> Nearly 6,000 pedestrians were killed in U.S. traffic accidents in 2017, the latest year data were available, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. That was up 35% from 2008
I wonder how much of this is due to distracted driving because of smart phones. I would bet it's more than we care to admit.
This is where the material from the college engineering ethics course I was required to take kicks in. It's stuff like this we should pay attention to.
> At 20 miles an hour, the cars struggled with each test, AAA found. The child was struck 89% of the time, and all of the cars hit the pedestrian dummy after making a right turn. The systems were generally ineffective if the car was going 30 mph. The systems were also completely ineffective at night
When companies advertise these systems, I wonder how many people feel they can pay less attention while driving.
I also wonder what's up with their QA testing. This stuff could use some chaos engineering thrown at it.
Another factor is increased number of trucks and SUVs. Pedestrians are struck higher in their body and are less likely to slide off the hood, but are instead underneath the vehicle.
Consumers who choose these kinds of vehicles for no other reason than aesthetics are also a big part of the problem. In my view, a responsible vendor would steer buyers away from an inefficient use of materials & fuel unless particular use cases were presented.
The fact that the scenario I just described seems ludicrous to us is a pretty solid example of the abandonment of long-term thinking in our current marketplace, I think. I'm hoping to live to see the day when the right company figures out how to flip this around and win a huge pile of lifelong customer-fans in the process.
And more Americans than ever are zipping around in SUVs and pickup trucks, which, thanks to their height, weight and shape are between two and three times more likely to kill people they hit. SUVs are also the most profitable cars on the market, for the simple reason buyers are willing to pay more for them. As with speeding, there appears to be a self-perpetuating cycle at work: the increased presence of large cars on the road makes them feel more dangerous, which makes owning a large car yourself feel more comforting.
I think it's a vicious circle. People want to feel safe on the road, so they buy a SUV or a truck because it's less likely to get smashed and squashed in a car crash.
This is probably also why "sport futility vehicles" like the BMW X6 or the Mercedes GLW Coupe have appeared: they are cramped inside and their off road performance is utter crap (too heavy, built for the road).
> When companies advertise these systems, I wonder how many people feel they can pay less attention while driving.
> I also wonder what's up with their QA testing. This stuff could use some chaos engineering thrown at it.
When you're improving on nothing, everything is an improvement. That is, until marketing hears about it and starts hyping the hell out of it, and then then it's worse than nothing. This is true for all features, not just safety features.
I doubt QA was asked to evaluate how the technology compared to the marketing.
It just needs basic engineering. If fucking electric scooters have geofenced speed limits (and drones much longer even) there is zero excuse for cars exceeding speed limits.
Why would anyone buy a scooter that has a geofenced governor? Scooter rental companies might do that, but then they'll have more competition from modes of transportation that don't have such restrictions (such as rental bicycles).
I couldn't see lots of people buying a car with a built in governor, especially since speed limits are a joke in many places in the US. Also, such a device would be a hazard in a life threatening situation (such as escaping a disaster or driving a family member to the hospital).
Fun fact, Utah has Prima Facia speed limits. This means it's legal to exceed the posted limit when it's safe to do so. You'll get a ticket anyway, but you can make the argument.
If all cars went the speed limit then cities, towns, and counties would lose speeding ticket revenue. I suspect the money would cause attempts to force safe speeds to fail. On the flip side there's a certain amount of freedom inherent in being allowed to speed. So, it seems like there might not be enough support, on any side, to make this feasible.
Around here, going the speed limit typically means going slower than the rest of traffic. If all of our cars forced us not to speed, I wonder if speed limits would naturally increase to safer limits. I also wonder how much of what I just said is a result of Prima Facia speed limits here.
Speed limits in cities and towns where pedestrians are walking are already typically the highest safe speed limit, or even higher. The odds of a car-pedestrian collision resulting in a fatality increase dramatically in the gradient from 20 to 40 mph, and people love to speed in cities and towns where the limits are usually 25 or 30 mph.
Limited-access highway speed limits are a different story of course and a lot of highways still have old 55 or 65 mph speed limits that are set for fuel efficiency due to the 1970s oil crisis, not necessarily the maximum safe speed.
> But I'm sure most normie commuter types aren't willing to drop $1000 + labor just so they can speed.
Not sure about demand at that price, but I'd guess most people would pay not to have a "nanny car". I could also see significant economies of scale for what is currently a very niche product.
Nevermind that many vehicles are way easier to ECU program than actually buying a new $1000 unit. Some can simply use a $100 programmer that comes with built in programs for multiple cars!
> I wonder how much of this is due to distracted driving because of smart phones. I would bet it's more than we care to admit.
Not just drivers. Plenty of pedestrians which just walk straight across the road with their eyes firmly fixed on their screens and earbuds protecting their ears from the sounds of the world around them.
People should pay attention to the world around them, but keep in mind that the pedestrians aren't the people doing the activity that causes the damage.
In the same way that if I stick my hand in the table saw, it's not me causing the damage.
Of course drivers who can't pay attention to the things they should pay attention to don't really deserve to drive. But physics is physics, and there's a limit to how fast a driver can react and a car in motion can stop. And a lot of pedestrians at least here seem to not keep that in mind when roaming about.
I know I'm somewhat of an outlier but I really don't like wearing earphones when I'm out and about. I don't even like walking in the woods with them in. I certainly don't like wearing them anywhere there's traffic or other potential hazards. Just makes me feel cut-off from the environment.
If you hit someone hard enough to kill them then you were definitely speeding and/or not paying attention. Even going 45mph, which is the highest speed road around me where you'd encounter a crosswalk wile driving, you still have plenty of time to slam on the brakes and bleed speed to a nonfatal speed. Probably takes 1 second to go from 45mph to 20mph.
When drivers kill people in my town, it seems like it's mostly hit and runs which should give you a hint on who was at fault.
At least where I'm from, cars by default at fault if they hit a pedestrian. I'm not saying they account for the majority, but I do see a lot of very close calls on a regular basis due to pedestrians behaving as if they're alone in the world.
In the same way that the pedestrian who carelessly walks into the road without sensing their surroundings makes a decision (maybe uninformed, but nevertheless) to step in front of said two-ton killing machine.
How well can you hear the outside world from your car? Should all drivers be required to drive convertibles without stereos so they can hear the sounds of the world around them?
I wonder how much of this is due to distracted driving because of smart phones. I would bet it's more than we care to admit.
This is where the material from the college engineering ethics course I was required to take kicks in. It's stuff like this we should pay attention to.
> At 20 miles an hour, the cars struggled with each test, AAA found. The child was struck 89% of the time, and all of the cars hit the pedestrian dummy after making a right turn. The systems were generally ineffective if the car was going 30 mph. The systems were also completely ineffective at night
When companies advertise these systems, I wonder how many people feel they can pay less attention while driving.
I also wonder what's up with their QA testing. This stuff could use some chaos engineering thrown at it.