|
|
Post by keely on Dec 9, 2004 15:30:31 GMT -5
Wired is by far my favorite magazine in the world - it's not just about technology, but really explores the culture of technology. There's a new article on traffic engineering that I thought was very cool. I have a blog entry on my site about it, but if you want to skip directly to the story, it's here. Basically, it talks about the advantages of stripping away controls and signals, and designing roads to make them more difficult to drive - all in the pursuit of safety.
|
|
|
|
Post by Celtic Curse on Dec 11, 2004 16:33:14 GMT -5
I can't wait till auto pilot...that would be cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by keely on Dec 11, 2004 19:37:23 GMT -5
I read in another blog (sorry, I've lost the link now) where they've been testing auto cruise control systems that automatically match the speed of your vehicle to that of the vehicle in front of you. Apparently the computer's reaction times are far better than a human's, plus are far more accurate. Not only is there an improved safety aspect but moreover this inhibits traffic congestion, which is by and large the product of people over-braking because they belatedly and inaccurately react to the speed of vehicles in front of them. If I find the link again I'll post it, it was very interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by DJDoubleLP on Dec 14, 2004 14:29:56 GMT -5
But that almost defeats the purpose of driving. Yes it will probably decrease the amount of rearend collisions that occur every year.....but I would be one not to use it. It would be a lot better on say a highway....but what if you get caught behind some guy or lady who is doing 80km/h instead of say 100km/h? Then you will be going slower as well. UGH....no thanks. It is interesting though to see the way that technology is moving. I would be for one where the cruise control would be able to sense a lot earlier that a hill is approaching and accelerate before the hill.....therefore your engine does not have to work as hard when it kicks in part way up the hill.
|
|
|
|
Post by keely on Dec 15, 2004 10:57:29 GMT -5
I think the system is designed for high-volume situations, where you don't have a choice but to go the speed of the vehicle in front of you. In fact, when you think about it, there are always only two choices: slow down and match the speed of the car ahead of you, or move into the passing lane. Cruise control doesn't apply when you step on the accelerator in order to engage in a passing maneouver.
I guess this invention begs the original question - if we have things doing the thinking for us (i.e. gauging the speed of other vehicles), will it make the road safer or not? The answer according to the opinions in the Wired article is a resounding no, because the act of having to think and make decisions makes us slow down and drive more cautiously.
|
|
|
|
Post by DJDoubleLP on Dec 15, 2004 11:59:28 GMT -5
Yeah exactly....and also would you be willing to trust a computer to drive for you? We all know that cruise systems fail once and awhile....and even our own personal computers fail too.....so who says that the one driving for us is going to be that much more reliable? Electronics have never been 100% reliable and never will.
|
|
|
|
Post by Celtic Curse on Dec 18, 2004 17:04:53 GMT -5
A computer would be less prone to road rage or other emotional factors that create problems on the road i.e. the show boater and dum as youth in mom and dads car. I look forward to the day when I can sleep on my way to work and not have to worry about asking directions on how to get somewhere. All in all would be cool.
|
|
