The most under-hyped, but most important, technology since seat belts • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by mmastrac » Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 3:29 AM UTC

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.

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

#92

Post by randallsquared » Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 3:50 AM UTC

dnsworks wrote: post #82

As usual, Scoble misses the boat by several magnitudes in his aim to over-sensationalize something he read on techmeme. I would personally put safety glass, airbags, anti-lock brakes, traction control, and crumple zones ahead of radar. Those are technologies that improve safety for everybody, whereas radar is for people who don't pay attention and should not be driving in the first place.

whereas radar is for people who don't pay attention and should not be driving in the first place.

So, "for people", then. I'm confident that there is no driver who is fully paying attention to driving at every moment while driving.

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

#93

Post by blahedo » Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 4:00 AM UTC

Here's the reason I expect to hate this "feature": I already hate the way my seat belts work and they have nearly gotten me into multiple accidents. Specifically, if I see a hazard coming from the sides/rear and slow down and try to avoid them, I need to be able to turn my head quickly and sharply to see them. And the GODDAMN SEATBELT IS PREVENTING THIS because the slowdown and my quick sitting-up-straight has caused it to lock me tight against the seat. I am now PARTIALLY BLIND with respect to whatever threat is incoming and I have to hope for the best. This is terrifying and it is not a safety improvement. Based on the descriptions in this article, the situation in these cars of the future will be even worse, because the seatbelts will lock down more often and the brakes will become hypersensitive and work differently than your muscle memory has been trained to expect.

No matter how much training and experience you have with your car, as soon as you get in a situation that requires precision handling you are suddenly transported into a car that behaves and handles completely differently, that you've never driven in before. Put me down in the "no" column.

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

#94

Post by rglullis » Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 4:03 AM UTC

blahedo wrote: post #93

Here's the reason I expect to hate this "feature": I already hate the way my seat belts work and they have nearly gotten me into multiple accidents. Specifically, if I see a hazard coming from the sides/rear and slow down and try to avoid them, I need to be able to turn my head quickly and sharply to see them. And the GODDAMN SEATBELT IS PREVENTING THIS because the slowdown and my quick sitting-up-straight has caused…

Humm... turning your head? Something wrong with your rear-view mirror?

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

#95

Post by vlad » Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 4:22 AM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #33

mschy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice what it means is that if you're about to crash into something, and you hit the brakes, that it hits them 100% right off the bat, instead of the 50% or 80% that most people would go for. I've not used the system in the Prius, but I've used a competing system and it's not at all surprising.

In many cases you're better off trying to steer around the collision than (or in addition to) stopping short of it. I've seen a few crashes where people could have just steered onto the shoulder or median to avoid the crash but it seems that they just applied the brakes and hoped for the best. I don't think driver's education in the USA teaches emergency maneuvering much. How is it elsewhere?

My drivers education course (in the US) emphasized steering to avoid a collision first, and then braking afterwards. We were taught that colliding with a pole at 35 mph is better than doing so with oncoming traffic for a total effect of 70 mph. It also reduces the chances of injury.

After reading that pilots are the safest drivers, I've made sure to always look around my car as I drive.

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

#96

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 4:32 AM UTC

dnsworks wrote: post #82

As usual, Scoble misses the boat by several magnitudes in his aim to over-sensationalize something he read on techmeme. I would personally put safety glass, airbags, anti-lock brakes, traction control, and crumple zones ahead of radar. Those are technologies that improve safety for everybody, whereas radar is for people who don't pay attention and should not be driving in the first place.

Radar is not for the people who don't pay attention. It's for the people who are driving in front of them who are going to get rear-ended otherwise. The less control idiots have over cars, the better. I would feel far more comfortable dealing with a bunch of automated vehicles than a similar number of typical drivers, to be frank.

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

#97

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 4:36 AM UTC

blahedo wrote: post #93

Here's the reason I expect to hate this "feature": I already hate the way my seat belts work and they have nearly gotten me into multiple accidents. Specifically, if I see a hazard coming from the sides/rear and slow down and try to avoid them, I need to be able to turn my head quickly and sharply to see them. And the GODDAMN SEATBELT IS PREVENTING THIS because the slowdown and my quick sitting-up-straight has caused…

Sure, buddy. And not wearing a helmet would doubtless make you a better motorcyclist, too. Fortunately, in the case of motorcyclists, people who actually believe this tend to kill themselves earlier, sparing the rest of us from having to listen to their bullshit.

Edit: I suggest not slouching to start with.

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

#98

Post by blahedo » Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 4:51 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #97

blahedo wrote: post #93

Here's the reason I expect to hate this "feature": I already hate the way my seat belts work and they have nearly gotten me into multiple accidents. Specifically, if I see a hazard coming from the sides/rear and slow down and try to avoid them, I need to be able to turn my head quickly and sharply to see them. And the GODDAMN SEATBELT IS PREVENTING THIS because the slowdown and my quick sitting-up-straight has caused…

Sure, buddy. And not wearing a helmet would doubtless make you a better motorcyclist, too. Fortunately, in the case of motorcyclists, people who actually believe this tend to kill themselves earlier, sparing the rest of us from having to listen to their bullshit. Edit: I suggest not slouching to start with.

Note that I'm still wearing the seatbelt, and I'm not pushing for the repeal of seatbelt laws. If you'll read a little more carefully, you'll see that my objection is to the mechanical change in handling, visibility, etc, just at the moment when you need it the most, not to the presence of safety measures in general.

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

#99

Post by shaddi » Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 4:53 AM UTC

Devilboy wrote: post #86

patio11 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Car accidents are still the #1 cause of preventable death worldwide. That strikes me as unlikely, given that car accidents kill something like 50,000 people a year in the US. Just inside the US, an obvious candidate for prevention -- medical mistakes -- kills far more people. (Estimated at 200k per year preventable deaths in hospitals alone.) Casting our glance worldwide, poorer nations have millions of deaths from c…

World stats (causes of death) according to WHO: 1) Coronary heart disease - 12.2% 2) Stroke and other cerebrovascular diseases - 9.7% 3) Lower respiratory infections - 7.1% 4) Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - 5.1% 5) Diarrhoeal diseases - 3.7% 6) HIV/AIDS - 3.5% 7) Tuberculosis - 2.5% 8) Trachea, bronchus, lung cancers - 2.3% 9) Road traffic accidents - 2.2% Although maybe it's more correct to say the leading…

Yes. In the public health course I took last semester, road traffic accidents were the most common form of death by injury, if I remember correctly. Turns out, tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death worldwide, a label applied to diseases that can be avoided through the use of vaccination or healthy behavior.

"Preventable" has a fairly specific meaning in the public health community, as opposed to its common-use dictionary definition. Obviously, the latter isn't very useful since most ailments are "preventable" if you think broadly enough.

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

#100

Post by jodrellblank » Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 4:59 AM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #80

elblanco wrote: post #44

Ford is really doing a phenomenal job recently, doing its homework and engineering to try and get the company back on track. 5 years ago, I would have said they were 10-15 years behind an equivalent Japanese car. Now I think they they are only 3-5 years. Their recent offerings are really very impressive. I'd love to see Ford be a benchmark for American car companies as well as imports. They aren't quite there yet, bu…

I'm sure they are getting a lot from Mazda. The Ford Fusion, for example, is basically a rebadged Mazda 6.

I wonder how it works - Ford own Volvo, who are pretty good with safety features (e.g. the 3 point seatbelt) and who have been building blind-spot awareness systems, brake-priming systems, etc. and their concept for the next S60 had distance-to-car-in-front cruise control and pedestrian detection and so on. ( http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/index.htm?md=1468 )

Maybe Ford are getting it from Volvo?