Updated Vehicle Handbook in the works

[actionman]

Then you get into prosumer, consumer, and private usage(s), and my feeling is, within urban areas, these gravitational purposed vehicles would have capped speeds, and be of (very) light construction.

Probably taken care of by air traffic control. People's vehicles could have whatever capabilities they have, but on areas on the ATC grid, the vehicle surrenders control (except for emergency override) to ATC and receives data like speed caps, traffic control data (no left turns, avoid this area, etc.), automatic routing to destination, collision prevention, move for emergency vehicles, and so on. Vehicles probably receive this update push on activation, and constantly throughout the day. Vehicles refusing ATC control could be denied entry to urban airspace and restricted to street level altitudes. This would probably be supported by the public, since it would be a serious safety issue that affects everyone. Travellers barging into urban airspace with their grav APC and refusing ATC remote control would probably face public scorn, prompt law enforcement response, and stiff fines.

The world's starport would probably work hand in glove with the planetary authorities to prevent non-compliant air vehicles (military surplus, pieces of crap, incompatible with ATC) from leaving starport airspace. Starport authorities, in cooperation with the Imperial noble and the planetary authorities, might even refuse takeoff authorization if any local legal issues are unresolved. The vibe could be something like "Don't come to this world, cause problems, and think you're going to just leave."

 

[J. L. Brown]

Accidents could be catastrophic, as a grav system failure at a high altitude could cause cascading effects as the vehicle crashes through multiple layers of traffic until cratering at street level.

I don't think this is a given, and depends very much on how everyone thinks Gravitics works. Electromagnetic motors, when energy is not applied to produce movement, can act to convert movement into electricity.

Generally, Gravitics expend energy to prevent the potential energy (of altitude due to gravity) from converting into kinetic energy (acceleration due to falling). If that energy is not applied, the the Gravitic circuits have an energy source to pull from; as the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy by gravity. If about a portion of that energy is converted (reducing the rate of acceleration of the fall), and used to apply lift, then the rate of fall is (even further) slowed. At higher TLs (functional) Gravitics might be entirely fail-safe; battle-damaged Gravitics are a different story.

 

[Condottiere]

Redundancy, with an additional emergency battery to slowly parachute down; if, the issue was sudden loss of power and/or primary gravitational motor failure.

Hardened, in case of electromagnetic pulse.

Link performance semi directly to actual weight, which would tend to encourage minimizing that of the chassis.

Within urban areas, what you'd want is to minimize potential third party damage, by not uparmouring the air/raft, and anti virus protection, to prevent remote hijacking.

 

[rinku]

I go with gravitics provide thrust. Simple as that.

If they fail, treat it like a helicopter whose rotors have sheared off; the remaining machine loses the thrust those provide and has to glide as well as it can (i.e. not very well unless it also has wings and good aerodynamics). Any momentum the vehicle has remains in effect, though gravity is going to accelerate it towards the surface and any air friction will apply drag.

 

[Arkathan]

Ask the Darrians why they require parachute systems on all airborne vehicles.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I go with gravitics provide thrust. Simple as that.

If they fail, treat it like a helicopter whose rotors have sheared off; the remaining machine loses the thrust those provide and has to glide as well as it can (i.e. not very well unless it also has wings and good aerodynamics). Any momentum the vehicle has remains in effect, though gravity is going to accelerate it towards the surface and any air friction will apply drag.

Why would the most popular form of transportation be the most dangerous form of transportation? In any society, that doesn't make much sense. The space taken up by the M-Drive or a G-Drive could easily have the equivalent of a grav-parachute. Why would you want the vast majority of vehicles in a populated area that will just fall out of the sky and kill everyone below if they have a mechanical problem? Although in YTU, do it how you want. I am not aware of any society though that does not include life-saving devices in its most abundant form of transportation. Just look at cars today. Seat belts, running lights, airbags, crumple zones, lane assist, self-parking, etc. Those are just off the top of My head.

 

[rinku]

Why would the most popular form of transportation be the most dangerous form of transportation?

I don't know. Why IS it?
Deaths from passenger vehicles MASSIVELY outnumber deaths from any other form of transportation. Objectively that's not surprising. But really all of us should take the bus or train.

I never said anything about grav vehicles lacking safety features. Multiple units (cf. multiple engine aircraft), vehicular parachutes (grav or otherwise), seatbelts and crash protection. Sure.

I was just giving my take on the physics of the contragrav suddenly failing totally. Which should be a vanishingly rare event.

 

[tytalan]

Why would the most popular form of transportation be the most dangerous form of transportation? In any society, that doesn't make much sense. The space taken up by the M-Drive or a G-Drive could easily have the equivalent of a grav-parachute. Why would you want the vast majority of vehicles in a populated area that will just fall out of the sky and kill everyone below if they have a mechanical problem? Although in YTU, do it how you want. I am not aware of any society though that does not include life-saving devices in its most abundant form of transportation. Just look at cars today. Seat belts, running lights, airbags, crumple zones, lane assist, self-parking, etc. Those are just off the top of My head.

Point here is that most of those safety features are relatively new to cars, about the last 35 years or so before than you had only seatbelts for about another 35 years and the driving force for most of those safety features was the individual consumer not society. Truth of the matter it all depends on the society and its views of the reliability of in this case Grav tech, if society sees grav vehicle accidents as being a very rare occurrence than there’s not likely any worrying about its use

 

[Condottiere]

Most vehicular deaths seem to perturb only insurance providers, and they compensate by charging everyone else, more.

If you start crashing into skyscrapers, there might be more pressure to ensure that doesn't happen.

Again.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I don't know. Why IS it?
Deaths from passenger vehicles MASSIVELY outnumber deaths from any other form of transportation. Objectively that's not surprising. But really all of us should take the bus or train.

I never said anything about grav vehicles lacking safety features. Multiple units (cf. multiple engine aircraft), vehicular parachutes (grav or otherwise), seatbelts and crash protection. Sure.

I was just giving my take on the physics of the contragrav suddenly failing totally. Which should be a vanishingly rare event.

Motorcycles average 200 deaths per billion passenger miles. Cars and light trucks average 7 deaths per billion passenger miles. That is almost 29 times more dangerous than "passenger vehicles". So, if you compare them, your conclusion is not accurate. Deaths from other forms are transportation are MASSIVELY outnumbered by deaths from motorcycles.

Cars are the most popular form of transportation, not the most dangerous.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Point here is that most of those safety features are relatively new to cars, about the last 35 years or so before than you had only seatbelts for about another 35 years and the driving force for most of those safety features was the individual consumer not society. Truth of the matter it all depends on the society and its views of the reliability of in this case Grav tech, if society sees grav vehicle accidents as being a very rare occurrence than there’s not likely any worrying about its use

1903 - Windshield wipers
1911 - Rearview mirrors
1914 - Turning Indicators
1921 - Headrest to prevent whiplash
1927 - Safety Glass
1934 - Crash Testing
1947 - Padded Dashboards
1951 - Airbags
1952 - Crumple Zones
1959 - Improved Seatbelt, 3 point
1963 - Improved Seat Belt, Inertial Reel
1966 - Seatbelts, Padded Dashboards, and white Reverse Lights become mandatory. Anti-lock Brakes.
1968 - Mandatory in the US - Collapsable Steering Column, marker lights, 3-point from Seatbelts

I could go on, but why? I think I have demonstrated that "most" of the safety features were not in the last 35 years.

Evolution of car safety features | AA

Find out how car safety features have changed over time. 1903 saw the wiper blades, 1949 had the first crash test dummy and 3 point seatbelts came in 1959.

www.theaa.com

 

[actionman]

Why would the most popular form of transportation be the most dangerous form of transportation?

While the most dangerous it's still not particularly dangerous, especially if a world has ATC remote control in congested areas and collision prevention systems in the vehicles, and its utility and convenience is unmatched.

 

[J. L. Brown]

1903 - Windshield wipers
1911 - Rearview mirrors
1914 - Turning Indicators
1921 - Headrest to prevent whiplash
1927 - Safety Glass
1934 - Crash Testing
1947 - Padded Dashboards
1951 - Airbags
1952 - Crumple Zones
1959 - Improved Seatbelt, 3 point
1963 - Improved Seat Belt, Inertial Reel
1966 - Seatbelts, Padded Dashboards, and white Reverse Lights become mandatory. Anti-lock Brakes.
1968 - Mandatory in the US - Collapsable Steering Column, marker lights, 3-point from Seatbelts

I could go on, but why? I think I have demonstrated that "most" of the safety features were not in the last 35 years.

Evolution of car safety features | AA

Find out how car safety features have changed over time. 1903 saw the wiper blades, 1949 had the first crash test dummy and 3 point seatbelts came in 1959.

www.theaa.com

Another interesting perspective on this has to do with Wright's Law (the cost per unit of production drops by a given percentage with every doubling of the number produced) -- there have been vastly more automobiles sold since the advent of safety glass than were made before. Same with airbags, same with mandatory seatbelts, etc.

 

[MasterGwydion]

While the most dangerous it's still not particularly dangerous, especially if a world has ATC remote control in congested areas and collision prevention systems in the vehicles, and its utility and convenience is unmatched.

So, motorcycles and grav-bikes?

 

[MasterGwydion]

Another interesting perspective on this has to do with Wright's Law (the cost per unit of production drops by a given percentage with every doubling of the number produced) -- there have been vastly more automobiles sold since the advent of safety glass than were made before. Same with airbags, same with mandatory seatbelts, etc.

Not sure how to simulate that in game though...

 

[Condottiere]

It's more of a question of third party liability.

Suburban will probably follow urban rules.

Rural, should be easier to maintain, more rugged, and have unofficial upgrades.

 

[tytalan]

1903 - Windshield wipers
1911 - Rearview mirrors
1914 - Turning Indicators
1921 - Headrest to prevent whiplash
1927 - Safety Glass
1934 - Crash Testing
1947 - Padded Dashboards
1951 - Airbags
1952 - Crumple Zones
1959 - Improved Seatbelt, 3 point
1963 - Improved Seat Belt, Inertial Reel
1966 - Seatbelts, Padded Dashboards, and white Reverse Lights become mandatory. Anti-lock Brakes.
1968 - Mandatory in the US - Collapsable Steering Column, marker lights, 3-point from Seatbelts

I could go on, but why? I think I have demonstrated that "most" of the safety features were not in the last 35 years.

Evolution of car safety features | AA

Find out how car safety features have changed over time. 1903 saw the wiper blades, 1949 had the first crash test dummy and 3 point seatbelts came in 1959.

www.theaa.com

Except most of those are not required by law and originally were options not standard equipment, while it’s great that these are now included most of them are not required by society ie legally. You literally list two points required by society and claim all the rest are. There’s a big difference between what’s good marketing and what required by society, society requirements become law while marketing is driven by profits. The first actual society requirements you list are “Mandatory in the US - Collapsable Steering Column, marker lights, 3-point from Seatbelts” in 1968 before than you could still buy cars without these features they became rarer the closer to 1968 you got it was still possible.

 

[tytalan]

The biggest problem with all of this is it’s all based on the assumption that grav vehicles are less safe than ground vehicles which we have absolutely no reason to assume that. Saying that grav vehicles are the most dangerous form of transportation is not in any way supported by the game. We don’t know how grav vehicles work and what type of safety systems they have so in the end this whole line of conversation is based on an unsupported assumption.

 

[Condottiere]

What's the primary cause of vehicle user deaths?

Usually, hitting something at speed.

On the ground, it tends to remain at two dimensions.

Levitation adds another dimension.

 

[Arkathan]

What's the primary cause of vehicle user deaths?

Rapid deceleration... or gradual deceleration over a quarter km of ground following an unplanned ejection.