revtothelimit - motorbike forum

Horse wrote: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:47 pm Agreed, but that wasn't the context for the post.

It was the context where I didn't signal, but the car tried to resist me changing lanes. I didn't find it helpful, nor did it do anything to enhance safety.

Agreed. If it was linked to a driver monitoring system (there are a few variations) it might have found that you were falling asleep and drifting.

Cousin Jack wrote: Tue Jan 12, 2021 10:35 pm I didn't find it helpful, nor did it do anything to enhance safety.

Isn't that a bit like saying seatbelts aren't helpful and don't enhance driver safety?

Mr. Dazzle wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:19 am

Cousin Jack wrote: Tue Jan 12, 2021 10:35 pm I didn't find it helpful, nor did it do anything to enhance safety.

Isn't that a bit like saying seatbelts aren't helpful and don't enhance driver safety?

Automated safety aids have a habit of being bad when they are first created. I've had ABS that cuts in way too early increasing breaking distance and traction control that regularly killed engine power in the middle of a junction, over time they have improved but I'd rather not have had the early versions. I can easily imagine that current lane safety controls are dangerous, experience has taught me to avoid any new car tech.

Mr. Dazzle wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:19 am Isn't that a bit like saying seatbelts aren't helpful and don't enhance driver safety?

I don't think so. I had a seatbelt (and used it all the time) long before seatbelts were normal (It was an aftermarket addition t a 1954 Beetle).

I like safety stuff.
I don't like safety stuff that swaps one problem that I know about and work around with another unknown problem that is new to me.

Cousin Jack wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:23 pm I like safety stuff.
I don't like safety stuff that swaps one problem that I know about and work around with another unknown problem that is new to me.

Would Sir care to undertake some consultancy work with Boeing?

Horse wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:26 pm Would Sir care to undertake some consultancy work with Boeing?

I am just reading a book that analyses aircraft 'accidents'. More than a few have been caused by 'safety' systems that solve one problem and create a different one. The most obvious one was the ultra secure cockpit doo that stopped anyone interfering with a suicidal pilot, but lots of others available.

What's the book?

Locked cockpit doors are an odd one. On the one had its undeniable they prevented anyone from getting into the cockpit while a suicidal pilot crashed the plane...but then if the plane had being flying itself then it is unlikely to have been suicidal!

The locked doors only exist to prevent nefarious human interference anyway, so if it wasn't for people and all their foibles the doors would never have been there in the first place. So how do you call it?

I don't think anyone has ever introduced a new system which didn't create problems. The key question is, is that more or fewer problems than they prevented?

Its also really hard to get data for how many problems they solved. How do you count the number of times a car hasn't crashed?

Looking back, Reed says “the technology worked … people had the sense, it does the right thing most of the time, we are 90% of the way there. But it is that last bit which is the toughest. Being able reliably to do the right thing every single time, whether it’s raining, snowing, fog, is a bigger challenge than anticipated.”

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... obal-en-GB

Uber look they've abandoned the autonomous car - for now anyway.

Mr. Dazzle wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:41 pm I don't think anyone has ever introduced a new system which didn't create problems. The key question is, is that more or fewer problems than they prevented?

Its also really hard to get data for how many problems they solved. How do you count the number of times a car hasn't crashed?

There was some intriguing stuff about seatbelts, potentially an increase in casualties outside of the vehicle.

Horse wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:55 pm There was some intriguing stuff about seatbelts, potentially an increase in casualties outside of the vehicle.

It may be anecdotal but I remember reading that as the injurys to car occupants have trended down due to airbags and car design, the injuries to pedestrians have gone up. I would imagine cyclist injuries have gone up but that's probably because there's a lot more of 'em to hit.

Hence why they now fit airbags on the outside etc. 'Tis also why cars are so chunky at the front now and also why you don't need pop up headlights any more

I.e....effort went into making cars safer for those inside, now that's reached a pretty good level focus switches to the outside.

And then there's the increasing thickness of pillars creating larger blindspots.

The Volvo Safety Concept, which became the C30 but basically dropped the safety bit, attempted to address that.

A hi-tech solution is obviously better.

www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/continenta ... eras-oled/

"Seeing a person is a pretty good way to lower the chance of hitting them with your car."

Can't fault the logic.

Horse wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:13 pmWhat's the book?

Air Crashes and Miracle Landings by Christopher Bartlett.

Mr. Dazzle wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:34 pm The Volvo Safety Concept, which became the C30 but basically dropped the safety bit, attempted to address that.

Lots of attempts to solve the problem with 'holes' see also Merc A series and Honda Jazz.

However the definitive solution was available in the 50s from Vauxhall - wrap around windscreens.

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl= ... egUIARDWAQ

McLaren use very big wraparound windscreens and skinny pillars too, they're noted for their good visibility.

Key difference is that they use a motorsport style composite tub, not a welded steel assembly, so they can get the required strength. You'd never pass crash tests in a 'conventional' car with a wraparound screen unless you introduced prohibitive cost and weight.