then it is obviously no because of the inevitable gridlock and the lack of easy emergency services access. Oh, there are driver-less train/tram routes. Last time I looked there was one operating in east London. As to working from home, it's not for everyone, agreed. But there are millions of people out there who would love to do it, if it were possible. And quite often it is, yet the businesses they work for don't implement it as an option. Set in their ways? And I am an environmentalist first, and an observer of new technology a distant second.
I have read and really respect your post and found it very interesting. Humour me on a few things if you don't mind. Forgetting the rest of the world and what other progressive governments might implement in the next 5 to 10 years, give us your best shot at what politically driven positive environmental changes we are going to see in the UK that Mr and Mrs Average can see as positive steps to secure their children's future. I realise you can't take global pollution out of the equation but realistically, what do you see our government doing to reduce pollution here, when they are cutting green subsidies left, right and centre? I am in broad agreement with you on your passionate views on improving the environment but where we start to part company is when you feel the inevitable march of AI will remove the need for us to drive ourselves, and eventually prevent us from doing so. Personally, I can not see that happening because taking away the ability for people to self determine their freedom of movement at a time they choose will bring down any government. There are many things ordinary people will do, and put up with, to save the planet but there are some things that people will never accept, and nor should they. All this talk (not by you) of the way AI may be imposed on us just because some smart arsed geek invents it, tends to get pulled when public reaction is totally against it. Remember Google Glasses? That went well. At the time it was the future of the human to computer interface. Like much that comes out of Silicon Valley, it was a short lived gimmick. Geeks get rich because enough people fall for snake oil sales pitches but much of it is just worthless. There is some amazing technology out there, but all technology needs to be a servant to the population, not its master.
Phew, that's a big question you're asking. Have I got a week to go through it all? OK, let's start with a couple of things we know. The UK government has pledged to be carbon neutral by 2050. Personally, I think they really ought to do it in a much speedier time, but at least the UK was the first to declare a date. And I wouldn't put a speedier time out of the question. The only coal power station still operating in the UK is Drax, and that is being phased out. When I look at the GridCarbon app for 20:40 this evening, I see Drax is providing 2.5% of the country's need for electricity. That's a lot of power. 990 megawatts. That's going away. There is a phase out time, and I can't remember it. Perhaps you can look it up. Early today, Solar was producing 2300 Megawatts, whiile Coal/Drax was on nothing. I know cause I looked. Solar is producing 0 MW right now, as you'd expect. But Wind is producing 12000 MW right now. Almost double the Nuclear output, and only 600 MW less than Gas. So, what does all this mean? It means that the electricity grid is getting remarkably cleaner, quite quickly. The UK can give itself a mini pat on the back for that. But present rate of progress is still too slow, but it will speed up. These things happen exponentially, not in a linear fashion. For example, the adoption of electric transport in the UK. There are three things which slow the rate of adoption - ticket price, range, and infrastructure. For 57% of the population, the infrastructure shouldn't be a problem. They have their own driveways, so they could charge their own vehicle overnight and so start with a full tank in the morning. Every day, if they want. Ticket price is getting there. EVs would already be cheaper than their polluting cousins if the batteries were cheaper. That price is going to drop alarmingly over the next 2-5 years. Tesla are pretty much at parity now. The rest of the manufacturers will take those extra years, depending upon their commitment. What this means is, in the UK. Brand new EVs will become within the reach of those who wish to buy new, and the secondhand market will be bigger than it is now/ Typically now, you can buy a good Nissan Leaf, or equivalent [Renault Zoe, etc], secondhand for about £6K plus. They do come in at £4K, but those are earlier models. All the UK has to do is keep up the incentives on EVs. If they want to do more, then make the incentives even better. Put simply, once the population perceives that EVs are cheaper, and actually they already are overall, in many cases, the inflection point will happen, and the electric revolution will become an avalanche. Then people will wonder why they held off for so long. FFV prices will drop through the floor, and that will give them some longevity. But the outcome of this is that the environment will start to become cleaner still. These things become self rewarding. For example, only last year, there were several months when not a single lump of coal was burned to make electricity. Literally, from some point like April all the way to October, or something ridiculous like that [can't remember exactly] And in the last quarter of 2019, Renewable power produced more electricity than Gas, which is remarkable. And most of that was due to simple economics, not UK government policy. Right, as you can see, that lot came out in one splurge [yuck]. I could go on for days about more pros and cons. Sadly, we have to remember that pollutants don't stop at international borders, as you rightly point out. There needs to be a Carbon Tax on industry and transport. Renewable power in all its forms plays on the most unfair playing field with fossil fuels. FFs get subsidies which Renewables could only dream about, but they are still cheaper. Changing to a Renewables only supplier like CitizEn Energy is the ordinary person starting to do their bit. And the chances are that the bills will be cheaper anyway. Back in the early 1990s, when I was newly married, my wife and I discussed bringing up kids. Both of us came to the conclusion that we didn't want kids to inherit the world we were on course to pass to them. So we never had them. I've been thinking about this game for a long time. I would love to see that we ended up making the wrong decision. And this is nothing like a full answer. We could go into agriculture sustainability, the loss of ecologies and habitat. ****ing loads of stuff. Shouldn't this be in the Environmental thread really now? I'll copy it there.
Here's a lovely video of history, from The History Guy, when directed towards the humble chicken. Do watch it. I think you'll be surprised at least once:
OK, another video of forgotten history from The History Guy. The humble banana. I won't make a series of these, I just happen to like the impact that everyday things we take for granted have a long history: Incidentally. I can no longer eat bananas. They give me biblical style indigestion, which is a shame, because I can't even eat one without some reaction, as I discovered only earlier today. Hence the interest in the history video. I've always loved bananas.
