Forbes reports on KPMG’s Autonomous Vehicles Readiness Index – an attempt to gauge the degree to which various countries are prepared for driverless cars.
Among the more eye-catching observations is one from Stijn de Groen, an automotive expert at the firm, who says that when it comes to driverless cars the Netherlands should focus on motorways.
His argument for doing so? “We have a lot of bicycles. In urban, crowded areas it will be very difficult to start autonomous driving.”
Forbes also spoke to Charlie Simpson, co-head of KPMG’s “mobility 2030” project.
Speaking about where we’re up to with driverless technology, he said: “There will have to be some reprogramming. Right now we’re at the stage of a guy with a red flag walking in front of the [19th Century] car. When that guy went, and the cars started to go faster, humans learned not to step in front of them. We are going to have to go through that evolution.”
We’re not quite sure what to make of that comment, but Simpson did also say that KPMG’s driverless technology reports weren’t focusing on cyclists yet. “That’ll be wave two.”
Add new comment
18 comments
To my mind the [motor] car is better seen as a monstously over-engineered mobility scooter.
given the number of annual deaths and serious injuries caused by mobility scooter users (which far exceed that of people on bikes) I think plod should be focusing more on that mode of transport with respect to the danger presented to society.
Of curse they should before they do that sort out all the nobbers in motors who park up and drive onto the 'pavement' all the time, no, just cyclists then that are 'dangerous' eh!
While the number of accidents seems to be going up, I thought the annual deaths involving mobility scooters was around 10 or a dozen, and that they mostly killed the drivers and rarely anyone else. Serious injuries also seem low in number. Do you have a link to the stats you had ? Tah.
"The most recent figures from the Department of Transport show there were 260 accidents involving mobility scooters in 2016. Sixty-one of those were classed as “serious” and 14 were fatal." - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mobility-scooter-crash-man-seriously-injured-london-harold-wood-a8413391.html
Only other non news story I could find on google was
https://www.accessandmobilityprofessional.com/mobility-scooter-law-change-needed-says-coroner-yet-deaths/
but this refers more to scooter users killing themselves rather than anyone else...
Yep - that's looks similar to all the previous years stats (think 2015 was something like 28 serious, 9 fatalities - all of which were the driver - 2013 and 2011 less total, same result)
Maybe, this will keep autonomous vehicles off the road until they can actually drive around people and cyclists safely... Hmm: Big Auto.
I have a Bad Feeling about this... Think about the history of the automobile - pedestrians just walking around made it difficult for early automobiles, therefore a whole campaign started to make it the pedestrians' fault ("jaywalking").
Didn't we have a Minister telling us that considerate cycling on pavements was ok two or three years ago? Shouldn't Cambridge Police mention that?
It's a pity the police spokesperson didn't point out the actual statistics for Cambridgeshire showing it's such a minor issue. Here they are for 2007-11. I'm sure they've access to up to date figures that would be broadly similar.
From https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cycle_and_motor_vehicle_accident_3
Pedestrian casualties
During the five years 2007-2011 inclusive, six pedestrians were seriously injured in collisions
with pedal cyclists in Cambridgeshire, five of these collisions occurred in Cambridge City.
During the same period 45 pedestrians were slightly injured in collisions with pedal cyclists in
Cambridgeshire, 40 of these 45 slight injuries occurred in Cambridge City.
One of the serious injuries (that happened outside of Cambridge City) occurred when a cyclist
was cycling on a pavement. Seven of the 40 (my emphasis) slight injuries that occurred in Cambridge City
involved a cyclists cycling on the pavement, as did two of the five slight injuries that occurred
elsewhere in Cambridgeshire.
Comparable figures for pedestrians injured in collisions with motor vehicles are also shown
below.
Severity | Total | Cambridge | Elsewhere
--------------------------------------------
Fatal | 34 | 2 | 32
Serious | 185 | 49 | 136
Slight | 570 | 172 | 398
Pavement as defined in the Highway Code is the pedestrian footpath and only that. "Pavement" as defined as all paved surfaces is an american definition, so applicable in the USA - not the UK.
In UK highway design the formal designations are footway, carriageway and cycle-route.
Nope, it's been descriptive of general paved surfaces in English for a long time *. It may have changed it's primary interpretation over time but it's still retained the broader meaning as well.
Cheers for the clarification.
* In particular, since before the English-speaking US was a thing.
OK, thanks for that
From the same force that decided not to prosecute this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-cambridgeshire-40134629
You'd think that a police spokesperson would use the correct definitions. IIRC "pavement" includes the bit the cars are on, the bit the pedestrians are on, and (obviously) the bit the bikes are on. Confusion arises when local papers start frothing at the mouth about cyclists on "pavements" without checking the legal status of said pavement, and whether cyclists are actually allowed to ride there.
(Anecdote: "Bloody cyclists on the pavement!" mutters the young lady to her friend as I ride slowly past; I stop, point at the blue roundel on a nearby lamp post, ask if they know what it means... They didn't).
I have a similar anecdote, of an old dear telling me to get off the pavement when she was stood on the painted bike sign of the shared use path. I asked if she wanted to apologise for swearing at me and my daughter, but she declined.
Odd one, pavement is any paved surface whereas 'the' pavement seems to be taken specifically as the raised, paved surface beside the road. A footpath may be paved, in part, but not a pavement (or rather, not 'the' pavement) and may be by the side of a 'road'. The bit house-house / building-building is the highway, that's the one that includes (side) pavements, footpaths, road surfaces and the like. Or something, i'll look later maybe.
@brooksby - had this on the Portway heading North up past the Shirehampton Golf Course - path there is seriously wide but robustly framed gent was on the inside of it, two small terriers skittering, about sniffing the floor and so on between him and the outside - said 'excuse me' a couple of times, waited, eventually went around the outside of one of the dogs who then jumped up and barked. Mouthful from the gent, I point at shared use sign, he says what's wrong with the road. I encounter dozens of dog walkers going through Blaise Castle when commuting, and never get that sort of grief - some people are just like that.
Do you mean that section up by the lookout? That's about thirty feet wide??
And I've got to say: "what's wrong with the road"??? Has he even looked at the Portway?!? Or how people drive on it...
Nearly, juuust before that on the way up - probably only about 25 foot wide there....
@brooksby - had this on the Portway heading North up past the Shirehampton Golf Course - path there is seriously wide but robustly framed gent was on the inside of it, two small terriers skittering, about sniffing the floor and so on between him and the outside - said 'excuse me' a couple of times, waited, eventually went around the outside of one of the dogs who then jumped up and barked. Mouthful from the gent, I point at shared use sign, he says what's wrong with the road. I encounter dozens of dog walkers going through Blaise Castle when commuting, and never get that sort of grief - some people are just like that.
[/quote]
Just remind them of the guidance in the highway code
Rule 56
Dogs. Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists or horse riders.