5 ms·

I am very skeptical of the claim. A driver glance down to change the station, going 110 kms, with less than 15 meters and the car in front of you full stop bre

I am very skeptical of the claim. A driver glance down to change the station, going 110 kms, with less than 15 meters and the car in front of you full stop breaks, you are going to crash, but yet folks still continue to do it and still they believe they'd be able to stop in time even with all the experience of driving. I don't believe most drivers today would be able to pass the present driver test successfully the first time due to formed bad habits.

DontchaKnowit 2y ago
You are also atill going to crash if you break automatically in that scenario... i dont get your point
- ckdarby 2y ago
  No, the system could always maintain the correct distance to be able to break given your speed and the speed of the car in front of you or maintain that the crash will never exceed X speed based upon stats of the vehicle of survival rates. As another commenter said, even reducing 10km more than a human will reduce the consequences.
- Retric 2y ago
  Not all collisions are equivalent. Suppose you and the car in front of you collided a fraction of a second later when both are doing 10MPH less, that alone removes a great deal of energy and thus risk. You may avoid whatever the first person was trying to avoid hitting or spinning into the next lain etc.
  - DontchaKnowit 2y ago
    Okay fine, but youve now introduced a whole class of accidents (false positive caused wrecks) that didnt exist before.
    - Retric 2y ago
      You also eliminate an accidents where the system prevents a collision. Insurance companies pay attention to the total risk and it’s a clear benefit.
lesuorac 2y ago
What was your driver's test like? Driving around an empty lot is super-duper easy to do; the hardest part is parallel parking (in a space large enough for a semi-truck) and keeping two hands on the wheel. I haven't heard of any that are better than a pulse test. I'm thoroughly disappointed that there isn't a simulator component where you actually get tested on scenarios were a car crash is almost forced.
- rascul 2y ago
  I didn't have to parallel park for mine. I had to stop at a stop sign, use my turn signal, and turn around in a box.

DontchaKnowit 2y ago

You are also atill going to crash if you break automatically in that scenario... i dont get your point

ckdarby 2y ago
No, the system could always maintain the correct distance to be able to break given your speed and the speed of the car in front of you or maintain that the crash will never exceed X speed based upon stats of the vehicle of survival rates. As another commenter said, even reducing 10km more than a human will reduce the consequences.
Retric 2y ago
Not all collisions are equivalent. Suppose you and the car in front of you collided a fraction of a second later when both are doing 10MPH less, that alone removes a great deal of energy and thus risk. You may avoid whatever the first person was trying to avoid hitting or spinning into the next lain etc.
- DontchaKnowit 2y ago
  Okay fine, but youve now introduced a whole class of accidents (false positive caused wrecks) that didnt exist before.
  - Retric 2y ago
    You also eliminate an accidents where the system prevents a collision. Insurance companies pay attention to the total risk and it’s a clear benefit.

lesuorac 2y ago

What was your driver's test like? Driving around an empty lot is super-duper easy to do; the hardest part is parallel parking (in a space large enough for a semi-truck) and keeping two hands on the wheel. I haven't heard of any that are better than a pulse test. I'm thoroughly disappointed that there isn't a simulator component where you actually get tested on scenarios were a car crash is almost forced.

rascul 2y ago
I didn't have to parallel park for mine. I had to stop at a stop sign, use my turn signal, and turn around in a box.