1. You braked and she saw it as a cue to proceed. End result: a low-energy collision.
2. You braked and she braked. End result: no collision.
3. You didn't brake so she did. End result: no collision.
4. You didn't brake and neither did she. End result: a high-energy collision.
Whether you braked or not, there was a possibility of no collision, so we can cross out options 2 and 3, leaving you to choose between a low-energy collision (option 1) or a high-energy one (option 4). I think you made the right choice.
No matter how quickly they can react to sensor data indicating an emergency, they're still bound by the laws of physics and may not be capable of avoiding collision with something that suddenly enters their field of observation.
That means during the day, dry pavement, no fog, and so on. 10pm at night is not "ideal driving conditions" in Arizona, not even in the summer when the sun sets later.
If pedestrians on the sidewalk are really only 10cm from fast-moving automobile traffic, the street is inherently unsafe and needs to be redesigned. Until then, the Basic Speed Law legally requires traffic in the right (outside) lane to be especially slow and careful. If that means going only 10 mph, then so be it.
Because we are not willing to make our cars go at max 10MPH.
Why can't you drive in the left (inside) lane? Being farther from the sidewalk, you could drive faster without being in danger of hitting someone who suddenly steps off the curb into traffic.
If you're driving in the right lane because you're about to make a right turn, then you should be slowing down anyway.
For example, if the vehicle is travelling 45 MPH down an arterial street, and a pedestrian jumps out 20 feet ahead of the vehicle.... it will be nearly impossible for an accident to be avoided.
Why can't the car calculate the maximum distance that a pedestrian can run from the sidewalk and drive at a speed that makes it impossible for the pedestrian to get hit? The math is quite simple, the difficult part of determining what is a pedestrian has already been solved. The same algorithm could be used to avoid hitting deer, livestock, bicyclists, children, and so on.
Yep, Phoenix is a very poorly (over)planned area. You couldn't build a charming little town like you see in Europe because of all the regulations. Just try to get a narrow cobblestone street past the fire department with their oversized equipment and no willingness to buy smaller fire trucks!
Further, this was a "stroad," the bastard son of a street and a road (or highway), with sidewalks and multiple at-grade intersections per mile like a street, and high speeds like a highway, so it's neither good for pedestrians nor good at moving vehicles efficiently.
What you're describing is how I drive on a residential street with children present and parked cars obstructing my field of vision. Maybe I'm just weird that way.
The highway has plenty of landscaping (trees, shrubs, etc) and if It was dark, there may have been obstructions...
So you're saying the car may have been violating the Basic Speed Law by driving "at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, conditions and actual and potential hazards then existing."
Problem is, I've seen the massive financial losses incurred by some of these mass transit projects...So is it really "proper" to insist cities invest in mass transit solutions instead of upgrading the roads and highways?
Huh? Doesn't widening roads and highways also incur massive financial losses?
Can you name even one road in your state that makes a profit? Texas couldn't, and they're a red state so they have an incentive to show that their roads are a more worthwhile investment than the mass transit loved by blue states. Remember the old Vulcan proverb, "only Nixon could go to China."
And when you raze taxpaying properties to make room for more subsidized lanes, you're reducing your tax base and making the budget problem worse!
And while traffic may not be good for residential neighborhoods, it's great for commerce. So why not allow retail uses for the properties along the now-highway? Then the middle-class neighborhood may need less welfare from poor neighborhoods, and the neighborhood may even be able to pass the popsicle test.
There was a time when it was safe and practical to go to the store and buy a gallon of milk without carrying any form of government ID. These days, you pretty much have to drive everywhere, so kids don't get to learn independence, and that's a real shame.
Then let's charge them 24.9% in order to show some leadership toward reducing tariffs. Then if they lower theirs to match, we'll lower ours again. Let's race to the bottom, because reciprocal tariffs ("an eye for an eye") won't get us to that goal.
Really? No height limits, no minimum floor area ratios, no minimum parking requirements, no minimum setbacks, no restrictions against building homes in commercial areas?
Why waste tens of thousands of commuter hours to clear up the insurance of 2 people?
It isn't their fault the freeway stays priced below market equilibrium when crashes occur. If the free market were allowed to work, people would carpool home and back to work again the next day, or take the train or bus, etc. and the crash would not have wasted any commuter hours.
In my area the bike lanes are wide enough for buses to make their stops without disrupting traffic. It's wonderful. The world needs more bike lanes to get buses and bikes out of our way!
Now that cars can detect objects in close proximity to the rear and automatically brake for them, why not take the next step by adding a feature to brake-check tailgaters? Ensuring a safe following distance in back would make it safer to brake hard to avoid collisions in front.
The last assault weapons ban established by Pres. Clinton in the 1990s, and which lasted for a decade, was widely studies and found to have zero effect on gun violence.
Was that the one that didn't ban any existing assault weapons?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the headlights were in DRL (daytime running lamp) mode.
Imagine 4 scenarios:
1. You braked and she saw it as a cue to proceed. End result: a low-energy collision.
2. You braked and she braked. End result: no collision.
3. You didn't brake so she did. End result: no collision.
4. You didn't brake and neither did she. End result: a high-energy collision.
Whether you braked or not, there was a possibility of no collision, so we can cross out options 2 and 3, leaving you to choose between a low-energy collision (option 1) or a high-energy one (option 4). I think you made the right choice.
Why can't autonomous cars avoid overdriving their headlights?
Nope!
That means during the day, dry pavement, no fog, and so on. 10pm at night is not "ideal driving conditions" in Arizona, not even in the summer when the sun sets later.
If pedestrians on the sidewalk are really only 10cm from fast-moving automobile traffic, the street is inherently unsafe and needs to be redesigned. Until then, the Basic Speed Law legally requires traffic in the right (outside) lane to be especially slow and careful. If that means going only 10 mph, then so be it.
Why can't you drive in the left (inside) lane? Being farther from the sidewalk, you could drive faster without being in danger of hitting someone who suddenly steps off the curb into traffic.
If you're driving in the right lane because you're about to make a right turn, then you should be slowing down anyway.
Why can't the car calculate the maximum distance that a pedestrian can run from the sidewalk and drive at a speed that makes it impossible for the pedestrian to get hit? The math is quite simple, the difficult part of determining what is a pedestrian has already been solved. The same algorithm could be used to avoid hitting deer, livestock, bicyclists, children, and so on.
You mean how the woman who was killed "jump[ed] out in front...from behind an obstruction, ten feet away"? That goalpost?
Yep, Phoenix is a very poorly (over)planned area. You couldn't build a charming little town like you see in Europe because of all the regulations. Just try to get a narrow cobblestone street past the fire department with their oversized equipment and no willingness to buy smaller fire trucks!
Further, this was a "stroad," the bastard son of a street and a road (or highway), with sidewalks and multiple at-grade intersections per mile like a street, and high speeds like a highway, so it's neither good for pedestrians nor good at moving vehicles efficiently.
What you're describing is how I drive on a residential street with children present and parked cars obstructing my field of vision. Maybe I'm just weird that way.
So you're saying the car may have been violating the Basic Speed Law by driving "at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, conditions and actual and potential hazards then existing."
Huh? Doesn't widening roads and highways also incur massive financial losses?
Can you name even one road in your state that makes a profit? Texas couldn't, and they're a red state so they have an incentive to show that their roads are a more worthwhile investment than the mass transit loved by blue states. Remember the old Vulcan proverb, "only Nixon could go to China."
And when you raze taxpaying properties to make room for more subsidized lanes, you're reducing your tax base and making the budget problem worse!
You can thank planners for that!
And while traffic may not be good for residential neighborhoods, it's great for commerce. So why not allow retail uses for the properties along the now-highway? Then the middle-class neighborhood may need less welfare from poor neighborhoods, and the neighborhood may even be able to pass the popsicle test.
There was a time when it was safe and practical to go to the store and buy a gallon of milk without carrying any form of government ID. These days, you pretty much have to drive everywhere, so kids don't get to learn independence, and that's a real shame.
Yes, congestion tolling solves two problems:
1. How to solve the budget problem without raising taxes.
2. How to permanently solve the congestion problem without building or widening roads and causing a budget problem.
Who doesn't like 2-for-1 deals?
Then let's charge them 24.9% in order to show some leadership toward reducing tariffs. Then if they lower theirs to match, we'll lower ours again. Let's race to the bottom, because reciprocal tariffs ("an eye for an eye") won't get us to that goal.
They don't build new homes for poor people, they build them for rich people, and the poor get their hand-me-downs.
Flooding the market with condos in the way you describe is a good way to keep housing prices from rising quickly.
It will work if you lift any regulations against building as densely as the grandfathered units you're tearing down.
It's sad how we aren't allowed to build things like we used to.
Really? No height limits, no minimum floor area ratios, no minimum parking requirements, no minimum setbacks, no restrictions against building homes in commercial areas?
It isn't their fault the freeway stays priced below market equilibrium when crashes occur. If the free market were allowed to work, people would carpool home and back to work again the next day, or take the train or bus, etc. and the crash would not have wasted any commuter hours.
"Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." --Yogi Berra
In my area the bike lanes are wide enough for buses to make their stops without disrupting traffic. It's wonderful. The world needs more bike lanes to get buses and bikes out of our way!
Some people don't read the article, but you didn't even read the title!
Now that cars can detect objects in close proximity to the rear and automatically brake for them, why not take the next step by adding a feature to brake-check tailgaters? Ensuring a safe following distance in back would make it safer to brake hard to avoid collisions in front.
Was that the one that didn't ban any existing assault weapons?