5 ms·

I don't buy it. If you need a radar to tell you you're about to crash, you're probably not paying attention properly. We should tighten up driving tests. Drivi

by axod 17y ago

I don't buy it. If you need a radar to tell you you're about to crash, you're probably not paying attention properly. We should tighten up driving tests. Driving shouldn't be a right, it should be something only competent attentive people can do. It'd be interesting to know stats on Manual vs Automatic car accident rates. I'd guess that Automatics are involved in more accidents since the drivers are probably paying less attention. Similarly cruise control.

mattmaroon 17y ago
It's not that you need it to tell you that, it's that the human brain, even when focused, is relatively slow to respond. Not to mention many people have a panic impulse that causes them to yell first and then step on the brakes. In certain situations where a half second can mean the difference between death and a bruised knee, it's pretty impressive stuff.
- axod 17y ago
  Sure but that's why you pay attention and drive properly, and look out for any dangers/issues. The best way to cut down the number of accidents is to get rid of all the crazy bad drivers, rather than any sort of technology IMHO.
  - mattmaroon 17y ago
    It's not even remotely economical to eliminate bad drivers, not to mention good drivers who driver badly at times. My sense is that during any test, people will appear much better drivers than they are on average, since they won't be drunk or shooting off an SMS message or whatever else. It is economical to save a lot of lives with technology. This is a good tech. I don't know if I'd go with most important since seat belts, but it could save lives.
    - Imprecate 17y ago
      Agreed. Even assuming people do the right thing all the time and never get behind the wheel after drinking, when emotionally heated, without enough sleep, or while distracted by phones, etc., anyone can be distracted for a split-second and cause a major accident. That kind of "Superman" thinking that things would be great if only you tried harder is BS in a lot of cases. Most people do not want to get into road accidents, deliver code late, or build a shoddy product. Fixing the incentives or process works better.
    - axod 17y ago
      It's an incentive for people to pay less attention when driving. It's a bad incentive IMHO.
      - mattmaroon 17y ago
        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.
        axod 17y ago
        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.
- kscaldef 17y ago
  That may be, but I still look with suspicion on someone who says he would have gotten in 2 accidents in 11,000 miles had his car not saved him. In my experience, it's very, very rare for someone to just cut you off with no warning. I can almost always predict that someone is going to switch lanes without signaling; usually 2 or 3 seconds before they do it.
  - paulbaumgart 17y ago
    Predicting un-signaled lane changes is almost a required survival skill on a motorcycle.
  - mattmaroon 17y ago
    No doubt. He probably Twitters while driving.
  - DenisM 17y ago
    Good for you, but how about the other 95% of the population who are less attentive than you and lack predictive powers?
    - kscaldef 17y ago
      You think 95% of the population gets in 2 accidents a year? Scoble is either overstating his case, or he's a wretchedly bad driver.
    - axod 17y ago
      They shouldn't be allowed a license.
  - axod 17y ago
    This is a very good reason I prefer driving in the UK where lanes are only used for overtaking, and overtaking on the left is illegal.
wtallis 17y ago
If somebody cuts you off, the radar is guaranteed to have a faster reaction time than you.
- billswift 17y ago
  The point someone made up thread, is that unlike the radar, if you are paying attention, you will likely notice them approaching to cut you off which the radar certainly cannot.
Imprecate 17y ago
Modern cars make so much power that you really don't need to shift unless you're accelerating from a stop, in traffic, or on curvy/hilly backroads. I can comfortably drive in 6th gear between 55 and 100+ mph including passing, going up hills, and so on. Obviously it's not the ideal gear in all of those cases, but if you're feeling lazy it works. I would guess manuals are involved in more accidents and more fatal accidents, at least in the US, since the only people who buy them here in great numbers are performance enthusiasts, frugal bastards, and diesel truck drivers. Some enthusiasts are responsible and don't push their cars on public roads, but many aren't. If there is a difference, it's probably small. My parents have two of the same car, one in manual and one in automatic, and they never mentioned a large difference in insurance cost. Actuaries would charge manual and auto drivers different prices if their risk rates differed.

by axod 17y ago

mattmaroon 17y ago

It's not that you need it to tell you that, it's that the human brain, even when focused, is relatively slow to respond. Not to mention many people have a panic impulse that causes them to yell first and then step on the brakes. In certain situations where a half second can mean the difference between death and a bruised knee, it's pretty impressive stuff.

axod 17y ago
Sure but that's why you pay attention and drive properly, and look out for any dangers/issues. The best way to cut down the number of accidents is to get rid of all the crazy bad drivers, rather than any sort of technology IMHO.
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  It's not even remotely economical to eliminate bad drivers, not to mention good drivers who driver badly at times. My sense is that during any test, people will appear much better drivers than they are on average, since they won't be drunk or shooting off an SMS message or whatever else. It is economical to save a lot of lives with technology. This is a good tech. I don't know if I'd go with most important since seat belts, but it could save lives.
  - Imprecate 17y ago
    Agreed. Even assuming people do the right thing all the time and never get behind the wheel after drinking, when emotionally heated, without enough sleep, or while distracted by phones, etc., anyone can be distracted for a split-second and cause a major accident. That kind of "Superman" thinking that things would be great if only you tried harder is BS in a lot of cases. Most people do not want to get into road accidents, deliver code late, or build a shoddy product. Fixing the incentives or process works better.
  - axod 17y ago
    It's an incentive for people to pay less attention when driving. It's a bad incentive IMHO.
    - mattmaroon 17y ago
      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.
      - axod 17y ago
        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.
kscaldef 17y ago
That may be, but I still look with suspicion on someone who says he would have gotten in 2 accidents in 11,000 miles had his car not saved him. In my experience, it's very, very rare for someone to just cut you off with no warning. I can almost always predict that someone is going to switch lanes without signaling; usually 2 or 3 seconds before they do it.
- paulbaumgart 17y ago
  Predicting un-signaled lane changes is almost a required survival skill on a motorcycle.
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  No doubt. He probably Twitters while driving.
- DenisM 17y ago
  Good for you, but how about the other 95% of the population who are less attentive than you and lack predictive powers?
  - kscaldef 17y ago
    You think 95% of the population gets in 2 accidents a year? Scoble is either overstating his case, or he's a wretchedly bad driver.
  - axod 17y ago
    They shouldn't be allowed a license.
- axod 17y ago
  This is a very good reason I prefer driving in the UK where lanes are only used for overtaking, and overtaking on the left is illegal.

wtallis 17y ago

If somebody cuts you off, the radar is guaranteed to have a faster reaction time than you.

billswift 17y ago
The point someone made up thread, is that unlike the radar, if you are paying attention, you will likely notice them approaching to cut you off which the radar certainly cannot.

Imprecate 17y ago

Modern cars make so much power that you really don't need to shift unless you're accelerating from a stop, in traffic, or on curvy/hilly backroads. I can comfortably drive in 6th gear between 55 and 100+ mph including passing, going up hills, and so on. Obviously it's not the ideal gear in all of those cases, but if you're feeling lazy it works. I would guess manuals are involved in more accidents and more fatal accidents, at least in the US, since the only people who buy them here in great numbers are performance enthusiasts, frugal bastards, and diesel truck drivers. Some enthusiasts are responsible and don't push their cars on public roads, but many aren't. If there is a difference, it's probably small. My parents have two of the same car, one in manual and one in automatic, and they never mentioned a large difference in insurance cost. Actuaries would charge manual and auto drivers different prices if their risk rates differed.