The Road Maniac and Pathetic Punishment Thread

[grldtnr]

Exactly my point, the more you automate things, the less control you exercise over these systems.
There are a lot of EU specified safety systems being fitted to modern cars, which is great to a certain point, but they MUST never override driver control.
Because then the end user aberates any blame..the car made me do it.
.....no , it never did.

 

[icowden]

So , you appear to have an 'Intelligent Car ' ,that may or may not be self driving.
Such vehicles ,to my mind with AI intelligence are not safe.

Not self driving, just has a high number of driver assists which make driving safer. If the driver in question had had lane keeping he would not have veered out of lane for example. Things like lane keeping and collision avoidance improve safety. In a similar vein if the tank of a range rover that the woman drove into a school had had advanced driver aids, it would have stopped before it hit the school railings. Humans are generally poor at driving due to our biological design.

Whilst riding my motorbike, I had to make a manoeuvre for my own safety, following was a Tesla, one of those semi autonomic self driving cars,, which at the same time I was about to change lane, 'it' decided to overtake me, I had to cancel my manoeuvre, to avoid a collision.

Unless you were inside it, there is no way you can know whether that was just the driver or whether autopilot was being used. If you were "about" to change lane, it was reasonable for the Tesla to overtake you. The driver can't mind read what you were about to do - only what you were doing.

My point is if you're driving then , one should be in full control of the vehicle, not delegate certain aspects to a computer, at the same time,all these modern driving aids being fitted to modern cars, can be usefull, but only in situation where it will bring the car safely to a stop, without impeding collisions.

Er - surely impeding collisions is desirable? We want fewer collisions, not more.

Of course I fully expect you to argue against my aversion to autonomous cars, they would be suitable if everyone has one, not just a few.
In computing , if you put crap in, you will get crap out , Simple.

Actually I do have some reservations - mostly the gap between "this car can mostly drive itself" and "this car can actually drive itself". We are notably bad at being vigilant in case the car does something wrong. As soon as we delegate responsibility to the car, we become bored and our reaction times slow right down. This has been shown by many of the autonomous car developers - i.e. that the safety driver isn't particularly useful.

 

[mjr]

It's effectively obsolete now. Google maps has so much information in real time that there isn't anything to beat it. It's one of my annoyances about my ID4 - they spent a load of money doing their own map software and it's pretty useless compared to google maps.

Those in car maps must be awful then because google maps are terrible, willing to send you down roads which are unsuitable for small cars (high floor required not to ground) or don't exist any more, and with totally unrealistic target speeds for small roads that do exist. We now have a rash of blue "do not follow sat nav" signs on small roads around here thanks mainly to google's wild inaccuracies that they won't fix quickly. Yes google maps has a lot of traffic data, but that also means they think these disconnected, abandoned and nonexistent roads are really quiet and great for sending even more people down at busy times!

And the cycling nav is even worse.

 

[wiggydiggy]

New driver, brand new car. According to someone I spoke to at the scene they were following their satnav.

 

[icowden]

Those in car maps must be awful then because google maps are terrible, willing to send you down roads which are unsuitable for small cars (high floor required not to ground) or don't exist any more, and with totally unrealistic target speeds for small roads that do exist.

I wouldn't go so far as "because we have some roads that are marked as such but the locals know are impassable" that it follows that google maps are terrible. As with all sat navigation, some common sense has to be used.

And the cycling nav is even worse.

I've found the cycling nav to be pretty good TBH.

 

[mjr]

I wouldn't go so far as "because we have some roads that are marked as such but the locals know are impassable" that it follows that google maps are terrible. As with all sat navigation, some common sense has to be used.

Surely some common sense should be used by the creator of the site nav as well? Like not including gravel single track with warning signs as if they're wide single carriageway national speed limit. Maybe google maps works well in suburbia but it really doesn't in rural England and they ignore error reports from locals. It even took months to get a spurious extra word removed from the neighbouring village's name on there!

 

[mjr]

The driver I mentioned elsewhere on the site who drove past a marshalled barrier, through a remembrance day service at a war memorial, hitting two brownies participating in the service, has only been charged with careless driving. Surely deliberately passing a marshalled closure barrier should be enough to be considered reckless?

May be paywalled if you don't adblock:
Remembrance event driving incident sees woman reported | Eastern Daily Press – https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/247871...driving-incident-sees-woman-reported/?ref=rss

 

[grldtnr]

[QUOTE="icowden, post: 7321379, member: 74402
[/QUOTE]
I signalled my intention before I was to change lane, there was a brief pause before I carried out the manoeuvre , enough time for the following driver to take notice of my intentions.
Advanced driving recommends you are looking well ahead of your current position, take onboard the information, then give out information, this generally 15 secs from your current position, given that a safe gap in dry conditions is 2 secs , up to 10 in wet, pulling out whilst I was still manoeuvring was bad etiquette.

But if I said the moon is blue cheese , I am sure you would conteract that statement, even if it were .
I am done discussing things with you, I do not wish to waste any more time, I've wet paint to watch!

 

[icowden]

I signalled my intention before I was to change lane, there was a brief pause before I carried out the manoeuvre , enough time for the following driver to take notice of my intentions.Advanced driving recommends you are looking well ahead of your current position, take onboard the information, then give out information, this generally 15 secs from your current position, given that a safe gap in dry conditions is 2 secs , up to 10 in wet, pulling out whilst I was still manoeuvring was bad etiquette.

Yep, I agree entirely. But I'm not sure that the bad driving can be laid at the door of autopilot which is usually fairly conservative.

But if I said the moon is blue cheese , I am sure you would conteract that statement, even if it were .
I am done discussing things with you, I do not wish to waste any more time, I've wet paint to watch!

Can't interest you in the 10 minute argument then?

 

[icowden]

Surely some common sense should be used by the creator of the site nav as well? Like not including gravel single track with warning signs as if they're wide single carriageway national speed limit. Maybe google maps works well in suburbia but it really doesn't in rural England and they ignore error reports from locals. It even took months to get a spurious extra word removed from the neighbouring village's name on there!

Yes, I'm not sure how google maps come to some of their conclusions. There is a route near my mum that all the locals know is fairly impassable most of the year unless you have a proper off roader or a tractor. Google will happily send you off down it - it's even sent a car down there to capture streetview. You would have thought that the streetview car would have captured that part of the road is a dirt track and it would be unsuitable for ordinary cars..

 

[lazybloke]

I've found the cycling nav to be pretty good TBH.

You must be joking, Google Maps has so many limitations!

Chiefly it's the awful data in the cycling layer. It often fails to correctly show the position of cycle routes; so you can't see if they are segregated or just a painted lane, and often not even which side(s) of the road. Then there's the gaps in cycle routes, and the almost complete lack of bridleways.

In my experience, the instructions on a planned route never mention the availability (or otherwise) of the cycle lanes; it just tells you to use the road.

And the routing options are awful. You can "avoid ferries", but not state a preference of low-traffic routes, or surface types. The default routing seems to be the shortest distance - so a lovely cycle route is often completely ignored and it will opt for a busy but slightly shorter road instead, even if it's a poor choice for a cyclist.

I much prefer the routing data and engine on my bike computer, plus it gives me voice guidance.

 

[raleighnut]

The driver I mentioned elsewhere on the site who drove past a marshalled barrier, through a remembrance day service at a war memorial, hitting two brownies participating in the service, has only been charged with careless driving. Surely deliberately passing a marshalled closure barrier should be enough to be considered reckless?

May be paywalled if you don't adblock:
Remembrance event driving incident sees woman reported | Eastern Daily Press – https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/247871...driving-incident-sees-woman-reported/?ref=rss

Disgusting behavior.

 

[Dogtrousers]

The driver I mentioned elsewhere on the site who drove past a marshalled barrier, through a remembrance day service at a war memorial, hitting two brownies participating in the service, has only been charged with careless driving. Surely deliberately passing a marshalled closure barrier should be enough to be considered reckless?

May be paywalled if you don't adblock:
Remembrance event driving incident sees woman reported | Eastern Daily Press – https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/247871...driving-incident-sees-woman-reported/?ref=rss

I think the options are careless ( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/3ZA ) or dangerous ( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/2A ) but I could be wrong.

Looking at the definitions, they are both "falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver" but the latter is "obviously dangerous" and "falls far below"

I guess (but am not a lawyer) they need to figure the amount of danger posed. The press say she "ploughed through the crowd" and "clipped two brownies" which sounds quite dramatic but the truth may (or may not) be more prosaic, and perhaps she was just being horrible and entitled rather than actually dangerous.

 

[mjr]

Looking at the definitions, they are both "falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver" but the latter is "obviously dangerous".

I guess (but am not a lawyer) they need to figure the amount of danger posed. [...]

I await comments from those who earlier presented themselves as experts on the current flawed legal system, but I'd argue that passing a marshalled "ROAD CLOSED" barrier is "obviously dangerous" every time.

Like the A134 case, this feels personal to me because I was at another village war memorial service this year which had drivers force their way through, ignoring participants in the road and the silence. No marshals but maybe there will have to be next year. This is simply the latest way that motorists disrespect our traditions, after bulldozing so many historic buildings to make space for their expensive tarmac wastelands.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I await comments from those who earlier presented themselves as experts on the current flawed legal system, but I'd argue that passing a marshalled "ROAD CLOSED" barrier is "obviously dangerous" every time.

Yeah, I don't know either way. I was just pondering an explanation.