Drivers Tend To Kill Pedestrians At Night. Thermal Imaging May Help. - eviltoast

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.

  • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • Flyingostrich@endlesstalk.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • Alexstarfire@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

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

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      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.