4 ms·
> any reasonable driver could have easily prevented it, Not really. The crash attenuator was missing because someone else crashed into it. That highway exit is
by rockinghigh 7y ago
> any reasonable driver could have easily prevented it,
Not really. The crash attenuator was missing because someone else crashed into it. That highway exit is ridiculous. As for faults, there is obviously fault on both sides. The driver should have been more alert and the "autonomous system" should have detected the obstacle and slowed down the vehicle before hitting the guard.
- estebank 7y agoBoth sides? Shouldn't there be some responsibility for the organization tasked with making sure roads have dividers that people don't crash against multiple times in a month?
- beering 7y agoWhat would you suggest Caltrans do instead, other than replace the attenuator more often? I can think of various other things that Caltrans can place there for people to crash into, but at some point there will be the start of a rigid wall.
- estebank 7y agoThe repeatable problem suggests a lapse in the current layout. The fact that a new crash happened within two weeks suggests that replacing the attenuator should have happened faster than that. That being said, I'm only pointing out that in this case there can be extra variables to account other than the car manufacturer and the driver, the same way that when people speeding, running stop signs and pedestrians not paying attention when crossing an intersection can all result in a collision there is always also a bit of missing urban planning that could have helped avoid the situation in the first place. I believe the same would be true of this case.