2 ms·
I think there is a misunderstanding of why cars are dangerous to cyclists and how to fix it. There are only two proven methods, slow car traffic right down til
by ehnto 3y ago
I think there is a misunderstanding of why cars are dangerous to cyclists and how to fix it. There are only two proven methods, slow car traffic right down til it is essentially co-mingling with pedestrians, or separate the two types of traffic completely. Automating cars changes neither of those. Maybe your lycra clad road cyclist doing 40kmph could co-exist with cars passing them at 60kmph+ but if you wouldn't let your kids cycle there then it's not actually safe. I would not trust a kid riding in a painted bike lane next to Tesla, even if it is less likely to hit them due to distractions there is still a whole host of things that can go wrong and then you face the fundamental issue of a speed and mass mismatch.
Changing the roads and infrastructure is the only way to avoid that fundamental physics problem.
- bkettle 3y agoIn general I completely agree that updating infrastructure to create dedicated spaces for non-car modes is the only way forward. But given how politically difficult it is to change--and especially to take away--existing infrastructure, and how much easier politically it is to introduce new tech, I hold out a smidgen of hope that driverless cars might help us inch in the right direction. Because they'll be managed by companies rather than individuals, they almost certainly will be required to adhere strictly to speed limits and other traffic laws, can be programmed to give bikers and pedestrians a wide berth, and won't (I hope dearly) get road rage. With luck and a sufficient volume of autonomous cars, this could help more people be comfortable riding with cars until we can get enough political will to build some decent infrastructure for non-car-users. And at this point I'll take what I can get to keep the ball rolling (and hopefully accelerating a bit) towards a friendlier future.