Drivers and their problems

brooksby wrote:

Ford launches hands-free driving on UK motorways

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65272929

Quote:

Ministers have approved the "hands-off, eyes-on" technology for use on certain motorways.

It can control steering, acceleration and braking but a camera will monitor a driver's eyes so they stay on the road.

The technology will only be available for 2023 models of its electric Mustang Mach-E SUV at first.

It can also keep a safe distance from other cars and even bring them to a complete stop in traffic jams, although it is only offered on a subscription basis.

The first 90 days are included with the purchase of the £50,830 car but drivers will then have to sign up for a monthly subscription.

How many drivers are going to buy a pair of these, I wonder?

David9694 wrote:

Alleged camber issue not obvious in the picture; would it not be easier to close the road all together, rather than have all the broken wing mirrors? 

Well the bollards are wearing hi-viz.

Given that the average motorist is not up to the challenge of judging 1.5 metres, 5cm is probably a challenge too far.

David9694 wrote:

A yellow sticker on each windscreen would have been nice or a night's work for a tow truck even better. 

Or local cyclists could just ride up and down the road veeeeerrrrrrrryyy slowly, or stop in the carriageway for a chat or sandwiches. If They don't want cyclists using the cycle lane then they can't complain if cyclists are on the road.*

*Except that they will

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Fury over bike rack by Bristol church that would 'block access for hearses'

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/fury-over-bike-rack-bris...

I actually agree with them moving the racks in this instance - Wine St has a lot more space.

Yeah,  but I'd agree with it more if it wasn't "churchgoer" Richard f-ing Eddy trying to make the point, and arging "Won't somebody think of the hearses?!"...

David9694 wrote:

I wish they'd drop the C-bomb from this, it just risks Driver come-back "thanks to the sticker my six year old has learnt a new word".

The stickers in that article don't look like the 'classic' YPLAC stickers.

David9694 wrote:

* fails after some thought to think of any pun connecting tyres and kebabs *

Always order a couple of kebabs when you've had a puncture - they're a great way of getting a spare tyre.

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Ford launches hands-free driving on UK motorways

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65272929

Quote:

Ministers have approved the "hands-off, eyes-on" technology for use on certain motorways.

It can control steering, acceleration and braking but a camera will monitor a driver's eyes so they stay on the road.

The technology will only be available for 2023 models of its electric Mustang Mach-E SUV at first.

It can also keep a safe distance from other cars and even bring them to a complete stop in traffic jams, although it is only offered on a subscription basis.

The first 90 days are included with the purchase of the £50,830 car but drivers will then have to sign up for a monthly subscription.

How many drivers are going to buy a pair of these, I wonder?

How many drivers are going to pay the subscription?

"Sorry mate, I had no way of avoiding you as my subscription had just run out"

I was disappointed - hoping to read "cyclists pose a threat to dead people in cars!"

I note that Mr Loophole, road safety campaigner, is claiming that 20mph will cause more accidents due to drivers using phones as they perceive it is safer.

The logical conundrums evinced by this suggestion could frazzle a cyclist's brain (as we are told that 20mph is an impossibility without staring at the speedo, and that 20mph is more dangerous because reasons). So I suppose we should be grateful for the grudging acknowledgement that 20mph might make a difference to driver behaviour.

We're gonna need a bigger cat.

"To make our roads as safe as possible motorists should be able to drive everywhere at the top speed their vehicle allows - 160mph in most cases - so they aren't tempted to check their phones..."

David9694 wrote:

BlackChili with that?

No thanks but I'll have a bottle of the 2009 Saint-Émilion - it's a Goodyear.

When did the need to give attention to the road become a reason to not use a phone for a driver?

Rendel Harris wrote:

David9694 wrote:

BlackChili with that?

No thanks but I'll have a bottle of the 2009 Saint-Émilion - it's a Goodyear.

Does this establishment have a Michelin star?

mark1a wrote:

Does this establishment have a Michelin star?

Nah mate but we've got one of them Pirelli calendars if that helps? Bit cheeky but gives the gaff a kind of Continental feel, know what I mean?

I'll take the curry, but just wrap it in a chapati - I've gone tubless.

I've have far fewer blowouts since then - just the odd minor leak which stops within a minute...

David9694 wrote:

A yellow sticker on each windscreen would have been nice or a night's work for a tow truck even better. 

I just don't understand why all those cars haven't been ticketed

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Fury over bike rack by Bristol church that would 'block access for hearses'

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/fury-over-bike-rack-bris...

I actually agree with them moving the racks in this instance - Wine St has a lot more space.

As no one else has - wouldn't that make them wine racks?

David9694 wrote:

I wish they'd drop the C-bomb from this, it just risks Driver come-back "thanks to the sticker my six year old has learnt a new word".

It's a perfectly cromulent word.

I'm not a fan of people who complain that protests are not being performed correctly as they'll always find something else to complain about ("the glue is too sticky"). The important point is that if someone takes the effort to make a protest about your parking, then you need to think about why you're being anti-social.

David9694 wrote:

* fails after some thought to think of any pun connecting tyres and kebabs *

Just after a snack mate - one of those Snickers will do.  Oh no, they're Marathons again, I'll never get the wrapper off.

It makes a change for drivers to underestimate the size of their appendages...

One wonders how cars ever made it to Cambridge in the first place?  Presumably there's the equivalent note in some college archives with challenges like "you will be issued with a bustle.  Using your chosen motor vehicle (that our council now proposes making changes for) you must attend lectures at *both* parts of Queens college, without using Silver Street, disturbing the sleep of the Dean or damaging the Mathematical Bridge.  Your vehicle must be able to traverse Free School Lane and progress through town without startling any horses..."

Pretty sure like any change there will be some tasks / journeys which will be more expensive / less convenient.  Or at least less convenient if *everyone* continues to try to do them in the same way.  That is the point, surely?

The other part is to see if the benefits outweight the costs - e.g. maybe the children can now take themselves to some activities?  Since they mentioned "teenager" I'm assuming "old enough to handle weapons, old enough to get around town independently if safe infra was provided".  OTOH given this challenge I must also assume that some good folk of Cambridge would still assess the first as low-risk and the latter high.  Tragedy of the commons - have to drive our children due to the cars driving other children around...

Good earnings for those "recovery" drivers.