Cycling UK Forum

pete75 wrote:

Cugel wrote:

pete75 wrote:
It's people that are dangerous not cars.

If this is what you think then you've failed to grasp the essential nature of design. The design of a thing will prompt you to use it in a certain way. For example, you won't drive your car everywhere at a safe 8mph. Most cars are designed, advertised and sold to we their buyers as a fast and powerful thing with which to amplify one's status and (in the case of the males) macho posture. Many do so..... to excess.

But perhaps you think that you live completely independently of all the influences that affect the rest of us? You stand back making purely rational decisions and acts, ignoring the suggestions and prompts supplied by a thousand cultural artefacts...? Ha! You would be the first human ever to have done so, despite the siren call of various seductive things, including the very seductive motorcar.

Cugel

It seems some people are seduced by their own hyperbole.

As for design it's making cars safer not less so.

........ [snippety snip]

Many vehicle these days are being fitted with many of the features which will allegedly make autonomous cars safer than driven cars. Some of them can be switched off by the driver. Perhaps they shouldn't be.

Cugel wrote:

pete75 wrote:

Cugel wrote:
If this is what you think then you've failed to grasp the essential nature of design. The design of a thing will prompt you to use it in a certain way. For example, you won't drive your car everywhere at a safe 8mph. Most cars are designed, advertised and sold to we their buyers as a fast and powerful thing with which to amplify one's status and (in the case of the males) macho posture. Many do so..... to excess.

But perhaps you think that you live completely independently of all the influences that affect the rest of us? You stand back making purely rational decisions and acts, ignoring the suggestions and prompts supplied by a thousand cultural artefacts...? Ha! You would be the first human ever to have done so, despite the siren call of various seductive things, including the very seductive motorcar.

Cugel

It seems some people are seduced by their own hyperbole.

As for design it's making cars safer not less so.

........ [snippety snip]

Many vehicle these days are being fitted with many of the features which will allegedly make autonomous cars safer than driven cars. Some of them can be switched off by the driver. Perhaps they shouldn't be.

Safer cars? This is a relative safety, though, since the things are still killing and maiming millions worldwide each year.

The fact is that a ton+ of metal hurtling along at 30-100mph right next to the likes of pedestrians, cyclists and, of course, other vehicles is a recipe for harm. Our personal transport systems as arranged for the car have an inherently dangerous design. But their design is also seductive. You and I think nothing of going at 40mph (perhaps more) through urban areas where that is the limit despite passing within a yard or two of pedestrians and cyclists; despite the possibility of cars, tractors and whatever lurching out of a junction, driveway or gateway.

"I have not had an accident yet", you may point out. I will merely point out the "yet" as well as the thousands who are still having (this year and every year) "accidents".

The safest car is no car. You may be right that some coming features of cars will reduce the killing and maiming. But don't count on it ever approaching zero. Still, everyone enjoys a wishful thunk.

Cugel

Cugel wrote:

pete75 wrote:

Cugel wrote:
If this is what you think then you've failed to grasp the essential nature of design. The design of a thing will prompt you to use it in a certain way. For example, you won't drive your car everywhere at a safe 8mph. Most cars are designed, advertised and sold to we their buyers as a fast and powerful thing with which to amplify one's status and (in the case of the males) macho posture. Many do so..... to excess.

But perhaps you think that you live completely independently of all the influences that affect the rest of us? You stand back making purely rational decisions and acts, ignoring the suggestions and prompts supplied by a thousand cultural artefacts...? Ha! You would be the first human ever to have done so, despite the siren call of various seductive things, including the very seductive motorcar.

Cugel

It seems some people are seduced by their own hyperbole.

As for design it's making cars safer not less so.

........ [snippety snip]

Many vehicle these days are being fitted with many of the features which will allegedly make autonomous cars safer than driven cars. Some of them can be switched off by the driver. Perhaps they shouldn't be.

Safer cars? This is a relative safety, though, since the things are still killing and maiming millions worldwide each year.

The fact is that a ton+ of metal hurtling along at 30-100mph right next to the likes of pedestrians, cyclists and, of course, other vehicles is a recipe for harm. Our personal transport systems as arranged for the car have an inherently dangerous design. But their design is also seductive. You and I think nothing of going at 40mph (perhaps more) through urban areas where that is the limit despite passing within a yard or two of pedestrians and cyclists; despite the possibility of cars, tractors and whatever lurching out of a junction, driveway or gateway.

"I have not had an accident yet", you may point out. I will merely point out the "yet" as well as the thousands who are still having (this year and every year) "accidents".

The safest car is no car. You may be right that some coming features of cars will reduce the killing and maiming. But don't count on it ever approaching zero. Still, everyone enjoys a wishful thunk.

Cugel

peetee wrote:How does an autonomous vehicle differentiate between a pedestrian and a cyclist? Is the recognition software that sophisticated? If it is programmed to avoid cyclist with a sensibly wide berth then it should do the same for pedestrians which could be on the carriageway where no pavement is present. In which case the vehicle would have to be clear of the pavement by some margin in town centres which would put it in the middle of the road in many locations and that is going to halt it's progress altogether, I would imagine.
And if that isn't written in to the software how does it treat people waiting to cross a road and is it intelligent enough to recognise a child who would 'chance it'? Good drivers would and would move over or wait.
Heck, I could keep going for a long time with these sorts of conflicting scenarios.

The European Automobile Manufacturers Association (Acea) is fiercely opposing an EU bid to benchmark a technology that automatically reduces car speeds to local limits. The group favours one which just sends speeding drivers a dashboard warning.

Bmblbzzz wrote:

The European Automobile Manufacturers Association (Acea) is fiercely opposing an EU bid to benchmark a technology that automatically reduces car speeds to local limits. The group favours one which just sends speeding drivers a dashboard warning.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ves-a-year

Cugel wrote:

Bmblbzzz wrote:

The European Automobile Manufacturers Association (Acea) is fiercely opposing an EU bid to benchmark a technology that automatically reduces car speeds to local limits. The group favours one which just sends speeding drivers a dashboard warning.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ves-a-year

Only 1300 deaths not prevented? It's worth it, according to Mr 75, as there are worse dangers so why carp about this one? Anyway, he says cars are getting safer (unless it bothers someone's profits or "right" to go Toading about).

What if there were a few aeroplane crashes next year and 1300 deaths the result? Would everyone just shrug their shoulders and think about their next lovely flight to Marbella? What about a similar death rate on the trains? Would this even be reported? You bet it would! With bells-on, sirens and dire warnings of every kind to avoid the things until matters were vastly improved.

But cars? No, they're fine as "I love my car"*.

Cugel

* Toad of Toad Hall