A Tragic Loss • Hacker News Board

Re: A Tragic Loss

#91

Post by Rafert » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 4:49 PM UTC

tombrossman wrote: post #67

efaref wrote: post #13

It sounds like the trailer didn't have underrun guards, which I think are mandatory in Europe, but presumably not in the US. http://www.transportsfriend.org/road/guards.html I expect those would have helped in this situation, as the car would have impacted the guards (and thus it would be a normal collision), rather than having its top sliced off.

Underrun guards are a good idea but not yet practical for trailers in the US. The reason is that loading dock approaches have far too much variance in ground height, and the empty space under the trailer is essential to have. If guards were in place, they would come into regular contact with the ground and either damage the trailer or the truck would be 'high centered' and stuck, resting on the guards. I suppose the…

The dock approach wouldn't matter with side guards and those could've prevented the death in this accident, if I'm reading Tesla's description of events correctly.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#92

Post by darklajid » Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 8:53 PM UTC

tombrossman wrote: post #81

welanes wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if this excuse holds water. If 28 disparate states with different freight profiles can pull it off, surely the US can too. It's all about will.

I don't think it's a question of willpower. The contiguous US is 48 states, each with the autonomy to calculate and set max axle weight / distance rules and many do. Sliding tandem axles under a 53-foot trailer are not something you just re-architect overnight. The span under the trailer behind the rear drive axle(s) and the forward trailer axle is much longer than you find on European trucks. That means you need a m…

Given all the EU bashing recently: That's something I really like. We share the driving licenses (classes, as in 'B' for cars) even.

You're only touching axle weight and distance, but I wonder if the max length (truck + trailer) is clearly defined? Are you allowed to have more than one trailer (here: Nope unless you're driving a tractor most likely)?

I have a BCE ('40 tonnes', biggest you can get here) license, although it is currently inactive¹. Trucks continue to amaze me and I'd like to understand how different the world is over there.

①: Truck licenses have a renewal date here in DE. For people far above my age (my dad) it's something like "Every five years after you're 60" or something like that. For me it was "Every 5 years" from the get go and I haven't renewed it for quite some time. I still could get it back, but would need to visit a doctor (general health), optometrist (field of view test) and maybe redo a first aid course.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#93

Post by tempestn » Tue, Jul 05, 2016, 12:53 AM UTC

kozak wrote: post #88

tempestn wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't necessarily be cause to disengage the autopilot. Plenty of things could cause negative acceleration besides a collision. A hill, a patch of mud, etc. And presumably they didn't anticipate this kind of situation, so didn't include moderate slowing due to collision as a code path.

The car should still have started emergency braking at some close distance before the obstacle (when the radar data got very clear about that not being an overhead sign). Braking in case of an inevitable crash is useful to reduce severity of the crash. And it's a bad idea to release brakes after the crash either. So it still seems like wrong behavior to me.

Well of course it's wrong behaviour! But in the article itself it says the car never braked, as it did not see the trailer. Presumably it did detect some deceleration and compensated for it. I'm just saying that apparently it wasn't programmed to interpret sudden deceleration absent any other indicators as a possible collision. I agree that perhaps it should be.

Re: A Tragic Loss

#94

Post by Houshalter » Sun, Jul 10, 2016, 7:31 PM UTC

hellofunk wrote: post #14

> It is important to note > It is important to emphasize I am getting so disappointed by how widespread this wasteful use of the English language has become. The phrase is just filler and means nothing, yet it is used everywhere, nearly every HN thread has someone who uses it. If you need to note something, then note it. By putting it into words, you have said "this is important enough to actually say it." Further sa…

Well this is 9 days old so I doubt you or anyone will see it. But I really want to say that this is just how language evolves. Phrases appear, become common, and even change meaning, subtly or entirely, from the original.

I don't think it's a waste of space. I think it conveys some information. If you remove it from a paragraph, the paragraph feels different. The meaning slightly changes. In a literal sense it may not mean anything, but I feel it does convey some intention from the speaker.