cycling and danger - actual and//or perceived?

AndrewJRenko

Tombo2001 wrote: »

This is interesting to me.

Why is it more dangerous cycling in Dublin today than 20 years ago?

Smartphones.

smacl

Tony EH wrote: »

Experience counts for a lot and a human brain grows with experience. A computer will never grow and will never experience. It will never truly learn.

Not so, machine learning and deep learning have been studied in computer science for decades. Chances are you're already using it.

Tony EH

magicbastarder wrote: »

the bus didn't nearly crash into a truck, the truck crashed into the bus - because the truck driver reversed into it.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/09/self-driving-bus-crashes-two-hours-after-las-vegas-launch-truck-autonomous-vehicle

anyway, it's an immature technology. and it was a trial; you cannot say driverless cars will be fatally flawed in 2025 because there are still teething problems today.

It doesn't matter who was at fault. The computer was unable to deal with the situation, because computers can't think. It was a complete embarrassment.

Also, I could throw your words back at you and say that you cannot say that driverless cars will be flawless in 2025.

The essential point still stands however. A computer doesn't learn. It cannot make decisions outside of its programming or what a human has told it to do.

That, right there, is an extremely serious thing.

magicbastarder

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I was listening to the radio (in the car) the other day, one of the Dublin stations, and the DJ announces that someone has just phoned in to say there is a Garda with a speed camera on one of the flyover bridges on the M1 - he specific the junction even.....watch out you guys........unbelievable really that this was seen as a service to his listeners......

this is another thing that drives me bananas. i keep hearing 'speed cameras are not there to catch people, they are there to slow them down, so it doesn't matter if we publicise the position of the cameras'. they even published a list of camera locations during one of the last big campaigns.
it's such an achingly idiotic use of logic. it just means everyone knew it was a free-for all everywhere else.

magicbastarder

Tony EH wrote: »

It doesn't matter who was at fault. The computer was unable to deal with the situation, because computers can't think. It was a complete embarrassment.

Also, I could throw your words back at you and say that you cannot say that driverless cars will be flawless in 2025.

'a complete embarrassment'? that's a hell of a conclusion to draw from a minor incident where the human driver was the one to blame.

i am in no way going to predict that driverless cars will be flawless in 2025. if they reduce the death toll by 75%, there will still be people complaining they're not flawless. which is OK - we should strive to reduce it further. but you'll still have people who will not trust them one jot, despite any gains shown.

Tony EH

magicbastarder wrote: »

'a complete embarrassment'? that's a hell of a conclusion to draw from a minor incident where the human driver was the one to blame.

How?

The bus didn't know what to do. A human driver would have dealt with the unexpected situation and simply reversed.

magicbastarder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Smartphones.

i have wondered whether it's standard practice to check smartphones of drivers in the aftermath of collisions. obviously, to determine whether there were any active calls/whatsapps/etc. around the time of the incident.
i guess there could be complications in that a driver could refuse to provide an unlock code, which would tie up the process in paperwork.

AndrewJRenko

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have wondered whether it's standard practice to check smartphones of drivers in the aftermath of collisions. obviously, to determine whether there were any active calls/whatsapps/etc. around the time of the incident.
i guess there could be complications in that a driver could refuse to provide an unlock code, which would tie up the process in paperwork.

The UK coppers have uncovered quite a few cases of this, but I haven't heard of it coming up in Irish case. I suspect the Gardai don't look too closely at this.

Even if they can't get access to the phone, they could get useful information from the service provider, as to whether calls were active, messages were sent or what data was flying up or down. Data flying is not an indication of usage in itself, as many apps will still send or receive data while not being actively used.

ford2600

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The UK coppers have uncovered quite a few cases of this, but I haven't heard of it coming up in Irish case. I suspect the Gardai don't look too closely at this.

Even if they can't get access to the phone, they could get useful information from the service provider, as to whether calls were active, messages were sent or what data was flying up or down. Data flying is not an indication of usage in itself, as many apps will still send or receive data while not being actively used.

I've read 100's if not 1000's of Garda Reports. The current crop getting the location and time right and recording it is a result.

Expecting and trusting them to interrogate a handset and keep date secure would be a reach at the moment

07Lapierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have wondered whether it's standard practice to check smartphones of drivers in the aftermath of collisions. obviously, to determine whether there were any active calls/whatsapps/etc. around the time of the incident.
i guess there could be complications in that a driver could refuse to provide an unlock code, which would tie up the process in paperwork.

The Gardai would probably need a search warrant to go thru a drivers phone?

cdaly_

07Lapierre wrote: »

The Gardai would probably need a search warrant to go thru a drivers phone?

But they could probably seize the phone as evidence.

ED E

Prevention is easy.

https://twitter.com/SurreyRoadCops/status/893502513248428032

magicbastarder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Even if they can't get access to the phone, they could get useful information from the service provider, as to whether calls were active, messages were sent or what data was flying up or down. Data flying is not an indication of usage in itself, as many apps will still send or receive data while not being actively used.

kinda what i was referring to as paperwork though; it'd be straightforward for a mobile provider to give details about SMSes or voice calls (albeit with a warrant, requires a superintendent's signature AFAIK), but IP based messaging apps are much harder for an ISP to track, and it's best going to the source, i.e. the handset.

i wonder how often the gardai have gone to the likes of whatsapp themselves for info.

Tombo2001

Pinch Flat wrote: »

My own comments. I cycled in Dublin from about 1994 - 1995, came here straight after college.

I used to cycle from Terenure to Ballymount, crossing the Walkinstown roundabout and takinga right hand turn in the process. :eek:. I also had a job in Dublin 2, just beside what is now Goolgle's offices. So cycled from terenure, though Kimmage and on to Grand Canal Street, along the canals.

The volume of traffic was no where near as it was now - so about 1 million cars on the roads countrywide compared to the 2 million plus today. In the 18 months or so I cycled in Dublin, I never can remember a close pass, aggressive incident. There was zero animosity and it didn't feature in the media (this was pre social media /. internet). Cycled in normal clothes, sans helmet and without any hi-vis / lights.

Ironically there were probably no cycle lanes then.....

monkeyslayer

I personally think the city centre is a little safer than it used to be, it was absolutely lethal ten fifteen years ago but it's still far from good. Bith inside and outside of the city I am feeling that drivers are more aggressive than ever, cyclists are somewhat of a target and regarded as a nuisance. A lot of drivers will do anything to keep up to the speed limit or beyond. As a cyclist and a motorist I do however despise those group cyclists who would intentionally hold up traffic for miles just because they feel it's a right to go two abreast. In every group there's always some dick who takes it upon himself to shout or stick his fingers up. Fair is fair like, go single file for a moment and let them pass if you can. Everyone continues safely and happily.

AndrewJRenko

monkeyslayer wrote: »

I personally think the city centre is a little safer than it used to be, it was absolutely lethal ten fifteen years ago but it's still far from good. Bith inside and outside of the city I am feeling that drivers are more aggressive than ever, cyclists are somewhat of a target and regarded as a nuisance. A lot of drivers will do anything to keep up to the speed limit or beyond. As a cyclist and a motorist I do however despise those group cyclists who would intentionally hold up traffic for miles just because they feel it's a right to go two abreast. In every group there's always some dick who takes it upon himself to shout or stick his fingers up. Fair is fair like, go single file for a moment and let them pass if you can. Everyone continues safely and happily.

It's usually easier and safer to overtake a shorter, wide group than a long, narrow group.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJiixtKuVq8

07Lapierre

monkeyslayer wrote: »

I personally think the city centre is a little safer than it used to be, it was absolutely lethal ten fifteen years ago but it's still far from good. Bith inside and outside of the city I am feeling that drivers are more aggressive than ever, cyclists are somewhat of a target and regarded as a nuisance. A lot of drivers will do anything to keep up to the speed limit or beyond. As a cyclist and a motorist I do however despise those group cyclists who would intentionally hold up traffic for miles just because they feel it's a right to go two abreast. In every group there's always some dick who takes it upon himself to shout or stick his fingers up. Fair is fair like, go single file for a moment and let them pass if you can. Everyone continues safely and happily.

It is right to go two abreast...it's safer for everyone that way. Most groups will go single file if and when they feel it's safe for the motorist to pass.

Pinch Flat

I'd have no problem travelling single file, if the motorists reciprocated by overtaking safely and responsibly. Unfortunately, from experience, it's an invitation to overtake. So even if there's oncoming traffic, or a narrowing of the road, or a hill, or a bend, some motorists will overtake anyway. The cyclists will come off worse if this goes wrong.

People need to get out of this mindset that it's cyclists enforcing their right / entitlement (which they are really) and that they're deliberately holding up traffic. They're more often than not trying to safe guard their own safety, but I agree abuse / gestures are uncalled for.

daragh_

How do we feel about drivers watching Football while driving? I was behind this guy on Sunday. Smartphone on the dash streaming a match. No passengers that I could see.

Pinch Flat

daragh_ wrote: »

How do we feel about drivers watching Football while driving? I was behind this guy on Sunday. Smartphone on the dash streaming a match. No passengers that I could see.

Yeah that looks grand :rolleyes:.

A lot of the new technology in cars needs an idiot over ride mode. I'd say the same for day light running lights as well - the amount of tools you pass at 8pm with these on is pretty staggering.

AndrewJRenko

daragh_ wrote: »

How do we feel about drivers watching Football while driving? I was behind this guy on Sunday. Smartphone on the dash streaming a match. No passengers that I could see.

I've come across two taxi drivers watching video on the dash in this way in the past two weeks. What's the legal story for a driver operating a dash-mounted phone? I understood that the current phone law referred to the driver holding the phone.

Chips Lovell

There was a video doing the rounds on Facebook a few months ago of a gentleman engaging in a solitary pleasure whilst driving on the M50.

Wishbone Ash

Tony EH wrote: »

.... A computer doesn't learn. It cannot make decisions outside of its programming or what a human has told it to do.

That, right there, is an extremely serious thing.

Indeed, but a computer doesn't get tired, get complacent, take chances, run late, use a smart phone, have a hangover, have a bad day at work, have marital problems, have financial troubles, have ill health or any range of other things that preoccupy the minds of many motorists when driving.

Wishbone Ash

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

There was a video doing the rounds on Facebook a few months ago of a gentleman engaging in a solitary pleasure whilst driving on the M50.

Ah yes, Lyric FM.

ED E

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Indeed, but a computer doesn't get tired, get complacent, take chances, run late, use a smart phone, have a hangover, have a bad day at work, have marital problems, have financial troubles, have ill health or any range of other things that preoccupy the minds of many motorists when driving.

You missed have 8 pints down the local! :pac:

magicbastarder

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Indeed, but a computer doesn't get tired, get complacent, take chances, run late, use a smart phone, have a hangover, have a bad day at work, have marital problems, have financial troubles, have ill health or any range of other things that preoccupy the minds of many motorists when driving.

you don't understand; a computer had a minor issue therefore the entire concept is completely undermined, and is irrecoverable.

rushfan

And just like some computers, some drivers also need a good (re)boot!!!!

Tenzor07

Well, plenty of actual danger tonight, on a short spin Northside to Howth...

Cyclist down at Junction of Malahide road/Kilmore road @ The Goblet pub Artane, he was conscious thankfully with a first responder ambulance attending to him... Full lights and a bright high vis on him...

Cars with no lights coming from the car park at Clontarf dart station and the gym...

Cars passing with less than 1m space in places...

Two "mature" lady drivers still proceeding through Red at the junction Malahide road and Tonlegee road...

Kaisr Sose

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I was listening to the radio (in the car) the other day, one of the Dublin stations, and the DJ announces that someone has just phoned in to say there is a Garda with a speed camera on one of the flyover bridges on the M1 - he specific the junction even.....watch out you guys........unbelievable really that this was seen as a service to his listeners......

Would this qualify as a Public Service Announcement/Broadcast, funded by TV licence fees?

Tony EH

magicbastarder wrote: »

you don't understand; a computer had a minor issue therefore the entire concept is completely undermined, and is irrecoverable.

Nobody has said that.

BTW, why the snide remarks?