Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!uwvax!dogie!uwmcsd1!marque!gryphon!pnet02!bilbo
From: bilbo@pnet02.cts.com (Bill Daggett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga in the news
Message-ID: <2792@gryphon.CTS.COM>
Date: 7 Mar 88 00:00:35 GMT
Sender: root@gryphon.CTS.COM
Organization: People-Net [pnet02], Redondo Beach, CA.
Lines: 49

fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
>In article <379@coplex.UUCP>, jim@coplex.UUCP (Jim Sewell) writes:
>> 
>> Wouldn't the problem still exist with driving too closely?  It would still take
>> XX feet to stop a charging car traveling at YY mph.  Yes a computer can react
>> more quickly than a person, but .2 seconds is trivial when you need 30 feet to
>> stop and the car in front of you is only 20 feet away! :-)  I think people are
>> trying to make computers do things they are not suited for.  Wonder what 
>> comp.risks has to say about this.....
>
>One would assume that it would be possible to get the computer to factor
>in speed and vary the following distance accordingly.  Depending on what
>the driver is doing (you wouldn't *believe* what I see some people doing
>on the road during the morning commute...on the other hand, maybe some of
>you *are* those people), the time lag for getting on the binders might be
>well over a second or two.
>
>Remember also that the car in front is moving too; if they were immobile,
>things could get very sticky very fast.  One could hope for an effective
>warning from the system as it says "Here! *You* take it!" before it goes
>away to cower.
>
>> I think people are trying to make computers do things they are not
>> suited for.
>
>I thought computers were suited for tasks requiring fast reactions and
>a resistance to boredom and doping off.  A backup would seem to be a
>useful item.  On the other hand, there are those who would abdicate
>responsibility for their driving.
>
>Me use a system like that?  You've got to be kidding!  I don't drive a
>car, I ride a motorcycle (or bicycle) and have to stay awake just to
>make sure that sleeping idiots in Cadillacs don't get me.  I don't
>trust them, much less hypothetical safety equipment that they've
>probably either forgotten to turn on or bypassed because it caused them
>some inconvenience.

An interesting idea!  What happens to a car equiped with such device
encounters a motorcycle or car that cuts into you in?

The only advantages I see are when everyone is equiped you might not have
multicar pileups in fog or clear weather and if you stayed off the brakes you
and everyone else could go sailing by accidents that everyone just loves to
slow down now and look at - sheesh.

Bill

UUCP: {ihnp4!scgvaxd!cadovax rutgers!marque}!gryphon!pnet02!bilbo
INET: bilbo@pnet02.cts.com