Technology

59587 readers

5454 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

257

Drivers Tend To Kill Pedestrians At Night. Thermal Imaging May Help. (www.forbes.com)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s to c/technology

154 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TheGrandNagus 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] custard_swollower -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TheGrandNagus 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] custard_swollower 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TheGrandNagus 2 points 1 year ago

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.