Slashdot Mirror
US Wants Drivers To Test Wireless Auto Safety Tech
coondoggie writes "Can new wireless auto safety systems work in the real world and how will drivers respond? That's what the U.S. Department of Transportation hopes to find out in the next few months as it lets hundreds of drivers in six communities across the country test some of the latest communication devices in controlled situations."
I can't see how any of this is likely to improve things for bicyclists, but I sure would like a transponder to carry in my pocket that warns distracted drivers that I'm in the vicinity.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
Well, that varies by cyclist, as you can imagine. Some cyclists obey the law, just as some drivers do. I can't control what other cyclists do, just like you can't control what other motorists do.
There's a lot of confusion between both cyclists and motorists about how to treat cyclists. Laws vary a lot by state (and city). And a lot of people (on both sides) just don't seem to understand that bicycles are vehicles and should obey the laws of vehicles on the road. And be on the road, not the sidewalk (by law in many jurisdictions)
I stop at stop signs and yield to traffic with right of way, and occupy the lane when it's necessary for safety (and get over to the right if not).
I do not stop completely at stop signs if no one is around and I have good sight lines. Bicycles are much slower, have much better visibility than cars (higher, no near-field distractions) and therefore get a much better view of intersection. And they've got a lot more skin in the game if they make a mistake. Coming to a complete stop with a bicycle is almost never necessary for safety reasons. Idaho allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs.
Probably 70% of drivers incorrectly yield to me when I approach a 4-way stop, though. Even after I come to a full stop, and put my foot on the pavement, they'll sit there and wait for me to go. Not to mention the aggressive, unsafe overtaking and other problems that drivers seem to have sharing the road with cyclists.
Does this include police checkpoints? For some reason, I doubt it... But I thought I'd ask anyway
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
It's a first step, eventually they'll need to get that tested in those areas as well. But there's a large number of drivers in areas that don't get snow, or get it regularly. Which makes for an excellent place to get the gear working for times when it isn't snowing. Then, after they've got that down, they can finish the snow stuff.
But, at any rate, even without perfecting it on snow it's still beneficial during the parts of the year when there isn't any.
Having seen the way my relatives drive in the snow, if they tried to drive like that around here, they'd be in the ditch within a block. Fortunately, we don't get snow that often.
Looks like we are one step closer to flying cars. We won't get flying cars until cars can fly themselves.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
...to the cop when they get pulled over for texting while driving?
I8-D
Make driving a bigger pain in the ass than it already is..
And the sidebar within the Slashdot linked article on the Seven advanced car technologies the government wants now does not say anything about driverless vehicles. That's what the priority should be. I mean. if reducing the risk of accidents is what you're after...
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I have one big fear with this kind of thing. If the cars do start driving themselves and taking directions from the other vehicles and lights around them, how do they design it so that it is not hackable. We have had many articles talking about industrial controls systems that are getting viruses and make things vulnerable, what about a car.
How do they secure someone from hacking into a vehicle, or from just injecting false inputs by broadcasting them, and causing accidents? Have they considered that? Are the car computers going to take the signals as inputs and then have it's own sensors to independently verify the information it is seeing and that make decisions? Are the cars just going to use information to know when they need to override control and stop the vehicle? If we ever get to cars driving themselves, is there a risk that the car will just be told to accelerate and then turn into a brick wall?
It is a bit scary to think of all the possible exploits for this sort of thing and how they are going to keep people safe.
I respond aggressively. I have a fun, fast car. I drive it just like that. No accidents and never pulled over, in almost 10 years.
I never ride passenger, unless I am exhausted, because I find driving to be enjoyable, and I don't trust other drivers (including my own friends).
Automated cars are slowly, but surely going to be taking the fun out of driving. Not very dissimilar, the "green" movement is doing the same, with lower HP cars, and tiny gas sipping engines.
And don't even get me started on the "auto-pull-over/handcuff" option the 5-0 will have...
Something witty.
Motorists obeying traffic laws would be a great start. Not even the cops here actually stop at stop signs. Turn signal use is infrequent, as is stopping for pedestrians in a crosswalk. Everyone talks on their cell phone while driving too, which is illegal here.