3 ms·

I do like the innovation in this area. I had the idea of having green and red slats on the back of a truck. If you are at a distance you see the green, but wh

I do like the innovation in this area. I had the idea of having green and red slats on the back of a truck. If you are at a distance you see the green, but when you get too close, it goes red. Basically telling you you're too close. My less popular idea would be the wet paint brush sticking out the back of your car to stop cars tailgating, ha! Some of these issues can be solved by not being right up behind a truck when attempting to overtake. Not easy when there is a trail of cars behind though. I do wonder where the liability of accidents now lie. For example, imagine there was a technical fault that caused a 3 second lag on the video. Would the truck or Samsung be at fault if it contributed to an accident?

gambiting 11y ago
Well, Mercedes and BMW cars can be bought with "nightvision" cameras where the car shows you a view from its IR camera on the dashboard, so in theory you could spot animals or people much easier while driving on unlit country roads. Someone could ask the same question - what if there is a 3 second lag on the video, or if the camera malfunctions and doesn't show you a person when in fact there is a person there? Well, the answer is the same as with everything else in cars - don't treat any of those systems as absolutes. Just because new cars have automatic breaking doesn't mean I can just approach parked cars at full speed hoping that my car will break for me. It's meant to help, not replace human judgement.
- martin-adams 11y ago
  I agree with what you say. Ultimately, the system (with all it's faults) only has to save more lives than without it before it has a net positive. I think what I found interesting is that the liability could shift onto the truck when they were not the one who took a dangerous action to overtake with oncoming traffic. I guess it's similar to me signalling to the car behind it's safe to overtake, when in fact it might not be. I could cause the accident. Aids to improve safety are good because it's the last line of defense, and if everything went as planned, they wouldn't be activated. Aids that help people participate in new risks opens up new questions. Cars behind have the choice not to overtake and that could in most cases would be the safest option (albeit tedious and boring). I'm all for this technology making roads safer, but I think it should be very clearly set out who is liable for it's failure. I don't want to be held responsible for my automatic breaking system failing, causing me to come to an unexpected complete stop on a motorway resulting in a multi-car pileup.

gambiting 11y ago

Well, Mercedes and BMW cars can be bought with "nightvision" cameras where the car shows you a view from its IR camera on the dashboard, so in theory you could spot animals or people much easier while driving on unlit country roads. Someone could ask the same question - what if there is a 3 second lag on the video, or if the camera malfunctions and doesn't show you a person when in fact there is a person there? Well, the answer is the same as with everything else in cars - don't treat any of those systems as absolutes. Just because new cars have automatic breaking doesn't mean I can just approach parked cars at full speed hoping that my car will break for me. It's meant to help, not replace human judgement.

martin-adams 11y ago
I agree with what you say. Ultimately, the system (with all it's faults) only has to save more lives than without it before it has a net positive. I think what I found interesting is that the liability could shift onto the truck when they were not the one who took a dangerous action to overtake with oncoming traffic. I guess it's similar to me signalling to the car behind it's safe to overtake, when in fact it might not be. I could cause the accident. Aids to improve safety are good because it's the last line of defense, and if everything went as planned, they wouldn't be activated. Aids that help people participate in new risks opens up new questions. Cars behind have the choice not to overtake and that could in most cases would be the safest option (albeit tedious and boring). I'm all for this technology making roads safer, but I think it should be very clearly set out who is liable for it's failure. I don't want to be held responsible for my automatic breaking system failing, causing me to come to an unexpected complete stop on a motorway resulting in a multi-car pileup.