did the seemingly counterintuitive thing. I didn’t hit the brakes (no point by then), instead I jerked my steering wheel to the left to avoid a side impact.
Results: Instead of screeching brakes and slamming into the side of his car, I just clipped his back bumper.
Yes. If you’re going the speed limit of 25mph on a service road, in broad daylight, and some idiot backs out in front of you when you’re only about 15 feet away from them, then there’s no way in hell that you’ll be able to stop the car in time.
Dude had absolutely no excuse for that either, it was a perfectly clear line of sight, dude just didn’t look.
Why don’t you try stopping a car going 25mph within 15 feet of distance? It’s not possible in such a short distance.
There wasn’t any vehicle in the other lane. There wasn’t even any other vehicle on that stretch of road.
I knew what options I had, and there were only two.
I could have slammed on brakes, but the car wouldn’t have stopped in time. Any attempt of braking on my end would have just given him more time to back out in front of me, which would have led to a side impact and major damages.
I didn’t want to give him any more time to back out further, so I chose a different maneuver, to quickly steer left to avoid a full side impact. I avoided the brakes because I knew they would have actually made that particular exact situation worse.
So I clipped his bumper, so what? No matter what I did, an impact was inevitable anyways, and it was totally his fault. I just made a really quick decision that avoided significant side impact damages.
And yes, I made that decision within approximately 1/10th of a second. I don’t think a chip would have done that, a chip would have just attempted to stop, yet due to inertia, would have still slammed into the side of his car.
What I’m saying is, the computer can react faster than you can. This is not up for debate, it’s a fact, and it’s been a fact since the late 70s. Yes, when the car is in an impossible situation, it will get into an accident. Yes, you still need to drive the car. Yes, you mitigated an accident, but you did so at the risk of creating a much worse accident (collision at a high speed, potentially involving other cars in a crash) and implicating yourself as an at-fault party. You got lucky, you may not see it that way, but you did. Sure the other driver fucked up, no argument there. You know what would have helped them though? Cross traffic alert system, and automatic braking to stop them from backing into your lane, hell, it may have triggered on their vehicle and prevented your high(er) speed bumper scrape gambit from being a much worse accident.
Also, it’s sounds like the real piece of safety equipment is you need is a dashcam.
Regarding lag time, let’s compare and contrast older vs newer technology.
Go back to the 1990’s and use a computer mouse. The cursor responds in realtime.
Now compare to modern technology, that same mouse cursor has like a 10 to 20 millisecond or so lag. Hell, even the keyboard and game controllers these days have lag.
So, you got way faster chips these days, but also a way overcomplicated stack of software causing the lag.
Old technology used to be instantaneous and respond to the operator/user in realtime.
These days the computer is bogged down by tracking everything you do, logging every single thing, communicating with servers to see if you were tugging your dude rope when the accident happened, etc…
TL;DR - Believe it or not, simpler older technology would respond faster, because it was just you and the vehicle directly operating together, not having to communicate with some mass computer server farm to figure out what to do.
Lag. It’s a thing. Ask any gamer how that fucks their games up. Driving a vehicle isn’t a game though, but apparently these days it’s still prone to lag, because there’s just a ridiculous amount of unnecessary technology ticking behind the scenes.
Have you even used a computer or any digital technology lately? Everything is slap full of lag now.
This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how a computer works. It also tells me you’ve never had to use any “old” computers for anything.
Sure, once modern chips gather all the data, they are pretty fast to process, but the lag time before the processing starts becomes significant.
The car’s computer starts when you turn it on… Not when a sensor is triggered. Do you seriously think the car’s hardware is booting up an OS or application every time a sensor event happens?
Yes, if you intend to swerve to try to avoid accidents, you’re going to want a camera. The first thing a cop is going to do is see that there are no skids where you should have been braking, and determine that you acted too late to prevent an accident. You’d be 50% at fault at best (assuming the other driver doesn’t admit fault). Consider that you could have lost control and hit another car, you could have hit someone coming up behind and passing you, you could have hit someone coming out from the other side who checked and confirm their direction of travel was clear… You got damn lucky, even if you won’t admit it.
So what I’m hearing is, you swerved without checking your mirror and still got into an accident with the other car?
Wrong. Totally wrong.
The other dude backed out in front of me, he was the one that didn’t check his mirrors or even turn his head to just fucking look.
Try keeping up will ya, I thought I explained fairly well.
Matter of fact, try re-reading the second sentence of the comment you responded to. I literally said dude backed out in front of me.
I think you need to re-read what you wrote…
Yes. If you’re going the speed limit of 25mph on a service road, in broad daylight, and some idiot backs out in front of you when you’re only about 15 feet away from them, then there’s no way in hell that you’ll be able to stop the car in time.
Dude had absolutely no excuse for that either, it was a perfectly clear line of sight, dude just didn’t look.
Why don’t you try stopping a car going 25mph within 15 feet of distance? It’s not possible in such a short distance.
It’s called inertia, look it up.
Ah, see, you’re making a straw man here. I did not say anything about being able to stop the vehicle in time.
What I did say is that you swerved your car, without checking that the next lane over was clear.
And that you still had an accident.
Let me know if you need more clarification on what you wrote.
There wasn’t any vehicle in the other lane. There wasn’t even any other vehicle on that stretch of road.
I knew what options I had, and there were only two.
I could have slammed on brakes, but the car wouldn’t have stopped in time. Any attempt of braking on my end would have just given him more time to back out in front of me, which would have led to a side impact and major damages.
I didn’t want to give him any more time to back out further, so I chose a different maneuver, to quickly steer left to avoid a full side impact. I avoided the brakes because I knew they would have actually made that particular exact situation worse.
So I clipped his bumper, so what? No matter what I did, an impact was inevitable anyways, and it was totally his fault. I just made a really quick decision that avoided significant side impact damages.
And yes, I made that decision within approximately 1/10th of a second. I don’t think a chip would have done that, a chip would have just attempted to stop, yet due to inertia, would have still slammed into the side of his car.
What I’m saying is, the computer can react faster than you can. This is not up for debate, it’s a fact, and it’s been a fact since the late 70s. Yes, when the car is in an impossible situation, it will get into an accident. Yes, you still need to drive the car. Yes, you mitigated an accident, but you did so at the risk of creating a much worse accident (collision at a high speed, potentially involving other cars in a crash) and implicating yourself as an at-fault party. You got lucky, you may not see it that way, but you did. Sure the other driver fucked up, no argument there. You know what would have helped them though? Cross traffic alert system, and automatic braking to stop them from backing into your lane, hell, it may have triggered on their vehicle and prevented your high(er) speed bumper scrape gambit from being a much worse accident.
Also, it’s sounds like the real piece of safety equipment is you need is a dashcam.
Regarding lag time, let’s compare and contrast older vs newer technology.
Go back to the 1990’s and use a computer mouse. The cursor responds in realtime.
Now compare to modern technology, that same mouse cursor has like a 10 to 20 millisecond or so lag. Hell, even the keyboard and game controllers these days have lag.
So, you got way faster chips these days, but also a way overcomplicated stack of software causing the lag.
Old technology used to be instantaneous and respond to the operator/user in realtime.
These days the computer is bogged down by tracking everything you do, logging every single thing, communicating with servers to see if you were tugging your dude rope when the accident happened, etc…
TL;DR - Believe it or not, simpler older technology would respond faster, because it was just you and the vehicle directly operating together, not having to communicate with some mass computer server farm to figure out what to do.
Lag. It’s a thing. Ask any gamer how that fucks their games up. Driving a vehicle isn’t a game though, but apparently these days it’s still prone to lag, because there’s just a ridiculous amount of unnecessary technology ticking behind the scenes.
Have you even used a computer or any digital technology lately? Everything is slap full of lag now.
Sure, once modern chips gather all the data, they are pretty fast to process, but the lag time before the processing starts becomes significant.
Yeah, a dash cam might have been nice, it sure would have shown much easier than me trying to explain what happened.
This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how a computer works. It also tells me you’ve never had to use any “old” computers for anything.
The car’s computer starts when you turn it on… Not when a sensor is triggered. Do you seriously think the car’s hardware is booting up an OS or application every time a sensor event happens?
Yes, if you intend to swerve to try to avoid accidents, you’re going to want a camera. The first thing a cop is going to do is see that there are no skids where you should have been braking, and determine that you acted too late to prevent an accident. You’d be 50% at fault at best (assuming the other driver doesn’t admit fault). Consider that you could have lost control and hit another car, you could have hit someone coming up behind and passing you, you could have hit someone coming out from the other side who checked and confirm their direction of travel was clear… You got damn lucky, even if you won’t admit it.