LeSving wrote:
This still wouldn’t work though, if people wouldn’t be killed if they suddenly run on to the traffic on the road, or on the tracks.
The electric cars are still subject to the same braking laws as the current cars.
Aveling wrote:
Pedestrians throughout the US happily step off the curb at intersections without a care in the world
Have you crossed streets in NYC :)? I’m not sure what the law is, but
- Crossing when the sign says cross doesn’t necessarily mean that a turning car / truck etc won’t hit you (guess how I found out!)
- People still cross the streets outside of the side walks. Not sure what is the law (From what I hear from collagues, in most of the places where there is Jaywalking laws, they are not really applied, unless the police wants to use it to get you), but never seen anyone stopped.
The places I’ve been with the apparent most “civilized” pedestrians were likely Japan and the Netherlands.
In London I’m still amazed at how the drivers stop religiously at sidewalks, but the pedestrians are the most uncareful for their lives (crossing with headphones / without looking – I’ve hit about a dozen in the last 3 years on my 10 minute cycle to/from work, and some of these hit the ground pretty badly).
I’ve never had the impression the pedestrian behaviour caused significant traffic jams: On most of the streets, there just aren’t that many pedestrians that need to cross. Laws of physics still apply to the driverless cars, and if a pedestrian crosses suddenly enough, they will likely get killed, just like the dog / cat / hedgehog.
One advantages of driverless cars is that it might reduce the amount of cars in the city (while you are working, you might leave your own car to work as an “uber” for instance, reducing the net need for cars in town)
LeSving wrote:
The whole reason car traffic work today, is because everybody else are afraid of being killed by cars. Remove that fear, and traffic stops. Thus the only solution is to completely separate pedestrians from cars,
A very perceptive point if you will allow me to say so, and relevant to a current debate in UK about changing the law giving pedestrians and cyclists priority over other traffic.
What’s not being said is that this is already the law in the US, where in many states pedestrians are restricted to marked crossings where they have priority over traffic. Pedestrians throughout the US happily step off the curb at intersections without a care in the world. However, in many places crossing the street anywhere else is considered ‘jaywalking’ and illegal. All this works without gridlock, admittedly in a country with mostly consistent street design. The backstop (typically) is that traffic has to stop for a pedestrian in the road, but given that the offender (if they survive) can expect a ticket for that, it doesn’t happen often!
There is the BlackFly
IMO these things, as well as autonomous cars, are fully driven by the principle of “because we can”. Whether they solve any existing problems or not, is of secondary importance to anyone involved in development. Looking into it though, they don’t really solve anything, at least not without creating a whole bunch of new and weird problems that also must be solved.
For instance, self driving cars, especially in cities. I have read about tests and large scale experiments. The main purpose one could envision is safety. Autonomous cars would be made so they don’t drive into other cars, don’t drive into pedestrians, bicycles or animals. 100% safety could in fact be a sane and obtainable goal, at least in theory. But then comes reality. Large scale experiments have shown that the cars can indeed be made 100% safe. Still, pedestrians, bicycles and animals haven’t changed. What happens is that even dogs, cats and other animals immediately learn that these cars pose no threat whatsoever. They all start to behave as if the cars weren’t there. The result is complete jamming of traffic. The cars are immobilized.
The whole reason car traffic work today, is because everybody else are afraid of being killed by cars. Remove that fear, and traffic stops. Thus the only solution is to completely separate pedestrians from cars, the same way as is done with trains, aircraft and autobahns (for all practical purposes). This of course also removes the need for autonomous cars, except maybe on autobahns where they would have a merit. This still wouldn’t work though, if people wouldn’t be killed if they suddenly run on to the traffic on the road, or on the tracks.
The same principle would be true for aviation. The only difference is that due to low congestion of and lots of space in 3D, collisions (between autonomous and non-autonomous vehicles) could easily be avoided. In practice, what would happen though, IMO, is that separate airspaces are made for these vehicles. Airspaces that are carved out in G, illegal for “old school” GA of any kind.
Aveling wrote:
“there’s nothing to wear out”if the props are going to sustain the craft, thrust bearings. The masts at the end of which the e-motors are attached are more critical to check than wings. Propellers blades exposed to the weather the same as for helicopters. DC/DC converters are not eternal. Cooling systems. etc etc etc…
WHO keeps saying city-noise is killing people, and regardless of level people can’t tolerate a lawnmower or a windmill today. These wasps will be pushed out of city-centers, at which point they make no sense whatsoever.
Aveling wrote:
near zero maintenance – no need for an annual for instance because “there’s nothing to wear out”.
Sounds awfully naive. There’s “nothing to wear out” on a glider, too, but it’s a day’s work to annual a glider properly – a proper inspection takes time even if there’s nothing needing to be fixed.
So they developed a perpetum mobile… ;)
Easa certification will put the brakes on this whole multicopter thing. Back at the CES in January, the Volocopter guys were saying that the whole operating eoconomics were based on near zero maintenance – no need for an annual for instance because “there’s nothing to wear out”.
Peter wrote:
It isn’t just the batteries
which of course present a fire hazard
Peter wrote:
In the meantime a lot of “serial enterpreneurs” …
Moller has been doing this for decades at this point :-)
To add to Peter’s message, also the inefficiency and the noise. None of the multicopter type things I’ve ever seen have been even remotely efficient: they fly purely by brute force and nothing else, and are worse than helicopters of the equivalent size. One capable of carrying several passengers will also be very noisy (multiple small high RPM props) with a bunch of annoying beat frequencies as all the props run at slightly different RPM with every slight gust of wind. We already have to fly weird circuits at some airfields because people on the ground can’t tolerate hearing a relatively quiet piston single – imagine how people are going to react with a swarm of multirotor aircraft beating the air into submission! OK, so say you make the rotors all collective pitch to avoid getting the weird beat frequencies and to allow better redundancy (where if a motor fails, the remaining motors are still powering all the rotors since they don’t have to run at independent speeds). Now you have something that’s mechanically more complex (read expensive to maintain) than a helicopter.
Then inefficiency. While the rest of the world is on a headlong rush to reduce energy usage, these things will be absurdly profligate with energy due to the way they brute force themselves into the air with zero aerodynamic grace.
Then safety. They will never autorotate. Someone would have to develop a BRS with zero-zero capability.
