Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

ikidd ,
@ikidd@lemmy.world avatar

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.

TheGrandNagus , (edited )

The problem with potholes and road damage in the UK isn't to do with not knowing where potholes are, it's to do with councils having their central government funding taken away (cough 14 years of Tory rule cough)

Local government funding has been cut to the bone, and roads, paths, community centres, libraries, council housing, homeless shelters, etc have all been paying the price.

Assuming it works, this is still a cool project though.

QuantumBamboo ,
@QuantumBamboo@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Totally agree! This kind of technology will pay divends I'm sure in the long term as it matures, but as with all technological development it's not likely to be a scalable, cost effective solution. For now, a government that understands the importance of infrastructure maintenance would do wonders.

SpeedLimit55 ,

That's pretty neat, every city needs constant road work

spez_ ,

Ban cars

Jrockwar ,

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.

BluesF ,

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.

Jrockwar ,

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.

BluesF , (edited )

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).

honey_im_meat_grinding ,

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.

Jrockwar ,

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.

TheGrandNagus , (edited )

I swear the "fuck cars" crew are completely deluded from reality.

A lot of them are, and it's really annoying.

I want fewer cars on the road too. I want cities without constant traffic and road noise. Not to mention to environmental and health benefits. We need a reduction of cars.

But some people in the "fuck cars" camp are just in their own little bubble. Privileged people who live where public transport is good, they're healthy and able-bodied enough to cycle, they don't work overnight where public transport isn't accessible.

They're completely separate from reality. Some of us live in isolated communities where a train service obviously won't ever happen for obvious reasons, and buses aren't a feasible solution either.

Some of us have mobility requirements and can't cycle 20 miles to work along a damp, dreary motorway.

bAn aLL cArS is utterly unrealistic for a slew of practical reasons, never mind the politics of a government coming along and saying "hey plebs, we plan on taking your cars away, sucks to be you, right?"

The number 1 priority should be pedestrianisation of city centres and addition of bus links, then taking it from there. Calling car drivers evil while chanting ban cars is just stupid.

Texas_Hangover ,

I choose to believe that you are the real spez, and that's why you're such a fuckwit.

Reverendender ,
@Reverendender@sh.itjust.works avatar

28 Days Later...

conditional_soup ,

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.

themurphy ,

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.

Traister101 ,

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)

schnokobaer ,

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.

Worx , (edited )

I think they're saying "America is a bad example, please don't follow us"

conditional_soup ,

Yes

Jrockwar ,

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.

ChaoticNeutralCzech ,

Well, at least trams and trains don't produce wear on roads, and a good freight train network reduces the need for heavy trucks.

conditional_soup ,

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.

ripcord ,
@ripcord@lemmy.world avatar

Only 70 years...?

FaceDeer ,
@FaceDeer@fedia.io avatar

Self-driving? Better round up a mob and torch it.

They'd better not be training that AI on any potholes I helped create!

lemmus ,
@lemmus@lemmy.world avatar

Or just pay humans a living wage to do it today, no trial required.

RoboGroMo OP ,

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.

Spuddlesv2 ,

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.

themurphy ,

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.

vext01 ,
@vext01@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

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.

beefontoast ,

They said there is a skills shortage in the video. They can not find people to take the jobs.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • technology@lemmy.world
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •