5 ms·
Fatal accident lawsuits in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... Reasoning: people are going to rely on this to save them from speeding tickets. So they're going to drive too fast
by cstross 12y ago
Fatal accident lawsuits in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
Reasoning: people are going to rely on this to save them from speeding tickets. So they're going to drive too fast. Meanwhile, other idiots who don't have it will also drive too fast. It's only a matter of time before someone in a Genesis enters a camera zone and auto-brakes while another speeding idiot on a cellphone is tail-gating them. Result: a high-speed pile-up.
Something not-dissimilar happened with the first roll-out of ABS on cars; drivers who knew their brakes were super-strong drove too fast and actually ended up with a higher accident rate, at least at first. But ABS was a pure safety feature (to prevent your brakes locking up on a slippery surface or if engaged too hard). This ... I lack words to describe how inadvisable I think it is to seek to avoid a small fine in return for an elevated risk of high-speed vehicle-to-vehicle collisions.
(The risk can be reduced if the Genesis has rear facing radar to prevent shunts, or begins to brake gently some distance ahead of the camera zone. It's also mitigated if tail-gating idiots drive cars with adaptive cruise control -- that maintains constant separation from the vehicle ahead regardless of speed. But as not all cars have the latest features it'll take an automobile generation for this stuff to spread out and become ubiquitous. Meanwhile, sooner or later, people will die.)
- seanmcdirmid 12y agoSeat belts and bicycle helmets cause the same phenomena: accident rate goes up when introduced/required before going back to normal after people adjust their risk taking to the increased safety envelope.
- clearf 12y agoDo you have a reference to this? I've heard this argument before, but haven't been able to find any hard stats.
- seanmcdirmid 12y agoI think it comes from Freakanomics.
- avaloneon 12y agoThe buzzword is "risk compensation". There's a whole article on Wikipedia about it (and lots of studies) but, to make a long story short, "measures, designed to improve traffic safety, may bring along negative consequences in a way that individuals increase the riskiness of their driving behaviour because they feel safer (Dulisse, 1997)"
- apendleton 12y agoWith cycling, in particular, it's not just individuals making judgments about their own safety, either; a 2006 UK study shows that drivers passing cyclists give helmet wearers less clearance, perhaps out of some subconscious sense that they'd do better if they get hit, or maybe that, being risk-averse helmet-wearers, they're less likely to lash out and do something unexpected. (see http://www.helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm http://www.helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm )
- ry0ohki 12y agoMost areas with speed cameras (local) drivers already know where they are and cause a dangerous sudden braking condition anyway. I do fear that all the automatic nanny's are making people MORE likely to Facebook while driving their 4000lbs death machines though.
- rasz_pl 12y agohttp://www.smh.com.au/news/world/4wd-drivers-really-as-bad-we-thought/2006/07/09/1152383611511.html http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/4wd-drivers-really-as-bad-w... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerkes–Dodson_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerkes–Dodson_law Safest car ever should have a sharp spike mounted in the center of a steering wheel and no safety belts.