Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The most under-hyped, but most important, technology since seat belts

scobleizer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 142 posts

Re: The most under-hyped, but most important, technology since seat belts

#131

Post by sokoloff »

dghughes wrote: post #89

"Another place the radar is invaluable? In fog. I drive over the Santa Cruz mountains every day to get home and there often is fog. One day there was a car in front of me that had no back taillights." I bet the driver of that car was just using parking lights. I hate that! People who drive with parking lights on don't seem to realize the rear running lights are not on, parking lights are not meant to be used when dri…

I've never seen a car where the "first click" of lights (what I presume you're calling parking lights) doesn't turn on the taillights. In most cars, they're even on the same fuse.

(Yes, there are cars with true one-sided parking lamps that will only illuminate one side front-and-rear to mark the edge of the car parked closest to the road.)

I suspect what you're actually seeing is drivers using only the daytime running lights. Those do not turn the rear lamps on.

Re: The most under-hyped, but most important, technology since seat belts

#132

Post by sokoloff »

mmastrac wrote: post #91
dghughes wrote: post #89

"Another place the radar is invaluable? In fog. I drive over the Santa Cruz mountains every day to get home and there often is fog. One day there was a car in front of me that had no back taillights." I bet the driver of that car was just using parking lights. I hate that! People who drive with parking lights on don't seem to realize the rear running lights are not on, parking lights are not meant to be used when dri…

Daytime running lights are mandatory in Canada. Not sure why they aren't in the USA. If the car is out of park, the headlights turn on automatically. It solves a handful of issues like this that are potentially dangerous.

It specifically does not solve the "no rear lamps" issue. In fact, it exacerbates it.

Re: The most under-hyped, but most important, technology since seat belts

#133

Post by sokoloff »

dgallagher wrote: post #75
portman wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This proposal wouldn't increase safety until all cars on the road had the GPS-governor feature, which would take 15-20 years for old cars to be phased out. In the meantime, the new cars would have an annoyance (no speeding) without providing any measurable safety improvement.

You're correct on some points, though it may slow other cars by way of simply being in the way. It wouldn't work on highways with passing lanes until a high adoption rate, but a single slow car on one-lane side roads will "bottleneck" any speeders. This alone would most likely increase safety. Gradually as more people got the cars, things would get safer and safer. Once, say, 90% of cars on the road have governors, i…

It's not clear to me that slowing traffic will increase safety in any meaningful way. Slowing traffic will, for any constant amount of "demand", necessarily increase traffic density. Increased traffic density would seem likely to have a positive correlation with accident rates that would partially offset the decrease you're hoping to see.

During the transition period, I predict you'd see a marked increase in the accident rate due to the increased instances of overtaking and broader spread of speeds. (12 cars all travelling at 80 mph on an interstate is safer than 6 cars travelling at 60 mph and 6 cars travelling at 80 mph. When you figure that each car governed to 60 will have to drive 33% longer, you'd actually have 8 cars at 60 mph and 6 cars at 80 mph to get the same throughput to destination on the highway.)

Re: The most under-hyped, but most important, technology since seat belts

#134

Post by mmastrac »

sokoloff wrote: post #132
mmastrac wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Daytime running lights are mandatory in Canada. Not sure why they aren't in the USA. If the car is out of park, the headlights turn on automatically. It solves a handful of issues like this that are potentially dangerous.

It specifically does not solve the "no rear lamps" issue. In fact, it exacerbates it.

Not true. Every car in Canada engages headlights and rear tail lights when the car is out of park, regardless of the headlight settings. The only thing effectively controlled by the headlight knob outside of park is the dashboard lights.

Re: The most under-hyped, but most important, technology since seat belts

#135

Post by dgallagher »

sokoloff wrote: post #133
dgallagher wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're correct on some points, though it may slow other cars by way of simply being in the way. It wouldn't work on highways with passing lanes until a high adoption rate, but a single slow car on one-lane side roads will "bottleneck" any speeders. This alone would most likely increase safety. Gradually as more people got the cars, things would get safer and safer. Once, say, 90% of cars on the road have governors, i…

It's not clear to me that slowing traffic will increase safety in any meaningful way. Slowing traffic will, for any constant amount of "demand", necessarily increase traffic density. Increased traffic density would seem likely to have a positive correlation with accident rates that would partially offset the decrease you're hoping to see. During the transition period, I predict you'd see a marked increase in the acci…

Interesting point. I know broadly that lowering speed limits tends to reduce accident rates, but that's certainly different than this (and may just be spin I've heard through the media).

The only way to tell would be to run something like this through a traffic simulator, and if that found things to be safer, next study it in a sample state or country (would be difficult to do). So you're possibly right, pending results of an imaginary study. :)

Re: The most under-hyped, but most important, technology since seat belts

#136

Post by sokoloff »

mmastrac wrote: post #134
sokoloff wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It specifically does not solve the "no rear lamps" issue. In fact, it exacerbates it.

Not true. Every car in Canada engages headlights and rear tail lights when the car is out of park, regardless of the headlight settings. The only thing effectively controlled by the headlight knob outside of park is the dashboard lights.

Interesting; I did not know that. In the US, every DRL that I've seen lights only one pair of front lamps (usually the headlamps at partial power, but some models light other front lamps).

Re: The most under-hyped, but most important, technology since seat belts

#137

Post by axod »

mattmaroon wrote: post #121
axod wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an incentive for people to pay less attention when driving. It's a bad incentive IMHO.

You could make the exact same silly argument about seat belts, crumple zones, and air bags, but the fact is all 3 save many lives.

Seat belts, crumple zones, air bags don't claim to prevent accidents. People aren't likely to say "Ah well, it doesn't matter I don't need to pay attention, since I have an air bag".

Radar etc though does claim to prevent accidents. Which will likely mean people pay less attention.

Re: The most under-hyped, but most important, technology since seat belts

#138

Post by [deleted] »

mike_organon wrote: post #27
jordanb wrote: post #12

The thing about ABS is that it operates on the principle of least surprise: It takes what the user expect brakes to do (slow the car down) and makes it work even when traditional brakes would fail to perform that task. So it took a technology that the user expected to work in a certain way, and made it work better in that way. It made brake behavior less surprising to the user. This technology seems to do the opposit…

Scoble's text is different from what the Ford guy says. Ford doesn't automatically hit the brakes, only preps them and when you hit the brakes, it automatically applies them 100%. Prius automatically applies the brakes and Scoble says he no longer instinctively hits them himself. I wonder if that loss of instinct is worth the benefit.

[deleted]

Re: The most under-hyped, but most important, technology since seat belts

#139

Post by sailormoon »

billswift wrote: post #125
borism wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why would you need a license for a fully automated vehicle?

The real reason for drivers licenses is social control. My father's first driver's license was never supposed to expire, my State ID was never supposed to expire, in both they changed the rules, and forced stores and banks to no longer accept "expired" IDs as proof of identity. It's not like your identity or age or ability to drive or anything else changes when your ID expires, they just want to keep you on their cha…

Don't ignore the departmental revenue from license renewals.

Re: The most under-hyped, but most important, technology since seat belts

#140

Post by sailormoon »

daveungerer wrote: post #126
daveungerer wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember that F = ma. Hitting another car of the same size coming from the opposite side when each car is doing 35 mph is pretty similar to hitting a concrete wall at 35 mph. There is no 70 mph effect. The reason the pole would be safer is that it has some give. Lower acceleration = lower force.

If someone could explain why I was voted down, that would be great. Thanks.

I didn't vote you down, but you cannot assume the cars are of identical size and mass, or indeed that it's a car at all. Hit a truck at 35, while he is also doing 35, and you'll feel a 70mph effect all right. For a few milliseconds.

Unfortunately, poles, especially old ones, do not have as much give as one would like, and large trees have basically none. Plus, their narrow aspect is a very bad thing to hit; cars are designed to collide with large, flat, wide objects and to crumple accordingly to wash off energy. Hitting an immoveable narrow object is outside this design consideration and cars have a nasty tendency to wrap around it.

Post reply on HN