Whew! Since cyclists and motorists are both completely oblivious to their surroundings, Volvo has come up with an answer!
At first I was a little worried the cyclist would swerve for no reason at all. I mean, they really make the cyclist look like a bit of a chucklehead, don't you think? I was glad that a commonplace reason for a swerve was used. However, the cyclist didn't even consider that a car might be behind him. I would rather cyclists knew to do a shoulder check than have tech protect them from their own stupidity. Similarly, I would rather that drivers were paying attention to what is around them, particularly right in front of them instead of trusting their car to apply the brakes for them. I wouldn't want my car to apply the brakes without my permission, I don't think.
What Are Your Thoughts?
R A N T W I C K PS - I know I'm posting like a maniac. I just keep coming across these little nuggets today!
7 comments:
I was thinking the same thing re: my car braking without my consent.
What happens when that little engineering marvel malfunctions? That stuff does tend to happen to technology. 65-70 MPH and your brakes lock up?
I don't think so.
This is a terrible idea. Although it makes it safer for motorists to drive blind drunk, it's going to make killing cyclists virtually impossible, and if someone does manage to kill a cyclist, they won't be able to claim that the cyclist swerved into their path. Won't someone think of the poor motorist? I mean, how are drivers going to stay out of jail when even the car's computer is working against them.
Look, motorists want just a couple of simple things while they're on the road: to drive as fast as possible while either blind drunk or talking on a cellphone, and to kill cyclists and pedestrians with no fear of jail time. Is that too much to ask?
"...the cyclist didn't even consider that a car might be behind him. I would rather cyclists knew to do a shoulder check than have tech protect them from their own stupidity."
The creators of the commercial are tasked with selling this product to motorists. Given that fact, it's far better to pretend that cyclists are the road's oblivious morons than to bring up the real reason for this product - the fact that motorists are the oblivious morons.
No motorist is going to buy a product that says outright that they are so incompetent that they can't even be trusted to occasionally glance out of the windscreen.
I want something similar for my bicycle that shouts LOOK OUT MY FRIEND at ear-splitting volume while simultaneously blasting blinding red lights 360 degrees all around whenever it detects a motorist on a collision course and speed with me.
I want to be able to burst into flames (without harm to myself, of course) when I need to get a motorist's attention.
If the cyclist had been in proper lane position, controlling the lane, and had been looking attentively ahead, no swerve would have been necessary. But as Ian observed this video is aimed at motorists. And many people on bikes do not follow best practices.
Recently, I was driving through town when a cyclist suddenly decided to cross the road in front of me. I hit the brakes hard, and stood my car on its nose, and I didn't hit him. If I'd been going more than 30kph, though, no technology would have saved him.
Perhaps they'd consider a simpler system that keeps the driver door from getting opened when traffic is coming along?
Post a Comment