!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
CB radio was briefly very popular in the US in the 1970s. But the fad quickly died out among passenger car drivers, and now with cell phones, few truck drivers use it anymore. It’s mainly used to harass people.
Similarly, for a short time Airdropping on iPhones was always-on. It was mainly used to harass people.
I keep a CB radio in my car, and have a few friends with them
It is actually really handy when you're road tripping together in different cars to be able to just grab the mic and say something to the other vehicle when you need to stop for a bathroom break or you're having an issue with your car or want to give them a heads-up about whatever.
If you're fairly close together a set of cheap FRS walkie-talkies from Walmart does the job just as well. Probably worth stepping up to CB if you expect to lose sight of the other vehicle though, range is usually a bit better.
It's especially handy if, like me, you go camping and such in rural areas with unreliable cell coverage.
You do occasionally also get helpful heads-ups from truckers if you're listening to channel 19 about road conditions, police activity, traffic, etc. but mostly it's just idiots babbling about conspiracy theories and immature bullshit.
Why is everyone so quick to recommend Walmart? Corpo advertising shouldn't have a place on lemmy , intentional or not
Because they're fucking everywhere, something like 90% of the US population lives within 10 miles of one.
It's basically shorthand for "this is a common and readily available thing that you can acquire anywhere in the country for cheap even if megacorps have driven all of the local specialty retailers out of business in your areas"
As opposed to something like a HF ham radio which is a specialty item that no big retailers like walmart, to the best of my knowledge, carry, and so you're probably not going to be able to find it locally.
As evil as Walmart is it's undeniable they do have everything you could think of under one roof. The idea isn't awful if it wasn't so harmful.
CB radio? That shit is for truckers and nerds but it was solid.
Luckily, you're on Lemmy, and we're all nerds here
Use it all the time (UHF). But only get comms on other off-roaders, all the trucks, or caravamers. It's very useful. I give out handhelds to friends if we're travelling together.Honestly, phones are pretty shit in comparison.
I'm glad it's not popular for other drivers, though. One of the main benefits is most people don't use it, so the bands don't get clogged with shit.
Seconded on their usefulness on the road. Incredibly easy to just reach over, hold the PTT button and get your message across. One time purchase for something that won't get shut down or unsupported ever.
If you try communicating with a phone, the only safe way to do it (assuming one person per vehicle) is to start a phone call before leaving, and keep it running constantly. If you have a passenger, they become your secretary. If the call drops then that's all comms lost until both pull over and redial. Requires mobile coverage everywhere on your route which in Australia isn't the case, even on major routes like A1 Bruce Highway.
Walkie talkies are king for travelling with mates
Road rage.
"sir they're hailing us!"
"Thanks wife, put them through."
"HEY FUCKER YOU DIDNT SIGNAL"
* my bad hand wave *
Here in South Korea every car has the phone number of the owner displayed through the windshield so you can always call them when they parked false or so.
Bruh that's just multiplayer game voice chat IRL. Imagine chaos and trolling.
This is what CB Radios are, and many more people used to have them before cell phones.
People in mountainous areas where a cell phone is useless still do.
It's called a CB radio. Enjoy.
Yeah no people are trash on average, I don't want to get constantly pinged by trashy people while driving, I don't even like proximity chat in games, imagine having that in real life, there's a high chance of accidents happening due to distraction. Now if someone wants to add a little display on their car that can display some basic text messages, maybe that could be of some use
Hate to break it to you, but proximity chat is enabled in real life all the time.
People don't have the balls to come up to you in real life and say the stuff they say from a place of saftey and anonymity.
Just look at the stuff people say on Lemmy, to someone they will never even meet, ever.
Why do we even leave comments here. Just total strangers. And yet people care very much about what others say.
Many people would use such a method to troll and be disruptive, possibly causing collisions
Lady honked at me the other day for not turning left at a light (she obviously didn’t see the motorcyclists) and began making rude gestures.
Well anyway it’s probably better that we can’t talk to each other.
I had a similar thing happen this week. Left turn lane waiting for pedestrian and their dog to cross the road. Person behind me was losing their minds at me. I pointed at the pedestrian and shrugged.
I absolutely would not want an open channel to everyone around me. The potential for abuse is too high.
Imagine the giant trucks road raging because you’re in the left lane and only going +20 the speed limit. Or the old creeps hitting on teenagers.
And then there’s the privacy concerns. In order to connect to your car-specifically- it has to know your car is there. Which means your car is constantly putting out a beacon. This would be similar to how cell phones work - and are now being used by merchants and advertisers like Walmart to track where you go in stores.
And then there’s the security concerns of people pushing malware.
And then there’s the question of distractions from having to respond to people reaching out or shutting them up or whatever.
Imagine the giant trucks road raging because you’re in the left lane and only going +20 the speed limit. Or the old creeps hitting on teenagers.
What if we instead imagine the truck drivers politely asking you to move over? What if the ability to communicate freely with other drivers made the experience closer to walking in a crowd. I'm imagining something that allows all vehicles within a certain radius to hear one another so you can communicate with courtesy. I think a lot of road rage stems from our frustrations with our inability to communicate (and be held accountable) by the people around us.
What if the ability to communicate freely with other drivers made the experience closer to walking in a crowd.
In a dense crowd, the information being exchanged amongst the crowd is enormous. It is a constant negotiation, of different parties trying to get somewhere but also trying (hopefully) to respect other people's space. And the stakes are lower, because bumping into someone is fine at 1 kph but totally unacceptable at 50 kph. And humans are dynamically adjustable, like raising ones arms so that a stroller can pass more easily. Cars can't really do that (except Transformers: Robots In Disguise).
In a crowded bazaar, the bandwidth from reading people's facial cues, from seeing whether they're distracted by goods on display or from their Instagram posts, plus what people actually say -- and what they don't say -- and how quickly or slowly they walk. All of that is context that is necessary to participate in the activity of passing through the crowd, and I think that cost-optimized technology to exchange the same amount of info while also needing to react 50x faster and deterministically, with safety standards suitable for 2-tonne machines that already kill and maim thousands per year, that's not really feasible.
What if we instead imagine the truck drivers politely asking you to move over? What if the ability to communicate freely with other drivers made the experience closer to walking in a crowd. I’m imagining something that allows all vehicles within a certain radius to hear one another so you can communicate with courtesy. I think a lot of road rage stems from our frustrations with our inability to communicate (and be held accountable) by the people around us.
Yeah. No. I don't know where you are, but when someone is angry at the inconvenience of having to slow down to merely reckless speeds... they're not going to be capable of civil discourse. If they were capable of civility... they wouldn't have been angry in the first place.
What lane you're in has nothing to do with the speed limit. If you're the slower traffic, keep right. Always keep right unless you're overtaking.
It's not a bad idea, but there are plenty of countries where it would be abused to xbox live chat levels.
The radios would need to have a very, very short range to avoid this. You'd need to know that everyone who can hear you can also see you (and potentially follow you if they'd like a word face to face), which is the accountability aspect that's missing from online interactions.
We do...?
It's called a CB radio. Though usually it's only semi-trucks and enthusiasts that use 'em. It would be pretty awesome if they were just a standard feature, tho.
Honking IS how you contact nearby vehicles.
CB radio still exists.
They do. Some people poat their radio frequency their car.
You could publish you phone number right on your car. See how it goes.
Have you seen the movie Serenity? When they're out in Reaver space, remember the radio chatter?
That's what it would sound like.
I used to have a cat that loved to jump up under any truck that would be delivering something. We used to tell them not to leave until we had eyes on our cat. Even with that, he was such a varmint that I'd give them my business card, and tell them that if they got to their next delivery, and found him in their truck, to call me, and I'll come get him.
Luckily, our precautions worked, but he was a troublemaker.
Because
In the eighties when cell phones started being installed in cars, some people posted their phone numbers on their back or side window. That didn't last long.
I do a lot of water sports in the UK and we use VHF radios. Certain frequencies are used by marinas and the like, and nearby boats will be tuned into them. Then there is a frequency used for emergency calls - the coastguard listens on that and answers, and will move your call to another frequency for more details, leaving the mayday one open again.
We mainly use VHF for boat-to-boat comms, or boat-to-shore. The local range is decent - a few miles from our base, depending on atmospheric conditions, obstacles etc. I honestly have no idea if you could use VHF radios between cars though. It's not private for a start - everyone can hear you - and once someone is yammering on the marina frequency no-one else can transmit. So it's just brief messages with protocols.
@chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com @nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
One day I was driving on a highway at roughly 80km/h (no idea how much is it in miles per hour, we use metric around here), and there was a car almost glued to the back of the car I was driving, totally ignoring the "following/tracking distance" thing we're used to learn during driving school (the faster the vehicles, the farther they should be from one another, so if the vehicle ahead needs to do a sudden break, the vehicle behind have the time to react and break as well with no collisions). The car I was driving has a quite sensitive break light: a gentle push is enough for the breaking light to light up without actuating the breaking system (not ABS, it's an old car), so I had a quite unusual idea: Morse coding "DISTANCE" to the driver in the car behind through the breaking lights, using extremely gently pushes on the breaking pedal while I kept driving. I'm not sure if the driver could understand Morse, but at least I tried.
And that's a problem for your scenario where "nearby cars" were to contact each other: even though they could listen to each other, could they actually understand each other?
A touch screen interface in a car is a TERRIBLE idea. Yeah a passenger could do it but only if there is a passenger in the car in the first place.
Dude, people can't handle the complexity of simply driving the vehicle as it is. Bad things happen when adding handling dynamic communications into the mix with people who aren't trained to the level of combat pilots. That's why we don't let people juggle a cell phone while driving.
This might shock you but I dont want nearby people to be able to talk to me. Chicken or not.
As a thought experiment, I'm prepared to momentarily set aside the practical and societal issues to see whether a mechanism for motorists to communicate to any other nearby motorists would have a use.
To set some ground rules, I think it's fair to assert that such a communication mechanism is not meant for lollygagging, but would be used for some sort of operational reason that is related to driving a motor vehicle. So the use-cases would be broader than just safety or traffic management, and could include coordination between drivers all heading to the same place. This criteria means we won't require the generality of a mobile phone network (which can call anyone) and instead is very local.
Some examples that might use this mechanism:
This selection of examples represent exigent circumstances that arise while driving, rather than something which could have been planned/coordinated in advance. More over, they cover scenarios that are one-to-many or one-to-one, as well as unilateral messages or bilateral conversations.
We need to also consider what existing cues already exist between motorists, some of which are quite dated:
Before we even check if these existing cues can be used for the examples above, we can see there are already a fair amount of them. The problem with cues, though, is that they might not be universally understood (eg a motorist from flat Nebraska might not understand the hazard lights on a slow-going truck climbing up Tejon Pass heading in/out of Los Angeles). Moreso, some cues are downright dangerous in certain circumstances, such as waving a motorist into an intersection but neither could see the oncoming fire truck that strikes them.
Notice that for all these cues, only fairly simply messages can be conveyed, and for anything more complicated, it is necessary to "turn the invisible crank", meaning that you and them need to roll down your windows and talk directly about what the complex situation is. So if a situation is simple, then it's likely one of the existing cues will work. But if not, then maybe our new car-to-car system might turn out to be useful. Let's find out.
Scenario 1 is partially addressed by one very long honk or using hazard lights, depending on if the hazard is avoidable or if the hazard requires all traffic to halt. If it is about a small object in the road, then perhaps no message is needed at all, since we assume all motorists are paying attention to the road. If the hazard is a hidden one -- such as behind a curve or it's black-ice -- then only hazard lights would help, but it might not be clear to following motorists what the issue is. They would only know to remain alert.
A broadcast system could be effective, but only to a point: motorists cannot spend more than a sentence or maybe even a few words to understand some situation that may only be seconds away. We know this from how roadway signs are written: terse and unambiguous. So if a broadcast system did exist for hazards, then it must be something which can be described in fewer than maybe 5 words. This means the system isn't useful for info about which parking lots at LAX have room, for example.
Scenario 2 involves a hazard that is moving, and can be addressed by honking and high-beams to get the motorist's attention. There is no ability to convey the precise nature of the hazard, but outside of nighttime environments where people may be hesitant to stop just because someone is trying to tell them something on a rural Interstate, this generally is enough to prevent a roadway calamity.
But supposing we did want to use our new system to send that motorist a message, the same concern from earlier must be respected: it is improper to flood a motorist with too much info when the driving task doesn't really allow for much time to do anything else. An apt comparison would be to air transport pilots, where a jetliner at cruising altitude actually does have a lot of spare time, but not when preparing for takeoff or landing. Driving an automobile is a continual task, and for the time when a car is stopped at a traffic light, then there is virtually no need for a car-to-car communication system; just yell. The need for ACARS for automobiles [pun intended] is looking less useful, so far.
Scenario 3 is similar to Scenario 2, but is a one-to-many message. But given how such exchanges tend to also become multilateral ("can you get me a Big Mac as well?" and "well, we don't have to be at the camp site until 4:20"), this once again starts to become a distraction from the driving task.
Scenario 4 is probably the most unique, because it rarely happens: motorists always have the option of stopping, although stopping can itself create a hazard if the location is not great (eg left lane on an American freeway). It would be truly unusual for two cars to have struck something AND then need to quickly decide if they can press on toward the nearest exit (eg minor body damage) or if they must stop immediately (eg a fuel rupture that starts a small fire beneath the vehicle) AND there is someone else who can mutually exchange info about the damage.
It's such a contrived scenario, because I actually made it up, based on the similar situation that occurs for aircraft that suffer damage while in the air. In such situations, the pilot would need external support, which can come from a nearby aircraft, or ATC, or an escort fighter jet. For example, if an aircraft cannot confirm safe extension of the landing gear, diagnosing the problem is helped by a nearby news helicopter confirming that the landing gear is clearly visible and locked.
Alternatively, if a departing aircraft has struck a piece of metal dropped by an earlier Continental Airlines DC-10, and that bit of metal causes the left tire to explode, further causing a fuel rupture from the left tank and an uncontrollable fire slowly destroying the wing, it would be very useful if ATC can tell the pilots ASAP before the aircraft is going too fast to abort the takeoff, resulting in an inability to remain fly and an eventual crash into a hotel.
I bring up my contrived automobile Scenario 4 because it shows how things could always be slightly different if a small factor was simply changed, if maybe there were better warnings to the pilots from their aircraft, or if the Continental plane was better maintained, or if Charles de Gaulle ATC was just a little bit faster to radio to the pilots. So it's perfectly natural to think that by having this one aspect of the driving experience changed, maybe there's a lot of value we could get from it. Indeed, the Swiss Cheese Model of accident causation tells us that any one layer could have been different and thus stop the holes from lining up.
But from this thought experiment, we can see that the existing cues between motorists already serve the most common reasons for needing to communicate while on the road. And anything more complicated messages than "I would like to pass" become a distraction and thus less useful and more dangerous in practice. Aviation knows full-well the dangers of introducing a fix which ends up causing more problems in the long-run.
You describe contacting the people in nearby cars.
That's something different than contacting nearby cars.
The latter is developed currently by the car industry. The former has been mentioned: CB radio.
But in both cases: maybe they are not interested in listening to you ;-)
This is actually being worked on. Researchers are looking at adding a 4th light to stop lights. When enough “smart” cars get into the area they will talk to each other and the stop light to help control the flow of traffic. The 4th light is to tell you that is happening. When the cars leave the area, the turns off, and the light goes back to normal control mechanisms.