Slashdot Mirror
Autonomous Cars? How About Autonomous Bikes?
R3d M3rcury writes: So we've all heard about the brave new world of autonomous cars which will be at our beck-and-call. But how about an autonomous bike? The i-Bike (not to be confused with the iBike computer) is the winner of KPIT Sparkle 2016, the All India Science and Engineering Student Contest. It started off as a bicycle suitable for use by people with disabilities. If you could use a smartphone, you could ride a bike. But the developers realized that this could be part of a bike-sharing system. You could rent a bike at the train station, ride to work, and then have the bike automatically return to the train station for the next person. Of course, the obvious question is: Will the bike stop at stop signs?
An automated propulsion system superior the the abilities of human riders.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
If that's the case - how shall I get back from work, especially if I have a flexible working schedule?
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Of course, the obvious question is: Will the bike stop at stop signs?
That depends, is its goal as a self-driving vehicle to imitate a self-driving car, or move like a human is controlling it?
I can't believe how long it took me to notice the training wheels.
This reminds me of that app called 'Yo' that got funded.
All it did was send the word 'Yo' to the recipient. That was the app. No joke, the developers claimed the Israeli Military wanted to use a version of it to alert citizens of possible rocket attacks.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Of course, the obvious question is: Will the bike stop at stop signs?
Why is that an obvious question?
Why wouldn't it stop at stop signs?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
there was no incident were a bicycle was hit by a car at a red light.
The database used was a personal injury database for a city of 1.5 million. So there might very well have been incidents just nothing were you went to the hospital or called the police.
So when a car (autonomous or otherwise) DOES hit and kill a rider of an autonomous bike following all roadway rules, how long are they going to be in business for? Even if liability is on the car, people are going to ask (pointedly, in front of a jury) why it doesn't do sanity checks to ensure it won't be hit, not just checks that it's following the laws. It's going to further raise questions of why not use an app to summon an autonomous car instead, in which you can lie down and take a nap, and be reasonably certain that your brain won't be skidded across the pavement if you take a slight graze from something or other. Cars are going to get smaller once autonomous car-hailing becomes the standard way of using cars, as there's no anxiety of "what if I need to haul 7 people plus 2 tons of gravel" when deciding what vehicle you want to pick you up right now, and the owners of these hailed cars will prefer smaller, cheaper, more energy-efficient vehicles.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Bicycles and pedestrians do not need traffic lights, so I think cycling and walking past traffic lights is something good.
Try visualizing yourself as a pedestrian at an intersection with say about 20 bicyclists approaching you in parallel at 30 kmph; what it would be like getting hit by them? It won't be fatal of course but could still cause considerable injury. Traffic signals are needed because not everybody cares about driving etiquette; bicyclists are not an exception.
I agree. There is lots of 'carification' of cyclists, where it is assumed they are little cars. They aren't. In my fitter days I would regularly do 4min kms while out jogging, which meant moving along the pavement at 15kph. On a sprint I would push 3 min which is 20kph. A typical commuter cyclist does about that range, and a bike only adds 8-10kgs of weight. Unless you are scared of fit human runners, bikes are just not that dangerous.
My main problem with the attitudes of cyclists towards drivers and drivers towards cyclist, is that you can see yet another example of this modern militant partisanship that seems so prevalent now. People can't compromise or just accept that others might do things differently. When they see difference it seems to produce this emotive absolutist reaction. Yet the reality is that every day millions of cycle/car journeys take place without any problems and people on the whole are sharing the roads well without the fabric of society falling apart.
This inability to be objective is what really scares me. If sections of the public get so worked up about this issue, how are we ever going to deal with problems like the demographic time bomb, broken economy that is starting to deflate, and our continuing destruction of the natural environment? It should come as no surprise that peacemaking and compromise are hard, but they are things we need to learn to work on. Many times you find that if you break down something that annoys you, it is more the fear of change that you are scared of, not the thing itself. Sadly, many now (Trump) use this obfuscation to drive division for their own selfish ends.
I hope we can fix this problem. If we don't then any good lawyer will tell you that the outcome of two opposing parties that won't compromise is almost certainly a bit fight which quickly loses all proportionality to the original dispute.
The reason cyclists are treated like cars rather than pedestrians in traffic law is not because of the danger they pose, but because they move quite a lot faster than a pedestrian (even a running one).
There are plenty of situations where pedestrians are given right of way based on the idea that they are slow enough for a driver to see them coming from far away. If a driver had to expect a fast-moving cyclist in the same location, he would have to slow down in advance, leading to chaos and congestion.
If cyclists were treated as pedestrians in traffic law, we'd need traffic lights at every crosswalk.
Bicycle built for two?
As someone who lives in a city with a lot of bikes, that doesn't happen. The cyclists will avoid the pedestrian and the pedestrian will avoid the cyclists. They don't all steer/walk towards each other screaming "BUT RED CRAB WARNED US THIS WOULD HAPPEN!" and explode like Michael Bay's best dream.
In urban contexts the sight of autonomous bicycles stopping at signals, not blasting through crowds of pedestrians, and not darting through traffic from unexpected directions is going to feel downright weird, especially if they are being used for courier deliveries. We're going to have to program in some Bay Area behavior so they blend in more. It would be like having a "BMW mode" on your autonomous car.
Computers taking over a car (and having doors for government or hackers) is scary enough, but now a bicycle? if that that starts, it may become mandatory. Imagine someone being able to lock your brakes from remove. I like my bicycles the way I like my legs: computer free. What's next, shoes?
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
Sorry, that should read "lock your brakes from REMOTE". my bad.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
I think your theory breaks down when there are more than one or two cyclists going through the red light. Most cyclists do stop, so there are no numbers to disprove your theory.
I was thinking "Street Hawk"... but then I saw the pictures.
So... not Street Hawk then?!
I count four wheels, not two.
"Knock the stones together, guys!"
Put a box on top - with a large wheel can even go up stairs - deliver packages - less energy than drone delivery...
I live in New England, haven't owned a car in roughly a decade and have been commuting 20 minutes each way every day for work by bike in addition to whatever other daily transportation i need, and own/use snow tires for said bicycle. I also own a nice road bike which gets ridden on weeknight group rides and weekends. I started out on a $350 hybrid I bought from REI on special, and it lasted me several years and thousands of miles, until I decided I wanted something better.
So yes, I do actually know what I'm talking about. And incidentally, Minnesota has more bike commuters per capita than many much warmer locations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There have been dozens of studies over the years showing that riding a bicycle for transportation, even slowly, brings health benefits over people who sit in their cars for transportation: https://www.google.com/search?...
Oh, and which is it? Everyone flying along so fast they'll fatally injure pedestrians they smack into? Or people who "toddle around with their heartrate under 100bpm so slow it doesn't do them any good"? Hmm?
Please, save the "you want to put grandma on an iceberg" crap. I wasn't advocating forcing people onto bicycles. I'm saying driverless cars aren't going to fix problems with congestion and pollution.
Please help metamoderate.
Sure. A crappy, heavy, low-quality bike, with a no-name component groupset, that you likely won't get your moneys' worth out of before something on it fails, then at that point you may as well chuck it in the recycle bin and get another one. You need to spend more like $1000 to get something of decent quality that, properly maintained, will give you your moneys' worth.
$500 is a common tier 2 bike that involves change of material for frames and upgraded components. Sure touring bikes are $1000~$1500 but the $500 will do commuting just fine with minimal changes
How about the mother of three, one of which is still in diapers? You expect her to, what, stick the baby in a pannier, or in a backpack?
T-R-A-I-L-E-R Worked great for when my son was 1 year old. See also: bakfiet, Emily Finch http://bikeportland.org/2012/06/28/with-six-kids-and-no-car-this-mom-does-it-all-by-bike-73731
it's raining out
Trailers are covered, and bakfiets have them as well
parts of the country where it's below freezing during the winter, and there's snow everywhere? Ever ride in the snow?
Studded bike tires, and if needed a fatbike.
You ride 200 miles a week and don't know about any of these things? Wait a minute, you must be a roadie. Good troll sir, good troll.
I'm saying driverless cars aren't going to fix problems with congestion and pollution.
Well, at least we can agree on that. So-called 'autonomous cars' aren't going to be the reality that some think it'll be, it'll be an option on luxury cars, and it'll be more like a sophisticated cruise control, not a box on four wheels with no controls for a human driver. The vast majority of people are going to be driving themselves for quite some time to come.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
A bicycle costs $500
Sure. A crappy, heavy, low-quality bike, with a no-name component groupset, that you likely won't get your moneys' worth out of before something on it fails, then at that point you may as well chuck it in the recycle bin and get another one. You need to spend more like $1000 to get something of decent quality that, properly maintained, will give you your moneys' worth.
I bought the cheapest bike I could find that seemed able to support my needs - 300lbs including luggage/groceries. It was $200, and I have put over 10k miles on it. I needed to replace my rear wheel after about 5k miles and a new chain since I am bad about cleaning it. It has an aluminum frame and seems really light compared to the schwinns and huffys I grew up with. Shimano gears, but I'm confident you can find a way to make fun of that.
I've had so many bikes stolen over the years I can't bring myself to spend much on one. I find your pompous attitude that $1000 is the minimum buy-in to be a cyclist to be destructive.
Man, you really need that seminar!
Good troll sir, good troll.
You misuse the word 'troll' like kids on the Internet misuse the word 'autistic'.
Troll: One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.
I'm not going to waste my time shitposting in the Internet just to get a reaction out of people; I write what I actually think, and if you or anyone else doesn't like what I think, then that's tough for you, but not liking what I have to say doesn't make me a 'troll'. Get it right.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
That shouldn't happen. A good wheelset should last you for years, at least 4 or 5 times that many miles.
Well, I can't be sure but I think the axle bent when I got hit by a car. There were also numerous potholes and driveway bumps and the fact that I am overloading the axle. I don't need my bike to be eternal, I treat it more like a consumable. Strangely, since I adopted this attitude it hasn't been stolen or destroyed in an accident but I've been burned enough to not get attached.
you need to buy something quality, not cheap, and you get what you pay for when you buy a bike.
Here you're just plain wrong. My bike is from Walmart, it was $200, and it has nearly 15,000 miles on it. I had the wheel replaced under warranty, if I bought a new wheel from the mfr it would have cost $50.
I ride hard, maintain poorly, and still my cheap bike held up admirably.
It is sad how many years I wasted, thinking that I didn't have what it takes to be a bike commuter, because of misguided people like you. I couldn't get over my heartbreak when I came back to my beloved Peugeot and it was beat to death by vandals in 1988. Now that I have realized cheap bikes are a good option I am a happy cyclist, putting at least 150 miles a week onto my trusty walmart bike.
I know a bunch of people with expensive bikes who are afraid to take them anywhere, and a bunch more people without a bike at all because they think they need to spend 4 digits to get something decent.
Man, you really need that seminar!