Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 512 posts

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#161

Post by ceejayoz »

pdonis wrote: post #154
ceejayoz wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The car industry fought seatbelts and airbags. https://www.nytimes.com/1975/04/06/archives/industry-resists... Your claims about widespread voluntary adoption appear false. https://www.history.com/news/seat-belt-laws-resistance > At the time, only 14 percent of Americans regularly wore seat belts, even though the federal government required lap and shoulder belts in all new cars starting in 1968.

What percentage of Americans who did not wear seat belts suffered or caused harm because of it?

Enough? Consensus appears to be 300-400k people saved since 1975. Charting motor vehicle deaths against miles driven reveals a stark improvement in mortality as vehicle safety improved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_U...

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#162

Post by troutwine »

caconym_ wrote: post #71
sidewndr46 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, it's good to know that it won't stop. But if it slows automatically it will still result in the same thing. All the other drivers just continue to cut you off indefinitely.

Actually, maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about adaptive cruise but you may have been talking about automatic emergency braking. Interpreting your original comment in that context: AEB only kicks in at a point where maximum braking will result in you barely not hitting something in front of you, or maybe even hitting it at a low speed. Modern cars can stop very fast indeed with maximum braking s…

Theoretically OP's concern is still possible with AEB but it would require non-trivial coordination between offensive drivers where each subsequent driver comes in at a lower speed than the previous, cuts OP's car off -- now slowed -- with the same distance as previous in order to force a standstill. It would be a neat stunt driving trick.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#163

Post by ceejayoz »

pdonis wrote: post #157
ceejayoz wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The car industry fought seatbelts and airbags. https://www.nytimes.com/1975/04/06/archives/industry-resists... Your claims about widespread voluntary adoption appear false. https://www.history.com/news/seat-belt-laws-resistance > At the time, only 14 percent of Americans regularly wore seat belts, even though the federal government required lap and shoulder belts in all new cars starting in 1968.

> The car industry fought seatbelts and airbags. But, as far as I can tell from the article, the industry is not fighting this regulation.

The parent post claimed they and the American public voluntarily opted for seat belts and airbags, which as far as I can tell was a falsehood. It is a response to that claim.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#164

Post by hallway_monitor »

peteradio wrote: post #123
notatoad wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this seems like the sort of thing that would be better measured with actual numbers, not just anecdotes from people on the internet. the NHTSA is a pretty cautious organization, and they like numbers. if they've studied it and found that automatic braking will prevent 24000 crashes and 360 deaths per year, i'd be inclined to believe them. having the car brake for me when i'm not expecting it sounds kind of scary to m…

360 deaths is noise.

Exactly. It's 0.92% of the 38,000 car crash deaths in the US annually. I agree, this is noise and honestly it doesn't make sense the NHTSA would even consider a mandatory "safety" feature like this for that small of an expected change. Personally, I will not be purchasing a car with this feature until I'm forced to.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#165

Post by hallway_monitor »

ceejayoz wrote: post #120
hedora wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can current emergency braking systems realistically stop a t-bone accident? Sure, if it was equivalent in capability to a class 5 self driving car, it would see the light was red, and notice the partially occluded other car, then stop in time. But, with just a front facing radar? I don’t see how it would be able to do much. It would only have a few feet to stop.

Even a reduction in speed helps - 10 mph can make a significant difference in lethality - and sub in being rear-ended if you prefer. The point is even a perfect driver may benefit from safety devices in the hands of other drivers they encounter.

This is a good point, thank you. I don't think anyone here would argue against this feature if it was 100% accurate. However, mandating something that has many reports of erroneous activation seems like overreach.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#166

Post by jquery »

jacquesm wrote: post #6

This almost got me into a serious accident, twice. Definitely would not recommend and I switched cars because of it. The last thing I need is buggy software with the capability of instantly changing the trajectory of my vehicle (slippery surfaces, cornering). A brand car as well (MB) so really, really disappointed, what should have been a safety feature actually was the opposite. Dealer said everything was fine so th…

I have an MB and AEB has been nothing if not extremely useful. It saved me from hitting a pedestrian who I didn't see, thank god.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#167

Post by rad_gruchalski »

jacquesm wrote: post #42
maximinus_thrax wrote: post #32

Looking at the comments here I need to double check if I'm on some gearhead forum where automatic transmission is considered appropriate exclusively for teenagers and geriatric patients. Anyway, I'll add my anecdote when my Toyota surprised me with a panic brake in a blind corner which probably saved my life by not ending up under a stopped bus. But the kicker is that my insurer gave me quite a steep discount when I…

Insurance companies are run by people that are good at statistics, and there is a fair chance that statistically this works out well but that does not mean anything for any particular individual. Chances are that EAB will cause some accidents and prevents a whole lot more, and that's enough for the insurers.

Which is funny considering the explanation that was presented to me about why is it legal in the US to ride a motorcycle without a crash helmet. The explanation is: in case of an accident, the motorcycle driver has a lower chance to survive without the helmet. From the insurer’s perspective paying out a one time death insurance might be cheaper than paying someone money every month for the rest of their life.

No idea how much truth is in that, though.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#168

Post by userbinator »

jacquesm wrote: post #7
dboreham wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're thinking of adaptive cruise control. Automatic breaking only activates when you're about to crash.

Yes, because the automatic braking 'feature' can cause you to crash.

More precisely, cause others to crash into you.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#169

Post by dabluecaboose »

ceejayoz wrote: post #95
dabluecaboose wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not exclusively a "gearhead" opinion to not want a system in your car that can violently take control away from you unexpectedly Statistics are meaningless to the individual. Sure, emergency braking might be safer across the board, but that means little compared to an individual who already drives safely without it.

> Statistics are meaningless to the individual. This is just blatantly untrue. > means little compared to an individual who already drives safely without it Until emergency breaking stops a bad driver from T-boning you in an intersection as they run a red light. “I’ll just drive safely” was the argument against seatbelts, airbags, and antilock brakes. Motorcycle helmets, too.

>> Statistics are meaningless to the individual.

>This is just blatantly untrue.

I mean, it's not. Statistics describe how society on average acts, not how you personally act. Someone telling you "Statistically you're more likely to drown if you own a pool" doesn't mean as much if you bought a pool and then became a paraplegic, for example.

Saying "emergency braking will bring down average car deaths" is probably true, but that might not make a difference for Joebob who drives his truck down empty County Road 230 once a week to check his mail.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#170

Post by nateb2022 »

getmeinrn wrote: post #138

I've always wondered why brakes don't have a variable brightness based on how hard the driver is braking. If you've ever been behind someone who has braked hard, part of the danger is not realizing just how fast they're stopping.

Perhaps the reverse lights could activate when extremely hard braking is applied.
Post reply on HN