5 ms·

I think we need to ensure people pay attention, instead of adding even more information to these systems. Sure, we could add warnings for potentially dangerous

by bipson 10y ago

I think we need to ensure people pay attention, instead of adding even more information to these systems. Sure, we could add warnings for potentially dangerous railroad crossings (e.g. those that do not have a signal installation), and other dangerous places, but how to ensure that people do not rely even more on their systems and after a crash argue that their system did not warn them of this particular situation? I know a street segment that is constantly blocked by trucks which blindly followed the GPS to a bridge they can't pass and turning around is almost impossible, although multiple signs warned them. Now and then a truck takes down the roof of the bridge, although a HUGE sign says it will be too low. Before the prevalence of the GPS, this almost never happened AFAIK, and the drivers always blame the GPS. What about people driving off cliffs, into lakes, or as stated in the article, along blocked streets. If a guy puts up a sign that this street is closed, it is closed and you need to follow, no matter what your GPS tells you. The sign or any legal representative is the normative authority and you must obey - the GPS is merely assisting you. Drivers need to pay attention - and they might have to learn to do it despite having an assisting device giving them directions.

irishsultan 10y ago
The flip side of that is that if you ask your GPS to provide you a route and it sends you somewhere that you can't pass then chances are that a shorter route was available if the GPS had known that you couldn't go there, so that information is useful to have in the system (for rail crossings you might have a point, but the max height on a particular segment of a route is useful even assuming people do pay attention once they arrive at the problematic part of the route).
- rplst8 10y ago
  This is the crossing in question. https://www.google.com/maps/place/34%C2%B011'49.6%22N+119%C2%B008'32.2%22W/@34.1971529,-119.1427312,105m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d34.19712!4d-119.14227?hl=en https://www.google.com/maps/place/34%C2%B011'49.6%22N+119%C2... I don't think it was a situation where the driver couldn't get past the crossing. I think they are saying he parked his truck across the rails when it broke down. Had the GPS warned him, "hey this is a railroad crossing" he might not have chosen that spot. IMHO, that's a stretch. If you are too out of your wits to notice a railroad crossing - you shouldn't be driving at all.
  - manarth 10y ago
    I think they are saying he parked his truck across the rails when it broke down The article isn't really clear on the events, but I'm interpreting it a different way. "he would have been less likely to misinterpret the visual cues and mistakenly turn onto the railroad tracks" It sounds like he was driving along the main road, when the GPS instructed him something like "turn left", and displayed a junction with a 90º left turn: he turned left 10 yards too early, onto the railway track, rather than 10 yards later, onto the road running alongside. He had abandoned it on the tracks with the headlights and hazard lights on and the driver’s door open. It suggests that rather than breaking down, once on the tracks, he was stuck (maybe "beached" on the rails), and couldn't get the truck off the track.
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
I would be surprised if there was any link between bridge collisions and GPS, other than the fact that they now have something external to blame for the error. I certainly remember multiple accidents, both in the news and happening to people I know, and seeing damage done to local bridges before GPS was common.
- bipson 10y ago
  I think we are talking about different things. What I meant: Truck drivers are driving down a 3 km long street, where it is clearly stated that they are not allowed to go and at then end of that street is very old, wooden bridge with a roof. Almost never trucks went down there until a few years ago, the roof had not been repaired in ages. Since the prevalence of GPS that street is regularly blocked by trucks stuck at a dead end. The roof was taken down around a year ago by a large truck ignoring at least 5 signs he is supposed to look out for (multiple max weight, max height, etc.).
  - csydas 10y ago
    There probably should be some more sanity checks for GPS, since drivers even pre-smartphone era were horribly inattentive, and there is no more perfect example than the 11'8" bridge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_foot_8_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_foot_8_Bridge There are numerous compilation videos on youtube [1] about this bridge from a local, and it's not a matter of people following the GPS blindly each time, it's just inattentive drivers who don't pay attention to what is in their immediate vicinity. Watch the video linked and see how many warnings and alerts have been made for the bridge, and how often people keep skinning off the tops of trucks and RVs on it. It has a sensor to warn drivers in advance if their vehicle is too tall, signs everywhere, and I imagine there must be a fair amount of debris from the numerous accidents it has. It's not just a matter of technology leading people astray, it is people not really being aware of their surroundings period. The warning from a GPS map might be nice and help, but I personally have a hard time believing that they'll pay attention to that any more than they would the multiple warnings in real life. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzkWTcDZFH0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzkWTcDZFH0
james_pm 10y ago
"Drivers" = "the car itself" in the next few years. A self-driving car is only as good as the data it has to make the decisions.
- bipson 10y ago
  Yes, and I am not aware of a system that does not include road signs and further an (abstract) model of the surrounding world into that data. I think considering to rely on a external model (e.g. from an online database) _only_ is close to building suicide machines. At least for the coming years. And also, I think this is a far fetched argument related to OP.
hehheh 10y ago
> I think we need to ensure people pay attention, instead of adding even more information to these systems. How do we ensure drivers pay attention?
- pcora 10y ago
  to me, the very fact that I can die if I don't pay attention to what I am doing (and others around) me, I can get into an accident. We are driving these powerful machines that can do a lot of damage. Its enough to keep me aware. I use the GPS, but I don't trust on it blindly and no one should. IMHO.

by bipson 10y ago

irishsultan 10y ago

The flip side of that is that if you ask your GPS to provide you a route and it sends you somewhere that you can't pass then chances are that a shorter route was available if the GPS had known that you couldn't go there, so that information is useful to have in the system (for rail crossings you might have a point, but the max height on a particular segment of a route is useful even assuming people do pay attention once they arrive at the problematic part of the route).

rplst8 10y ago
This is the crossing in question. https://www.google.com/maps/place/34%C2%B011'49.6%22N+119%C2%B008'32.2%22W/@34.1971529,-119.1427312,105m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d34.19712!4d-119.14227?hl=en https://www.google.com/maps/place/34%C2%B011'49.6%22N+119%C2... I don't think it was a situation where the driver couldn't get past the crossing. I think they are saying he parked his truck across the rails when it broke down. Had the GPS warned him, "hey this is a railroad crossing" he might not have chosen that spot. IMHO, that's a stretch. If you are too out of your wits to notice a railroad crossing - you shouldn't be driving at all.
- manarth 10y ago
  I think they are saying he parked his truck across the rails when it broke down The article isn't really clear on the events, but I'm interpreting it a different way. "he would have been less likely to misinterpret the visual cues and mistakenly turn onto the railroad tracks" It sounds like he was driving along the main road, when the GPS instructed him something like "turn left", and displayed a junction with a 90º left turn: he turned left 10 yards too early, onto the railway track, rather than 10 yards later, onto the road running alongside. He had abandoned it on the tracks with the headlights and hazard lights on and the driver’s door open. It suggests that rather than breaking down, once on the tracks, he was stuck (maybe "beached" on the rails), and couldn't get the truck off the track.

ZeroGravitas 10y ago

I would be surprised if there was any link between bridge collisions and GPS, other than the fact that they now have something external to blame for the error. I certainly remember multiple accidents, both in the news and happening to people I know, and seeing damage done to local bridges before GPS was common.

bipson 10y ago
I think we are talking about different things. What I meant: Truck drivers are driving down a 3 km long street, where it is clearly stated that they are not allowed to go and at then end of that street is very old, wooden bridge with a roof. Almost never trucks went down there until a few years ago, the roof had not been repaired in ages. Since the prevalence of GPS that street is regularly blocked by trucks stuck at a dead end. The roof was taken down around a year ago by a large truck ignoring at least 5 signs he is supposed to look out for (multiple max weight, max height, etc.).
- csydas 10y ago
  There probably should be some more sanity checks for GPS, since drivers even pre-smartphone era were horribly inattentive, and there is no more perfect example than the 11'8" bridge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_foot_8_Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_foot_8_Bridge There are numerous compilation videos on youtube [1] about this bridge from a local, and it's not a matter of people following the GPS blindly each time, it's just inattentive drivers who don't pay attention to what is in their immediate vicinity. Watch the video linked and see how many warnings and alerts have been made for the bridge, and how often people keep skinning off the tops of trucks and RVs on it. It has a sensor to warn drivers in advance if their vehicle is too tall, signs everywhere, and I imagine there must be a fair amount of debris from the numerous accidents it has. It's not just a matter of technology leading people astray, it is people not really being aware of their surroundings period. The warning from a GPS map might be nice and help, but I personally have a hard time believing that they'll pay attention to that any more than they would the multiple warnings in real life. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzkWTcDZFH0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzkWTcDZFH0

james_pm 10y ago

"Drivers" = "the car itself" in the next few years. A self-driving car is only as good as the data it has to make the decisions.

bipson 10y ago
Yes, and I am not aware of a system that does not include road signs and further an (abstract) model of the surrounding world into that data. I think considering to rely on a external model (e.g. from an online database) _only_ is close to building suicide machines. At least for the coming years. And also, I think this is a far fetched argument related to OP.

hehheh 10y ago

> I think we need to ensure people pay attention, instead of adding even more information to these systems. How do we ensure drivers pay attention?

pcora 10y ago
to me, the very fact that I can die if I don't pay attention to what I am doing (and others around) me, I can get into an accident. We are driving these powerful machines that can do a lot of damage. Its enough to keep me aware. I use the GPS, but I don't trust on it blindly and no one should. IMHO.