Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Full video of ship hitting and destroying the Francis Scott Key
 bridge in Baltimore
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 20:27:34 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <uud9jb$297h3$2@dont-email.me>
References: <2iv80jd4bmm08fr24nmum9k8vikiumhe0d@4ax.com>
 <6604f7e3$0$897428$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <uu5lp7$3d55h$1@i2pn2.org>
 <uu681f$8p0k$1@dont-email.me> <uu69um$94mb$1@dont-email.me>
 <lhqidkxedm.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <uu6ive$ba0c$2@dont-email.me>
 <ukhldkxvq1.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <uu9832$11sft$1@dont-email.me>
 <l6r2f3Fj2n5U1@mid.individual.net> <uua333$18h4c$2@dont-email.me>
 <i1vodkxpom.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 03:27:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4e8920cb7c2f0ba383491d77aa9b49ba";
	logging-data="2399779"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX185K6bIjnFLHLxhMATJOG8A"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ziIbd6hT5LpJ+QZ7ytEuNKPOPBM=
In-Reply-To: <i1vodkxpom.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7132

On 3/31/2024 1:52 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> So, *he* takes the fall for a practice that a responsible business should
>> have stopped long before.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> A few years ago there was a high speed train accident in Spain. The driver did 
> not slow down when nearing certain curve, he was distracted maybe talking with 
> the conductor.

I vaguely remember an incident in Korea/Japan?

> 79 deaths.
> 
> He got the full and sole blame.
> 
> Not even the surviving victims and families of the dead accept this.

But, to do otherwise, would mean OTHERS are culpable.  :>

> The truth is that that section of the track did not have the security systems 
> that other tracks or sections of this same track have. These systems would have 
> warned the driver, sounded and alarm, and ultimately stopped the train.
> 
> But there was hurry to build and put the tracks into service.

OTOH, how would the "Ridership" have reacted to a delay in making that
route available?

People are always making judgement calls that SHOULD be weighted by
the relative costs and likelihoods of different outcomes.  But, instead,
they only see one side and hope the other never occurs.

We had folks break into the cockpits of airliners and deliberately
crash them.  Who'd have thought that a likely event?  What savings
by not fortifying the doors, originally?

We have electrical substations of varying capacity scattered
around most towns in this country.  Often, "protected" by a chain
link fence.  Would a *bank* store its assets behind a chain link
fence?

Here, we rely on ground water pumped from dozens of wells around
town.  Also protected by a chain link fence.  See the pattern?

> It is bollocks to trust the security of hundreds of passengers on a train doing 
> over 200 Km/h to a single person. Trust that he will be fully attentive and not 
> commit errors during every second of a few hours.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_Compostela_derailment

...all the while being under pressure to keep the train "on time"!

>>>>> Yeah, the Front Siena could be under such an autopilot system and the crew 
>>>>> confidently waiting for the buzzer to warn to change to manual mode.
>>>>
>>>> Like self-driving cars.  This doesn't free you from the RESPONSIBILITY
>>>> for the safe operation of the vehicle.
>>>>
>>>> When SWMBO bought her most recent car, backup cameras and blind spot
>>>> warning indicators were pretty much standard across the market.
>>>> One salesperson bragged that she never bothered to look over her
>>>> shoulder when backing up or checking mirrors before changing lanes
>>>> (as if the technology was infallible).
>>>
>>> I use the mirrors for backing up, but actually the rear camera has a better 
>>> view, so I use it most of the time.
>>
>> My gaze moves from rear view to side mirrors to over-the-shoulder to backup
>> camera.  It's amazing how easily people and things (less so than vehicles)
>> can appear out of nowhere.
> 
> The camera sees way more. Often the camera sees a person that is not in the 
> mirror, it is on the other mirror, or even nowhere.

It won't see the driver of the car parked next to you walking alongside your
vehicle and then across the back -- until he is directly behind the vehicle
(which may be after you've let up on the brake)

> If the camera doesn't start, I wait.
> 
> It is not an automatic warning system, I still have to be looking attentively.

That was the point.  You can't just treat these features (e.g., autopilot)
as if they released you from any role in the vehicle's operation.

>> Distressing to see "old folks" who just put it in reverse and HOPE
>> (it appears many elderly have problems rotating their heads that far)
> 
> It is possible.

I suspect it is the case.  As I get older, I am more observant of still older
folks' physical and mental "conditions".  The "don't look backwards while in
reverse" syndrome seems to be very real.

>>> I have no automatics for changing lanes.
>>
>> I wouldn't *rely* on them but consider them another "input" to be considered.
>> They tend to be more of an annoyance, though.  E.g., if navigating a turn
>> in a situation with multiple turn lanes, they will alarm (normally, they
>> only "indicate" visually but if you have THAT turn signal engaged, they
>> are more insistent).
>>
>> Cars make too many frigging noises, nowadays!
> 
> Yep.

And, as the noise doesn't really convey any information, they are more
distracting than helpful.  At times when your full attention should be
elsewhere.

>> Skipper of a fishing vessel is more likely to play fast and loose with
>> "rules" and "best practices" -- because he doesn't have the luxury of
>> having extra staff or other resources.  Look forward... see anything?
>> OK, assume nothing will pop up suddenly and turn your attention to some
>> other task (and lose track of how much time has elapsed since the last
>> time you checked your course).
> 
> Right.

So, what responsibility do I, as a designer, have in creating products
for those markets?  What responsibility my employer?

Should a lawyer be able to argue that we *could* have put a warning
device in the product ("for as little as $X") and chose not to...
favoring profit over safety (in his pitch to a jury)?

Is it justifiable to wash your hands of anything that can go wrong with
the use of your product and put the onus entirely on the user/customer?
Is a list of disclaimers legally and morally sufficient?