this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
256 points (96.7% liked)

Technology

59428 readers
3141 users here now

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


Our Rules


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

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 28 points 1 year ago (3 children)

hmm thermal imaging in cars.... or just more public transit and street lighting..... give me the expensive capitalist hellcreating thing

[–] Flyingostrich@endlesstalk.org 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That only works in more urban areas.

Its impossible to covered every road in lights and it can get very dark when you are far away from a city. Same with public transit. I am all for it, but it's only reasonable in more densely populated areas. There just won't be enough people using it in th middle of nowhere to just something like that much less staff it.

Meanwhile helping cars see people even in those less common and more difficult situations is a good thing. Why would you NOT want your car to be safer for others around you?

[–] Landsharkgun@midwest.social 6 points 1 year ago

80% of the US population, and about half of the world population, lives in urban areas.

By 2050, those figures will be 90% and 75%, respectively.

Planning better urban areas won't help everyone, but it will help the supermajority.

[–] deur@feddit.nl 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Awww shit bois the huge country with plenty of money cannot afford to do it

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

IMO, I don't think it matters whether we can or can't. I don't think we should even if we could. Light pollution from cities is bad enough. Adding that many more lights would make it so much worse.

[–] Landsharkgun@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago

Conical shades on streetlights and yellow light to reduce interference with sleep.

Also: fewer fucking cars.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago

Imagine how much less light pollution there would be without all the cars...

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago

Where do you think people lived during westward expansion when every town was connected by rail? There weren't too many urban places out there.

It's a myth that it only works for urban areas. Switzerland has their trains travel to basically every town on time and frequently, and those towns in the alps are sure as hell a lot harder to reach than whatever rural place you're thinking of. Admittedly, getting from the station to your destination will be harder without a car until things are built or changed to replace car dependence, but car dependence was manufactured, not intrinsic.

[–] JiveTurkey@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Right. I can't wait for the thermal camera on my ridiculously expensive car to break so it can become a lawn ornament until I spend thousands on a new camera.

[–] Guest_User@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I'm all for more public transport but I'm also all for improving safety features for pedestrians. Not sure why anyone would be against putting the cost on car owners.