Australia

3588 readers

184 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
Politics, post it to Australian Politics
World News/Events, post it to World News
A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

lodion@aussie.zone

Fluid@aussie.zone

bestusername@aussie.zone

eatham@aussie.zone

Why do so few people cycle for transport in Australia? 6 ideas on how to reap all the benefits of bikes (theconversation.com)

submitted 5 months ago by Zagorath@aussie.zone to c/australia@aussie.zone

62 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 19 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

            
              Better cycling infrastructure. Yeah, no shit. We need more paths, more direct paths, and more connected paths. You should be able to go anywhere you want using a route that it at least as direct as the most direct driving route, by bike, without ever sharing a road with cars above 30 km/h, and with a minimal number of road crossings where the cars get priority.
Use AI to identify where cycling infrastructure needs to go. 🙄 Or you could just ask cyclists. We've got no shortage of ideas of places that are severely lacking already. Maybe the AI could be useful once most of the basic network is done, but not today.
Improve transport modelling to include cycling. Yes! Add in induced demand effects on infrastructure for cycling, public transport, and cars. Use models that understand traffic evaporation when reducing road widths or adding modal filters. Our transport engineers are currently woefully behind the times.
Politicians need to actually care about cycling. Yeah, no shit.
Make active transport funding a priority. Yup. Our councillors love to harp on about how they spent X amount on cycling infrastructure, but they never put that in context of how much is spent on roads. But also, let's make sure that money goes where it's most useful. Spending billions building one green bridge is great, but is still much less useful than building many kilometres of good separated bikeway for the same price. (The real answer is to do both!)
Recognise the health benefits of cycling. Yes, but this isn't really an actionable item. It's just more reason to do the above items, particularly pointing to 4.

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Use AI to identify where cycling infrastructure needs to go. 🙄 Or you could just ask cyclists.

I guess you didn't finish reading that section:

A big advantage of AI is it can be scaled up. Once trained, AI models can be replicated across many neighbourhoods to identify urban design features that support cycling. It’s even more useful when combined with citizen science and rider experiences, as we plan to do.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No, I just think it's silly to talk about applying AI to something that just manifestly does not need AI. It's a dumb buzzword at best, an excuse to spend less money actually building infrastructure because more money is going to AI consultants at worst.

Like I said, if it were about filling in the little cracks once we have a really good overall network, I could maybe get behind it. But right now there's just zero need for it, because the stuff that's missing is so obvious and there's so much of it. At least in Brisbane, the Council could decide to triple its spend on bike infrastructure and still take a decade before the big problems we've been calling for action on for years are all exhausted.

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

an excuse to spend less money actually building infrastructure because more money is going to AI consultants at worst.

How will using AI in a privately funded research project take money away from government funded infrastructure projects?

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

How is the government (who has to end up building the stuff) getting this AI data? They're paying some AI company for it. Money that would be better spent directly on infrastructure we already know we need.

The better question is: without the technobro hype, what do we actually have to gain from this AI technology?

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

How is the government (who has to end up building the stuff) getting this AI data? They’re paying some AI company for it.

No...? The research project the article is based on is being privately funded. The data and tools will be shared with stakeholders to assist with advocacy and policy making.

[–] spartanatreyu@programming.dev 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

First, AI is garbage at best, a shield to look busy, move money, and claim benevolence at worst.

Secondly, who is funding the AI?

If I were a company that makes more money the less people cycle or work from home, I'd rename one of my departments the AI consultant department. Then I could pay myself as much as I wanted, be able to spew buzzwords at investors/governments/naysayers, generate nothing of value (as intended), then say to all the governments and cyclists: "Sorry, we spent $X and it looks like putting more gas guzzling cars on the road is still the best solution".

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 1 points 4 months ago

I'm not sure what you're babbling about here. Have you actually bothered to read the article in question?

This is a research project conducted the Australian Urban Observatory, located within the Centre for Urban Research at RMIT. It is being funded by the Ian Potter Foundation, which is a philanthropic organisation. It has absolutely nothing to do with any government or AI company.