3 ms·
This was my first thought. To repeat what others have said: why on earth did they do this on open roads and high speeds? I can only assume it was for additional
by ablation 11y ago
This was my first thought. To repeat what others have said: why on earth did they do this on open roads and high speeds? I can only assume it was for additional 'shock impact' of the story.
Reckless in many, many ways, no matter how interesting the story actually is. In fact it's so reckless that it actually devalues the interesting and important core of the story itself.
- yellowapple 11y ago> To repeat what others have said: why on earth did they do this on open roads and high speeds? Because - according to the article, at least - they'd already demonstrated similar exploits in more controlled environments, and said demonstrations were handwaved and dismissed by the auto manufacturers.
- ablation 11y agoThe risk still doesn't justify the supposed reward. Why not a lower speed in a quiet street if you absolutely feel you have to do this on open roads?
- yellowapple 11y agoI don't disagree with you; the researchers could have taken better safety measures (most notably, better communication between themselves and the reporter would have eliminated most of the risk by allowing the reporter to cut the experiment early), and had they done so, they would have been more clearly in the right. However, there's some usefulness to the higher speed, since it indicates that the car can be isolated among highway traffic even at high speed. The researchers were also smart to not slam brakes (which would have turned the minimal danger from unpowered coasting into the maximal danger of sudden stops).