+ Post New Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 76 to 90 of 90
General Chat Thread, The M5 crash in General; Originally Posted by SYNACK What exactly is the safe following distance in zero visibility, oh wait you mean you should ...
  1. #76


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,878
    Thank Post
    258
    Thanked 767 Times in 582 Posts
    Rep Power
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by SYNACK View Post
    What exactly is the safe following distance in zero visibility, oh wait you mean you should be stopped,, in the middle of the motorway. Great, there are extraordinary conditions that are difficult or impossible to account for, was this one of those times, maybe, maybe not but all of this good driver, bad driver, slow driver, fast driver stuff is full on BS.
    Perhaps it is BS and for sure in a 30 car pile up, there is not one single cause or one single accident to investigate, but many possible causes in 30 individual accidents. But as for speed in zero visibility - are you really suggesting that you should be driving with your eyes shut? If not, how much faster do you think you should you be going than the distance you can safely see to stop in?

    I need to be very careful here. Last time I 'contributed' (for small values of contribute) to a 'driving' thread I said how I was unsympathetic to anyone who speeds before the speed limit terminators. I still am[*1], but naturally Karma Kamera then clocked me at 34 in a 30, 20 yards before the terminators and I spent half a day last week attending a speed awareness course. Part of that involved a video analysis of another motorway pileup - the 1991 M4 crash. The video was a reconstruction using toy cars - just documenting what happened from the van hitting the central barrier to the last cars impacting the mayhem. The chap who was taking the course gave a simultaneous commentary of the footage - the whole thing lasted 5 minutes to describe in amazing detail what actually took 19 seconds. Much of that carnage was due to people driving ... not over the speed limit, but too fast for the conditions and too close to the vehicle in front. It's difficult to see in major multi vehicle pileups how anyone but perhaps the unfortunate first vehicle can claim anything else. When you plough into the back of something, you have very few reasonable excuses.

    [*1] Perhaps more so.

  2. Thanks to pcstru from:

    MK-2 (7th November 2011)

  3. #77

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,528
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,406 Times in 1,862 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    822
    Quote Originally Posted by j17sparky View Post
    IMO we're still a long way off that. Hell even the basic reversing sensors are worse than useless. I drive my mum and dads cars quire regular and they both have these sensors which IMO do more harm than good. They go off for no reason whatsoever, and then don't go off when there is actually something there. If I put any faith in them I'd have crashed into all sorts.

    These auto parking doodars look pretty pointless too.I'm yet to see one in action but all the adverts for them show a small hatchback being auto parked into a space which you could fit a bus in.

    One day yes, but not quite yet.
    Google would disagree. They've been operating a fleet of entirely automated cars for quite some time now, and the only accident was caused when someone used human input...

  4. #78
    CAM
    CAM is offline

    CAM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Burgh Heath, Surrey
    Posts
    4,022
    Thank Post
    803
    Thanked 346 Times in 270 Posts
    Blog Entries
    60
    Rep Power
    278
    I don't think speed is anywhere near as big a problem as people claim in this incident. If the smoke was that thick then:

    - If you slow down you become a major hazard and get rear ended by traffic behind. This tends to be the first reaction of the uncertain and they won't stop in time anyway.
    - If you maintain the same speed, you still won't stop in time and hit said slow traffic.

    You have to remember, this isn't like heavy rain or fog where you can still make out traffic in front. This is a cloud of black smoke making everything disappear suddenly. All they can do is pray no-one in front has stopped or slowed.

  5. Thanks to CAM from:

    Rawns (8th November 2011)

  6. #79

    GrumbleDook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Gosport, Hampshire
    Posts
    9,921
    Thank Post
    1,332
    Thanked 1,773 Times in 1,100 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    593
    Perhaps the other thing to remember about reducing speed and increasing distance between vehicles is that whilst there is an element to reducing the chance of collisions, it is also there so that should something terrible like this happen then there is a greater chance of there being fewer fatalities and fewer serious injuries. Sometimes things do just happen due to things outside of all our control ... and anything which can be reasonably done to mitigate it going from a bad situation to a worse one has to be good ... to be honest, that is what I got from the OPs initial thoughts ...

  7. Thanks to GrumbleDook from:

    MK-2 (7th November 2011)

  8. #80
    CAM
    CAM is offline

    CAM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Burgh Heath, Surrey
    Posts
    4,022
    Thank Post
    803
    Thanked 346 Times in 270 Posts
    Blog Entries
    60
    Rep Power
    278
    Just found this speerate incident!

    BBC News - Lorry driver killed as vehicle falls onto M56

    A miracle no-one was hurt!

  9. #81

    MK-2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    3,237
    Thank Post
    149
    Thanked 581 Times in 307 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8
    Rep Power
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by GrumbleDook View Post
    Perhaps the other thing to remember about reducing speed and increasing distance between vehicles is that whilst there is an element to reducing the chance of collisions, it is also there so that should something terrible like this happen then there is a greater chance of there being fewer fatalities and fewer serious injuries. Sometimes things do just happen due to things outside of all our control ... and anything which can be reasonably done to mitigate it going from a bad situation to a worse one has to be good ... to be honest, that is what I got from the OPs initial thoughts ...
    Help yourself to a Brandy! Exactly my point. I wasn't attributing speed/tailgating as the main cause of this, but had there been less speed and more distance between cars there might have been less fatalities but still the same amount of cars involved.
    I am not saying (and never have) that the firework smoke didn't cause an initial accident, but speed is a mitigating factor to what might have caused a lot of the carnage shown.

  10. #82

    MK-2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    3,237
    Thank Post
    149
    Thanked 581 Times in 307 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8
    Rep Power
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by CAM View Post
    I don't think speed is anywhere near as big a problem as people claim in this incident. If the smoke was that thick then:

    - If you slow down you become a major hazard and get rear ended by traffic behind. This tends to be the first reaction of the uncertain and they won't stop in time anyway.
    - If you maintain the same speed, you still won't stop in time and hit said slow traffic.

    You have to remember, this isn't like heavy rain or fog where you can still make out traffic in front. This is a cloud of black smoke making everything disappear suddenly. All they can do is pray no-one in front has stopped or slowed.
    Not having been in this situation I cannot comment with authority (and also not being a traffic accident investigator will harm my credibility too!) but if this fog suddenly drops and visibility becomes a few inches ahead, wouldn't it be safe to assume that other cars will be slowing down in front and behind you?
    Why would you then be praying nobody in front has slowed down? If fog descended and you slowed down to a safe speed, would you want the driver behind keeping his foot at 70/80 thinking "i hope nobody is slowing for this" or would you rather he also slowed?

    Think of it another way, if asked, would you rather drive for 20 seconds with your eyes closed at 80mph or would you rather drive for 20 seconds with your eyes closed at 40mph? Both could end in an accident, but one probably has a greater chance of death than the other

  11. #83

    creese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    -28° 31' 48.89", +28° 25' 37.42" ... if only.
    Posts
    3,197
    Thank Post
    174
    Thanked 371 Times in 301 Posts
    Rep Power
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by CAM View Post
    Just found this speerate incident!

    BBC News - Lorry driver killed as vehicle falls onto M56

    A miracle no-one was hurt!
    A man died.

  12. #84

    creese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    -28° 31' 48.89", +28° 25' 37.42" ... if only.
    Posts
    3,197
    Thank Post
    174
    Thanked 371 Times in 301 Posts
    Rep Power
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by MK-2 View Post
    Think of it another way, if asked, would you rather drive for 20 seconds with your eyes closed at 80mph or would you rather drive for 20 seconds with your eyes closed at 40mph? Both could end in an accident, but one probably has a greater chance of death than the other
    But if some one asked you to decide, whilst distracting you in so many ways, do you think you would even understand the question?

    What we do in panic or unexpected situations is not always logical. Too easy to hit the accelerator instead of the brake, freeze and do nothing. It's a lot easier to think we know what we would do when we have time to think about it.

    Edit: I saved a young lad from drowning February last year. It was a rock pool with slimy rocks. It took what seemed an age for me to remember all my training. Only then could I extract him from my neck to stop him taking us both under, turn him around and bit by bit move him to the side. Without training I would likely have panicked. What training do we get when learning to drive... stop as fast as you can when I tap the screen with my clipboard...
    Last edited by creese; 7th November 2011 at 09:42 PM.

  13. #85


    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,411
    Thank Post
    184
    Thanked 356 Times in 285 Posts
    Rep Power
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Google would disagree. They've been operating a fleet of entirely automated cars for quite some time now, and the only accident was caused when someone used human input...
    “Even the most optimistic predictions put the deployment of the technology more than eight years away,” according to NYT.
    Google Has A Secret Fleet Of Automated Toyota Priuses; 140,000 Miles Logged So Far. | TechCrunch

    There's a big difference between a test of cars manned by trained engineers and real life where people can't monitor the software, cars aren't maintained quite as well as they should be...

    Besides all of this relies on all the other systems being 100%; electricity to data centres and ISPs etc, network connectivity, GPS?,
    Last edited by j17sparky; 8th November 2011 at 10:59 AM.

  14. #86

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,528
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,406 Times in 1,862 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    822
    Quote Originally Posted by j17sparky View Post
    Google Has A Secret Fleet Of Automated Toyota Priuses; 140,000 Miles Logged So Far. | TechCrunch

    There's a big difference between a test of cars manned by trained engineers and real life where people can't monitor the software, cars aren't maintained quite as well as they should be...
    They aren't driven by engineers, they're driven by trained operators. From an interview I saw, basically employees of Google can drive them after being trained how they work). There's no difference there to a normal car, as people are trained to drive them also.

    But it is besides the point, the technology exists already and works perfectly well.

  15. #87
    Dom_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,009
    Thank Post
    151
    Thanked 138 Times in 115 Posts
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    They aren't driven by engineers, they're driven by trained operators. From an interview I saw, basically employees of Google can drive them after being trained how they work). There's no difference there to a normal car, as people are trained to drive them also.

    But it is besides the point, the technology exists already and works perfectly well.
    Did you read the article?

    "A driver is always on hand to take over in case something goes wrong, and an engineer is always on hand in the car to monitor the software."

    Also, they've only managed around 7k miles without any human interaction (1k in 7 cars) - so I wouldn't say it's working perfectly well yet...

  16. #88

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    West Midlands
    Posts
    409
    Thank Post
    71
    Thanked 75 Times in 58 Posts
    Rep Power
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    But it is besides the point, the technology exists already and works perfectly well.
    ...and so do Jet Packs, but yer average Joe Public would struggle to get hold of one

    mb

  17. #89


    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,411
    Thank Post
    184
    Thanked 356 Times in 285 Posts
    Rep Power
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    But it is besides the point, the technology exists already and works perfectly well.
    Source? Everything I can find says its not ready yet.

    First, it relies on very detailed maps of the roads and terrain, something that Urmson said is essential to determine accurately where the car is. Using GPS-based techniques alone, he said, the location could be off by several meters.
    before sending the self-driving car on a road test, Google engineers drive along the route one or more times to gather data about the environment. When it's the autonomous vehicle's turn to drive itself, it compares the data it is acquiring to the previously recorded data, an approach that is useful to differentiate pedestrians from stationary objects like poles and mailboxes.
    How Google's Self-Driving Car Works : Discovery News


    And the key question; how much does one of these cars cost? The technology to send people to the moon has been around for a very long time now but the costs involved stop it from becoming a tourist destination

  18. #90

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,528
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,406 Times in 1,862 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    822
    Quote Originally Posted by Dom_ View Post
    Did you read the article?

    "A driver is always on hand to take over in case something goes wrong, and an engineer is always on hand in the car to monitor the software."

    Also, they've only managed around 7k miles without any human interaction (1k in 7 cars) - so I wouldn't say it's working perfectly well yet...
    That article is over a year old. Things have changed since then. Also, have a look at the cars that Stanford have created, and those in the DARPA Grand Challenge.

    All of them showcase the technologies and showcase them very well.
    Last edited by localzuk; 8th November 2011 at 11:38 AM.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

Similar Threads

  1. The Deadliest Crash: the Le Mans 1955 Disaster
    By mattx in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 7th August 2010, 12:03 PM
  2. Gordon Brown crashes the Labour Campaign....!
    By tech_guy in forum General Chat
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 29th April 2010, 11:07 AM
  3. [News] Crashing the Proxy
    By mattx in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 31st March 2010, 11:45 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 14th February 2010, 01:13 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 1st August 2008, 10:26 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •