Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say • Hacker News Board

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#221

Post by hnick » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 1:38 AM UTC

sobriquet9 wrote: post #213

hnick wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is one other aspect to consider. Over here at least, generally if someone rear ends you it's always their fault. The law says they were not maintaining a safe following distance. So from the perspective of the manufacturer they would probably say such mistakes should not by themselves cause problems unless someone else is breaking the law, no different to a human tapping the brakes because they thought…

It's not only rear ending. The main road near my house has a sharp left turn with a sign on the side of the road. I occasionally get a BRAKE! warning there, probably because AEB mistakes that sign for a car in front of me. On a wet road, stepping on the brakes when the car is turning can easily result in understeer, which is particularly dangerous in that spot because of the large boulders nearby.

Yeah I was just adding to the things to consider. In my case it has never really confused inanimate objects, the worst was a curved road and a car coming "right at me" which was just at an angle. But it was a temporary slowdown due to cruise control, nothing major.

Car reviews are largely useless fluff - a real analysis of the differences between brands for this kind of thing could actually be useful.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#222

Post by greesil » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 1:44 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #76

ics wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote up a long comment that got scrapped by my focus filter but I feel the need to voice strong agreement here. I have a recent Mazda which in almost all ways is my perfect car except for the newfangled safety features all new cars seem to have. Lane correction and emergency braking, even set to the lowest sensitivity levels, are bad to outright dangerous in city (and some country) driving. In NYC it's common to h…

If you haven't already done so, please file a formal safety defect complaint with the NHTSA with details on that bridge incident. Once the regulators receive enough similar complaints they will open a formal investigation and potentially issue a recall. https://www.nhtsa.gov/report-a-safety-problem

Bug reports filed through NHTSA?

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#223

Post by greesil » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 1:46 AM UTC

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #118

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…

The problem with numbers is that they don't tell the whole story. I can easily imagine a scenario where it might prevent 25000 crashes a year that are caused because 5% of drivers are staring at their phones, have a high chance of rear-ending someone, and this software makes that far less likely. While also containing bugs causing 1000 crashes a year for the larger number of non-distracted drivers, resulting in a net…

As someone who does ML for a living I can definitely say that false positive data from the field can significantly improve the experience for those 1000. That is what should be standardized if we wanted to see systems that work for everyone.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#224

Post by taeric » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 1:46 AM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #152

taeric wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. Better than worrying about liability of the harm that happens, is reducing the amount of harm that happens. To argue otherwise is silly.

Regulations that restrict people who have not caused actual harm do not, in general, reduce the amount of harm that happens. But they do work great as revenue sources for local governments (speeding laws are the most common example but not the only one), not to mention as excuses for manufacturers to charge higher prices and squeeze out more profit from consumers. They also reduce general respect for laws and regulat…

I disagree. Especially for institutions that have as much easy to look at data as this. Total wrecks is easy to track. And if it is going down, regulation to help is working.

Paranoia on overreach is fine. Good, even. That is best approached by auditing and running the stats. Constantly. But to claim that this is a meaningful restriction feels wrong on many levels.

That said, if you are going to assert some of these claims, on what evidence? I'm restricted such that I have to wear seatbelts. I can't buy a new car without rear view camera. I can't buy a new car without antilock brakes. Headlights. Brake lights. I could go for a long time on this list. Are you claiming none of those make driving safer?

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#225

Post by loeg » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 1:48 AM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #220

loeg wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but... false positive automatic braking can cause severe injury, too, though. And I worry that that is just harder to measure.

The article says: > A metanalysis in 2015 found a 38 percent decrease in collisions for vehicles that utilized such a system, for instance. Barring massive fuckups in methodology, that should account for false positives that cause an accident. The number of non-collision severe injuries (are we theorizing folks get their head banged against something when it brakes heavily?) is likely to be pretty small versus that 3…

This is a pretty big handwave:

> The number of non-collision severe injuries (are we theorizing folks get their head banged against something when it brakes heavily?) is likely to be pretty small

(People can be injured directly by the seatbelt, and there's also whiplash to consider.)

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#226

Post by tremere » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 1:48 AM UTC

If they do this, then

- Make alignment of front facing cameras free (for newer automobiles not retrofits), not a $500 service option. The front facing camera is bound to fall all out of alignment, which makes the system begin to see ghosts. This then causes drivers to simply disable the automatic emergency braking, after 1 or 2 scares. Therefore the system is broken.

- Fine car companies that cause accidents due to emergency braking randomly braking due to ghosts or other spectra, if due to flawed mechanics. There should not be corner cutting in a safety feature. Such fines already exist for airbag regulations.

If we were to mandate automatic emergency braking today with the state of the current technology, it would be a disaster.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#227

Post by taeric » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 1:49 AM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #153

taeric wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a sibling post said, this is not that accurate, all told. I specifically remember similar argument against anti-lock brakes when those were first made. To your credit, I have never heard anyone say bad things about rear view cameras. It is scary how many lives that has to have saved by now. Now, I have heard complaints on cruise control. I don't see that going away any time soon.

AFAIK cruise control is not a regulatory requirement.

I can see how I muddied that. My point is I have heard complaints from cruise control accidents. If anything, I would expect regulation against cruise control.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#228

Post by uoaei » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 1:50 AM UTC

alephxyz wrote: post #176

uoaei wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A driver that drives unreasonably more slowly than the traffic that surrounds them is a bad driver. They cause traffic and create more chances for crashes -- after all, crash severity is directly proportional to relative speed between moving bodies.

But odds of rollover and braking distance are proportional to your absolute speed. So is crash severity when you're impacting a tree, animal or pedestrian.

Typically you're not at high speeds when those risks are there. And when those risks are there on high-speed highways, they're typically due to poor road design (sightlines, etc.) and not the instincts of otherwise good drivers.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#229

Post by graycat » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 1:50 AM UTC

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…

> Now I drive a 27 year old car that has none of these 'features'. It does what I tell it to and when I tell it to, it doesn't phone home, and has no touch screen, but old fashioned buttons.

I second your motion!!!! I was happy with my 1986 Chevy S-10 Blazer until it was badly rusted out by winter road salt.

Now I have a 2001 GMC Yukon. I prefer the Blazer since the Yukon has too many attempts at automation and is too big. But apparently the new cars have so much in automation that they are to be avoided, and cars of the future promise to be worse still.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#230

Post by taeric » Fri, Jun 02, 2023, 1:52 AM UTC

SkyPuncher wrote: post #209

taeric wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, most anything is disorienting in crash situations. I recall how disoriented my mother was when a car came from the side and almost hit us. She tried braking and swerving, but that just caused a hydroplane and when the wheels got traction again, jerked us to the side. She was convinced the other car hit us. I was, too, all told. Until I saw that there was no impact on the side of our car. Which is to say, you a…

With all due respect, it sounds like your mother oversteered more than anything. AEB has little to do with that.

I didn't mean to implicate anything other than oversteer there. My point was that being in an accident is disorienting already, with no extra tech needed. Such that needing full teaching on it is an overly large burden.