> 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.
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.