Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 28 Jun 2013.
Too old for Intel's rulebook.
" including a system for using car's lights as a communications network to reduce automotive accidents"
That sounds really clever
There's a lot of work in this area going on at the moment - with possibly the most interesting being SARTRE: the Safe Road Trains for the Environment project. Stick a bunch of cars behind a professionally-driven lorry, have the lorry take control and the people behind can let go of the wheel. As the lorry accelerates, decelerates or steers, the information is passed to the car behind - which passes it to the car behind, which passes it to the car behind, which passes it to the car behind...
^That's pretty impressive!
Age discrimination, anyone?
I think I remember seeing something about that traffic system with the lead car on a Modern Marvels special on TV a few years back, they were using it for industrial things and for large shipping trucks to transport big loads but using it for public transport is really neat. Having a car in the future where it can take you places without your input is quite something as long as there are safe-guards to help prevent accidents should the system fail at a bad time. I really hope more work is put into this!
Except that most drivers don't fancy being stuck behind a lorry limited to 60mph. I do a 200m drive quite regularly, and having to stick at 60mph would add at least half an hour to my journey. The system itself is a great idea though.
With all the spell checking options we have literally at our fingertips we seem to be worse than we ever were. How do you think the average person's driving will be?
If it meant I could read a book or catch up on a bit of work, I'd be all for being limited to 60MPH - or less. Mind you, the system would have to be *seriously* robust before I'd be happy with the driver pulling out the latest page-turner and ignoring the road completely...
Interestingly enough, that's why aeroplane landings are often smoother in terrible visibility than in good visibility: we have automated systems in place in modern aircraft - the Instrument Landing System coupled to the Flight Control Computer - which can land a plane with 100 per cent success (let's face it, nobody's going to settle for 99.999% in this case!) every single time, but when the weather's good the pilots turn it off just so they can get practice with manual landings. When the visibility drops below a certain level, they're forced by law to use ILS - and thus you don't get that "bouncity-bounce-bounce" landing that is so telling of manual control.
Separate names with a comma.