MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Watched the Horizon programme about reducing fatalities in car crashes last night. One of the ideas they showed was a system in the car that sent information on speed of impact, direction of impact, number of occupants, number of vehicles involved and geographical position of the crash directly to the emergency services almost instantly after the crash. I thought this was an idea that is so simple and has the potential to save a lot of lives. Genius idea for my money.
What do you think?
Watched the doc last week, and this was one of the stand out ideas. Most new cars have GPS systems anyways and it would be an optional extra that is actually useful.
Will people pay extra for it though or should it be mandatory?
Doesn't do much to prevent the accidents happening in the first place though does it. Just makes everything seem and feel even more "safe" so the numpties will keep driving like bulbends.
as they say, the best way to improve driving standards would be no seat belts and a 12" sharpened steel spike in the centre of the steering wheel
send it to who exactly? Police, Fire or Ambulance?
Never saw the programme so can't comment on what the system did. No doubt we'd be plagued with false alarms, meaning driving for miles searching for a possible incident.
The only way to prevent accidents is to remove the idiots who cause them from the equation.
IMHO, no amount of technology will prevent stupidity from causing accidents.
Thought that was exactly how OnStar works, though it puts the data through to the call centre who decide to call 999 for you. It's pretty common in USA. Works a bit like this:
bassspine - +1
I have advocated this for a long time, but no-one will listen
With that much computing power, maybe it could show the driver the risk of death at the current velocity...
Make cars that cannot go faster than 30 mph in urban areas, 20 mph in selected zones, and go 70 mph only on M-ways.
No point in a reactive system; the key is preventing accidents in the first place, not telling folk where they have happened.
remove drivers from the car.
Build more race tracks or private roads for those who want to drive and pass a super hard test. 😀
As it happens we started building some prototypes at work this week to do this 🙂
Another interesting possibility is interrogate nearby vehicles at the moment of impact to ascertain if they contributed to the cause of the accident.
On a similar vein there's an insurance company that now installs a black box in your car and sets your insurance level based on how well you drive 🙂
[url] http://www.insurethebox.com/ [/url]
[b]crikey[/b]
That shouldn't be too hard to implement. The Nissan GTR, at least in Japan, limits the top speed to 112 mph unless the gps unit sees you are on a dedicated race track. No reason why current gps equipped cars couldn't do the same.
Crikey setting speeds for roads will only lead to long queues of traffic also the wagon overtaking the wagon scenario but with cars as well on dual carriageways would only result in more congestion
how about this:
starting from tomorrow, the standard car test only lets you drive a kei car (google it, they're small, light, 600cc engine), if you want to drive anything bigger you need to take an extra test - something like a mini-bus / 7.5t type test.
you can't take this test until you're 25.
your points history is kept, when you reach 12 points (no points are lost over time) you're only allowed a kei car, you can apply for the extra test after 3 years.
time to renew your license? - you need to take the extra test if you want to drive anything bigger than a kei car.
lost your license? etc.
etc.
if all this sounds like a lot of stick, how about a little carrot? - kei cars would be exempt from car tax.
or, how about the police just start cracking down on people driving like dickheads.
the sooner we take the human out of driving the better. I want to get in the car, punch in the location I'm going to and let the robot drive
Crikey setting speeds for roads will only lead to long queues of traffic also the wagon overtaking the wagon scenario but with cars as well on dual carriageways would only result in more congestion
I thought studies showed that reducing speed actually increased flow. Most peoples commute is slow due to the volume of traffic not speed limit per se.
I thought studies showed that reducing speed actually increased flow.
Hence the M25 variable limit.
I wonder how those auto-brake systems that Volvos have affect crash stats?
Junkyard - Member
Crikey setting speeds for roads will only lead to long queues of traffic also the wagon overtaking the wagon scenario but with cars as well on dual carriageways would only result in more congestionI thought studies showed that reducing speed actually increased flow. Most peoples commute is slow due to the volume of traffic not speed limit per se.
They do. Driving and ",making progress" is largely a physiological thing. A lot like the proposed standard 20mph in built up areas speed limit rather than 30 mph that so many are against, when you actually work out how much time is saved on a journey with a 30 mph speed limit vs a 20 mph it's negligible.
I saw the program the op was on about, lots of good ideas but I did feel that many of them over looked the massive and well documented problem of risk compensation. You see it even now, the worrying number of people that say I've got a ABS or I've got 4x4 so I don't have to worry about the wet much is worrying, ideas like the guided car that stops you coming out of junction I expect would result in a rise of accidents with cyclists as people would not worry about looking the same.
Plus one for the spike.
Also, pass you L test and then have tree years to pass the advanced which is retaken every five years. Shift public perception to understand that driving is a privilege, not a right.
Of course, this would need a lot of enforcement.
bassspine - Member
the sooner we take the human out of driving the better. I want to get in the car, punch in the location I'm going to and let the robot drive
You can, it's called a taxi. Might get into a spot of bother for punching in the location though!
It's a good idea, but really... is the deathrate on the roads really significant enough for all the fuss?
.... and then have tree years to pass the advanced....
Yeah mon!
Don't let men with tiny appendages drive cars....?
I don't by any stretch of the imagination conform to what the STW Traffic Police would deem acceptable (read old fart in a Micra) driving standards (albeit I drive very sensibly in built-up areas).
In 22 years of driving, I've had 3 points, that weren't particularly reckless - i.e. 35mph in a 30 zone, accelerating out to a 60 zone with the flow of traffic - that was 15 years ago. I've never had a collision with another vehicle that was my fault.
However, I've had countless experiences of avoiding stupid drivers who don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of spacial awareness and the perils caused by driving at an inappropriately slow speed - e.g. when entering a high speed road. Invariably these people avoid accidents themselves, but create chaos around them.
starting from tomorrow, the standard car test only lets you drive a kei car (google it, they're small, light, 600cc engine), if you want to drive anything bigger you need to take an extra test - something like a mini-bus / 7.5t type test.
Doesn't really make any difference. The only difference between them driving that and a high power car is the value of damage done at the end. Even a 40hp peugeot 205 can reach high speeds, and be less able to deal with them round corners and stopping - all a performance car does is make it easier to get there. I recognise that I am by far the most dangerous when driving a slow, underpowered vehicle than driving a high powered one. While dont support the idea of giving 300hp cars to new drivers, as a new driver in a slow car my main aim was to overcome its naffness and the fact that I got left behind in any traffic by driving it as hard as I could, or losing concentration because I'm bored trundling alone getting up to speed. Switch to a faster (not necessarily "fast") vehicle and my concentration is much better, the ability to accelerate quickly and easily means that most of the time I don't even need to try and I sit contentedly and safely waiting for a place to overtake trundlers, and the faster I'm going the more I focus on everythig around me in great detail at the expense of "what was it I needed to do at work today".
Stick someone in a kart on public roads and I think you'll find they may go slower or faster, but they'll be a lot more aware of the road around them.
Make cars that cannot go faster than 30 mph in urban areas, 20 mph in selected zones, and go 70 mph only on M-ways
Please explain to me how exactly that would stop accidents?
The system would reduce accidents/fatalities, but I don't think the automated info sent to the emergency services would help much, other than those instances where a car has left the road and no notices it (or is involved and leaves the scene)
Where it would have an effect is people would know they essentially have a black box recorder, and would consider their driving more. I've got an app on my phone that records in a big loop, saving any clips when you touch the screen or it detects an impact. It stamps your GPS speed, location and time to the video. Been using it for a few months now and knowing its quietly working away certainly makes me consider my driving a bit more.
Its called Dailyroads Voyager on the Android App store.
Don't let men with tiny appendages drive cars....?
So you're going to let all the bad women drivers off the hook? Sexist.
and the faster I'm going the more I focus on everythig around me in great detail at the expense of "what was it I needed to do at work today".
bDo you think you do this because it is more dangerous?
You still cannot stop as fast at 70 as you can at 50 no nmatte how hard you concentrate and you have less time to react.
it is probably true that if i do 100 mph i concentrate more on a road but I am not sure why you think this means it is safer. Clearly speed is a factor in all accidents as staionary objects do not collide 😉
I'd be a brave car maker to first introduce a system in their car that recorded your speed etc. in a black box. The insurers would have a field day denying claims due to being above the speed limit etc.
Sometimes technology is being used inappropriately. Think BMW 7 series (or something like that) have little cameras in the front of the car looking left and right to show you traffic coming when you're at a junction. To my mind that just implies the car is too big if you can't actually see round the corner from the drivers seat.....
I guess no one has heard of eCall. It is an EU campaign for installing mobile device in cars for emergency use - for example automated calling of emergency services after a crash.
Most governments are committed and the mobile operators are signing up manufacturers as we speak.
A lot of people are banking a lot of money on it becoming mandatory across the EU.
Actually the systems to record your driving exist and are available: they are used to show how you are driving and how to tailor your car use to be more fuel efficient.
A lot of high spec cars now have some level of adaptive cruise control that uses forward radar to auto adjust the cars speed to traffic so it will automatically accelerate and decelelerate. Self parking systems are also available on a lot of modern cars as its a realatively simple step on from reverse parking sensors. We are very close (ie a few years off) to going to a cloudsourced system of RFID chips on vehicles so your car "knows" where other vehicles are in relation and being able to avoid colisions. TBH, I think we are unlikely to be actually driving cars on motorways in 20 years time, they will be on full or partial autopilot (google the DARPA urban challenge)...before anyone starts complaining about safety, if youve been on a plane in the last 10 years or so it was probably flying on full autopilot from take off to after it landed!