You can always slow to a stop with your hazards on.
I rail against touch and ambiguous controls in safety critical applications more than most, but continuing to drive when you can't see properly is akin to get-there-itis.
> You can always slow to a stop with your hazards on.
With low visibility slowing down in the middle of the road is not save either though, given that those behind you don't expect it, and that few people keep sufficient distance. Same with standing on the side in such conditions.
In the described situation I think the best option is to be able and use the right buttons quickly, sticking to the original subject of the discussion. The option that would let you safely keep going with the flow is the best one I would say, under the given conditions.
Even if a million scenarios and alternatives can be thought of, what's the point of derailing a discussion focused on a particular subject? We only have a few hundred comments of room here, I think there is more value in keeping the focus.
The discussion isnt derailed, it branched off. The point is to bring up an adjacent point.
And while the ideal scenario is of course that no problem arises, and second being that the problem is swiftly and efficiently resolved.. given those scenarios do not occur, and you have to decide between "keep going without seeing the road" and "putting hazards on and slowly coming to a complete stop", the latter definitely seems more reasonable in every way.
Of course specific scenarios where stopping will be less safe can be thought up, but statistically speaking, I dont see how an uncontrolled multi-ton moving object would be more safe that a stationary one.
> In the described situation I think the best option is to be able and use the right buttons quickly, sticking to the original subject of the discussion.
Yes, obviously, but poorly designed or failed equipment does not absolve you of your responsibility to drive safely.
> Even if a million scenarios and alternatives can be thought of, what's the point of derailing a discussion focused on a particular subject?
The topic is road safety and the point is both pertinent and revealing. The attitude in your comment and others are highlighting basic failures in driver training, independent of the equipment design.
Honestly, I think you should reflect on your attitude here before you end up a road traffic statistic.
Nothing you've said is valid or solves the problem any better than what they originally said. The problem has already happened and remains a problem regardless what the driver attempts to do about it at that point.
You are already operating the vehicle in traffic in bad conditions for yourself and everyone else, and still need to be able to operate the vehicle and still need to be able to see no matter which of the possible reactions you believe is least-risk at that particular time.
Whether you judge that the least-risk response is to turn on hazards and slow down or even stop right in the road where other drivers who you can not see are not expecting it, whether you can find a place to pull over and see it clearly enough to be absolutely sure there is not a child standing there, or to make no changes to current behavior at all so that you are the most predictable to everyone else, you still need to be able to operate the vehicle and see the road and other vehicles in order to do any of those. None of your suggestions gets around that, even coming to a full stop with hazards on.
Your theory also depends on other drivers to see you and your hazards. Where is the hazard control? This whole discussion is about poor controls.
Even if they did exactly what you who were not there presumes to declare they should have done, it doesn't change anything. It doesn't change the problem or solve the problem or work around the problem.
It actually does solve the problem safely and effectively. The fact you don't recognise this is a driver training failure.
I mean this in the most charitable way possible - you should refrain from driving until you rectify this issue, either through self reflection or remedial training. Until then, you are a danger to yourself and others.
>> Yes, obviously, but poorly designed or failed equipment does not absolve you of your responsibility to drive safely.
I agree with you on this -- but that is not how people behave. Just because people should behave that way, doesnt mean they do. People have a natural inclination to try and fix the problem by giving up a bit of attention -- that is bad for all of us who are affected by these decisions -- and this means -- fix the design.
If drivers feel compelled to take their eyes off the road for extended periods to locate critical controls, it doesn’t matter if they could have made other choices. The safe choice should be easy or it’s a bad user interface.
I rail against touch and ambiguous controls in safety critical applications more than most, but continuing to drive when you can't see properly is akin to get-there-itis.