this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
187 points (95.6% liked)
Technology
59427 readers
2915 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And it’s probable that they were “exceeding limits” and 3/4 didn’t have a helmet.
Natural selection.
Not wearing helmets is definitely a Darwin Award. But the OneWheel itself has a tendency to just shut off and nose dive when limits are exceeded. Usually at max speed. Even though it’s programmed and designed to be self righting it can sometimes not act correctly and just fling you off. So you could be cruising along just like you always do and when you start leaning too hard it will slowly nose back up and slow you down to keep you within the limits. But let’s say that’s happening for the 80th time and you happen upon a small rock at the same time only for the software to be unable to correct and nose dive into the ground instead. To the rider nothing would be different until the unit nose dived throwing them usually at full speed.
Odd opportunity to speculatively victim blame, but okay.
It was pretty clear in the article. Read it.
It looks to me like the article is about boards malfunctioning.
You: my car malfunctioned after going 150mph, it’s the car’s fault.
The solution was to add a more obvious warning, that can still be ignored.
You’ll hear whatever you want to hear though, and it has no effect on me.
Me: "My car malfunctioned while going some undisclosed and possibly reasonable speed. It's bad that it malfunctioned, and the product would be safer for everyone if it didn't do that."
I haven't seen anything to suggest that the victims were all behaving excessively recklessly, as in your "driving 150mph" example. "Certain limits" is pretty vague, and based on context, sound like they pertain more to hardware constraints than to dangerous behavior.