4 ms·

You could mostly prevent pile-ups, but pile-ups generally don't kill people. Also, you don't need connected cars to avoid pile-ups, you just need to keep your d

You could mostly prevent pile-ups, but pile-ups generally don't kill people. Also, you don't need connected cars to avoid pile-ups, you just need to keep your distance and your eyes (sensors) on the car in front of you. Both of which works pretty well with current (unconnected/unilateral) technology. None of the causes in listed in this article require interconnection to avoid: http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-cause-of-the-most-fatal-car-crashes-2015-5 http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-cause-of-the-most-fatal-ca...

ctrl-j 10y ago
Most of the pile-ups that happen around where I grew up were due to thick fog. Where by the time you see the wreckage, it's too late. Now, that can be solved by people slowing down due to conditions. But how slow is slow enough? Often it's slow enough that the person behind you is gonna wreck into you. Maybe pile-ups aren't deadly, but wouldn't it be better if we had tech that helped prevent them? Or do maimings not matter?
- mseebach 10y ago
  Slow enough is slow enough that you can see an obstruction soon enough to stop before driving into it. Either way, interconnections won't help you -- what if the car is crashed hard enough (or long enough for the battery to run down) that it's beacon is off/broadcasting wrong information? What if there's fallen tree or a pedestrian on the road? Generally, sensors (radar) can see through fog, and that's the most help you're going to get in a situation like this. Yes, maimings do matter. But they don't count towards "save [ing] countless lives".
  - ctrl-j 10y ago
    > what if the car is crashed hard enough (or long enough for the battery to run down) that it's beacon is off/broadcasting wrong information? Doesn't that mean we're just back at the situation we're in today? The worse situation? > What if there's fallen tree or a pedestrian on the road? Also, not the situation at hand. Talking about the case where a car has crashed and is letting the cars behind it know that it has done so. It's like electronic flare deployment (or hazard lights.) Don't you think that a lot of lives and livelihoods could be saved if we had such functionality?
- ves 10y ago
  I imagine typical car sensors can "see" through fog and rain just fine.
- zeroer 10y ago
  The pileups are 'due' to people going too fast for road and weather conditions. If you can't stop within your length of visibility, you're going too fast, end of discussion.
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    Without saying this is wrong, I will say it's not at all practical. I grew up in the northeast. Abrupt and unpredicted snowstorms are common, and some of them are dense enough to drop visibility laughably low - 10-15 mph would offer visible stopping (and be a fairly acceptable speed for a crash regardless). People don't want to take six hours to get home, so they keep driving. If the roads are decent, they keep driving at ~30 mph or faster to make decent time. So now you have a situation where all the other drivers are exceeding their visibility. If you drop down to 10 mph, you get to be the obstacle they hit at >30 mph when you loom up out of the snow! The result is that everyone goes 20 mph or faster, because everyone else is. Yes, that's stupid and dangerous. No, there isn't any 'safe' behavior available if you get caught out on those highways.
    - zeroer 10y ago
      Wow, I had no idea the situation was that bad in the northeast. That's honestly terrible for a supposedly first-world country. Here are the solutions I've enacted for myself in no particular order: - Don't live in the northeast. - Don't drive in bad weather conditions. - Don't organize your life around automobiles such that you can't manage daily life without one.
      - Bartweiss 10y ago
        Those are all pretty reasonable answers, honestly, and a lot of people who leave the northeast do it in general protest of the winters. Moving closer to the coast will also preserve you from much of this. All I can really say is that I've definitely been on the road at moments where I realized that 100% of my options were dangerous accident risks. At that point you mostly try to minimize likely crash speed (if everyone goes 15-20 on a divided highway, probably no one will die) and look for an exit.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  Where I grew up, it was dense snow, which behaves pretty similarly. I don't really see the value of saying "human error, so who cares about solving it with tech!" It's human error that happens all the time, and causes plenty of injuries and expense. Falling off a cliff is human error, but we still put up railings where it's likely to happen. And as you pointed out, it's not human error that a single driver can solve - if you go slow enough to be safe, you're likely to get hit from behind by someone who didn't. Since the reality is that drivers are faced with having no safe strategy, it's a problem I'd love to see solved.

ctrl-j 10y ago

Most of the pile-ups that happen around where I grew up were due to thick fog. Where by the time you see the wreckage, it's too late. Now, that can be solved by people slowing down due to conditions. But how slow is slow enough? Often it's slow enough that the person behind you is gonna wreck into you. Maybe pile-ups aren't deadly, but wouldn't it be better if we had tech that helped prevent them? Or do maimings not matter?

mseebach 10y ago
Slow enough is slow enough that you can see an obstruction soon enough to stop before driving into it. Either way, interconnections won't help you -- what if the car is crashed hard enough (or long enough for the battery to run down) that it's beacon is off/broadcasting wrong information? What if there's fallen tree or a pedestrian on the road? Generally, sensors (radar) can see through fog, and that's the most help you're going to get in a situation like this. Yes, maimings do matter. But they don't count towards "save [ing] countless lives".
- ctrl-j 10y ago
  > what if the car is crashed hard enough (or long enough for the battery to run down) that it's beacon is off/broadcasting wrong information? Doesn't that mean we're just back at the situation we're in today? The worse situation? > What if there's fallen tree or a pedestrian on the road? Also, not the situation at hand. Talking about the case where a car has crashed and is letting the cars behind it know that it has done so. It's like electronic flare deployment (or hazard lights.) Don't you think that a lot of lives and livelihoods could be saved if we had such functionality?
ves 10y ago
I imagine typical car sensors can "see" through fog and rain just fine.
zeroer 10y ago
The pileups are 'due' to people going too fast for road and weather conditions. If you can't stop within your length of visibility, you're going too fast, end of discussion.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  Without saying this is wrong, I will say it's not at all practical. I grew up in the northeast. Abrupt and unpredicted snowstorms are common, and some of them are dense enough to drop visibility laughably low - 10-15 mph would offer visible stopping (and be a fairly acceptable speed for a crash regardless). People don't want to take six hours to get home, so they keep driving. If the roads are decent, they keep driving at ~30 mph or faster to make decent time. So now you have a situation where all the other drivers are exceeding their visibility. If you drop down to 10 mph, you get to be the obstacle they hit at >30 mph when you loom up out of the snow! The result is that everyone goes 20 mph or faster, because everyone else is. Yes, that's stupid and dangerous. No, there isn't any 'safe' behavior available if you get caught out on those highways.
  - zeroer 10y ago
    Wow, I had no idea the situation was that bad in the northeast. That's honestly terrible for a supposedly first-world country. Here are the solutions I've enacted for myself in no particular order: - Don't live in the northeast. - Don't drive in bad weather conditions. - Don't organize your life around automobiles such that you can't manage daily life without one.
    - Bartweiss 10y ago
      Those are all pretty reasonable answers, honestly, and a lot of people who leave the northeast do it in general protest of the winters. Moving closer to the coast will also preserve you from much of this. All I can really say is that I've definitely been on the road at moments where I realized that 100% of my options were dangerous accident risks. At that point you mostly try to minimize likely crash speed (if everyone goes 15-20 on a divided highway, probably no one will die) and look for an exit.
Bartweiss 10y ago
Where I grew up, it was dense snow, which behaves pretty similarly. I don't really see the value of saying "human error, so who cares about solving it with tech!" It's human error that happens all the time, and causes plenty of injuries and expense. Falling off a cliff is human error, but we still put up railings where it's likely to happen. And as you pointed out, it's not human error that a single driver can solve - if you go slow enough to be safe, you're likely to get hit from behind by someone who didn't. Since the reality is that drivers are faced with having no safe strategy, it's a problem I'd love to see solved.