- cross-posted to:
- unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
- cross-posted to:
- unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
Driverless vehicle that uses sensors to measure road surface quality and repair small cracks to stop them turning into potholes and hopefully decreasing the cost of road maintenance while improving average surface quality.
You must log in or register to comment.
You mean trains, bikes, and good public transit? Because those all mean less wear and tear on the roads overall. Trust an American because we’ve been at this for seventy years. If you guys go all in on car dependency, it’s not only going to break the banks of government from local to national, but it’s going to break your bank and destroy what small businesses you have left.
Good public transit does not mean less wear and tear on the roads, absolutely not. As I stated in a different comment, a bus that replaces 10-20 cars causes similar road damage as 10000 cars. Which is fine, but for completely different reasons. Public transport is good because it allows more pedestrian-friendly cities, reduces pollution, etc; just road wear and tear is not one of the reasons why it’s good, it’s one of the drawbacks.
Well, at least trams and trains don’t produce wear on roads, and a good freight train network reduces the need for heavy trucks.
Good point, thanks for holding me accountable to the truth. We can’t set things right if we’re selling people a bill of goods; that’s what got us here in the first place.
This guy acting like US invented cars and have divine knowledge from this experience.
Dude, Europe got 10x better public transport and are far less car dependent than the US.
Our cities are too old to be build with cars in mind.
Our cities are too old to be build with cars in mind.
Vast parts of the cities I lived in were completely bulldozed to accommodate cars.
And yet you guys are attempting to follow in our footsteps with new construction. Also the US was also too old to be built with cars in mind, we bulldozed our cities for the car (ಥ_ʖಥ)
Only 70 years…?
That’s pretty neat, every city needs constant road work
Ban cars
Did you know that road damage is proportional to the fourth power of weight? A single city bus does similar road damage to 10000 cars. Since we’re talking about road damage here, shall we ban buses too? Do I need to tell my 78 year mom with limited mobility to suck it up and cycle?
I work in a related field and having fewer cars on the road is a priority of mine, but I swear the “fuck cars” crew are completely deluded from reality.
So, I’m not the previous commenter, and I’m not about to suggest we should ban cars outright (there are quite obviously situations where cars are needed… I mean, anyone who lives in an isolated place literally has no better option)… That said, I would love to see cities free of cars entirely.
Buses are more damaging to roads, yes (although I’m confident that your 10,000 number is hyperbole, I found a source which suggested than an empty bus does ~170 times the damage of an SUV, or 1,700 times the damage of a compact), even per passenger - which is surprising. But the benefits are quite significant in other regards - energy, pollution, road space, safety, etc. Plus, you can in fact design busses which are less damaging to roads by giving them more wheels!
Road damage is a relatively small part of why people like me want to see cars be (where practical) a thing of the past. There is a place for busses in that world, alongside other less damaging forms of transit - especially bikes and trams within cities where busses would be the competition. Certain routes are too far for a bike to be practical and too sparse to warrant a tram, so busses make sense in that case.
Well it might be off, as there are other factors, but I wasn’t meaning it as hyperbole - road damage is proportional to the fourth power of axle weight, and a typical bus weighs about 10 times the weight of a compact, so damage would be roughly 10^4 times larger. This is called the “Generalised Fourth Power Law” and there are tons of links about it:
https://camdencyclists.org.uk/2020/06/the-fourth-power-rule-cyclelicious/
(Which btw, you can apply the other way and state that you need an insane amount of bicycles to match the road damage of a single car).
If they took the top end bracket of SUV weights and the bottom end of bus weights, they could have reached vastly different numbers. I used 1800 kg (large sedan or compact SUV) and 18000 kg for a bus (the mercedes Benz citaro starts at roughly 18500 kg), to keep the numbers simple.
That’s reasonable - the source I checked didn’t use the fourth power, and it was taking into account the number of wheels as well. Anyway, I think the point still stands that just like cars there is a place for busses in a more sensibly designed transit system, despite this one specific disadvantage. Bikes are obviously superior in many ways to other transport but are only really practical over quite short distances (I’m not averse to cycling 10+ miles to get somewhere but I’m gonna need a shower when I arrive lol).
I swear the “fuck cars” crew are completely deluded from reality.
I see people say what you’re saying (bus vs car road damage elasticity) in “fuck cars” communities, I don’t really see why you’ve decided to attack them collectively. But it’s a pop-community, they’re going to be wrong every now and then either way, please give them some slack. Their purpose is to make an average person aware of car dependency and that it’s generally a negative thing, so that actual urban planners with technical knowledge have an easier time arguing for and implementing realistic solutions, and they’ll take into account the variables you bring up. Think of “fuck cars” like a form of lobbying except it’s done by common people with good intentions - similar to how Japanese coops lobbied for better food safety standards decades ago - rather than wealthy corporations.
Ah, it was just because of the “ban cars” comment with no more context around it. I’m happy with reducing cars, not with expecting cars to get banned altogether or to cease to exist magically.
Or just pay humans a living wage to do it today, no trial required.
tarmacking is a horrible job especially at night, personally I’d rather reduce the cost of infrastructure maintenance using automation and then pay people a living wage to do nicer jobs.
Bets on this actually reducing the cost of maintenance? I’d hazard a guess that it will cost more, fix less, and result in fewer local jobs. But the VC-backed overseas startup CEO will profit, so that’s something I suppose.
It’s a fair guess, but my guess is the opposite. Prevention is far cheaper than repairing.
And technological advances almost always comes out on top in terms of costs in the long run.
And this is saving money for the government, not some CEO.
Always. Follow. The money.
Looking at the decline around me, I doubt my local council has any money to employ said people. Our roads are full of potholes. Had a blowout on one not so long ago.
If the government can’t get more money coming in to councils, this will have to do.
They said there is a skills shortage in the video. They can not find people to take the jobs.
Self-driving? Better round up a mob and torch it.
They’d better not be training that AI on any potholes I helped create!
I was just thinking about something like this for fixing road cracks, it could work like a 3D printer with a scanner on the front to follow the crack.
As usual, my great ideas are about half a decade too late.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/watch?v=iLSrG0eGv64&t=8s
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
28 Days Later…
