Trek-Segafredo's Koen de Kort has fingers amputated after off-road vehicle crash; Should robots be allowed in cycle lanes?; Police say driver behaviour is why people don't cycle; Team GB get active campaign sponsored by Toyota + more on the live blog

"Every twelve minutes a person is mugged in London. They must feel like it's not worth even going out any more."

hawkinspeter wrote:

Quote:

A motorist can (and regularly does) cause significant harm to others, our job is to enforce that.

They need to find that motorist and stop him/her.

Indeed I would prefer that they did not oblige drivers to cause significant harm, 

No, genuinely dont see what the problem is here, how much sugar is in most cyclists snacks ? Take a packet of haribo that some mail order cycling shops have the "sheer affront" to include as free gifts when you just buy a spare inner tube as a starter for 10.

DoomeFrog wrote:

Does anyone else see the irony of a get active campaign sponsored by supplier of sugary fat laden treats and a motor car manufacturer?

be more active get more hyngry eat more biscuits.

Don't sit at home, go somewhere to do something active, take your bike there on the back of the toyota

DoomeFrog wrote:

Does anyone else see the irony of a get active campaign sponsored by supplier of sugary fat laden treats and a motor car manufacturer?

That's late stage capitalism for you.

Fuel company adverts usually feature pristine wildernesses and car adverts inevitably have happy, active people enjoying empty winding roads.

Yes. Also ironic that active travel infra should be used for robots to bring more pizza and pies to people stuck on their sofa.

Sriracha wrote:

Yes. Also ironic that active travel infra should be used for robots to bring more pizza and pies to people stuck on their sofa.

The cycle lanes in Bristol are used by the riders of electric scooters and by blokes delivering food on motor scooters.  Having a mouse droid deliver your pizza'n'pies using the cycle lane isn't so different...

brooksby wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

Yes. Also ironic that active travel infra should be used for robots to bring more pizza and pies to people stuck on their sofa.

The cycle lanes in Bristol are used by the riders of electric scooters and by blokes delivering food on motor scooters.  Having a mouse droid deliver your pizza'n'pies using the cycle lane isn't so different...

I've got no issue with electric scooters in cycle lanes (even though it means I have to use the road to overtake them), but motor scooters have no place there. I do not want to pootle along in a cycle lane behind one whilst getting a face-full of fumes.

I don't want companies filling up the segregated infrastructure just so that they can increase their profits. They belong on the road so at least the worst drivers can hit them instead of people.

Robot Live Don't Matter!

Awavey wrote:

I do think those reports into the impact of an event often greatly exaggerate the benefits, like it quotes a 329million worldwide cumulative tv audience,59 million in the UK...that's nearly 90% of the UK population apparently tuned in via television.

Is the global TV figure that surprising? A nine day event, so averaging 36M a day, who could all be the same each day and who could have just flicked on for a few minutes. The UK figure does sound daft, I haven't seen it anywhere though?

it seemed high to me, but then the Euro 2020s are claiming billions of viewers so maybe comparatively it isnt,the cycling figures are quoted in the original report (https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/media/media/other/UCI_Road_World...) but its that thing where if a clip of footage is shown on a news program they count the viewership of the news as viewers, or highlights or replays etc etc

Yes I did wonder if "Saw it on the evening news whilst waiting for the weather forecast" might be thrown in the mix!

I don't think autonomous vehicles should be allowed on cycle/shared paths as there's no mention of how they deal with pets and wildlife. Do they give way to squirrels?

Also, they could be used as an excellent road safety tool. Stick a couple of cameras on them and whenever they get involved in a collision, there'll be footage showing what happened and maybe the police could take appropriate action with the drivers (though maybe not in Staffordshire).

hawkinspeter wrote:

I don't think autonomous vehicles should be allowed on cycle/shared paths as there's no mention of how they deal with pets and wildlife. Do they give way to squirrels?

Also, they could be used as an excellent road safety tool. Stick a couple of cameras on them and whenever they get involved in a collision, there'll be footage showing what happened and maybe the police could take appropriate action with the drivers (though maybe not in Staffordshire).

if there has been a collision there will be damage to property, freeing the police to take action.

Next time staffordshire police hace an appeal about a serious accident, maybe the responses should be along the lines that not actioning dangerous driving by the staffodshire police road team is a major contributing factor.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I don't think autonomous vehicles should be allowed on cycle/shared paths as there's no mention of how they deal with pets and wildlife. Do they give way to squirrels?

I think they are programmed to aim for squirrels as part of a conservation program. 

Other wildlife will be fine. 

Gimpl wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I don't think autonomous vehicles should be allowed on cycle/shared paths as there's no mention of how they deal with pets and wildlife. Do they give way to squirrels?

I think they are programmed to aim for squirrels as part of a conservation program. 

Other wildlife will be fine. 

Just a matter of time until the squirrels escalate

Gimpl wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I don't think autonomous vehicles should be allowed on cycle/shared paths as there's no mention of how they deal with pets and wildlife. Do they give way to squirrels?

I think they are programmed to aim for squirrels as part of a conservation program. 

Other wildlife will be fine. 

Apparently there is a bonus scheme for the most number of tails collected in a week.

They will never survive here in the states.  People will knock them over on purpose and steal the pizza.  Remember what happened to Hitchbot?  He got beheaded.

But here's the thing - this might actually encourage governments to provide more and better cycling infrastructure.

SaintClarence27 wrote:

They will never survive here in the states.  People will knock them over on purpose and steal the pizza.  Remember what happened to Hitchbot?  He got beheaded.

But here's the thing - this might actually encourage governments to provide more and better cycling infrastructure.

That could be one advantage to having robots using cycle lanes, if big companies help ensure that cycle infrastructure is built, fit for purpose and well maintained. It just seems to me that they'd rather put the robots amongst squishy traffic rather than huge metal boxes.

I guess it'd be easier to steal pizza from a robot on a path than on the road so maybe they'd need some countermeasures?

hawkinspeter wrote:

That could be one advantage to having robots using cycle lanes, if big companies help ensure that cycle infrastructure is built, fit for purpose and well maintained. It just seems to me that they'd rather put the robots amongst squishy traffic rather than huge metal boxes.

Delivery companies don't feel their robts are safe saring with drivers, prefer to share with all those cyclists. Perhaps cyclists are not the problem claimed by some drivers.

Two reasons why robots should not use cycleways:

The cost of building cycling infrastructure is paid back in reduced costs to the NHS, if the infra is used for increased active travel. So using some of its bandwidth instead to bring more pizza and pop to couch potatoes is cheating taxpayers out of the return on investment. Active travel investment should be employed to increase active travel, not squandered elsewhere.

The robots will displace cyclists. The whole point of decent cycle infra is to protect cyclists from motorists. Why should robots making a profit for someone take a cyclist's place in safety?

Sriracha wrote:

Two reasons why robots should not use cycleways: The cost of building cycling infrastructure is paid back in reduced costs to the NHS, if the infra is used for increased active travel. So using some of its bandwidth instead to bring more pizza and pop to couch potatoes is cheating taxpayers out of the return on investment. Active travel investment should be employed to increase active travel, not squandered elsewhere. The robots will displace cyclists. The whole point of decent cycle infra is to protect cyclists from motorists. Why should robots making a profit for someone take a cyclist's place in safety?

So our shared use infrastructure has been in place since the inception of the city nearly 50 years ago - as new estates are built, the infrastructure is expanded accordingly as part of the development and paid for by the developing companies. No cost to the local tax payer. Clearly that might not be the case everywhere but I still think you are stretching it somewhat!

We have had around two years of sharing the paths with the robots - they always give way to pedestrians and cyclist - always! They also don't appear to be taking over although it could be insidious as they are clearly sneaky little bastards who want nothing less than world domination. 

By far the biggest issue are those f**!??* long dog leads! Overall I think they are a great idea and the alternative is to have pizzas delivered by a yoof on a moped.