- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Drivers Tend To Kill Pedestrians At Night. Thermal Imaging May Help.::Pedestrian automatic emergency braking (AEB), which may become mandatory on U.S. cars in the future, tends to not perform well in the dark.
You must log in or register to comment.
this is gonna be super bad for lizard people 😱
mark Zuckerberg is crying right now…
deleted by creator
This is so fucking stupid because you can apply it to literally any safety standard.
I do a lot of driving and have never needed a seatbelt.
I do a lot of driving and I’ve never needed ABS.
I do a lot of driving and I’ve never needed disc brakes.
I do a lot of driving and I’ve never needed modern headlights.
I do a lot of driving and I’ve never needed a properly developed crash structure.
And of course it’s not just driving:
I don’t wear a hardhat or any other protective gear for my job. It’s never done me any harm.
Etc.
Pedestrians and cyclists in the dark can be almost impossible to see until you’re very close, if they’re wearing dark clothes. It’s not a bad thing to be able to see them better.
This is so fucking stupid because you can apply it to literally any safety standard.
And then you write something exactly opposite.
OP writes about “drive to the conditions” which is like… Your responsibility as the driver. If you can’t react to people on the road, slow down.
And you write about being recless.
And then you write something exactly opposite.
No I didn’t. What I proceeded to write lines up 100% with what I said prior.
OP writes about “drive to the conditions” which is like… Your responsibility as the driver. If you can’t react to people on the road, slow down.
Having no safety standards and leaving everything to “just do what you think is right” is a recipe for disaster.
I can’t even believe this needs to be explained.
It’s not about not using safety standards.
It’s about learning how to drive in a way that you won’t put anyone else in danger.
Safety fearures are only a tool, you are the person who controls a 2000 pound vehicles that can kill others, so drive responsibly.
It’s exactly about that.
Oh you’re saying I shouldn’t run people over???
Obviously you should drive responsibly. Where did I say otherwise?
Shitting on better safety protocols is idiotic. You can’t just rely on 100% of people to behave flawlessly at all times. That’s why we have seatbelts and crash structures and ABS, etc etc.
As a pedestrian, this is why wearing high viz/lighted clothing at night is so important.
A high percentage of the people who are hit at night are on drunk, drugs, or mentally ill. Not exactly the type to heed this advice. Maybe homeless services could pass out reflective clothes.
A high percentage of drivers are drunk, on drugs, or mentally ill* especially those hitting people
Most drivers wouldn’t exactly take the advice of “pay attention to the fucking road so you dont kill people” and should have their licenses stripped from them. America’s dependence on cars had made the bar for getting permission to drive a 4000 lb death machine far too low
Sounds like your trying to have an argument but I agree with you.
I would absolutely love a source on that one, still not a great look to disregard safety and life so nonchalantly
Are you saying I’m disregarding their lives somehow? If so I think you are adding your own interpretation to my comment.
Regarding the data, I don’t recall where I first read that. But here’s what I found from google. Obviously the new numbers will vary greatly by location. And it doesn’t exactly support what I said because this just specifies homeless, not their mental state.
Well yea, more chances of witnesses during the day, so obviously night time is better for… oh wait, we’re talking about accidental deaths?
Like the case with the paintball guy a few years ago. Someone was driving on a road in the woods at night when he suddenly hit a guy - dressed in dark camo, face blackened, etc, anything not to be seen - who came running out of the woods onto the road. He was a paintballer being persued by members of the opposite team. The car took him out of the game, though.
Anything but slowing down when it’s difficult to see ahead. We’ll just victim blame dead pedestrians, deer and raccoons for wearing dark colors at night.
This has been a thing for decades now at least in Mercedes (S & E) and BMW (5+).
And it’s not just the camera alone, car headlights have a special projector that selectively illuminates pedestrians (or just does a double flash at them). Works as intended, but few people opt for it … and gov are still not mandating it (like automatic breaking).
My parents gotba relatively new Merc and I’d to turn that auto braking off. Its far too sensitive and nearly had me rear ended driving around a bend. My guess is its picking up the retroreflective spots on the markings as there usually isn’t a car on that bend but the Merc is beeping at me like I’m about to be in a collision
ghost breaking
Only 344 days left till Halloween!!
xd
Something must be wrong then.
Or its just a (now) standard emergency braking feature (not meant as a substitute, but to lessen crash outcomes), not radar cruise control. If it is tho, look in the settings, maybe you can adjust something there. But radar breaking on all new-ish cars is smooth. But it does tend to sightly mimic the driving (accelerating and braking) style of the car in front, especially in cities as it tries to be polite & not make others impatient.
Also afaik radar braking/cruise control is something to turn on, can’t be on by default.
They are a great example of how far away we are from automation in many spaces.
The auto-cruise control barely works right for me, the lane assist complains constantly because I don’t hang on the steering wheel like an ape as most people do. And don’t get me started about the auto-brake system that tries to stop when the lane next to me slows down, on an interstate.
deleted by creator
Yeah, iirc it became or about to become a requirement in EU. But I was not aware that it has false positives like that, that just makes ppl not use them.
However these are indeed two different things - one is emergency braking (on by default, breaking only, radar, camera of radio-wave sensors), the other one just for comfort that you can keep both pedals alone and it’s an extension of crouse control (radar based, accelerates as well, for regular situations). I thought we were talking about the second system being harsh.
I get why the first one would be tho, it’s designed to function only when the driver already falls to, but it’s useless or dangerous of it’s not working properly.
Auto-brake and auto-cruise likely rely on the same radar system. Mine seems to, as they both over-react to the same things. Really they’re just different applications of the same data.
Oh, yeah, they both really on radar in my case too, but you can also get my model w/o radar (and it still has that emergency braking feature).
I’m just baffled how come I never heard of it having so much issues, even irl I never heard about it being like that. The closest my system got to a “false” positive was on a narrow road (one car max) where a car coming towards me stopped on a slightly wider spot and went a bit offroad to allow me to pass by. As I accelerated directly towards the other car (to later turn to go a bit off-road only when already very close to it) my car beeped but didn’t brake.
Overall the system activates for me probably less than one time per year, and I have it set on the most sensitive option (all of such safety features). Previously it was in a situation where a car coming from a side road stopped (rapidly) only when already half on my side of the road, so that was valid, tho I saw it way before that & nothing happened.
They didn’t get the car brand new but it wasn’t very old. Perhaps the previous owner turned on the setting
I have been in the settings and adjusted it but in the end it was just easier to turn the function off
Its probably awesome on the Autobahns but its a danger on windytight roads that I drive on. Probably 3 or 4 times it braked on me when there was no reason to do so. There’s one bit near my approaching a roundabout and it beeps like hell at me to slow down at least 50% of the time. Fortunately I’m back in my own car now as I don’t need the automatic (I injured my left leg)
Oh, I don’t have a comparative experience at all. But also once you touch the brakes all cruise control should turn off anyway so I’m not sure if we are talking about the same thing.
No, I’m not talking about having cruise control on in any of my comments. Just driving with the pedals myself
Oh, yeah, I see that now - I’m just in awe that issues like that are a thing (so I assumed the other system).
But I’m intrigued what makes for such difference (cars/tech, environments, legislation? - like adaptive lights were a legislation issue in US).
Yeah, you should take that to a dealer and have the system re-calibrated. It’s not supposed to act like that. If I had to guess, the previous owner got into a fender bender and had someone do the repair work on the cheap. Either that, or there’s something in the front grill area blocking the radar setup intermittently.
It was a company vehicle and if it was crashed, we’d have known about it
Every automated car I’ve driven behaves like this. I don’t buy it’s a calibration issue (there’s nothing to calibrate from what I’ve read on wiring diagrams, as that’s not how auto manufacturers roll - they build components for things like this to be replaced).
For example, I haven’t heard of headlight aiming in forever, though it’s something that used to be done with a relatively simple tool. And it’s way simpler to do than calibrate a complex radar system for a car.
This automation simply isn’t quite ready for the real world, and I’d bet manufacturers are collecting data from many of these cars (so many have a connection back to the manufacturer via cell).
I’m only trained to calibrate the camera systems that tell you when you’ve drifted out of the lane, but the tool I use is capable of calibrating radar systems if you buy the more expensive accessory package. I’m certain because I have to scroll past the instructions for radar when pulling up instructions/parameters for Lane watch.
Also, for what it’s worth the sensors CAN be replaced, but they still have to go through an initial calibration/programming once installed into the car.
As much as I like the anti-car think, this really shouldn’t be blamed completely on cars. Especially in the US, pedestrian infrastructure in general is lacking. This includes thinks like sidewalks, but also proper lighting at places where people could be (See the sample image of a petrol station in the article, why are there no lights there?).
Additionaly, a lot of people dress dark with no reflection surfaces whatsoever (And some ciclelysts are insane enough to go without light at night). Try wearing stuff with some build-in reflectors at night. It does not need to be an ugly big yellow patch for that. I own a backpack with nicely worked in reflectory surfaces which makes me highly visible at night.
Ofc there is also a component to the Cars and drivers here, but if thermal cameras are the first solution someone can come up with, maybe the start needs to be somewhere else.
Overall: If I can see someone jaywalking on the autobahn about 800m in front of me while going 180kph and can react to that, the cities and villages in the US should probably have something similar in lighting and overall road elsetup.
Especially in the US, pedestrian infrastructure in general is lacking.
“Pedestrian infrastructure” is really car infrastructure, because it’s designed for the benefit of cars to get pedestrians out of the way.
By all rights, the entire street has been “pedestrian infrastructure” for thousands of years.
The part that is shared with cars is, yes. Still doesn’t mean that it should be shit. This problem is there because it does suck. The US is a stand out in regards to non-car safety in a bad way. Trying to blame it on cars only is stupid. Demand better infrastructure, not even more bloat on cars.
Clearly you’ve never met some assholes on bikes.
How is someone using the road to get to work, school or the grocery store automatically an asshole just because they use a bicycle instead of an SUV or a horse-drawn carriage? Don’t they have the same right to use a lane of the road as you do?
(Not talking about lycra-wearing racing-bike cyclists using the road as gym here)
I know I am part of the problem, but the number of people walking around in dark colors and dark jackets at night baffles me. Bonus points if they are jaywalking because they have the right of way.
Combine that with spending any time after sunset either partially blind from super bright LEDs or fully blind from high beams and yeah. Constantly having to drive defensively and try to spot potential hazards a mile ahead in the brief window of just being partially blinded.
So I am all for some thermals I can glance at
Bonus points if they are jaywalking because they have the right of way.
What does this even mean?
It means he’s confused and has fallen for the automakers’ propaganda.
It means someone isn’t using a crosswalk but still has the right of way by virtue of being a pedestrian.
Yeah. Maybe it is different where others live but it is incredibly common for people to just say “fuck it” because they know others will stop or swerve. Happens in cars and on foot
ITT: “What was the victim wearing at the time? Was the car acting in self-defense? Do cars have qualified immunity? Did the pedestrian pose a threat or instigate the car? Were they wearing their officially state-sanctioned Pedestrian uniform and helmet? Did the pedestrian have any pre-existing conditions?”
Remember when Biden said that pedestrian could use beacons to alert autonomous cars of their location?
No I don’t remember that. Any chance you have a link?
I remember Tesla fanboys crying when Biden appointed Cummings to the NHTSA, but I can’t think of anything else connecting Biden to self-driving cars.
Ah see this is the problem with political discussion. It turns out he never actually said that.
According to the article, one tiny piece of the $1.2 trillion dollar infrastructure bill he signed committed two federal agencies to be conduct a study on that as a potential solution.
The Forbes article editorializes that significantly to say that beaconing has received the “federal stamp of approval”.
It’s like a kid asking their parents for McDonalds for hours and the parent says “I’ll think about it”.
Drivers Tend To Kill Pedestrians At Night. Thermal Imaging May Help.
Thermal imaging will definitely help spot those dirty walkers so I won’t miss as many. Those bastards can blend in sometimes and some of them are deceptively quick. The little ones especially are tough to take out. Of course, sometimes those guys just run right in front of you which are easy points but it takes the sport out of it.
Anyway, it’s about time someone put the right tools in the hands of us hunters. I can’t wait to have an evening cruise with my lights off and really get a good stalk on, you know?
Probably because people are tired or drunk. Thermal Imaging won’t fix that.
Drivers Tend To Kill Pedestrians At Night. Thermal Imaging May Help.
Yes, I need more incentives to kill pedestrians.
Thermal imaging can help to shift those killings to daytime!
LOL yes. Even the first sentence in this headline reads funny on its own.
Oh good, anything to help me kill more at night!
hmm thermal imaging in cars… or just more public transit and street lighting… give me the expensive capitalist hellcreating thing
I’m all for more public transport but I’m also all for improving safety features for pedestrians. Not sure why anyone would be against putting the cost on car owners.
That only works in more urban areas.
Its impossible to covered every road in lights and it can get very dark when you are far away from a city. Same with public transit. I am all for it, but it’s only reasonable in more densely populated areas. There just won’t be enough people using it in th middle of nowhere to just something like that much less staff it.
Meanwhile helping cars see people even in those less common and more difficult situations is a good thing. Why would you NOT want your car to be safer for others around you?
Awww shit bois the huge country with plenty of money cannot afford to do it
IMO, I don’t think it matters whether we can or can’t. I don’t think we should even if we could. Light pollution from cities is bad enough. Adding that many more lights would make it so much worse.
Conical shades on streetlights and yellow light to reduce interference with sleep.
Also: fewer fucking cars.
Imagine how much less light pollution there would be without all the cars…
80% of the US population, and about half of the world population, lives in urban areas.
By 2050, those figures will be 90% and 75%, respectively.
Planning better urban areas won’t help everyone, but it will help the supermajority.
Where do you think people lived during westward expansion when every town was connected by rail? There weren’t too many urban places out there.
It’s a myth that it only works for urban areas. Switzerland has their trains travel to basically every town on time and frequently, and those towns in the alps are sure as hell a lot harder to reach than whatever rural place you’re thinking of. Admittedly, getting from the station to your destination will be harder without a car until things are built or changed to replace car dependence, but car dependence was manufactured, not intrinsic.
Right. I can’t wait for the thermal camera on my ridiculously expensive car to break so it can become a lawn ornament until I spend thousands on a new camera.
