Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
At no point while obtaining your driving license are you tested properly for reaction speeds.
This is the main problem.
Bank Holiday Horror
- Thread starter Sliver
- Start date
At no point while obtaining your driving license are you tested properly for reaction speeds.
This is the main problem.
But your reaction speeds are not a constant, they can be compromised by so many internal and external factors as lack of sleep etc.
End of the day, humans are terrible drivers. We get distracted or we go into automatic mode if we do a journey repeatedly.
Modern passenger aircraft nowadays have auto pilot systems which are so advanced, that the planes can actually fly themselves. Human pilots are there as a manual backup. So it's interesting that air travel is the safest form of transport in the world. Apply this technology to road vehicles and it's guaranteed to reduce RTA's and save many thousands of lives every year. The fact that in exceptional circumstances, these systems may fail resulting in human death or injury, is an acceptable consequence of automation. Automation is harm reduction.
Why was the mini bus stopped in a live lane of the motorway would be a more pertinent question.
Except there are many more variables when driving vs flying and a lot less time to react.
Except there are many more variables when driving vs flying and a lot less time to react.
Maybe but you still have to concede that automation of vehicles will reduce the number of RTA's and save lives. Human error is responsible for the vast majority of RTA's.
No it isn't. Failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis is its own offence. He was arrested on suspicion of driving whilst over the prescribed limit which means he either provided a sample at the roadside, or was so visibly intoxicated it wasn't necessary.
Fair enough. I'm not a policeman so I'm not up on the ins and outs of law enforcement. Having watched cop shows on TV though I have seen people refuse breath tests at the scene leading to subsequent arrest and then testing at the station.
In theory is sound great but in practise, this wouldn't work because overtime a persons skills decrease. At the point when they need to take over, their skills maybe so diminished that them taking over makes them as dangerous as a learner driver. I think there was an aeroplane accident that happened recently and it was found that pilots where so reliant on technology that they were unable to avoid the plane crash. It was something like the tech was telling them the plane was level when simply looking out the window; they would have seen that the plane was actually descending.
What else was it going to be? exploding tyres.
I think even if visibly intoxicated you still need a sample of sort.
Yep, it's a separate arrestable and chargeable offence though.
Not to be arrested.
Just seen an update saying both lorry drivers are being charged with causing death by dangerous driving.
Yes I have. You missed my point. Of course human errors is going to be the biggest contributor of RTA, because they are the main decision maker in determining how the vehicle reacts to any situation (including any form of mechanical failure). A tyre blowing out doesn't guarantee an accident is going to happen. Stamping on the brakes or jerking the steering wheel in response, would lead to an accident.Possibly. Have you never heard of a blow out?
I guess what i was trying to say is. You are stating the obvious.
Safest place they can be. Straight roads fixed to one lane. Far more dangerous on urban roads.
Who said it was on a live lane?
Even the hard shoulder is one of the most dangerous places to be on a motorway. Simply because HGVs can encroach upon it often.
Might turn out to be a stupid overtake.
Hardly worth pointing out when you've taken one line of my post and ignored the context. Pedant much?
Racing? Overtake gone wrong?
Cameras will have picked the whole thing up you'd have though.
In such an instance would the point be to get a more accurate reading at the station? Because with every passing second you are technically losing evidence as the body process the alcohol.
I find that hard to believe to be honest, or maybe they were testing a very very early beta. It sounds like you're saying the software decided to cause an accident.
Maybe. It's a good job a computer would be able to make the fully informed decision much quicker than a human.
Why do you think this? Isn't that exactly what all the current testing is for?
Missed this in your quote sorry. That's exactly what they're trying to do. In fact, one of the very few (and quite famous) 'crashes' was when the onboard software predicted a bus was going to give way to it but didn't. It drove into the side of the bus. Yes, silly and maybe a human wouldn't have done it (when do we ever predict a driver will do something and they don't, right?) but again, that's what the testing is for, they learn from it.
A computer as a) a much better chance of predicting this, maybe even seconds before it happening (I'm not saying it will, just a better chance with all the sensors etc) and b) a better chance, as stated above, that it will deal with the blow out where a human might panic.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 6,053
Probably been overtaking each other for the last 2 hours
In this instance no. I'll go back and address the rest of your post then.
Technically no. Not all RTAs end up with someone dead, so you can't make that statement. This also ignores all the RTA that have been avoided because a human was in charge, rather than a computer.
We don't know what will happen come mass adoption. We may end up with a new type of accidents due to the use of computers.