4 ms·

A sound alert is fine. Any actual interference with driving will not prevent, but cause, accidents. An example of this would be resistance on the pedal causin

by snvzz 2y ago

A sound alert is fine. Any actual interference with driving will not prevent, but cause, accidents. An example of this would be resistance on the pedal causing added latency on acceleration attempt.

hgomersall 2y ago
Why will it not prevent accidents? Most accidents are not caused by a lack of speed but rather, too much speed. Sure, one can hypothesise scenarios in which rapid acceleration is desirable to avoid an accident, but I'm sceptical those are very common in reality, and the obvious ones I can think of are around people performing dangerous manoeuvres (like overtaking with insufficient space).
- constantcrying 2y ago
  >Most accidents are not caused by a lack of speed but rather, too much speed. Any evidence for that? Don't you think inattention from drivers or mechanical failures are more likely causes?
  - hgomersall 2y ago
    A stationary car is not going to cause a crash. Inattention from drivers might be why the speed is too high, but ultimately it's the vehicle moving at a speed at which there is insufficient time to mitigate any problems that results in crashes.
    - constantcrying 2y ago
      >A stationary car is not going to cause a crash. Plainly wrong. >Inattention from drivers might be why the speed is too high, but ultimately it's the vehicle moving at a speed at which there is insufficient time to mitigate any problems that results in crashes. That speed can easily be far below the speed limit. The speed is near irrelevant compared to the delay the driver causes by not paying proper attention. A drunk driver driving significantly below the speed limit is far more dangerous than an attentive driver, driving above the speed limit. This is pretty obvious I think.
      - hgomersall 2y ago
        If all vehicles were stationary, there would be no crashes. I'm not sure how you can argue with that.
        fragmede 2y ago
        drunk bicyclists.
        hgomersall 2y ago
        The drunk cyclist presumably is moving? I.e. at speed?
SonicPondered 2y ago
Yeah, I'm trying to think of scenarios where I go over the speed limit, and they're all blatantly obvious cases of accident avoidance in my mind. Specially due to other people being really terrible drivers. For example, I'll sometimes go over the speed limit when overtaking someone, because they don't actually know that you should NEVER speed up (only maintain or lose speed) while you're being overtaken. Oh no, that's not common sense, that's LAW almost everywhere. But the worst of all cases: 3 lane highway. Me (car A) and another guy (Car B) in an acceleration lane (so 4th) trying to merge in. A car (C) in lane 3 is trying to weave between us two, as the lane is also an exit. All fine. I'll merge in, the Car C will too, and Car B will do so a bit behind. Car (D) speeding up on lane 2 quickly turns and clearly shows themselves meaning to go to the exit lane, but noooooo, not behind anyone, he MUST go ahead of Car C. There are three outcomes in this mongoloid's cerebral physics puzzle. He crashes me if I don't get out of the way, he crashes C if they don't give way, or he panics, does something weird and either of them crash into B. I slammed the pedal faster than I could even process what was up. If some stupid retarded automated system got in the way of that moment, I'd be in the workshop and considering my position on political activism a bit more than before.
- USiBqidmOOkAqRb 2y ago
  Two wrongs don't make a right. If everyone around you is driving like a maniac you shouldn't try to best them.
  - snvzz 2y ago
    You should definitely read that again. There's no "besting". Those were examples in which the ability to accelerate prevented actual accidents.
    - USiBqidmOOkAqRb 2y ago
      Oh believe me I read the second scenario several times. For the first one it's "blatantly obvious" that you should just stop overtaking if someone is being hostile against you. Even if you have a rally cross situation behind you, the physics works out to be safer if you abort. Second one is rather confusing, but it would appear that this driver of D having realized intentions of C decided to brute force the situation with speed, making driver of A to solve everything again with even more speed. This mentality of speeding just ends up amplifying until something gives.

by snvzz 2y ago

A sound alert is fine. Any actual interference with driving will not prevent, but cause, accidents. An example of this would be resistance on the pedal causing added latency on acceleration attempt.

hgomersall 2y ago

Why will it not prevent accidents? Most accidents are not caused by a lack of speed but rather, too much speed. Sure, one can hypothesise scenarios in which rapid acceleration is desirable to avoid an accident, but I'm sceptical those are very common in reality, and the obvious ones I can think of are around people performing dangerous manoeuvres (like overtaking with insufficient space).

constantcrying 2y ago
>Most accidents are not caused by a lack of speed but rather, too much speed. Any evidence for that? Don't you think inattention from drivers or mechanical failures are more likely causes?
- hgomersall 2y ago
  A stationary car is not going to cause a crash. Inattention from drivers might be why the speed is too high, but ultimately it's the vehicle moving at a speed at which there is insufficient time to mitigate any problems that results in crashes.
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    >A stationary car is not going to cause a crash. Plainly wrong. >Inattention from drivers might be why the speed is too high, but ultimately it's the vehicle moving at a speed at which there is insufficient time to mitigate any problems that results in crashes. That speed can easily be far below the speed limit. The speed is near irrelevant compared to the delay the driver causes by not paying proper attention. A drunk driver driving significantly below the speed limit is far more dangerous than an attentive driver, driving above the speed limit. This is pretty obvious I think.
    - hgomersall 2y ago
      If all vehicles were stationary, there would be no crashes. I'm not sure how you can argue with that.
      - fragmede 2y ago
        drunk bicyclists.
        hgomersall 2y ago
        The drunk cyclist presumably is moving? I.e. at speed?

SonicPondered 2y ago

Yeah, I'm trying to think of scenarios where I go over the speed limit, and they're all blatantly obvious cases of accident avoidance in my mind. Specially due to other people being really terrible drivers. For example, I'll sometimes go over the speed limit when overtaking someone, because they don't actually know that you should NEVER speed up (only maintain or lose speed) while you're being overtaken. Oh no, that's not common sense, that's LAW almost everywhere. But the worst of all cases: 3 lane highway. Me (car A) and another guy (Car B) in an acceleration lane (so 4th) trying to merge in. A car (C) in lane 3 is trying to weave between us two, as the lane is also an exit. All fine. I'll merge in, the Car C will too, and Car B will do so a bit behind. Car (D) speeding up on lane 2 quickly turns and clearly shows themselves meaning to go to the exit lane, but noooooo, not behind anyone, he MUST go ahead of Car C. There are three outcomes in this mongoloid's cerebral physics puzzle. He crashes me if I don't get out of the way, he crashes C if they don't give way, or he panics, does something weird and either of them crash into B. I slammed the pedal faster than I could even process what was up. If some stupid retarded automated system got in the way of that moment, I'd be in the workshop and considering my position on political activism a bit more than before.

USiBqidmOOkAqRb 2y ago
Two wrongs don't make a right. If everyone around you is driving like a maniac you shouldn't try to best them.
- snvzz 2y ago
  You should definitely read that again. There's no "besting". Those were examples in which the ability to accelerate prevented actual accidents.
  - USiBqidmOOkAqRb 2y ago
    Oh believe me I read the second scenario several times. For the first one it's "blatantly obvious" that you should just stop overtaking if someone is being hostile against you. Even if you have a rally cross situation behind you, the physics works out to be safer if you abort. Second one is rather confusing, but it would appear that this driver of D having realized intentions of C decided to brute force the situation with speed, making driver of A to solve everything again with even more speed. This mentality of speeding just ends up amplifying until something gives.