He's an Ashley. You already know the answer to that.
While it's pretty shitty this woman was hit, the vantage point with which she entered the roadway (there are videos. It's a pretty hard watch) made it virtually impossible for the car to spot her coming out. It's unlikely that a human-controlled vehicle would have been able to stop in time as well.
Did you know that smaller lane widths decreases collisions and accidents? That sounds counter-intuitive until you dig deeper in to the main cause of roadway accidents—human complacency. If people are given too much leeway to "check-out" when they're driving (ie. "I can drift a bit without any harm") they take that opportunity to text, or fiddle with the radio, etc. The only reason I know this is because I was on a business trip to Miami this time last year, and the lanes were slimmer. I noticed, and looked it up. Turns out it was a pilot to make the area around University of Miami safer—to promising results. So based on that finding, it SOMEWHAT stands to reason you could extend that problem to cars being designed "safe". "Safe" designs might follow along the same outcomes. There is also generally more people on the road, as well.
Another issue with the idea is that someone taking a road test every 10 years would not be complacent (again, the number one issue with drivers on the road), or have opportunity to text during their exam. Driving truly isn't a difficult skill when you're focusing on it properly, especially so with 20 years experience or more. For these reasons I feel your entire proposed action plan for testing would fail to spot troublesome drivers in the first place and ultimately be a waste of time.
I bring up to illustrate a point that I think your rationale for this entire legislation is a personal loathing stemming from road incidents, not a constructive understanding of human behaviour or facts (though to be fair, a lot of these studies are emerging). I actually think you're cherry picking the facts to suit your idea, instead of trying to disprove it. This is why I use the word petty.
~Bellicose Cunt, last edited:
Last edited by Drewbacca; 25 Mar 2018 at 11:13 PM.
Originally Posted by rezo
The car was equipped with sensors that do not use visible light, it didn't matter that it was night. There were no obstructions, the issue is that the computer system did not identify that a person pushing a bike was something that should be avoided, and it didn't do a thing to try to avoid the collision. I have seen the video, and I would forgive a human driver more, except that an intelligent human driver (I know, there aren't many) would have the sense to slow down if you can't see more than a few feet in front of you in an area that may have pedestrians walking the street.
It's plausible they identified her as something non-threatening or stationary before she moved out—and it sounds like the car was clocking in at over the posted speed limit. In either case, her entering the roadway awkwardly ended up causing the incident.
it sounds like the nerd squad is calling for autonomous car companies to start pooling tracking data. (Google, Apple and MSFT do this from time to time with stuff like maps and other services) This will empower them to catch these odd cases quickly and learn.
Last edited by Drewbacca; 26 Mar 2018 at 01:32 PM.
Originally Posted by rezo
So if you created a ten year test standard you'd overflow dmv facilities...and also create jobs. Unless you did it online? But now you're racist or classist.
city privileged scum.
Backwoods trash ape.
Bookmarks