To swerve or not to swerve?

[Ct3833]

32 minutes ago, Othello said:

yeah, hopefully we will try to bang them down instead of swerving 

Cannot adopt a rigid mindset, we need to be prepared for different scenario. It is the purpose and benefit of having this thread. 

[bsswan]

8 hours ago, Ct3833 said:

it depends, but key thing is dont any how swerve. 

not to swerve when travelling at high speed, otherwise the car may skid out of control

not to swerve when the traffic is crowded, otherwise one may hit other car beside him, worse is if there is a motorbike

not to swerve if one has no time to check side mirror

not to swerve when no more time to swerve, like in this case, he has already hit the volvo, just keep the steering straight, no choice.

to swerve when traveling at comfortable speed

to swerve if in front is a human being, not when it is a small animal. This is not being cruel but it is about choosing the less of the two evils

to swerve when one can be sure that there is no other cars or motorbike beside his car

This is the type of algorithm that software developers of driverless vehicles are dealing with, whereby their decision making and processing can be much faster.

They have to deal with a "save car owner" vs "save pedestrian/cyclist/dog" situation and how one is rated over the other. In theory the AI should save the owner of the cat but if it's just one in the car, vs a group of kids running across the road, your own car might decide you're not worth it.

Instinct is to not hit the dog, either as an animal lover or the owner of the vehicle that would need a hefty repair bill. Alternative is to not think, just e-Stop and let the car behind wallop you, in which case his/her insurance covers the repair.

[Beregond]

we take away the dog and replace it with a human or another car or a big lorry.

i bet most driver will swerve. its our natural instinct .

i say swerve as in u already ebrake but its still too late to stop. u will naturally swerve to the side to avoid. unless of course if its clear cut there are obstacle on either side.

we will auto react the most logical way. ebrake  and  100% buang, vs ebrake swerve and avoid ( if heng heng no car beside u manage to siam )

[Phluvcat]

54 minutes ago, BabyBlade said:

Yes! That was my intention when I started this thread. To get people talking about it and creating awareness so if it does happen to us, we'll be able to perhaps hold back that instinct and possibly react better depending on the situation. But of course instincts are instincts, and our instincts will always be to avoid any collision. Just like the car that flipped turtle on the PIE last week. Was it a Jazz? I can't remember. If he had hit the car head on then it wouldn't have flipped. 

The Jazz hit the front car at such a vulnerable angle, crushed the front crumple zone corner of the Jazz, exposed the front right wheel in such a way that the tyre is able to mount the front car and flipped itself. I would say a lot of cars would have flipped, even those with lower CGs. 

I had also instinctively swerved a couple of times when the car in front stopped out of the blue, nothing in front of the cars, a clean runway in front. He just stopped for no reason. And in one case, apparently the driver was lost and just fking stopped in the middle of the road. 

For me, I make sure I drive according to traffic situation, make space for myself, more so if adjacent lanes are filled (cos there's then no way I can just swerve), if I cannot see way in front, just so that if some freak incident happens in front, I either wriggle my way out or minimise damage (touch wood head on collision). 

Although I mentioned I instinctively swerved, to me swerving is emergency lane change, still a lane change, same safety consideration should instinctively kicks in, decision is made in a split second, but the way one drives and awareness of surrounding makes time for a better decision. Even that extra 0.3 second counts. 

Yeah like a suburban road in Oz, jolly well drive slowly. 

Edited July 23, 2021 by Phluvcat

[Datsun366]

Basically the moral of the story as the Cat has said is,

1. depending on the speed and the environment,

              (I) whether boxed in ( all available cardinal directions )

               (I I ) known locations of jaywalking or residential locations

  2. Clarity in assessing and understanding cost of options for emergency reactions.

eg, change the halus situation…

instead of tivoli put in a hino or fuso Dua lorry.

ebrake no way. Either swerve and bang neighbour or run over object, the o.3 seconds helps to decide which is which.

3. know the cost of speed, limits options available and know others can suddenly create situations a slower speed (and better shoes/tyres) could have gotten by.

4. Constantly reviewing options in a crowded situation, not yakking away or zoning out.

[Ishiwgao]

3 hours ago, BabyBlade said:

You're missing the point🥴. It's not about banging down the animals but that sometimes taking evasive maneuver may actually cause more damage than what we intended for. Let's exclude vehicle repair costs here. I am referring to serious injuries to ourselves or our passengers/pedestrians/other drivers/motorcyclists around us. I do agree that hard braking is a better choice than swerving though.

I think many of us in Singapore wouldnt have had the chance to go to a test track to drive (not race tracks, talking about bread and butter car testing) 

There's one simple rule there for safety at high speeds courses (>150km/h); if you see an animal, just hit it. It's either the animal suffers, or you suffer when you swerve. 

They then go on to show multiple pictures of overturned cars and splattered metal from past accidents on the track when people tried to avoid a bird that just landed in front of their car travelling at 200km/h.

I personally apply the same rule when driving in Singapore or anywhere. 

[Beanoyip]

In Australia, it's pedal to the metal and ram through.. regardless of animal..

[Stratovarius]

19 hours ago, BabyBlade said:

What the Volvo did in the video was to brake hard, rear car was either following too close or wasn't paying attention. Could have taken the motorcyclist too. Such a scenario where traffic is heavy I really don't recommend braking hard. Saved the dog's life though, but could have been worse for many others. 

If u are sure left right up down inside out no other cars around u, u swerve. If unsure just brake hard. U can't worry about cars rear ending you from hard braking if u want to save an animal's life. Else like what army teaches us, just run the animal over. But if it's a deer on bke, you better do ur best to avoid it. It's a split second decision with too many variables and I don't think there is a definite answer.

[Nolicense]

19 minutes ago, Beanoyip said:

In Australia, it's pedal to the metal and ram through.. regardless of animal..

people have died hitting a roo

[Nolicense]

this is what happens when you swerve at high speed.

 

[Jamesc]

So its save the dog or save the biker.

Let me think?

We should save the animal with the higher intelligence obviously right? 

The dog

The biker

I choose the one with the higher intelligence.

I choose man's best fren, also women's best fren

Look what I found under the pillow!

Edited July 23, 2021 by Jamesc

[Albeniz]

Difficult to say one would serve or not under such circumstance.

Logic would say "no",  but natural instinct would be a "yes".

Best is to adopt a more defensive driving, approach, always on the lookout for cars who would suddenly serve or e-brake.

[Jamesc]

Why people say don't swerve?

My lane slow down next lane faster I always swerve I don't even check got car or bike.

So nice doggy dash out just swerve lah.

Everyone does it just to save a few seconds right?

Traffic lights also same right? One car waiting I swerve so I next to him and not behind him.

Who here don't do that?

Same the dog get the biker.

Let's be honest no dog also people just swerve to get the biker.

True or not?

[Jamesc]

People swerve to save a few seconds 

why not swerve to save the life of a dog?

True or not? True or not?

[inlinesix]

1 hour ago, Ishiwgao said:

I think many of us in Singapore wouldnt have had the chance to go to a test track to drive (not race tracks, talking about bread and butter car testing) 

There's one simple rule there for safety at high speeds courses (>150km/h); if you see an animal, just hit it. It's either the animal suffers, or you suffer when you swerve. 

They then go on to show multiple pictures of overturned cars and splattered metal from past accidents on the track when people tried to avoid a bird that just landed in front of their car travelling at 200km/h.

I personally apply the same rule when driving in Singapore or anywhere. 

I will apply this rule with caution.

I will not want to hit a cow at 90km/h.

Edited July 23, 2021 by inlinesix

[serenade]

1 hour ago, Nolicense said:

people have died hitting a roo

In middle-east whole car load of people die when they hit a camel or horse at speed. These animals being tall, their legs buckle and 500+ kg of tough animal torso will come through the windscreen at high speed. Driver and passenger definitely gone, rear seat if they survive the initial impact will be smothered with animal innards and blood, and die in another way  

[BabyBlade]

7 minutes ago, serenade said:

In middle-east whole car load of people die when they hit a camel or horse at speed. These animals being tall, their legs buckle and 500+ kg of tough animal torso will come through the windscreen at high speed. Driver and passenger definitely gone, rear seat if they survive the initial impact will be smothered with animal innards and blood, and die in another way  

I remember there was one in Thailand of a bus hitting an elephant. Terrible terrible. 

[Nolicense]

7 minutes ago, BabyBlade said:

I remember there was one in Thailand of a bus hitting an elephant. Terrible terrible. 

15 minutes ago, serenade said:

In middle-east whole car load of people die when they hit a camel or horse at speed. These animals being tall, their legs buckle and 500+ kg of tough animal torso will come through the windscreen at high speed. Driver and passenger definitely gone, rear seat if they survive the initial impact will be smothered with animal innards and blood, and die in another way  

got pics?

Edited July 23, 2021 by Nolicense