Sad, and reprehensible if it was one of a number of accidents which arose
when the fault had already been reported and little or nothing done.
But reality is, human-caused accidents outweigh mechanically/electronically
caused ones by a huge margin.
And the rule of the road that is so often ignored is that you must drive
behind another vehicle at a distance which will allow you to stop and/or
avoid an accident, even if the car in front has had an emergency stop.
So human factors play a role in similar situations.
I drive long distances on the Pacific Highway every week and trucks ignore
that rule on almost every trip I take. I've even had some drive up at
nearly 100 kms an hour to sit less than a metre from my rear bumper.
Human reaction time to start breaking is about 1.5 seconds. Time to start
effective breaking time is going to be much more than that -- probably more
than double.
Leave it to the mathematicians to work out how far you travel in 3 or 4
seconds at 100 kms per hour.
But at least there is a prospect that electronic breaking might start
sooner than 1.5 seconds, although even that is going to be a bit pointless
if the gap is 1 metre.
It'd be nicer if electronic controls stopped vehicles from tailgating in
the first place.
On 2 July 2016 at 10:56, Christine Kent <cmkentau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No my point was as much about aged cars as aged drivers. Driverless trains
are a different story - not so many unpredictable variables. My distant
relative died through no fault but that her car stopped driving. The truck
behind could not stop as fast as she did and ploughed over the top of her.
The electronics of her car CAUSED the accident.
On Saturday, 2 July 2016, Peter Martin <prescribal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Stuart:
On your response to b.), point 2. is probably not particularly relevant.
No driver is going to control any operation of the car after it had had its
top half sliced off.
But certainly your point about aged drivers could prove to be of
considerable significance if life expectancy rates continue to rise at
current rates, particularly for local-range-limited driving. It so
happens we could do with one in this household to get my partner to the
local shops and back when I'm away at work.
Meanwhile Copenhagen has had driverless trains for nearly two decades
now. They seem to have gone all right.
The argument might well be made that we should insist on excluding
human-controlled devices from driving on our roads.
[First let's get rid of all the truckies.....] :-)
On 1 July 2016 at 17:29, Stuart Burnfield <slb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter said:
a.) Do we know a human driver would have avoided this collision?
It's hard to know for sure but it sounds like the answer is probably
yes. Despite the sleazy, deceptive, blame-the-victim wording by Tesla's
Mouth of Sauron, it's hard to imagine Mr Brown or even a minimally
attentive driver:
1. Not noticing a trailer swerving in front of him and cutting him off
2. Continuing to drive, "leaving the road, striking a fence, crossing a
field, passing through another fence and finally hitting a utility pole
about 100 feet south of the road"
b.) Automated cars are never going to overcome the laws of physics,
particularly if less than predictable, non-communicating humans are driving
in the opposition direction at say,100 kms, and suddenly swerve to the
other side of the road.
True.
c.) "Wait till they start aging ?" That's what they already say about
human drivers over the age of 75, I believe.
Well this could eventually (once the technology is good enough) be a
plus for both learner drivers and aging and increasingly impaired drivers.
Autodrive cars could assist learners and inexperienced drivers to deal with
unusual and dangerous conditions. They could also ease the transition to
non-driving for older drivers as they gradually become less capable behind
the wheel.
--- Stuart
On 1 July 2016 at 16:10, LIVERANI Petra <
Petra.LIVERANI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Very sad. More information on the crash. Ironically, it seems that the
driver, Joshua Brown, had posted a video in May saying how the autopilot
function had saved him from an accident.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-01/tesla-driver-killed-while-car-was-in-on-autopilot/7560126
It seems that although the autopilot function isn’t perfect (and this
is very much emphasised by the company) the Model S is still a very safe
car. Accidents have been reported in Model Ss where it is surmised the
occupants would normally have died but didn’t. The supposed saving of their
lives, however, was nothing to do with autopilot. The trouble is that even
if Tesla say that you should always have your hands on the steering wheel,
etc, it will be virtually impossible for drivers to maintain normal
concentration and in a lapsed moment when autopilot fails they could have
an accident. Unfortunately, in the improvement process lives will be lost
and I’d say it is more likely than not that it will never achieve 100%
safety … but that’s hardly unexpected. Presumably, autopilot will save more
lives than it loses.
--
Christine
